Zero Dark Thirty

[Jake Gittes]

Just because torture could help, doesn't mean it's good or that it should be used. It's not black and white. And if you think ZDT portrays torture in a positive light, we watched different movies. And no, the tear in the end is not all the character development there was.

[dashrendar44]

Just because torture could help, doesn't mean it's good or that it should be used. It's not black and white.

 

 

There lies contradiction. If you think torture could help, that means you're not absolutely against it because well it helps, no matter how far, if you're open to that possibility. It's insidious and ingrained.

 

It's against all proper democracies values and beliefs (also human rights UN conventions) if you hint that it can help to gain valuable intel on general basis. That is what War On Terror was all about. Torture should be used as horrible as it seems for american standards, it was the necessary way to go to bust evil muslims rats even for the tiniest clue valuable or not.

 

People only see the result, Bin Laden is dead. American pride and honor are safe, anyhow torture was right because they were fighting evil. That is also black and white but it's how the majority thinks.

Edited March 31, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Lordmandeep]

Imo the movie says with the tear at the end...

 

We got the job done but did we have to do it they we had to.

[Jake Gittes]

Well I think torture could help and I'm against using it. It's a matter of drawing a line where you refuse to compromise your own morality, which is exactly what the protagonists of ZDT failed to do. They didn't draw a line, they went all the way to the end, and as we saw, they paid a price. The fundamental values and beliefs you speak of don't rest on the idea that torture never works, because that is simply not true. They rest on the acknowledgment that yes, torture could work, but no, we shouldn't use it because not only might it not work, but it will also lead us - morally - into a deep, dark place where we will lose a part of our humanity and where we might, in a way, subsequently stay forever.

[dashrendar44]

What price? They succeed and she was right. I don't know what is the downfall for her because the doubters either perish (the dumb agent that let a kamikaze inside Camp Chapman) or are painted as chickenshit males in retrospect (Kyle Chandler, Gandolfini, Jason Clarke).

 

What's the toll she has taken? She didn't have the time to have a boyfriend? Now she has plenty of time even if we are told from the beginning she had no private life prior to that hunt so there's no evolution from that standpoint. Everyone at CIA now will bow to her. So what? That's where I don't concur with that interpretation that they feel like lost souls at the end, because now they are relieved to live their life like they want, freer than ever. She was an empty shell obsessed with Bin Laden at the beginning, she ends up being an empty shell at the end. IMO, Bigelow thought she drove a point that the bulk of the story didn't convince me it earned. What I saw is, to do the job right you got to get your hands dirty even if it means using ugly means. Remember this movie is made on so-called CIA accounts, that's what they want you to believe.

 

But OK, you admit that torture could work even if it's not morally acceptable and compromising. I just don't subscribe to that POV.

Edited March 31, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Jake Gittes]

I don't think Maya we see in the final scene of ZDT will ever be able to have any sort of normal life. She spent more than a decade of her adult life committing herself 100% to hunting a terrorist. Now that he's dead, she has nothing to live for, plain and simple.

[DAR]

Like I said earlier I can neither condemn nor condone the use of torture in these situations. I've never fought a war or even enlisted in the armed forces personally I'm not going to morally judge someone in a situation I've never experienced. Or if faced with the choice not sure what I would do.

[Lordmandeep]

"

But OK, you admit that torture could work even if it's not morally acceptable and compromising. I just don't subscribe to that POV.

"

 

 

Just because something is soo terribile does not mean it will automatically never works.

Rather idealistic or illogical point of view imo.

 

Torture is wrong and most of the time you get made up information but its quite evident that it could lead to some information rather then no information.

 

In the film the information they got from torture was mostly not very useful but it lead them on a path to find answers.

Now is torturing people worth it just to get pieces of information that could perhaps lead to something else?

[dashrendar44]

"

But OK, you admit that torture could work even if it's not morally acceptable and compromising. I just don't subscribe to that POV.

"

 

 

Just because something is soo terribile does not mean it will automatically never works.

Rather idealistic or illogical point of view imo.

 

Torture is wrong and most of the time you get made up information but its quite evident that it could lead to some information rather then no information.

 

Yeah and your logic is what led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki because H bombs "work".

[Lordmandeep]

That is perfect example of what I meant from before actually ^^^

 

Lol you make that issue so black and white when it was sooo many shades of colours.

 

The Americans were firebombing Japan killing 100's of thousands anways...If the bombs were not droped many more would have been killed in bombings in the end anyways.

 

Based on the Battle of Okinawa that saw around 100,000 Japanese Soldiers Killed, 100,000+ civilians killed and over 12,000 American Soldiers killed (and close to 80,000 casulaties for them in the end) , the invasion of Japan would resulted in the deaths of far far more people than the atomic bombs.

 

There was no easy solution there.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Lordmandeep

[Jake Gittes]

You torture a human being to get information. He/she knows that information and gives it up in order to stop suffering. It's not goddamn rocket science. Yes, torture is horrible and it absolutely shouldn't be used. But it could work in certain circumstances, and if you don't admit that, you're living in an overly idealistic fantasy world.

[Lordmandeep]

All I can say is this...

 

Its a complex issue....

 

 

That is all.

[Jack Nevada]

Watched it again, and it holds up great on a second viewing. Its amazing how Bigelow makes a 157 minute movie go by so quickly. Its incredibly stylish, intelligent and masterfully put together and thoroughly thought out, and Jessica Chastain is perfect. 

Edited June 19, 2013 by Jack Nevada

[Jack Nevada]

And I dont really look at it from the political angle (that would require a few more viewings), but more from the filmmaking standpoint, and it is terrific filmmaking. 

 

I dont think its pro-torture, though, and I like how it doesn't really push anything down your throat but leaves the viewer to think about the moral issues. 

Edited June 19, 2013 by Jack Nevada

[Michael Gary Scott]

I thought Chastain gave the best performance of last year.

[Jack Nevada]

I thought Chastain gave the best performance of last year.

Riva was better but yeah Chastain was tremendous in this. I would have liked her to win. 

[Olive]

9/10

[ssjrem]

I thought The Hurt Locker was overrated and I came into Zero Dark Thirty with rather low expecations. And, wow, was I surprised. Gripping, suspenseful, raw, exciting and it's all pulled together by an incredible performance by Jessica Chastain, who absolutely should've won the Oscar. Zero Dark Thirty was definitely the best film of 2012 and an A+.

[Lordmandeep]

The film is not pro torture but its not anti torture either.

[Punishment]

Finally got around to watching this:

 

7/10 - an extremely drawn out movie - it does make you think long and hard about the anti-terrorism techniques that were used.

 

Not a film that I will ever be watching again.