On a pure craft level, "Zero Dark Thirty" is impeccable. The acting is strong across the board, the direction and storytelling elegant, the action scenes tense, the score unobtrusive and just right. The whole movie is just put together very nicely. It's the reason why I gave it a relatively high score.
But I find the movie problematic, and I'm not even talking about the torture controversy (about which I don't have a solid opinion yet.)
"Zero Dark Thirty" begins with the proclamation that the story is "based on first-hand accounts of real events", while real-life audio from the 9/11 attacks plays in the background. The entire movie is shot in a dry, matter-of-fact way. "This is the way it happened, these are the facts", the movie seems to be telling us, literally and stylistically.
But the movie is also fiction, and in interviews, the filmmakers talk about how they allowed themselves some creative freedom for narrative reasons.
But where is the line between fiction and journalism here? For example, the movies main character "Maya" does not exist in real life... but she's "based on a real person". Various real life events are depicted, but are they really connected to each-other the way the movie suggests? Are the filmmakers making changes to the story for narrative reasons alone, or are they manipulating us, with a political agenda in mind? While watching the movie, I found myself asking those questions. I felt uneasy, and not in a good way.
I think the movie lacks transparency when it comes to just how accurate it is. That wouldn't be a problem if it was a period piece, but I think it's a huge problem here, when dealing with very recent events that still have a lot of political weight. This movie has the power to sway public opinion on hot-button issues one way or the other, and to me, its murky mix of journalism and fiction seems downright immoral in that context.
But I find the movie problematic, and I'm not even talking about the torture controversy (about which I don't have a solid opinion yet.)
"Zero Dark Thirty" begins with the proclamation that the story is "based on first-hand accounts of real events", while real-life audio from the 9/11 attacks plays in the background. The entire movie is shot in a dry, matter-of-fact way. "This is the way it happened, these are the facts", the movie seems to be telling us, literally and stylistically.
But the movie is also fiction, and in interviews, the filmmakers talk about how they allowed themselves some creative freedom for narrative reasons.
But where is the line between fiction and journalism here? For example, the movies main character "Maya" does not exist in real life... but she's "based on a real person". Various real life events are depicted, but are they really connected to each-other the way the movie suggests? Are the filmmakers making changes to the story for narrative reasons alone, or are they manipulating us, with a political agenda in mind? While watching the movie, I found myself asking those questions. I felt uneasy, and not in a good way.
I think the movie lacks transparency when it comes to just how accurate it is. That wouldn't be a problem if it was a period piece, but I think it's a huge problem here, when dealing with very recent events that still have a lot of political weight. This movie has the power to sway public opinion on hot-button issues one way or the other, and to me, its murky mix of journalism and fiction seems downright immoral in that context.