With rumours of a remake in the ocean air, we’ve decided to dedicate this week’s show to Kathryn Bigelow’s 1991 surfing/bankrobbing romantic action flick Point Break. A timeless tale of the world’s worst FBI agent who exploits his position in the agency in order to get free surfing lessons, eventually falling in love with the ringleader of a deadly gang, and generally not doing his job at all. Does the movie hold up over twenty years later? Is it 100% pure adrenaline? Better Nixon, Frank Langella or the bank robber in this flick? If someone throws a dog in your face, can you still be friends? To hear us answer these questions and more download the link below, or better yet, subscribe on iTunes! And be sure to follow us on Twitter!

Episode 92- POINT BREAK

WARNING: the podcast contains strong language and immature subject matter, please be advised.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

The poster for the movie says, “The Greatest Manhunt in History.”  It should have said, “The Greatest Waste of Time.”  The running time of the movie is 157 minutes.  They literally could have cut the running time in half and told the same story and it actually might have been entertaining.

The movie is about the 10 year long “Manhunt,” capture, and killing of Osama Bin Laden after the attacks that occurred on 9/11/2001.

We all know by now that the fact that it took America 10 years to find Bin Laden and kill him is an absolute disgrace.  Of course, it was a great thing when it finally got done, but it sure took us long enough.  Zero Dark Thirty plays on that fact.  The movie is a very long, drawn-out depiction of the steps that we took to finally track down America’s Most Wanted and destroy him.  The film isn’t a decade long, but it certainly tries to feel that way.  It is so boring and slow at times that I wanted to turn it off at a number of different points.

The other thing about this film is that it is hard to tell how factual it really is.  It is based on a true story, but do we really know all of the facts?  Unfortunately I think that people will watch this movie and assume that it is 100% accurate.  How do we know the truth about what happened?  A lot of the information about the “Manhunt” is classified.  How will we ever know the real truth?

The film tried so hard to be this big epic movie.  It failed quite miserably as far as I am concerned.

Zero Dark Thirty was nominated for 5 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Actress (Jessica Chastain), Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Sound Editing.  To me, that is so comical.  It shows that the Academy has truly lost its mind to even nominate such garbage in the first place.

This movie was almost as far away from Best Picture as you can get.  The acting was mediocre at best, especially Jessica Chastain’s performance.  Not even close to top notch.    The screenplay was very un-original.  They took a story that everyone in the world knows about and turned it into a screenplay.  That is not original in my book.  There were so many unnecessary scenes that could have been cut out of the movie that it was a complete disgrace to filmmaking.  The editor should have been fired, not nominated for an Academy Award.

I’m glad that the movie only won an Academy Award for Best Sound Editing.  It was better that it didn’t actually win.  It technically tied with Skyfall (2012) for Best Sound Editing.  Skyfall should have won.  I don’t know what is more embarrassing for Zero Dark Thirty, the fact that it was nominated for 5 Academy Awards and only won 1 of them or the fact that the only one that it actually won was a tie for Best Sound Editing.

Maybe the movie only got so much recognition because Kathryn Bigelow directed it.  Her film The Hurt Locker (2008) was very solid and was nominated for 9 Academy Awards and won 6 of them.  That film made her the first woman to win an Academy Award for Best Director.  Were the Academy Award nominations for Zero Dark Thirty just a sort of blue ribbon recognizing Bigelow for her participation in trying again?

Bigelow had no support from her cast which most notably includes Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Reda Kateb, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, Harold Perrineau, Jeremy Strong, Mark Strong, Edgar Ramirez, James Gandolfini, Stephen Dillane, Frank Grillo, and Joel Edgerton.  Maybe the cast was not of much help because their characters had way more than enough time to develop, but they never really did.

Kathryn Bigelow was in way over her head when she decided to direct Zero Dark Thirty and it shows.  The film is a steaming pile of cow dung.  The only decent part of the movie is when they showed Seal Team Six raiding Bin Laden’s lair.

I recommend staying as far away from this movie as possible.  Save yourself a precious almost 3 hours of your life and don’t watch it.

I rate this movie a 2 on a scale of 1-10.

Buy, rent, or run?  Run.

Estamos ante una cinta que a mi parecer le falto “punch”, no es mala, tiene manufactura excepcional y la historia es interesante, sin embargo creo que le sobran unos 30 minutos, además de un poco de acción y no me refiero a balazos.

La actuación de Jessica Chastain es fenomenal, en honor a la verdad si le hubieran dado el Oscar a ella no me enojaba, realmente carga con toda la película y los matices de su papel nos permite ver una gran actuación. Sin embargo tampoco fue una injusticia que no haya ganado dicho premio.

Como lo comente al principio, estamos ante un largometraje bien producido, con locaciones cuidadas y hasta con lo que se supone es información clasificada del pentágono.

Si te gusto la cinta The Hurt Locker está también lo hará, digamos que hay algunas similitudes en el trato de la trama, ya decidirás si es mejor una u otra.

