Since its cinematic release in
2012, Kathryn Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty” has aroused many questions
pertaining to the nature of American ethics in its audiences. Among the most
pertinent of these hot topics has been the film’s use of torture scenes: while
not necessarily condoning the act of torture as a humane method of deriving
information from an “enemy party,” the film does seem to portray it as an
effective one. The fact that torturing detainees aids the American protagonists
in furthering their positon on the road to success, after all, is certainly
more important to the plot of “Dark Zero Thirty” than whether or not the
process causes these men long-lasting medical or psychological damage.
In one
of the film’s opening scenes, Dan (a torturer and associate of Maya, the film’s main
character) waterboards one of the black site’s prisoners. Bigelow makes no
effort to cushion the impact of this torture scene on the reader – being deprived
of air, the man is clearly in severe pain. Despite his agony, he insists that
he does not have the information which the pair want. A moment follows in which
he pleads with Maya and it appears for a moment as if she might offer him some
kind of sympathy or compassion; however, this does not come to pass. She tells
the man that he can “help himself by being truthful” – something which is
framed as a defining character moment for her. Maya is clearly intended to play the role of a single-minded woman on a mission, having devoted her career (and life) to a single cause. This is backed up later when she
refuses to discuss her love life with Jessica, stating “I’m not that girl that
fucks.” Her mission is all that matters to her. This mission, of course, is
finding Osama Bin Laden, and all else seems to pale in comparison to the hope
of achieving this one objective. The protagonists are willing to go through
anything – or, more relevantly (and, at times, disturbingly) anyone – to do this.
“Zero
Dark Thirty” is a film that, thus far, appears to concern itself more with the
question of whether or not torture is an effective means of obtaining
information rather than whether or not torture is a morally acceptable
practise, regardless of what it may yield.
Zero Dark Thirty was a captivating movie. It hit on a lot of current topics that I feel are important such as human rights issues involving torture. In the film, as in real life, soldiers for the United States army used brutal and disturbing acts of torture to garner evidence from terrorists. These terrorists may or may not have information regarding the location of Osama Bin Laden and other high profile targets. We see that early on the torturer and torturee develop an interesting relationship. The torturer displays a vast knowledge of the person’s life before being detained. He takes away all hope of ever escaping had mentally destroys the individuals will. Rewards for giving information are simple objects like a nap or a blanket. The scenes of waterboarding and keeping the person caged up were extremely brutal to me. The movie is about finding Bin Laden, but the subtext of the plot reveals a critique of the system that our heroes used to catch and ultimately kill him. Do the means justify the ends? One could argue, yes. The end goal of our protagonists is met. Bin Laden is caught and in part due to information received from a torture victim. How many others, however, had no information of use to give and were still punished anyway. This does not seem like a viable and substantial way to gain information. America makes more enemies doing this. There is a major human rights issue at hand. People deserve inherently to not be tortured. This is a personal belief of mine. Bigelow’s depiction of torture was utterly brutal and helped convince me of this.
ReplyDelete