Friday, February 15, 2013

Zero Dark Thirty: Hijacking history.

-->

What if a new film came out about 9/11, “based on a firsthand account of actual events,” that convincingly showed no Jews were in the World Trade Center that fateful morning. The fiery disaster, in fact, was a Zionist/CIA plot to justify launching “The War on Terror”?
Or what about another film “based on true historical events,” that Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, and the drive for gun control paves the way for a jihadist takeover of America?
Outrageous right?

What about a film leaving the impression that brutal methods of torture, though perhaps morally repugnant, led to the assassination of America’s number one enemy.

The first two claims, often backed up by amateurish photos, videos and ropey  documentation, have been bandied about for years on the Internet.
The film about torture, however, is a sophisticated production, turned out by the Sony Corporation and a talented director, writer and cast, backed up by reams of expensive research, nominated for five Oscars, and reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in box offices around the world.
The movie, of course, is Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT).

In a way, that film, and others like it, are hijacking our history. I’ll get back to that charge.
Some commentators like the Times’ Roger Cohen have praised ZDT “as a courageous work that is disturbing in the way that art should be.”

Indeed, as befits a work of art, much of the story-line in ZDT is unstated, diffuse. There are a lot of shadowy images, elliptical scenes, muttered exchanges. But it’s difficult to come away from the film without the perception that brutal torture, such as water boarding, played an important role in the CIA’s finding Usama Bin Laden’s personal courier, which in turn led them to the Al Qaeda leader himself.

The problem is, according to a lot of people who should know, that was not the case. The film has been roundly criticized from Human Rights Watch, to prominent American Senators, to a former agent in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, for giving Americans the erroneous impression that torture played a key role in tracking down and killing Bin Laden.

In fact, when challenged on the film’s accuracy, director Kathryn Bigelow claims a kind of artistic license—as if her critics really don’t get what her craft is all about. “What’s important to remember is it’s a movie and not a documentary…It’s a dramatization of a 10-year manhunt compressed into two-and-a-half hours…There’s a lot of composite characters and it’s an interpretation.”

O.K., just an interpretation. But Bigelow and her publicists try to have it both ways.  The film’s trailer breathlessly invites us to “Witness the Biggest Manhunt in History.”

And, as the film begins, we are solemnly informed that it is “based on firsthand accounts of actual events.”

But, “It does not say that it is a factual, unembroidered recounting of those events.”
explains Roger Cohen, sounding less like the gimlet-eyed columnist and more like attorney for the defense.

To bolster his case, Cohen quotes Israeli novelist Amos Oz’s observation that “Facts at times become the dire enemies of truth.’ 

“Or, put another way,” Cohen explains, “while reality is the raw material journalism attempts to render with accuracy and fairness, it is the raw material that art must transform.”

In other words, directors like Kathryn Bigelow must be given the license to shape and change the facts if necessary, so that her audience can benefit from the film- maker’s memorable take on history.

That’s one argument.

But let’s go back to Amos Oz’s provocative statement that “facts at times become the dire enemies of truth.” 

Isn’t it equally true that lies and distortions presented under the guise of facts also become the dire enemies of truth?

Are we really supposed to believe that the intent of the people who made this film was not to have the audience believe, one hundred percent, that, “yeah, wow, this is exactly how it went down in Pakistan.”

So much money, time, and skill were spent creating believability--in the last half hour breathlessly following the second-by-second night-vision action of the Navy Seals as they closed in for the kill.

What we were witnessing was much more immediate and “real” than what Barack Obama must have been seen from the direct CIA feed to the Oval Office when the assassination of bin Laden took place thousands of miles away.

But such story-telling skill cannot erase the fact that the film was also a gross distortion of reality. One that could make a difference: There’s a national debate about torture going on. In fact, the T-word has become so sensitive that government officials 
and much of the media prefer the euphemism   “enhanced interrogation techniques” 

There is no way that a powerful film like Zero Dark Thirty does not become an important part of that debate: “I know torture works, Hell, it helped us get Bin Laden. I saw the movie.”

Indeed, at one part in the film, when CIA agents are discussing the fact that the new Obama administration had given a thumbs down to torture, you couldn’t help feeling that Obama’s edict was naïve, uninformed, and would only weaken the United States.

Of course, for thousands of years playwrights, from Sophocles to Shakespeare to  have done their own riffs on history. The difference is that with the increasing sophistication of the media, film makers have the ability to create the impression that what we are seeing is God-given truth.
So we swallow the lies and distortions along with the facts.
There’s just no way to tell the difference.

That point was driven home by a study done in 2009 by Andrew Butler, now at Duke, but then at the Department of Psychology of the Washington University of Saint Louis.
His researchers gave a group of about fifty students an accurate written account of an historical event to read. They also showed them an excerpt from a feature film about that same event, an excerpt that wrongly and blatantly contradicted the central fact of the printed text.

When they were later tested, 50% of the students recalled the misinformation portrayed in the film as being correct.

“This continued,” Butler reported “even when people were reminded of the potentially inaccurate nature of popular films right before viewing the film.” 
Another fascinating result: “the students were highly confident of the accuracy of the misinformation” sometimes even attributing the false information from the film to the accurate text they had read.

Even when students were told that specific facts in the film were wrong, when they were tested days later, some still felt that what the vivid version the film presented was the truth.

These days, playing to box-office needs, one of the most common film-making distortions is to give Americans credit for the courage and derring-do of others.
That’s the case of  Argo, which supposedly portrays the rescue of 6 American diplomats from Iran in 1979, by an intrepid CIA agent, who leads them out of Tehran disguised as members of a film production crew. The movie is like a recruiting ad for the CIA. Except for the fact that the idea for the escape, the false passports provided to the Americans, the reconnaissance of the Tehran airport etc. etc., came not from the real-life CIA character, but from plucky Canadian diplomats, led by their ambassador Ken Taylor.