Por su desarrollo lento, no la recomiendo para todo el público, además de que los primeros 30 minutos veremos algunas escenas de tortura. Recuerda, tiene una duración de dos horas y media.

.

Detalles

Director: Kathryn Bigelow.

Actores: Jason Clarke, Reda Kateb, Jessica Chastain, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, Harold Perrineau, Jeremy Strong, J.J. Kandel, Wahab Sheikh, Alexander Karim, Nabil Elouahabi, Aymen Hamdouchi, Simon Abkarian, Ali Marhyar, Parker Sawyers.

Duración: 157 minutos.

Clasificación: B15.

Sinopsis: Thriller sobre la operación militar que acabó con la vida de Osama Bin Laden, líder de Al Quaeda. El título original, Zero Dark Thirty hace referencia a la hora: las 00:30 de la madrugada del 1 de mayo de 2011, momento en que el comando SEAL de los marines penetró en la residencia de Bin Laden en Pakistán para eliminar al hombre más buscado de la historia.

Trailer: http://youtu.be/oISVuYjpigU

Whenever there’s a disaster, whether human-made or natural, a lot of people rush to donate.  According to the Red Cross, Boston has plenty of donated blood right now, so if you are in that area, consider waiting a couple of weeks and then donating to replenish their supply.  According to my bank here in Sacramento, they immediately shipped blood to Boston when the explosions happened, so they are low and want me to come in this week.  I’d suggest you check with your local center to see if they need donations this week or if they’d rather have you come in towards the end of the month.  Most importantly, if your help permits, make this a regular part of your schedule.  Our hospitals need blood supplies all the time, not just in moments of national crisis.

Science fiction has conclusively shown that donating blood is heroic, but characters sure go about it in some odd ways.  Here’s three shout outs to blood transfusions in sci-fi:

Most bizarre technology:  Thanks to a tip from Sun, Jack performs a blood transfusion on Boone using a sea urchin spike for a needle in Lost:  ”Do No Harm”.  Sun, you are a total badass for coming up with a way to perform an intravenous procedure using sea life, but don’t try this at home.

http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Lost_Sun.jpg

Most unbelievable cure for vampirism:  A veterinarian performs a complete blood transfusion (two, actually), in his garage, in Near Dark.  Long before she was collecting Oscars, Kathryn Bigelow made this movie about vampires who are truly scary.  It’s a great movie overall, but its finest moment is most certainly NOT a bleary Adrian Pasdar drawling, “Daddy, y’ever transfuse a person?”  Look at these far more interesting characters from the same movie – they can’t believe it either:

Seriously?

Most touching blood donation:  Wash donates blood to Mal in Firefly:  ”Out of Gas”.  Mal:  ”Y’all gonna be here when I wake up?”  Yep, we’ll be here long after Fox tries to take away our Jayne hats.

“Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn”- Orson Welles

Kathryn Bigelow by Jeannette Montgomery Barron, Vogue France: http://www.vogue.fr/photo/le-portfolio-de/diaporama/scene-de-jeannette-montgomery-barron/12670/image/744249#!kathryn-bigelow-par-jeannette-montgomery-barron

One of the greatest war accomplishments of the 20th century being transitioned to film and released in theaters only one year after its occurrence demands certain levels of precision, respect, and accuracy. Even if it is a mostly Hollywood affair. As many asked about Oliver Stone’s 2006 ‘World Trade Center’ 9/11 depiction “is this too soon?” as well as concern regarding the virtues of said respect and accuracy, that particular film did not so much meet them, thus inevitably drowning into the obscurities of retail bargain bins. The good news is that Zero Dark Thirty will most likely not meet the same fate, as it should not only be regarded as one of the more important films of 2012, but absolutely one the best… which of course it is considering all of the award nominations it has received and won.

Zero stars Jessica Chastain which many will remember from the 2011 drama ‘The Help,’ and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who also directed 2009′s ‘The Hurt Locker,’ another political war drama which happened to win that year’s Oscar for best picture. The talent behind Zero is well displayed in this perfectly paced, well thought-out political action drama. The film spans the past decade starting in 2001, jumping a few years at a time whilst highlighting almost every major terrorist act by Al-Qaeda around the world. It follows American CIA intelligence officers during before, during and after these events, all their struggles therein, leading up to the finale when the hunt for Osama Bin Laden finally ended in May of 2011.

The movie grips the audience right from the start, with two CIA operatives interrogating an Al-Qaeda member using various means of torture in order to extract bits of information regarding whereabouts and intentions of other factions of his jihad terrorist group. Jessica Chastain plays Maya (no last name), who is a CIA military operative just starting her career and really just getting her feet wet. While she doesn’t participate in any means of this torture, most of it is done by her counterpart. The most extreme content in the film lies solely within these interrogation scenes, therefore any viewer not comfortable with such extreme means may, but should not, turn a blind eye to the intentions of Zero, because it attempts and succeeds in bringing us the most comprehensive summation of one of the most vital manhunts in American history. That said, the character of Maya begins as a very new and insecure agent; as she states later in the film, due to her being recruited to the CIA right out of high school (however unrealistic that may be, more on that later), hunting Bin Laden has been her ONLY assignment for the first decade of her career. While the film mostly follows the actions of Maya, Chastain doesn’t “steal” the show here, because it really is the story of the manhunt that does. Therefore it was important for Chastain’s character to complement the story instead of leading it, and given that her performance is absolutely impeccable, she was the perfect casting choice for the role.

