Actor David Clennon Responds to Bigelow's Recent Defense of ZD30
"Zero Dark Thirty" director Kathryn Bigelow was given space by the Los Angeles Times to present a statement defending her film against accusations that it promotes the tolerance of torture (L.A.Times, 1/15). The following is what Bigelow delivered, with some opposing commentary. She begins with two paragraphs describing the difficulties she and screenwriter Mark Boal had to overcome, to bring "ZD30" to the screen.
Then came the controversy. Now that "Zero Dark Thirty" has appeared in cinemas nationwide, many people have asked me if I was surprised by the brouhaha that surrounded the film, while it was still in limited release, when many thoughtful people were characterizing it in wildly contradictory ways.
The label "brouhaha" doesn't fit the gravity of the accusation of mendacity in this film, or the gravity of the allegation that "Zero" serves to encourage the tolerance of torture. "Brouhaha" suggests something noisy and trivial. "Brouhaha," like "squabble," or "tempest in a teapot," tells the reader that
When Bigelow says "people were characterizing [the movie] in wildly contradictory ways," does she mean that most movie reviewers were loudly applauding the film, while human rights activists were disturbed by the picture's permissive attitude toward torture?
The Times asked meto elaborate on recent statements I've made in response to these issues. I'm not sure I have anything new to add, but I can try to be concise and clear.
First of all: I support every American's 1st Amendment right to create works of art and speak their conscience without government interference or harassment.
And human rights advocates "support every American's 1st Amendment rights," as well, they find fault with ZD30's relaxed attitude toward torture. No one in the anti-torture struggle is calling for "government interference or harassment."
One strategy for defending oneself against accusations of wrongdoing is to those accusations and then to proclaim one's innocence of charges . Bigelow has mis-characterized the allegations of sincere and serious human rights activists, more than once.
No one I know of, including Senator John McCain, wants to deprive Ms Bigelow of her 1st Amendment rights. The real issue is the rights of the people at the mercy of Bigelow's CIA interrogators, including Maya (Jessica Chastain) and her mentor, Dan.
As a lifelong pacifist, I support all protests against the use of torture, and, quite simply, inhumane treatment of any kind.
She may support protests, but she them by showing her CIA heroes using torture, getting results, and never, ever, being held to account for their gross violations of human rights and common decency. In "The Greatest Manhunt in History (ZD30)," anything goes; the end justifies the means, where the means include cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
But I do wonder if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen.
Unfortunately, Ms Bigelow's film lets "those who instituted and ordered" torture escape censure, without even a passing mention. Writing in the New York Times, Frank Bruni began his commentary, "I'm betting that Dick Cheney will love the new movie .”
Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time.
Bigelow has said, on more than one occasion, "Depiction is not endorsement." This is another mis-characterization of the accusations from anti-torture activists. Ms Bigelow's and yet Bigelow presents them as likable, admirable people, just doing their job, serving their country. When you show "good" people committing immoral, criminal acts, and when you continue to portray them as good people, who are never called to account for their crimes, then you are tacitly condoning those crimes. "Depiction isn't endorsement." It's Bigelow and Boal's tolerant are the problem. Her tacit approval of a relaxed toward torture is the problem. Chastain's Maya and her mentor Dan both engage in appalling brutality toward their prisoners -- Maya's detainee, Faraj, actually dies, offscreen, from her continued, relentless torturing of him (making her a cold-blooded murderer) -- what they depict that constitutes the endorsement.
This is an important principle to stand up for, and it bears repeating. For confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist's ability and right to shine a light on dark deeds, especially when those deeds are cloaked in layers of secrecy and government obfuscation.
But Bigelow and Boal don't "shine a light on dark deeds." They simply present depictions of dark deeds, and move on, as if those deeds were nothing to be reckoned with, morally or legally. As for the "layers of secrecy and government obfuscation," Boal and Bigelow were granted a free pass through those layers of secrecy. They had more access to obfuscated government deeds than most of us will ever be priveleged to know. Unfortunately, they failed to use their access to "shine a light" in any way that would help Americans to understand how the "War on Terror" went so horribly wrong.
