Zero Dark Thirty: Hollywood's Gift to American Power by Slavoj Žižek

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/26


Kathryn Biglow (right) directing Zero Dark Thirty. 'The most obscene defence of the film is the claim that Bigelow rejects cheap moralism and soberly presents the reality of the anti-terrorist struggle.'

Here is how, in a letter to the LA Times, Kathryn Bigelow justified Zero Dark Thirty's depicting of the torture methods used by government agents to catch and kill Osama bin Laden:


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.

Really? One doesn't need to be a moralist, or naive about the urgencies of fighting terrorist attacks, to think that torturing a human being is in itself something so profoundly shattering that to depict it neutrally – ie to neutralise this shattering dimension – is already a kind of endorsement.

Imagine a documentary that depicted the Holocaust in a cool, disinterested way as a big industrial-logistic operation, focusing on the technical problems involved (transport, disposal of the bodies, preventing panic among the prisoners to be gassed). Such a film would either embody a deeply immoral fascination with its topic, or it would count on the obscene neutrality of its style to engender dismay and horror in spectators. Where is Bigelow here?

[Robb]

1. I'm intrigued by the notion that the film "normalizes" torture.

It's sort of like saying violent video games "normalize" violence. I think it's an overestimation of the power of the medium -- that it's not our society doing the normalizing, but rather our society's art? Not sure I buy it.

[Bjorn Against]

3. Art is an important part of our society

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

You ask if "it's not our society doing the normalizing, but rather our socity's art?" but I don't think you can seperate art from society as art is a very crucial part of society. I don't believe that violent video games cause people to go out and shoot people, nor do I think that Zero Dark Thirty will cause people to torture. What I do think however is that when art seems to be promoting injustice then people need to take a stand against it because art does have a psychological impact on people and even though it is not likely to cause people to go out and torture themselves it could cause them to be more accepting of our government using torture.

I play violent games and watch violent movies myself but I do have standards, I will play games like Grand Theft Auto because the violence in that is clearly fantasy and is presented in a fashion that mocks our society's obsession with violence rather than promotes it. I don't play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield however because I believe those games present a sanitized version of war, it is "realistic" violence that hides from the true reality. I have no problem with fantasy violence in games even if it gets graphic as long as it is clearly fantasy, it is when games pretend to be realistic but then give us a very sanitized version of war that I refuse to play.

As far as television goes I used to watch the show Oz which may well be the most violent television series ever created, but it presented the violence as a horrible thing rather than trying to make it look like heroism as far too many shows do. I refuse to watch Zero Dark Thirty because by all accounts I have read it portrays the torturers as being heroes, that goes against my standards and I refuse to give the filmmakers my money.

[gulliver]

2. Was she supposed to put a handlebar mustache and tophat on the torturers?

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm wondering about how you do better representing torture than just showing it. If it's true and it's part of the story, it goes in, imo. And we don't need to condescend to the audience or try to manipulate them. That's the recipe for taking the ugliness out of torture that people naturally bring to it.

[coalition_unwilling]

4. Torture is as American as cherry pie (with apologies

to H. Rap Brown)

[Bjorn Against]

5. No need for a handlebar moustaches, but they could show the damage it did to America's reputation

Yes torture did happen and I can fully understand why it needed to be in the movie, the problem is however that by most accounts the way the movie presented it is not accurate. I agree with you that audiences should not be manipulated, that is why I refuse to spend a dime to see Zero Dark Thirty because I don't want to be manipulated.

The use of torture damaged America's standing in the world, the movie could have easily shown how it damaged America's reputation but instead they chose to go the route of showing the heroes of the movie engaging in torture but ignoring the negative consequences of the torture.

[xchrom]

6. Kick