Zero also stars a small cast of other CIA operatives, none of which are major names, but the one most closely tied to Maya is fellow agent Jessica, played by Jennifer Ehle. A great highlight of the film’s characters was seeing these two women’s close relationship, and whose lives are almost completely engulfed by this mission, and the only scenes of “personal” time being few of them having drinks while on breaks from their work. It should be comforting to Americans that the CIA (at least as presented here) never fooled around with silly office politics and submissive conveniences getting in the way of getting the job done. This was very well written into the script as we see during the scenes where the roughest language was present; plenty of toes and feet are stepped on, friction between agents are not brushed under the rug, and basic human functions such as food and sleep come secondary. We see Maya grow from an insecure new operative to someone who has become so hard and experienced in such a dangerous profession, that eventually she becomes nothing short of an incredibly strong, intimidating and no nonsense woman, who strangely enough is STILL considered by most of her male agent counterparts as “the girl.” Not that this should matter much in the end in terms of anything anti-feminist, considering she shows more guts and determination than most men in the film. Perhaps the most telling of this almost inspirational growth is at first hearing Maya wimply advise the Al Qaeda terrorist being tortured at start “you can help yourself by being truthful,” to boldly telling one of her CIA chief directors about the Bin Laden hideout “I’m the motherfucker who found the place, sir.” Chastain’s gradual maturity is so well captured and acted, that even if the mission trumps her as the star of the show, we can’t help but love her at the end, and even way before that.

What keeps the film running strong is that all the major terrorist acts throughout the decade, including the bombing in London in 2005 and suicide bombings in Pakistan which claimed the lives of American operatives, are so perfectly paced. The entire time the team of authorities are tracking leads to Al Qaeda, interrogating members caught, and clashing ideas within their own offices with each other. Things never slow down or ever become boring even at a length of two and a half hours, and the excellent direction by Bigelow, mostly using the method of shaky cam, brings us a film where the presentation of true to life realism is top priority. Solid performances never even hint at keeping us out of being engrossed in the experience. There is no room here for silly romances, questionable work abilities, self-esteem issues, or even grievances for lost agents. The mission is what matters most, and Maya herself will stop at nothing to find Bin Laden. The only scene where she slows for just a short while is after a fellow operative is killed by a suicide bomber, yet she is once again forced back on her feet by another lead.

There are no blatant negatives to such a film so focused on the story, except for those counting on complete historical accuracy. By this meaning that during the actual manhunt, there was never a person named Maya who led the team in such a way as presented in the film. Instead, the character of Maya is a sort of summation of a whole team of people (specifically, a group of female operatives known as “the sisterhood”); a group who had reports ignored by the greater agency, similar but not exact to the struggles Maya goes through in the film. Yet, Maya’s friend Jessica is based on an actual person. Moreover, the controversial methods used to interrogate the terrorist member at the start of the film may not have been what operatives actually used (although hopefully they did, but that’s a personal opinion), but instead a certain level of exaggeration is used to keep things interesting for us. Zero does what it has to do, being something that is presenting to us a story based on actual real life events. Things must be somewhat exaggerated, dumbed down, simplified, or changed in order to give us an entertaining film worth watching. Even though this is done with Zero, that should be expected and never detracts from the experience; it gives us the easier version of a complex turn of events that would be more comprehensible to the average American Joe or Jane. Because really, who actually knows all the political and military details of this decade-long mission besides the CIA themselves? Granted, this is still a very mature and greatly intricate piece of work, so one should not think they are really being watered down or catered to.

The final act is perhaps the only portion where the film’s direction takes a somewhat different approach, from a shaky-cam political drama to an almost “found footage” documentary style, when we follow the navy seal team responsible for the breaking into Bin Laden’s hideout and work towards finally assassinating him (yes, spoiler alert, Bin Laden dies!). While this is not a boring scene, we can find ourselves missing the conflicting intense dialogue scenes by our CIA agents, and of course Chastain herself. It’s a bit ironic that the most interesting part of a film made to lead up to a seal team infiltration mission is actually not the infiltration mission but everything leading up to it. It is still a wonderfully directed scene, and just like the serious nature of the film as a whole, there is thankfully nothing overly dramatic about it.

Zero Dark Thirty is truly a wonderful achievement in recreating such an important series of events in our history. It had a lot of responsibility behind it, and regarding the necessary balance of respect, precision and accuracy (despite the interjected Hollywood flairs), Zero accomplishes beautifully to give us this balance perfectly. Bigelow had quite a job to do with making this not only an important film but an entertaining one, and my hat goes off to her success in doing so. I can already see this being played in millions of 12th grade classes years in the future to recap to students what our country went through during this opening decade of our 21st century.

