From TPM Reader FH on the Zero Dark Thirty question …
I was unprepared and surprised by the extent torture played a part in the first part of the movie. At first I saw it as an endorsement or being posited as a viable alternative to traditional interrogation.
After deconstructing the torture scenes though, the intent of the filmmaker sand their thoughts on the efficacy of those tactics are more ambiguous.
I got a bunch of interesting responses to my question about Zero Dark Thirty and its portrayal of torture. Something like 3/4 of the responses agreed in some fashion with my take — that the movie didn’t seem as pro-torture as its critics had led me to suspect. But there’s probably some level of sample bias involved in that breakdown.
Here’s one response from TPM Reader ST that takes the contrary stance …
I did not have your reaction. I just saw the movie this week as well and I had the opposite reaction – despite my wanting Kathleen Bigelow to succeed because I really value her artistic voice.
An interesting take from Hollywood-based TPM Reader MJ on what was really behind the commotion over Zero Dark Thirty and some of the decisions made in the movie itself. After discussing some of the ins and outs of who should have won which Academy Award, MJ gets to the topic at hand …
Don’t underestimate groupthink in Hollywood. There were two movies in the zeitgeist that presented a face about U.S. Foreign Policy to the world: Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Which face do you really think was better for business? (And I say this as a person who believes if it was a choice between Argo and ZDT…I’d take Argo every day of the week).
Zero Dark Thirty also twisted itself into knots, bent over backwards to make sure President Obama received as little credit as possible in this movie.
Now Rove says he can imagine the next GOP presidential candidates supporting gay marriage.