On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is a "hurrr torture good" viewpoint. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it because of its results.
basically you're right, I didn't really finish that thought to include the idea of context, like whether within the narrative of the film waterboarding actually led to the subject telling the truth instead of saying whatever to make the torture stop and interpreting from there. if the film is anything like the hurt locker though, I really think the emphasis would be on realism and reflection on what the US and the military's prevailing thoughts were at the time, which would undoubtedly include reasoning like what I gave. it's morally grey, to be sure, but it's not an outright endorsement as if every historically realistic war film was a right-wing propaganda or something.
I haven't actually seen the movie, and can't comment on how it portrays torture. Hopefully it stays a factual historical narrative as you suggest it might; that particular view of torture was quite popular for six-tenths of America at the time, and a failure to show that would be bad history.
But I sincerely doubt it will be so, or remain grounded in past history, so to speak.
For a movie like this, I don't think I'll be reading all that many American reviews. Will probably have to find international reviewers who write English.
Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
On December 10 2012 11:44 cLAN.Anax wrote: Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non-American reviewers are not Al-Qaeda sympathizers who hate America for its freedom. So far as I know.
All joking aside, I find it good procedure to keep a fair distance from national media concerning things that have the potential to be...overly nationalistic. Other countries have secondary interests in such matters, which makes conflict of interest less important than in countries with primary interests in the matter at hand*; in this case, America. And Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, I suppose, but they don't have many reviewers that cater to audiences literate in English.
Same principle applies to breaking international and corporate news. Or, on a micro level, doctors and lawyers. No one and no entity is 100% trustworthy, but it helps to find entities that might be more objective. Or, at least, more neutral.
*There are exceptions where secondary interests can be greater than primary interests, but they're few and far between.
The movie could be interesting [I'll "wait" to watch it at home ], but more so than the questions that we may derive from the content of the movie, I think this begs the question "is this okay to make at all?" Somewhat similar to cLAN.Anax's views on the possible divulging of military secrets, etc. I'm just not sure I'm okay with the subject matter at all; I don't think I'm really excited that we know as much as we know about the way military issues are handled, as far as strategy, etc, and all the embedded reporting.
On December 10 2012 11:44 cLAN.Anax wrote: Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non-American reviewers are not Al-Qaeda sympathizers who hate America for its freedom. So far as I know.
All joking aside, I find it good procedure to keep a fair distance from national media concerning things that have the potential to be...overly nationalistic. Other countries have secondary interests in such matters, which makes conflict of interest less important than in countries with primary interests in the matter at hand*; in this case, America. And Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, I suppose, but they don't have many reviewers that cater to audiences literate in English.
Same principle applies to breaking international and corporate news. Or, on a micro level, doctors and lawyers. No one and no entity is 100% trustworthy, but it helps to find entities that might be more objective. Or, at least, more neutral.
*There are exceptions where secondary interests can be greater than primary interests, but they're few and far between.
I think this is key in any matter: trying to find objectivity. I was reading something on here the other day where people were concerned about how objective historians are, and someone brought up the point that historians have to check, and check, and cross check their sources to ensure reliability. While this is less important to do in a movie review, understanding the source of the review, and reading reviews from multiple sources will help paint a clearer picture of what to expect in the movie.
On December 10 2012 07:19 Sub40APM wrote: Not really sure I enjoy movies that (a) endorse torture and (b) are editing in such a way as to highlight the 'revenge' taking aspect of the hunt for bin laden.
a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
b) from what I've read of the movie from reviews, I think you're misrepresenting the main character's motivation as revenge when it's supposed to just be a really driving desire to make a career off the hunt. that said, though, having a young professional being driven by some sort of revenge motive would be acceptable symbolism for the way the country and, again, the administration felt about the idea of the war and the hunt for a good many years after 9/11.
if you can tell, I'm really looking forward to this film - the hurt locker was spectacular, and the reviews are golden.
There is no one in the movie who is torturing people for 'revenge'. What I am suggesting is that when you have an opening that sets up an incredibly emotional presentation of 9/11 -- with actual victims voices ringing out just before they die -- and then you immediately cut to a torture scenes there is a credible case for interpreting this as revenge torture.
And in general, the claim that 'torture' saves lives seems pretty unsubstantiated -- certainly if the Bush administration had an actual credible result that torture brought about they would have shared it simply to get the heat of them for torturing a shit ton of people. .