Extras:

Basic and minimal. We get 4 fairly short behind-the-scenes recaps on the making of the film, about 7 to 9 minutes long each, and we hear what we pretty much know already, about the importance of making this film very realistic and so on. One of these short docs features only Jessica Chastain herself on how she felt during the making of the film, and besides her looking as fantastically beautiful as ever, it was great to see her level of dedication to it. Interviews with the director also show how serious she was in making the best and most accurate film possible. Good stuff, but nothing that will really give us more value for our money.

Graphics and Sound:

Visually Zero does not disappoint, and since this isn’t a film drowning in CGI or fantastical special effects, the shaky cam and more rugged look keep this from being something that will make colors and contrast pop to the eye. The final infiltration scene is very grainy and dark by nature, thus even then it would be hard to significantly differentiate between HD and standard presentations. The film looks well enough for an HD showing, and that really is enough because it is not necessary for it to do more. Could it have been a bit brighter and colorful? Yes, but it’s slight, and having colors more plain works with the realism of the events taking place. Making this too pretty may have run the risk of taking us out of the experience. Next, being a story based on true war events, the more intense scenes of gunfire do not hold the exaggerated hammer-like clatter of Hollywood action films, but instead have the very realistic and duller pops of actual real life gunfire and explosions.There isn’t much of a musical soundtrack to speak of, but at least all the dialogue is perfectly audible on its own.

Final Verdict:

Zero is most definitely worth your time. It is gripping, involving, intense, realistic, and fast paced. There is no need to feel intimidated by its lengthy running time, because it makes sure to use every minute to the fullest and does nothing to waste your time in between its more intense moments. Perfectly cast, beautifully acted, and professionally directed, Zero does enough well to appeal to any American, and even those who aren’t and did not have their own land threatened by such terrorist acts. Some may want a more dramatic or emotional showing, but what the film angle intends with such material makes it something that won’t be lost on people so quickly as, let’s say, ‘World Trade Center.’ I’d say 3.5 Navy Seals out of 4.

17 – Zero Dark Thirty – Bigelow is fearless
18 – Heartburn – dated and diluted
19 – Safety Not Guaranteed – good till end
20 – Game Change – possibilities truly frightening
21 – Savages – captures siblings, disappointment
22 – Religulous – what you’d expect
23 – Tucker and Dale vs Evil – clever horror twist
24 – Identity Thief – slapstick done well
25 – Youth in Revolt – unlikable, unfunny, unsympathetic
26 – Cabaret – wish color held
27 – The Trip – just too British
28 – The Iron Lady – conservatives, alzheimers, conviction

When I first saw the trailer for Zero Dark Thirty, the film did not really capture my interest. The central plot of the film (the events leading up to and including the death of Osama Bin Laden) seemed to be the focus in order to capitalize on the magnitude of these recent events. Then, after the film received widespread critical praise and was nominated for multiple Academy Awards, my curiosity was piqued. I had to see the film and evaluate it for myself. The film does have some elements that deserve the praise they received, however, the film as a whole is not as … as its accolades would have you believe.

The basic premise of the film is self-explanatory - the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and the events leading up to, and including, the night of his death. Despite the widespread coverage of that night’s events, seeing the actual events leading up to that mission seems like it would be an interesting tale. Yet, the inane dialogue (if I heard the man being interrogated in the opening scenes get called “bro” one more time, I may have stopped watching) at many points in the film makes the events seem exaggerated and fabricated (with reports stating that many events were fabricated for the film) – a classic example of what call “Hollywood-ing” a true story.

Despite the plot’s shortcomings, the overall film remains somewhat tense and fairly interesting despite a padded runtime. Also, there is some great acting throughout the film. Jessica Chastain put in an Oscar-worthy performance, full of emotion despite her poorly written, “badass” style dialogue. The supporting cast, as well, fit their parts well and make all of the events seem more true to life.

Jessica Chastain gives an incredible performance as Maya in Zero Dark Thirty – one well deserving of her Best Actress Oscar nomination.

Another piece of the film that to me was done nicely was the sound editing. From explosions and action pieces, to dialogue, to soundtrack, the mix is excellent. Each area of the sound department did a phenomenal job with their work, and it really shows in each an every scene of the film.

Zero Dark Thirty has received much critical acclaim since its release. Some of it is well-deserved (the acting and sound editing are excellent). Other parts of the film, however, are poorly done. With a plot that feels too embellished and dialogue that tries too hard to be “cool” and ends up making some characters sound like they came straight out of a cheesy action flick (one-liners and all), the film suffers but still manages to be an entertaining watch – just be prepared to overlook these flaws.

