Skip to main content

I'm going to smoke everyone involved in this op and then I'm going to kill bin Laden.


Zero Dark Thirty
(2012)

It’s interesting to note that Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boam were planning a film based on the unresolved hunt for Osama Bin Laden when the 2011 raid on the compound in Abbottabad took place. One can only conclude that, if they’d been denied the godsend of action-packed climax, the whole film would have been as boring as a dog’s arse. Serendipity, eh?


The sudden switching of gears could explain the cobbled-together structure of the ZD30, but it leaves a larger question. Was there really a story to tell here? Leads apparently going nowhere. Great leaps of several years at a time, but with no real sense of this, such that a narrative sense can only be maintained by subtitles. And handy visual reminders of significant terrorist incidents over the 10 years since 9/11. In the hope that, somehow, these touchstones render a coherent narrative.


The filmmakers know this, which is why we have Jessica Chastain’s tour guide. Dogged and dedicated, she is determined to get her man when all around her fall away, die, or move on. Unfortunately Maya is strictly one-note. Not in a way that might be attuned to the requirements of the story, had the procedural elements been strong enough for her to merely be their facilitator. But in a way that exposes the limitations of poor character writing. Boam attempts to flesh her out in laziest of ways; at lunch with a colleague (Jennifer Ehle; if nothing else, it’s nice to see her getting work) Maya announces, “I’m not that girl who fucks” and is given to similarly cartoonish pronouncements throughout (“I’m going to kill Bin Laden!”, “I’m the motherfucker who found this place!”) as if we’re supposed to thump the table in pride. She also understands that yelling threats at your boss is the way to get your way; as we all know from experience works incredibly well. So there’s a schizophrenic quality, as Bigelow seems to want to “sell” this as a serious, factual (journalistically rigorous) piece (which may be it’s biggest problem).


And there are plenty of issues with the presentation of this female protagonist that seem distracting to the story in hand. She doesn’t just happen to be female, she is self-consciously female. Maya’s reactions to the torture scenes at the start are presumably meant to mirror the audience’s, but we soon discover that she has toughened up just like her male colleagues. Is this a triumph for cross-gender manifestations of inhumanly? At the climax she brings forth tears (Of joy? Of relief? Of, “What was it all for?” – I wish I cared); none of that male stoicism there, she can get back to being female (the moment is also presented with picturesque artifice, sat alone in the back of a boeing as the tailgate rises). She is the one who is 100% certain that Bin Laden is in the compound; presumably that’s at least 40% female intuition since the others (men) round the table can’t muster more than 60%.


Chastain does her best with the part, but it’s a terribly cheesy one. And Bigelow can’t resist overdoing it; Maya, on learning of the death of a friend and the loss of an important lead, resorts to Hollywood drunkenness. She is next seen sat on the floor, leaning woefully against a wall, an open bottle of Smirnov on her desk. She also manages to get blown up in a hotel (present at the scene of actual events!) and then has her car sprayed with bullets in an attempted assassination. Because that kind of thing ups the dramatic ante when you can feel your audience drifting off.


While I’m criticising her choices, Bigelow’s the one who makes this watchable. But let’s not forget that she spent quite some time in the Hollywood netherworld because she wasn’t the best at picking strong material. Her visual sense, and action aesthetic were, and are, unparalleled. Which makes it something of a shame that she’s redesigned herself as a filmmaker who tackles serious topical subject matter. She isn’t very good at it. She isn’t someone who can rein in that kinetic energy, the desire to excite, to exhibit (in the words of the poster for Point Break) “100% pure testosterone!”). When you happen upon a scene structured around its set-piece possibilities (the car bomb at the military base), with the consequent character hyperbole and failure of commonsense required from parties concerned, it only goes confirms this (and I think ex-hubby James Cameron, who was attached to this at one point, would have reached all these decisions and worse) Katherine, wouldn’t you be happier, deep down, making Point Break 2 than a dubious (at best) propaganda film for the military?