There is no one in the movie who is torturing people for 'revenge'. What I am suggesting is that when you have an opening that sets up an incredibly emotional presentation of 9/11 -- with actual victims voices ringing out just before they die -- and then you immediately cut to a torture scenes there is a credible case for interpreting this as revenge torture.
I've read this a few times now and it isn't getting through to me because it seems like your first statement invalidates your second. the first thing I would think of when transitioning between those two situations is the contrast between the emotion of real 9/11 calls and the cold, amoral logic of waterboarding somebody for information; more importantly, though, I don't see how you're saying there's clearly nobody torturing for revenge and then turning and saying there's a credible case for it. are you concerned about it on a purely cinematic level, like the juxtaposition as is might lead an audience to that conclusion? while I don't think that would necessarily follow, I do think it's a valid possible narrative to create when you consider how the US gov clearly believed that countermeasures, and focus on results over public opinion, were paramount in the post-9/11 months and years that followed. on a purely causal level, you could interpret it as revenge, but even then that's an emotional framing of what is, basically, a bureaucratic foreign policy decision.
I mean, in any case it's definitely an intended emotional contrast, I can't speak for the director but conceptually it seems like a powerful choice.
Yup agreed, this is the movie I liked most this year also. Expecting it to win best movie and best lead actor.
The torture scenes aren't problematic as far as I'm concerned. They were showing interrogations as they undoubtedly have happened under the guidelines put forward by the Bush administration and the CIA detention program, and they were a reaction to 9/11. The movie didn't 'celebrate' torture itself, or framed is as 'revenge', but more as a logical reaction to being at war. It would have been weirder not to show torture at all during the 2002-2008 years.
On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is a "hurrr torture good" viewpoint. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it because of its results.
basically you're right, I didn't really finish that thought to include the idea of context, like whether within the narrative of the film waterboarding actually led to the subject telling the truth instead of saying whatever to make the torture stop and interpreting from there. if the film is anything like the hurt locker though, I really think the emphasis would be on realism and reflection on what the US and the military's prevailing thoughts were at the time, which would undoubtedly include reasoning like what I gave. it's morally grey, to be sure, but it's not an outright endorsement as if every historically realistic war film was a right-wing propaganda or something.
I haven't actually seen the movie, and can't comment on how it portrays torture. Hopefully it stays a factual historical narrative as you suggest it might; that particular view of torture was quite popular for six-tenths of America at the time, and a failure to show that would be bad history.
But I sincerely doubt it will be so, or remain grounded in past history, so to speak.
For a movie like this, I don't think I'll be reading all that many American reviews. Will probably have to find international reviewers who write English.
Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non USA people would be biased about what ?
I don't hate or love USA, i will watch the movie, but i am pretty sure it will be a complete circlejerk.
On December 10 2012 07:51 TheExile19 wrote: a) films can have more nuanced handling of subjects besides "hurrr torture good!" and "hurr torture bad!". like, for instance, the viewpoint that moral assignations of right and wrong pale in importance to getting results and, more on-topic, representing the idea of torture as something the administration believed in at the time regardless of whether it ultimately lead to the capture of bin laden.
That is a "hurrr torture good" viewpoint. Almost nobody who thinks "hurrrr torture good" thinks it so because they get off by waterboarding people, they think it because of its results.
basically you're right, I didn't really finish that thought to include the idea of context, like whether within the narrative of the film waterboarding actually led to the subject telling the truth instead of saying whatever to make the torture stop and interpreting from there. if the film is anything like the hurt locker though, I really think the emphasis would be on realism and reflection on what the US and the military's prevailing thoughts were at the time, which would undoubtedly include reasoning like what I gave. it's morally grey, to be sure, but it's not an outright endorsement as if every historically realistic war film was a right-wing propaganda or something.
I haven't actually seen the movie, and can't comment on how it portrays torture. Hopefully it stays a factual historical narrative as you suggest it might; that particular view of torture was quite popular for six-tenths of America at the time, and a failure to show that would be bad history.
But I sincerely doubt it will be so, or remain grounded in past history, so to speak.
For a movie like this, I don't think I'll be reading all that many American reviews. Will probably have to find international reviewers who write English.
Curious, why do you say that? I'd imagine non-American reviewers will still be as biased as American ones, albeit on the other side of the issue. It's good to hear both stances, but I wouldn't trust either of them fully on this....
Non USA people would be biased about what ?
I don't hate or love USA, i will watch the movie, but i am pretty sure it will be a complete circlejerk.
It's not really a complete circle jerk for the US. Most of the movie focuses on just how the hunt for Bin Laden affects one CIA staffer's life and career. The movie isn't some huge patrioic "'Murica Fuck Yeah" kind of movie.