Final Score: 6.2/10

Zero Dark Thirty

Written By: Mark Boal
Directed By: Kathryn Bigelow
Notable Cast: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke , Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1790885/

Screenplay: 4.5/5
Direction: 5/5
Performances: 4/5
Cinematography: 4/5
Sound: 4.5/5
Score/Soundtrack: 3.5/5
Production: 4.5/5
Overall: 4.5/5

In all of the ways that this film is perceived to be underrated, I think the least talked about is the brilliance of Mark Boal’s script. I am a big fan of the three movies he has written so far, most of all In The Valley of Elah (he is credited with ‘story’ for that) which I think is my favorite of the three. With ZDT, he did a fantastic job of condensing an incredible amount of information and years of history into one screenplay less than three hours long, which also appears by all accounts to do justice to the truth behind the events. I also liked the fact that there appeared to be no specific political ideology being forced down my throat — I felt as if I was left to make up my own mind about the situations and actions presented in the film.

One thing that I personally also came away with was yet further admiration and love for my favorite TV show, Homeland. The similarities between the two are unavoidably contemplative for anyone who is familiar with the series and then watches this movie. As great as ZDT is, it’s no Homeland, and I’m more convinced of it’s brilliance than ever.

UPDATED/ 7:45 P.M. EST:   A Relativity Media spokeswoman responds, “We do not have the rights to this title.”  Stay tuned.

Let me say up front that Near Dark doesn’t need to be remade. It’s a bloody, balls out thrill ride that pre-figures the endorphin rush of Point Break features a memorable cast that includes the seriously underrated Lance Henriksen and Bill Paxton. Henriksen is utterly chilling and Paxton gives an unhinged performance as Severen, the craziest member of a pack of redneck vampires on the loose in the West. (Love their shades and the camper van with the blacked-out windows.)

Is Near Dark Too Much Like Twilight? 

Back in 2006, Michael Bay‘s Platinum Dune production company was talking about remaking the picture, but in 2008, Bay’s partner, producer Brad Fuller told Empire magazine that the project was on hold because “I’m concerned that, conceptually…Near Dark and Twilight are too similar”.  I had to read that statement twice because, while there is a romance between one of the vampire clan (Jenny Wright) and a murder-averse human (Adrian Pasdar),  the ferociously over-the-top Near Dark bears precious little resemblance to the PG-13 Twilight franchise.  (If anything, Bigelow’s film is a kindred spirit of HBO’s True Blood vamp series.)  If Bay & Co. were making a Twilight connection, it’s probably best they shelved the project.

As of the end of 2012, the Internet Movie Database indicated that Relativity Media subsidiary Rogue was developing the picture, but getting the company to confirm that the project is still alive (or undead) is another question. Relativity reps have yet to respond to my requests for clarity on the matter.  If they get back to me, I’ll update.

In the meantime, if a remake ever does get made, I’d love to see Michael Shannon as Severin role and Christopher Walken in the patriarchal Jesse Hooker role that Henriksen played.

Here’s the official trailer to the film followed by a clip of Paxton at his bloody best.

Watch The Trailer For Kathryn Bigelow’s Original Near Dark

Bill Paxton Chews The Scenery (And His Victims)

What do you think?  Ripe for a remake?  By which director and with what cast?  Leave them in the comments section.

[Empire]

Follow Frank DiGiacomo on Twitter.

Follow Movieline on Twitter.

Lukas Eggen can be reached at eggen.lukas@gmail.com.

directed by Kathryn Bigelow

starring Jessica Chastain

★★★★

Photo via insidemovies.ew.com

I have huge admiration for Kathryn Bigelow as a woman who defies conventional gender norms by making films which have little to do with romance, so often seen as the realm of female directors. This is not to say that those films or the women who direct romance movies are invalidated, but rather that Bigelow stands out from the crowd and for good reason. She consistently dives headfirst into a very real male-dominated world, in a male-dominated field (much like Zero Dark Thirty’s protagonist, Maya). 

It portrays a huge endeavor, a historical event freshly branded into the American collective psyche. It is no easy task to make a film in which everyone already knows the ending, and even harder to do so in a way that  removes the question of bigotry or overwrought prejudice in such a sensitive context. 

This film needed Jessica Chastain desperately, and she serves her part well. Maya is the emotional thread throughout the story, which is otherwise scant on plot. I don’t mean this to say that nothing happens, just that the only real progression which happens is that Maya stubbornly believes she is correct, and manages to convince all those around her that she is. 

Everything else is more documentary than historical drama, and therein, I think, lies its greatest downfall.  

I will praise the hardened realism of its scenes, but it does beg the question of authenticity: just how would a filmmaker go about ascertaining the truth of one of the most covert operations in the history of intelligence work? The camera work in the last act, in real military operation “shaky-cam” fashion, is masterful. The ruthlessness of the figures portrayed, I am sure, is no exaggeration. 

But unlike most other reviewers, I don’t think this film shows either reprehensibility or condemnation for the use of torture. Many have cited the film’s closing shot of Maya’s face, crying, as evidence for the moral ambiguity of the methods used to secure critical information. I might have believed this if she had showed a shred of remorse throughout the rest of the movie, which she does not (in fact quite to the contrary). Instead I think the last shot of her tears represents both enormous relief as well as apprehension. What is there left now? Her life has been consumed in this all encompassing operation, which is now over. 

Indeed, what now for the whole country? Our greatest threat to national security has been eradicated. Did we do it rightly, justly? 

