Earlier this week, in an historically unprecedented and commendable move, three senior Senators called Zero Dark Thirty grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of bin Laden. But now the CIA, which assisted in the movie, is criticizing it for this same point: the implication that torture helped extract valuable information from detainees.
I have seen Zero Dark Thirty. I am not going to call for a boycott as some of my colleagues have done. I actually think that those of us versed in the torture experiment of the past decade are among the best poised to cry foul on this film. However, I do call for a disclaimer:
Despite what is depicted in this movie, torture does not work and was of no value in finding Osama bin Laden.
I know the First Amendment and "dramatic license" don't demand this. But social responsibility does--and I hope that Kathryn Bigelow cares about that, or at least her reputation.
Right now, Zero Dark Thirty opens with the words
based on first-hand accounts of actual events.
But the movie's narrative is more than misleading, it is pure fiction. The first third of the movie depicts graphic torture, which is portrayed as key to finding bin Laden. This is only amplified by director Kathryn Bigelow's claim that she took a documentaryish "journalistic" approach, which even the CIA--which colluded in making the movie (a separate problem)-- claims
departs from reality.
This echoes the concern expressed by Senators Feinstein, Levin and McCain that the movie is
factually inaccurate . . . has the potential to shape American public opinion in a disturbing and misleading manner. . . [and asks Sony Pictures to] consider correcting the impression that the C.I.A.’s use of coercive interrogation techniques led to the operation
against Bin Laden.
Zero Dark Thirty's narrative is more than misleading. Despite Kathryn Bigelow's claim that she took a "journalistic" approach, it is pure fiction, and dangerous fiction at that, because a third of the movie portrays graphic torture, which--while cringe-worthy--ultimately is depicted as key to finding bin Laden.
I'm a first amendment absolutist and a realist. I don't believe in censoring this movie, nor do I think a boycott by the human rights choir (of which I am a member) will be effective. I don't think Sony Pictures gives a damn about social responsibility (they clearly don't, based on all the other violent and truth-distorting films out there). But Kathryn Bigelow should care about social responsibility, or at least her own reputation. Bigelow should replace her self-serving false opening lines with an honest disclaimer along the lines of the disclaimer suggested in the intro.
And the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) should make public its 6000-page report concluding that torture does not work and that harsh interrogation measures used by the CIA did not produce significant intelligence breakthroughs--so that we have an alternative narrative that is the polar opposite of Zero Dark Thirty.
P.S. I will not rehash the myriad ways that this movie falsely portrays torture as a key to finding bin Laden. A number of esteemed journalists already have--among them, the New York Times's Frank Bruni ("No waterboarding, no Bin Laden: that's what Zero Dark Thirty appears to suggest."); The Nation's Stuart Klawans ("Does the film go further, and present torture as the necessary tool for taking down bin Laden? Absolutely."); CNN's Peter Bergen ("One of its central themes--that torture was instrumental to tracking down bin Laden--is not supported by the facts."); The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald ("The standard viewer will get the message loud and clear: we found and killed bin laden because we tortured The Terrorists.") The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins and Jane Mayer, Mother Jones' Adam Serwer, The Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan, and The Atlantic's Peter Maass.