David
finally convinced me to see Zero Dark Thirty, a movie I avoided because
in general I have a low tolerance for violent movies (insomnia,
nightmares). Now, having seen it, I have a theory of why there were so
many complaints and objections.
Some
critics claim the film is an inaccurate depiction of how the CIA, by using
torture, got crucial evidence in the hunt for Usama Bin Laden. The
complainers say that the CIA did not gain this intelligence as a result of
using torture. Therefore, any depiction of waterboarding would mislead viewers.
Does the movie raise a means-and-ends question, with torture the questionable
means toward a justified ends? It’s an
arguable point, but condemning the film for this reason implies a standard of
political correctness by which a great many movies people cherish would fall to
the wayside. Moreover, that’s not really what fuss is about.
Here’s
my theory and I’m curious to know what others think: Complaints against ZDT
are coded misogyny – a protest against the idea that a woman might be a CIA
agent, doing a manly man’s job, with a soldier’s stoicism and fortitude in a
movie directed by a woman. Maya happens
to be beautiful – it’s a movie, after all – but the work she and colleagues do
is as far removed as can be from the activities of acceptable feminist models,
such as virtuous moms who oppose drunk driving, brainy attorneys who put up
with philandering husbands, and courageous whistle blowers. Furthermore, war
movies are the provenance of male directors. One such movie (Hurt Locker) is fine, but
two? It’s time to go home Ms. Bigelow and make Something’s Gotta Give.
Some
have gone so far as to say that Zero Dark Thirty is an advertisement for
the use of torture. As proof, they point to the demeanor of Maya, the CIA agent
responsible for piecing together the evidence that led to Bin Laden’s hiding
place. She is, say the critics, not sufficiently undone by the scenes of
torture. Did I see a different movie? Maya is repelled by what she
sees. She flinches, backs away, crosses her arms in front of her body,
and after one session runs to the bathroom to collect herself. What would
it take for the audience to believe that she is discomfited by the
torture? I know! She should have become hysterical. That is the
expected reaction of a woman who is upset. Instead, she behaves like the
trained CIA professional she is and uses her will to maintain her
composure.
In
time Maya appears to grow comfortable with “enhanced interrogation” techniques.
Yet Katherine Bigelow is careful to show the psychic consequences for the
interrogators. Maya’s senior colleague grows weary and has to quit to “do
something normal.” But people who think this is story about torture miss the
boat.
Zero
Dark Thirty is a serious, gripping, and masterly telling of
the long and difficult quest for a mass murderer in hiding. There is violence,
but I’ve seen much worse. The only violence that I found disturbing
happens at the very beginning of the movie, when over a dark screen we hear the
panicked 911 calls of the people trapped in the World Trade Center on
9/11. They still haunt me.