I think people went into the theater thinking this would be a “yeah America!” sort of film, where you finish off the afternoon with a burger and a beer, but it’s not. It’s not particularly patriotic. No one walked out of the film high-fiving each other. No one applauded. It was a victory for us, but it didn’t feel like it.

We needed to see this film. But I would be lying if I said I enjoyed it.

Start with the heroine’s name: “Maya” in Sanskrit is the illusion of reality that we all experience, which creates a false division between our selves and the wider universe, and ultimately becomes the source of all suffering. (“Maya” also ranks among the top 2,000 most popular names for girls in America. We like our illusions.) Practically all the information Maya gathers through the course of the film is obtained through intermediaries, or through filters. Never once does she punch or strip or waterboard a detainee, but she’s there when it happens, and occasionally gives the orders that make it happen. What she does not take away from in-person interrogations, she gathers by the medium of the video screen.

A great portion of Zero Dark Thirty deals with Maya’s gradual inurement to seeing. She starts off visibly sickened by the acts she’s party to. Agents around her, like the brutal field op Dan (Jason Clarke), try to shield her from direct involvement. “There’s no shame in watching on the monitor,” says Dan, who keeps pet monkeys at Bagram Airbase in a cage more spacious than the box into which he shuts captured al-Quaeda informant Ammar (Reda Kateb).

But Maya hardens, as one must, at least on the surface. Soon she’s leading interrogations on her own, and perusing the videorecordings of other torture victims for clues to bin Laden’s refuge. She rubs her eyes at footage of humiliated men hanging by their wrists and grilled for intel, but that could just be the fatigue of a long night’s cram session. Soon enough, she’s chatting by satphone with her colleague Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) while watching a drone strike that appears to have no more consequence for her than a Pringles ad.

These screens through which Maya views horror tend to pixellate, their images breaking down into the component bits that make up the whole. This is an effect we experience, even in the age of high-definition displays and phenomenal video bitrates, when we lean too close to our monitors. A bit or pixel by itself is the most basic unit of information, but it’s useless without context. Try to build a house out of one brick and see how far you get. Maya is gathering bricks, and soon they’re all she can see.

As Maya works, the American flag intrudes on her periphery. For the most part, it hangs limp as she interacts with fellow agents in bunkered, insulated CIA stations. It’s presented as a mundane office object, always to one side of the frame, never intruding or signaling sharp meaning.

At Camp Chapman, the pivot point for the entire film, the flag snaps awake in the wind and forcefully imprints on our awareness. It is doubled in one shot — a shot that if held for a few more languorous frames would smack of Terrence Malick — by the billowing camouflage netting that shelters Jessica while she awaits a crucial rendezvous.

The flag is pristine; the netting that mirrors it, of course, is ragged and full of holes. The symbol is transmuting before our eyes.

Jessica’s death in the field radicalizes Maya with a new sense of exceptionalism: “I believe I was spared so I can finish the job,” she says. This is a very American sentiment. When Maya presents her evidence that bin Laden resides in an Abbottabad compound, when she’s undercut by her male colleagues, when she identifies herself to the chief of the CIA as “the motherfucker that found this place,” the American flag is perched on her shoulder. Upon entering the room, in fact, she’s directed to sit next to it.

Maya goes on to observe the Abbottabad raid — again, from a distance — and confirm the assassination of bin Laden. Her job completed with a simple nod of the head, she then boards a C-17 for home, takes her place, and begins to weep.

Maya sits against sagging red cargo netting strung across white acoustic quilting — the ragged flag again. The dusk light is on her ivory skin. The woman who portrayed a Universal Mother in Malick’s The Tree of Life is here the symbolic mother of a nation, wounded and wilting, frayed by the bloody work done in delivering it.

Wilco — Ashes of American Flags

What can I say about this that hasn’t already been said by 12,803,995 better bloggers??Yeah, sure – it’s real good. Jessica Chastain is hot and acts her ass off. So does a guy named Jason Clarke.  But it’s also about an hour too long, were those torture scenes REEEEEEEEAAALLLLYYY that necessary and everyone the principals talk about have those (no offense to any Arabic readers) (and no offense if I’ve used the term “Arabic” incorrectly) those long Arabic names that I am not familiar with so it was hard for me to follow along. I’ve read a LOT of reviews about this and hung in there through the first two hours waiting on the big “money scene” (if you’re not familiar with what this is about I would be very surprised), but then the fucking thing was all filmed at night so I couldn’t really see what the hell was going on??!! ARGH. Like THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, this felt like it took ALL DAY to get through – but, yeah, sure, it’s good.

So: fair enough, incredible reporting, confirmed what interested observers consider an accepted open secret. Yet it seems some have drawn bizzare inferences from the article, which bodes ill for our clarifying and codifying of targeted killing policy going forward. In particular, CFR’s stalwart drone watcher Micah Zenko offered an odd commentary on Mazzetti’s piece. He points out correctly that the shift came unilaterally: that CIA shifted by itself, with little input from NSC, WH, DOD, Justice, or State. Such a type of change is rather fascinating in the context of constant turf battles, which brings me to my two lines of criticism.