As for the subject matter itself, I’m going to resist descending into the inescapable mire of discussing the truths or fictions of the official stories of 9/11 and hows and whens of Bin Laden’s death. I’m a certifiable conspiracy buff but generally I try to resist the urge to get too entrenched in a viewpoint on either side, be it alternative or “proven”.  It’s done nothing to make me less sceptical of the official record, but I can’t say that I was expecting it to (I would have avoided it all together if I demanded nothing less than a serious dissection of the last 10 years of US foreign policy) I will say that the film’s version of the takedown at times seems like a comedy of errors, which if nothing else lends a “so ridiculous it could be so” quality. And I did half wonder if carrying Bin Laden’s body back to Area 51 had a wink and nudge aspect to it. There’s an interesting piece here http://www.spyculture.com/review-zero-dark-thirty/ that highlights several different “official” versions of the assault.


It’s the torture debate that has ratcheted up the column inches of the mainstream media, though. I’ve read coherent cases made on both sides of the fence claiming that it is pro- or anti-torture. As it’s a “procedural” ZD30 fancies itself to be in someway objective; it is not making a clear judgement on the rights and wrongs, just stating the facts. That doesn’t really wash, though, as the film fudges its self-appointed impartiality consistently. The torture is front-ended so we have relief from all the nastiness by about a third of the way through. In structural terms, the film starts with torture as a means of reaching a goal and finishes with that objective achieved. Subconsciously, there’s a link. It would be foolish to suggest that it makes torture seem attractive, but it also informs you that the torturers aren’t depraved scum (one has a PhD!), the sort of undesirable types that would cause an Abu Ghraib public relations nightmare.


Jason Clarke makes the strongest impression of anyone as Dan the torturer, investing more nuance him with an inner life that the rest of the cast are unable to find. It does occur to me that maybe he achieves something the filmmakers don’t want (or, rather, aren’t interested in); his performance makes you think rather than asking you to swallow what you’re fed verbatim.


But as for the debate, the best I can do is that torture is shown to work indirectly; the waterboarding doesn’t do the trick in and of itself but the continued mistreatment and 90 hours of sleep deprivation disorientate a detainee enough to be misled into thinking he has already dished the dirt (to be honest, this didn’t seem the most likely of ploys, outside of ‘60s spy fiction). Later too, an older prisoner says he will tell them what he knows as he does not want to be tortured any more.


A general problem with the sporadic torture or informant-fuelled info dumps is that they lack clarity in connecting the dots between different pieces of information learned at different times. There’s a sense that they are disconnected and that the CIA comes across them randomly, almost by chance (surely not!) Whether that is the case or not, that lack of rigour affects the film generally; there is little sense of causality to it all (again, this isn’t such a surprise given the hasty change of tack from the filmmakers when events overtook them). It’s also interesting to learn that there was a team of only six or seven people hunting Bin Laden, something that will likely fuel those who claim he died in 2001...


The thorny issues surrounding the subject matter make it difficult to separate the politics, moral debates and authenticity from whether ZD30 succeeds as a piece of storytelling on any level. I’d like to be able to say “That’s all that’s important” but that would be a bit simplistic of me when the film is clearly courting discussion on these points. Boam has cited All the President’s Men and Blackhawk Down as displaying the kind of balance between art and truth he is after, but if he’s including the latter his standards aren’t very high. ZD30 lacks the rigour and narrative drive of All the President’s Men or Zodiac although likes to think it is mimicking the tone of those films.


Ultimately, I don’t think Zero Dark Thirty is even an “important” film, but it masquerades as one due to its subject matter. It is unlikely to stand the test of time because it fails to resonate and has nothing to say about its subject. And as a “document” of events it fails because it prizes invention and cliché over facts. Boam and Bigelow seem to want it both ways, but neither has the acumen to reach either target.

**1/2

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.