The other weekend I was able to finally see Zero Dark Thirty, and I was overall very pleased with it. It found a good balance between action, political thriller, and psychological drama, and I definitely understood the critical acclaim it had been accumulating. However, between the critical reviews, Oscar nominations, and all the like, I don't see much of a point in offering up a detailed review of the film. Instead, I'd like to focus on some of the controversy surrounding the film.
Specifically, I was somewhat surprised to find when reading about the film on Wikipedia after I viewed it that it had ignited a fierce debate in the media as to whether the film directly supported the idea that torture was essential to finding Vin Laden. I suppose I missed the controversy since I was in Europe and my following of the news, especially American issues, is limited to important events, but it was weird to read about that kind of contention after viewing the film.
For those of you who haven't seen it, in particular the movie features a very explicit scene of a detainee being waterboarded for information. It's implicit that information gained from this torture scene did help in some way lead to other bits of intel that eventually led to bin Laden. Opponent of the film claim that this essentially praises such tactics, whereas the filmmakers and its supporters claim it's merely attempting to show the truth behind the decade-long search. Whether it was moral or not, helpful or not, the facts stand that US intelligence operatives used such methods: that is the stance they stand behind.
I can definitely see both sides of the issue, but can only offer my personal reaction to the movie. I definitely did have a moment earlier on after the scene where I went "well, this guy clearly deserves it, and the torture is bringing results." So yes, for that brief moment you could say I was a proponent of torture. However, as the movie progressed and I analyzed my own thoughts further, I came to the (I think obvious) conclusions: how do you know any answers given are reliable, and how do you determine who "deserves" such treatment? Even in cases where it might be blindingly obvious, by allowing it in certain circumstances, you open up the possibility of it occurring in more ambiguous cases. Essentially it comes back to the cornerstone of our judicial system, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty."