Indeed, I'm very proud to be part of a Hollywood community that has made searing war films part of its cinematic tradition. Clearly, none of those films would have been possible if directors from other eras had shied away from depicting the harsh realities of combat.
The last sentence is another mis-characterization of her critics' objections. No one in the anti-torture movement has said that any director should ever have "shied away from depicting the harsh realities of combat." Bigelow and her PR team are persistent in fabricating straw men and knocking them down.
On a practical and political level, it does seem illogical to me to make a case against torture by ignoring or denying the role it played in U.S. counter-terrorism policy and practices.
Yet another mis-characterization of the objections of human rights supporters. Anyone who has paid attention to the events of the last dozen years is painfully aware of "the role [torture] played in U.S. counter-terrorism policy and practices." They have no desire to "ignore or deny" that role. Human rights advocates want to see a just with a pattern of behavior that shamed our country.
Experts disagree sharply on the facts and particulars of the intelligence hunt, and doubtlessly that debate will continue. As for what I personally believe, which has been the subject of inquiries, accusations and speculation, I think Osama Bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work. Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn't mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden.
Torture wasn't THE key to the whole Bin Laden puzzle. But Bigelow clearly shows her "ingenious detectives[s]" torturing their prisoners, and it's clear that the first torture victim we see, Ammar, gives Chastain and Dan the nom de guerre of Bin Laden's trusted courier. And she and Boal show us that that war name, "Abu Ahmed," is an important clue, , which Chastain follows until she finds Bin Laden's hideout. Bigelow and Boal make it interesting to observe how Dan and Chastain's Maya extract this clue from Ammar. But we have to pay attention.
Ammar, is tortured for many months. Finally, after 96 hours of sleep-deprivation, he is taken out of his cell, in a black hood and chains, and led to a shaded area outside. The hood is removed, one of his legs is chained to a table and Dan and Maya offer him food. They try to employ trickery to get Ammar to give them the identities of the fighters he was travelling with before he was captured. They tell him that after 96 hours without sleep, he gave them the names of some of his comrades. In his dazed state Ammar can't remember that moment. Dan and Maya may have planted seeds of self doubt. But when Maya, following up, asks, "Who's the 'we' in that sentence," Ammar answers, "Me, and some other guys, who were hanging around at that time." That sarcastic non-answer is Ammar's last act of resistance, because in the next instant, Dan says, calmly, casually, "Y'know I can always go an' eat with some other dude -- hang ya back up to the ceiling." Ammar pauses for three seconds and then gives Maya and Dan the names of three of his companions. Trickery by itself -- a "non-coercive" technique -- fails. The effects of severe torture, AND the unambiguous threat of even torture, shatter Ammar's resistance, and he gives up the critical information.
Torture plays the key role in extracting a key piece of information.
That doesn't mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means [torture] is a part of the story we couldn't ignore. War, obviously, isn't pretty, and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences.
But that's what she and Boal do. There are moral consequences in "Zero Dark Thirty." The immoral, criminal acts of Dan and Chastain's Maya never bring any moral consequences. And their crimes have no legal consequences.
In the next paragraph, Bigelow moves on, waving the red-white-and-blue, to the refuge of patriotism:
In that vein, we should never discount and never forget the thousands of innocent lives lost on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. We should never forget the brave work of those professionals in the military and intelligence communities who paid the ultimate price in the effort to combat a grave threat to this nation's safety and security.
The human rights and anti-torture movement is unlikely to "discount" or "forget" the appalling tragedy of 9/11.
Bin Laden wasn't defeated by superheroes zooming down from the sky; he was defeated by ordinary Americans who fought bravely even as they sometimes crossed moral lines, who labored greatly and intently, who gave all of themselves in both victory and defeat, in life and in death, for the defense of this nation.
Bigelow's phrasing, " crossed moral lines" is a chilling euphemism for " committed criminal acts of extreme cruelty."