Zenko bafflingly draws the following conclusion from Mazzetti’s report:

Moreover, the CIA made this choice, not because they thought it was the best strategy, but reportedly because they did not think they were capable of detaining and interrogating individuals without also torturing them. And since they could not trust themselves not to torture, in order to avoid potential criminal prosecutions, suspected terrorists would have to be killed instead.

I have visions of a case officer sitting in a room, arguing with his colleagues over whether or not to torture a recently detained AQ lieutenant. The hours pass laboriously until finally he breaks down, shrugging and huffing and sheepishly yelling to the assembled team: “Aw, hell…I just can’t resist. Let’s get him, boys!” and then Jason Clarke unprofessionally beats the crap out of some guy without asking relevant questions while Kathryn Bigelow sits in the corner reassuring herself that her adherence to factual retelling is unimpeachable. Later she phones Ben Affleck and they congratulate each other on how drenched in reality their storytelling remains.

Anyway: first, I cannot see how Zenko’s interpretation follows from what Mazzetti’s reporting confirms. Specifically, the IG report and CIA did not conclude that the agency couldn’t detain militants without ineluctably torturing them. Rather, the report highlighted the fundamental inconsistencies in the Bush administration’s legal framework for the war on terror. They hadn’t the slightest idea of how to build a robust framework for interpreting who should or could be captured, detained, prosecuted, or killed. Nor did they have much of an inclination to do so.

My second point follows from the first: in the absence of civilian political leadership, CIA took the path of least resistance. Since no one at NSC or Justice would bother creating said framework–and since Langley was left holding the bag in every case–CIA made the rational choice and concluded that they would henceforth define the war on terror as an actual war–with all that entailed. Having been asked to engage in law enforcement and then told to violate the very core of traditional law enforcement interrogation techniques, none of these choices should be even remotely surprising.

In brief, far too much attention has been given to the decisionmaking at CIA, rather than the failure of policymakers at NSC and Justice. Thus we return to my earlier praise of Zenko’s other point; namely, that CIA undertook the policy shift by itself. Yet which is more likely: that policy input remained absent because no one else cared or thought it was a momentous change? Or did everyone else realize how controversial such a shift would become and foist it upon CIA? Zenko, it seems, comes down on the former side:

  I have asked Bush administration officials in the White House in the mid-2000s about this shift from capture to kill, and they claim there was no formal presidential decision, but rather a slow shift in emphasis that this was the preferred way to deal with terror threats.

Pick any one of the plethora of Bush-era national security recountings and you’ll find officials outside CIA quite aware of the policy shift, which renders absurd Zenko’s idea that the CIA went it alone on this. CIA had been tasked with an ill-defined mission that required significant effort and political risk to clarify.

As recently evinced in Klaidman’s Kill or Capture, the absolutely mind-boggling legal conundrums over GTMO detainees remaining when Obama took office give contemporary readers a poignant launching point from which to consider what Tenet and Goss thought in those early years. When we consider our current understanding of the legal framework for the war on terror, I cannot convincingly argue we have a much better handle on it. Everywhere the war on terror receives comment, one can identify the exact same fundamental questions being glossed over. We find ourselves in this state of affairs precisely because we’ve obsessed over downstream decisions by implementing agencies rather than the policymakers back at the source.

Put shit into the process, and you’ll invariably get shit at the other end.

The basis for The Hurt Locker were Boal’s experiences as an embedded reporter in Iraq in 2004. Shortly after the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011, Boal embarked on researching the raid that led to his death. He compiled his research and interviews into the script for Zero Dark Thirty.

After seeing the film, I read two books about events that took place in the ten year span between the 9/11 attacks and the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011. Triple Agent by Joby Warrick, focuses on the 2009 suicide bombing at Camp Chapman near Khost, Afghanistan. The Finish by Mark Bowden, follows many of the decision makers leading up to the Navy SEAL raid on bin Laden’s compound. Both of these confirm the events fictionalized in Zero Dark Thirty and more accounts of the raid have been published since then.

On March 28, the Writers Guild Foundation hosted an Anatomy of a Script event with Boal.

It was clear from his answers he didn’t skimp on the research of the events in Zero Dark Thirty and in general, Boal’s well read and well informed of current events & historical events relating to the War on Terror.

There were some funny moments and he had a couple stories from shooting Zero Dark Thirty which haven’t been recounted elsewhere.

First, he gave the interviewer, Robin Schiff, a hard time when she started out the interview with the torture debate which surrounded the movie. “That’s not what you said in the green room. You said you loved torture,” Boal joked.

More seriously, Boal acknowledged that the torture debate was the dominant way the film got talked about. “Which was disappointing to me and I know it was disappointing to Kathryn….In our minds, the film was about a lot more than the detention program or whether it was effective or moral, but that’s sort of what happens sometimes when you make a movie that walks pretty aggressively into the culture and you can’t necessarily control how it gets discussed.”

When Boal off-handedly mentioned he saw something of himself in the character of Maya, Schiff pressed him to talk about it.