Similarly in the Last Samurai (2003), America soldiers led by Tom Cruise save the day for Japan when they are brought in to train the Japanese Imperial army against a 19th century uprising. Problem is, it was the French who trained them.
Again, in the film U-571 (2000), courageous American troops retrieve the Nazi Enigma code machine by boarding a German submarine in disguise. In fact it was the British who captured the Enigma and broke the code.

Then, there’s Oliver Stone’s JFK, which, mixing documentary footage with new film,  argued compellingly that a combination of sinister forces--the CIA, the Mafia, the Military industrial Complex--were behind Kennedy’s assassination.
When one “fact” after another in the film was demolished by experts, Stone retreated to “Hey, Guys …just my take on history.” His fraudulent account, however, became “truth” to tens of millions of Americans and audiences across the globe.

One of the worst exploiters of the “just-my-take-on-history genre” is Mel Gibson, whose blood-spattered portrayal of the American Revolution, “The Patriot” was judged so misleading, that the Smithsonian Institute , which had initially provided support, withdrew its backing and disowned any association.

But the problem is that, for the great majority of people on our planet, historical films “based on fact” are becoming our history books. Whether it be Mel Gibson or Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln, or Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty, taken together they substitute tedious print with a patchwork of spellbinding tales and dramatic images—a beguiling but often distorted or completely false vision of ourselves and our past.    
Should we care?
What can we do?

5 comments:

  1. At the very least, I think we need to stop writing these types of historically-based stories off as just being 'entertainment' and therefore above any sort of fact checking or criticism.

    It's become easy for people who "just want to watch a movie" to point to anyone who has questions/issues/opinions about a particular work and sneer. "Well you don't have to watch it", "the filmmaker never said they were trying to something factual" and "it's not a movie's job to teach you something" have become the go to phrases to stifle any sort of discussion that could enhance or challenge what's being shown.

    It might be an interesting experiment to ask viewers either before or after a movie of this type what they knew of the subject matter at hand and whether or not they'd be interested in learning more about the facts of the events being portrayed on screen.

    In other words, attempt to create a more literate viewing populace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course, not everyone is ready to jump on the patriotic bandwagon and believe the official line of how Bin Laden met his demise, or just how involved was Bin Laden if he was involved at all?

    His body being dumped in the ocean in the middle of the night for the media-related intended purpose of cultural sensitivity not only sounds very fishy, but is downright ludicrous.

    When did the hawks involved in our war machine ever give a shit how many innocent people it killed overseas? When did you see Fox News being sensitive about anything?

    As in; now our war machine is in Africa through its perpetual guise of a 'war on terror', but is actually there to divvy up natural resources it will simply steal through setting up more brutal, but Washington-obedient dictatorships, and through policies as set forth in Africom or 'Project for a New American Century' which is code for raping and pillaging weaker nations.

    It also continues to invent Al Qaeda operatives as a pretext to being anywhere it wants to be and then under the guise of 'providing humanitarian aid' it covertly tortures anyone it wants to.

    It would be very democratic indeed if only once in a while the public could see irrefutable proof that events have taken place the way we are told through the MSM.

    A simple case in point; there are no still images or video of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Well, there is one but it's a sick joke. Nothing is distinguishable in the grainy footage recorded from behind a foreground obstruction.

    Bin Laden was supposed to have planned the Pentagon attack as well. So if a commercial jet liner crashed into the Pentagon its image would hardly construe unveiling a national secret so intense no one would be able to behold it, so where are the images for this event that supposedly happened at the most camera-security protected building in the world?

    I guess to those of us that actually can think independent thoughts the only alternative answer is obvious. It didn't happen the way we were told. It appears Bin Laden will just disappear into the ongoing mythology of American history bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. its ...great post...thanks for sharing zero dark thirty hijacking history

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you think spell casting is not a real thing, know whom to contact that will help you as they said. Have you met any testimony about Doctor Odunga? You have not seen Doctor Odunga's work and i will say that he is a real spell caster to bring back your ex within 24 hours at his email odungaspelltemple@gmail.com. I am Sarah Brandt from US A here in New Hampshire. I lost my boyfriend my boyfriend 4 years ago and dated some other men to forget about him. I have been in different relationships since I lost my true love counting to 3. As down as i was emotionally, i found testimonies about spell casters when i read about Doctor Odunga. Still i did contact his email at odungaspelltemple@gmail.com and within 24 hours my boyfriend called my phone and said some serious relationship stuff into my ears on the phone and wanted to meet. I met him the next day and he said he was sorry for leaving me that way he did and i knew the spell caster have done it. Please, you do not judge a book by its cover and i found the real spell caster to contact with belief and he helped me solve my problem. I will recommend Doctor Odunga Spell Temple to everyone who wants to meet a real spell caster for help at odungaspelltemple@gmail.com OR WhatsApp/Call him +2348167159012

    ReplyDelete
  5. I really want to thank Dr Emu for saving my marriage. My wife really treated me badly and left home for almost 3 month this got me sick and confused. Then I told my friend about how my wife has changed towards me then she told me to contact Dr Emu that he will help me bring back my wife and change her back to a good woman. I never believed in all this but I gave it a try. Dr Emu casted a spell of return of love on her, and my wife came back home for forgiveness and today we are happy again. If you are going through any relationship stress or you want back your Ex or Divorce husband you can contact his whatsapp +2347012841542 or email emutemple@gmail.com 

    ReplyDelete