Zero Dark Thirty

I've lived in the Muslim world for years and in Pakistan for a few months. Now some friends came to stay and the one place they decided they HAD to see was the empty plot of land where once stood Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. Three hours to go, three hours back, some pictures and a story to tell (the movie says the city is 45 minutes drive from Islamabad, but that was back in 2010 - not now!).

Once we came back we were so involved with the story of the raid that we had to see Zero Dark Thirty (for the 2nd time for me, 1st for them). The killing of UBL is meticulously reconstructed, but only covers the last 30 minutes of the movie. Most of the story involves a CIA semi-fictional agent who by sheer determination and luck convinces the Agency that Bin Laden can be reached, and that they have a good idea of what men is the key to his whereabouts: Ibrahim Sayed, AKA Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti. Information from detainees suggests Sayed is UBL's courier. Our hero figures that, wherever in Central Asia UBL is, the one thing he is sure to have is a courier. Track him, you get the big Kahuna.

The Agency is initially unlucky to believe erroneous intelligence saying Sayed is dead. And then they are lucky to find out he is not dead. With a lot of push from our hero, they allot the resources to find him. It is no easy task. That's my favorite part of the movie. Surveillance technology can find out from where he is calling his family (busy districts in the Punjab), but it is a lot more tricky to follow him in the middle of the crowd to the place where he lives.

After tracking Sayed to a VERY suspicious compound in a city the CIA never expected Bin Laden to be, it is time to decide if this is really UBL's residence. But the mysterious inhabitant never shows his face. I don't think he was hiding from CIA cameras, he just knows he is so recognizable. So the decision is left to the higher-ups, to bomb the place, raid it, or just keep waiting for more definitive intel.

And that is the part where the Director has to make a dramatic decision. Does she show the President and his top aides deliberating? I think putting Obama, Clinton and Biden in the movie would suck all the air out of the room to the detriment of the focus on the field agents. Leon Panneta shows up, but he is not even named. The final act wrote itself, because it is a documentary-like recreation of the raid.

Some reviewers pointed glaring mistakes: the Pakistanis seem to be speaking Arabic instead of Urdu. One part I had to laugh was when a mob stood outside the American Embassy in Islamabad. If you have been there, or anywhere in the diplomatic compound, you know it would never happen.

It is hard to make suspenseful a story that unfolds throughout 10 years and involves meticulous collection of intelligence and a lot of false starts. So the movie may feel like a "boring procedural" for people who are expecting normal Hollywood fare. In order to add a personal touch to the main character, she has a fried killed in a highly implausible scene. Otherwise, Maya just remains a stock character you have to fill in the gaps: lonely woman married to her job, always having to prove herself, obsessed with a task her superiors don't want to give priority.

Some people pointed out to a big lie of the movie: that torture gave crucial information. I'd point out that it is just a half-lie. Yes, nobody gave useful intel for the killing of UBL under torture. However, keeping terror suspects for years under dubious legal status (say with me - Guantanamo!) paid dividends.

I did not expect to enjoy this as much as I actually did. With its length, complicated nature and incredible detail Zero Dark Thirty was a fantastic piece of work. Jessica Chastain was brilliant in the convincing centre piece of the narrative. It was long, starting strong, losing credit towards the middle but the final hour was terrific. Right down to the raid which was full of suspense and drama. Like the raid itself, it was a precise and scintillating piece of cinema. In the end it felt worth it, I have little interest in the context of its accuracies of the actual events, nor its controversy. In the scheme of things I watched for entertainment, and it delivered. If you're in the mood for something dramatic with a serious tone, watch Zero Dark Thirty.

(1/10/13, one star) Kathryn Bigelow and her new movie Zero Dark Thirty deserve our universal contempt and condemnation for condoning torture. Bigelow revisits the darkest chapter in U.S. history (U.S. torture in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11) and dwells on it, not to condemn the actions of U.S. leaders who authorized this campaign of state terror against Muslim prisoners but rather to vindicate the torturers and justify the savagery that earned the undying enmity of millions of Arabs. Bigelow is too crafty to explicitly hold up criminals as heroes worthy of veneration but instead constructs a superficial veneer of faux-journalistic neutrality that will fool only the most gullible along with those anxious to buy into the dangerous delusion she is peddling. She dedicates large segments of her movie to portraying U.S. torturers as selfless patriots and their victims as homicidal maniacs, but not one minute to explaining why they attack us. Of course, we can't have Americans wondering what our government had been doing to make Muslims hate us so much. And with 9/11 our national descent into deceit, denial and self-delusion began, with no end in sight yet. According to the official myth still being perpetuated by our government and unconscionable propagandists like Bigelow, Muslim radicals are never rational actors but rather just crazed fanatics, to be tortured and destroyed like mad dogs. And now Bigelow compounds this ongoing national folly with the resurrection of its corollary Big Lie: torture of detainees is compatible with democracy, even necessary to protect it.

Torture is just another form of terrorism. When the state tortures detainees, it is state terrorism, directed ultimately against all humanity as well as against individual detainees. Torturers degrade and dehumanize themselves, their victims, and any society that tolerates their crimes. How can anyone claim victory over terrorism when they employ it themselves? Besides, torturers (most famously, the Nazi and Communist regimes in Germany and Russia) have always rationalized torture on grounds of public security, but have always ultimately used torture as a weapon to terrorize the public and crush political opposition. (Do we really want to emulate the Nazis and Communists?) In the long run, torturers are a more pernicious threat to both our security and our liberty than any Al Qaeda agent could ever hope to be.

Senator McCain is right when he says that Zero Dark Thirty gives our enemies powerful ammunition to use against us, especially if it garners awards. Audiences around the world will see the movie as confirmation that the horrors of Abu Ghraib reflect the real soul of America.

It has been established, it wasn't torture or, quoting that dishonest euphemism, "enhanced interrogation" that took the intelligence community to Bin Laden. So, how is it possible that this film by intelligent people would perpetrate that lie? The film is technically brilliant but it becomes tedious because, naturally, we know the ending. The other strange fact is the casting of Jessica Chastain. She seems elsewhere, emotionally and otherwise. I couldn't connect with her, I was far too aware of the "acting" I see she's getting lots of acting nominations, I don't quite get it. Katheryn Bigelow at the helm does a truly extraordinary job, but I can't help, worrying that most people will take this as fact and, perhaps, the most important aspect is pure fiction. No tortured prisoner took us to Bin Laden, okay?

It's not an action flick, it's a thriller. About a tough CIA-chick who has a hunch about a guy who might eventually lead them to Osama Bin Laden. It takes her almost 10 years, a little waterboarding, a couple of dead colleagues and a lot of arguing with her superiors, but she manages to follow the lead all the way to the now famous raid in Abbottabad.

It's a very captivating film (even with its 160 minutes runtime), and the big raid at the end is quite intense and realistic. That said, Bigelow's previous 'The Hurt Locker' was (even) better. But it's close!

As for the controversy whether the film is 'pro-torture propaganda' or not: it shows what (likely) happened. A very unpleasant sight for Americans, sure, but that's no reason to leave it out. Whether or not 'OBL' would've been caught without the use of torture is speculation that has no place in this movie (it's a depiction of events, not a moral study).

Some Americans might still find it hard to watch a movie that requires you to form your own opinion about the actions of your country/government/army, instead of getting one spoon fed by those very same institutions. But given the America's options in government- potential it seems a luxury Americans no longer have.