Kinda curious where everyone has been seeing it. I thought that it was only going to have a limited release in 2012 in the US and then have the wide release in 2013.
I've really liked this movie, it is kinda slow in some points, and I was familiar with the story as I did some research after watching a semi decumentary/movie called SEAL Team Six: The raid on Osama bin Laden , but still after knowing the whole story I've really liked the movie. I've always enjoyed the movies that are set in somewhat real environment, the things that happen in the movie like bombing in Pakistan really did happen and they are connected to the story. One thing I would like to change is more stuff abut the raid itself, from military stand point as I like all stories that evolve around special operations. They just mentioned the fact that Pakistan scrambled their fighters but they didn't mention that US fighters after a threat that they will be shot down waved them off back to Pakistan. That there was more then double the amount of SEALs operators just behind the border waiting as a backup, that a backup heli had to fly in as one of the secret helis crashed, what was the role of that belgian shepherd (the dog cleared the compound) etc etc. But that is just me being weird spec ops nut The whole story itself is very interesting and it's pretty hard to fuck up the movie about it.
On January 07 2013 02:30 Brainsurgeon wrote: Pretty good actually. I liked how they didn't try to make the soldiers up to be superheroes or some such nonsense.
By not superheroes do you mean the fact that main characters actually can die in battle or that they are a bunch of out of shape soldiers? I haven't seen the movie and I think it would be kind of ridiculous if they portrayed the soldiers as everyday people because Navy Seals aren't your average joe.
For me, the ending got me bit bored (basically after when Osama was 'located'), but rest of it was pretty decent actually. Didn't beat Hurt Locker though.
On January 07 2013 03:08 Grettin wrote: For me, the ending got me bit bored (basically after when Osama was 'located'), but rest of it was pretty decent actually. Didn't beat Hurt Locker though.
Uh oh, if you thought it was more boring than The Hurt Locker, that's definitely bad news, because THL was ridiculously tedious to watch. And I wouldn't mind so much if there was any historical accuracy to it, but there isn't. It's like they listened to the movie crew listened to their military advisers about uniforms and scenery and then ignored everything else they said.
I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
On January 07 2013 10:33 czylu wrote: I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
For your point about what was boring with the movie what did you find that made it so boring. Was it that you came into the movie expecting it to be more about the seals and a war movie closer to the hurt locker? The point of the movie was suppose to me more on the hunt for Bin Laden and how it affected the lives of the people involved in it.
Your second point I sorta agree with but i don't think that they showed that torture was completely ineffective I thought once or twice they showed that it did have potential. I thought it was necessary to show the executives complaining that they could not use torture since it showed that they were still stuck in their old ways.
To deal with you third point my thoughts on it were
I believe that the scene was suppose to be seen coming from a mile away. I believe the point of it was to show that the CIA officer was too obsessed with wanting to believe that the guy was a good person. They wanted the audience to be able to see clearly what was going to happen so that they would see what was happening to her. It wanted to show that we could not always trust our allies in the war. Its purpose was also to show the toll it had on Maya and how her work was affecting her. These are just my thoughts on what it was suppose to represent so take it as you will.
On January 07 2013 10:33 czylu wrote: I have 3 gripes w/ this movie: 1. This movie was really boring to watch. There was this giant gap between the beginning and the end that was just a struggle to stay awake in where absolutely nothing happened. A lot of it could've been cut out. 2. The way they showed torture. I don't wanna get into politics over this, but it is an absolute misrepresentation to show top level CIA executives bitching about not able to use torture to get information. That said, they did show that torture was ineffective and that traditional bribery/coaxing was more effective means of obtaining information. 3. SPOILER: the car bomb scene. I had a really difficult time in the theater to just not burst out laughing b/c that thing was telegraphed a mile away. That was just a terribly executed scene and frankly the editors should be fired for their incompetence.
1 is personal, but I liked it at this speed. 2 and 3 I disagree with.
As for torture: You see the main character actively reviewing footage of people being tortured by various (foreign) intelligence agencies establishing the link to the courier. The movie implied that if you torture long and hard enough and ask intelligent questions, someone always 'breaks'.
And every attack was telegraphed in advance; you'd hear a vague reference to a city in the movie and 20 minutes later someone is watching TV footage of the attack. In my opinion is ment to demonstrate how impossible it is to prevent terrorist attacks and the futility of doing the jobs the characters are doing in trying to eliminate something that they'll never be able to.