Schiff: You said you relate to her and that obsession. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Boal: No.

Schiff: Why not?

Boal: I mean, it’s just a character.

Schiff: But you said you relate to her.

Boal: I relate to all characters I write about.

Schiff: But do you blush when you talk about all the characters?

Boal: No. Look, she’s based on a real person, so there is a real world analogue to her, who was really driven and really obsessive and kind of a pain in the ass who really did drive this lead forward. She wasn’t the only woman who did that, there were others involved who were also really obsessed. But it’s also a type I can relate to because I admire people like that, like maybe I see something that I find aspirational. They’re great dramatic types, too, because it’s fun to watch somebody drive through obstacle after obstacle.

Schiff brought up this point again near the end of the interview, when she tried to juxtapose Maya’s ‘Where do you wanna go?’ scene in the movie with Boal winning an Oscar for best screenplay. She wanted to know if he related to the feeling of, ‘I’ve been working on something for so long and I finally finish it and now what do I do?’

Boal said the Oscar was a great honor and affirmation that maybe he could stick around and make more movies. “But I was broke. I needed money. I had to go back to work, because the Oscar and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.”

When Schiff turned over the questions to the audience, Boal joked, “I told you I was going to be a tough interview.”

One question was posed about why Chris Pratt, who is known for his comedic work on Parks & Rec, was cast in a more serious role as a SEAL. Boal credited Kathryn’s eye for casting and then relayed how Pratt was often cracking them up on set.

Boal: He would riff on something and every time I thought it was really funny. He’d say stuff to Chastain in character, like the scene where she’s briefing the SEALs and then they walk over to this model of the compound, and he’s like, playing with it and says, “Wow, I’ve never worked with a model before, especially not a redhead.” She [Chastain] laughed.

When questioned about whether they changed the number on the bus in the London bombing sequence, Boal quipped, “Don’t blame me for that.”

He then explained they had a day to shoot the scene and had a permit to film on one street in London. “We were there for about half a day and Kathryn said, ‘This really isn’t working. The street’s really not good.’ She did a really guerrilla thing and hijacked the bus we had rented  and was driving it around the streets of London. It was leading up to the Jubilee and there was massive security everywhere and people were saying if you pulled out a film camera and started shooting, you would get arrested. Well, we didn’t get arrested.”

Another audience member posed the question: “How did it feel to make a movie where everybody knows the ending?”

Boal: “Yeah, I never worried about it too much. I had a good line for it, which was: Titanic. That movie did okay.”

Although most of the questions centered around Zero Dark Thirty, there were a few that incorporated ZDT and Hurt Locker and Boal talked about how he ended up producing.

“It happened really by necessity. Kathryn encouraged me to do it and explained that Hurt Locker probably wouldn’t happen unless someone stepped into the role of trying to push it up the hill. I was happy to do that, because it was my work, and I had no idea what I was doing and made every single possible mistake you could make.”

Boal admitted that part of the reason he’s been so involved in both Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty was his working relationship with Bigelow.

“As it happens, I’m on set because of the thing I have with Kathryn, but it’s really fulfilling to stay on through the whole life cycle of a movie as a producer, too. But there’s no trick to it [being a producer]. You just do what needs doing.”

Boal also spoke about his first screenwriting experience, which was working with Paul Haggis on In the Valley of Elah.

“I really studied every single thing that we did on In the Valley of Elah and asked him a million questions and it was a great learning experience to sit next to him as he was writing that. When it was done and I started Hurt Locker, I was like okay, I like know how to write a screenplay because I’ve watched Paul. And then I realized no! That was just Paul writing In the Valley of Elah, and I realized nothing he did on that screenplay was at all relevant to The Hurt Locker. It was a totally different story and everything he invented for that story was invented for that story,” Boal said.

In light of all the controversy surrounding Zero Dark Thirty, it was brought up that in the screenplay, after the interrogation scenes, the stage directions state: “They’ve learned nothing.”

Boal remarked that not only was this in the script, but originally he’d written a scene where the characters discussed this fact.

“They talked about that they were failing to get information out and they were bummed about it. But it got cut because it seemed really obvious at the time, to us,” Boal remarked wryly. “There was a moment like six months later where Kathryn and I looked at each other like, ‘Fuck, maybe it was more obvious to us than everybody else.’”

Boal also commented on how many of the scenes took place in offices and other confined spaces, because he wanted to be true to the research. “Kathryn was thrilled to get out of the embassy and be able to move the camera around to get some scope [during the Khost bombing sequence].”

Because the movie is a lot of CIA detective work, Boal said both he and Bigelow worried audience members would lose interest.

“Kathryn and I were both worried about losing people in the first whatever it is until the raid. We were always like, ‘God, if we can just get people to sit there until the raid, we’ll be good.’ But I was never worried about it once that big set piece [the raid] started because of the way she choreographed it,” Boal said.

When asked about what’s next, Boal joked he was going to write a romantic comedy. “Set in Baghdad.”

You can watch part of the Q&A here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/30562899