The last three movies I've seen; Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, and Argo are all nominated for best picture and based on American historical events. However, each approaches the story in a different way. Argo is mix of comedy, action, and drama. It is part action caper and part Hollywood satire. Lincoln is resembles a play brought to life on the screen, relying not on action, but on the brillance of its dialogue and personality of its characters. Zero Dark Thirty in some respects is the exact opposite.
First, the film is extremely story driven and doesn't dig deep into characters, with the exception of Jessica Chastain's character, Maya. Character are dropped in and out of the storyline as they interact with Maya. The two primary soldiers in the climactic raid on Bin Laden's compound aren't introduced until near the end of the film.
Second, the film narrows it's focus on story and does not overtly seem to make a larger point or pass judgment on the actions of the characters. It seems the filmmakers have committed to telling us a story and letting us make the judgments. This makes Zero Dark Thirty more interpretive than Argo and Lincoln, which both are pretty clear on their perspective. For example, as I have stated earlier the movie gives us very little on the background of the characters including Maya in terms of dialogue, so we are forced to interpret from Chastain's actions and body language her mentality and disposition. Similarly, when new characters are shown, we are forced to interpret who they are based on their actions and interactions with the other characters.
One impression I took away from this moviegoing experience was how tense I felt. I literally found myself on the edge of my seat at some points throughout the film. I felt the same way in Argo as the embassy employees tried to make their way through the crowded streets of Tehran. I was impressed I could feel this way about Zero Dark Thirty, because of the challenge all three movies have; they are historical so we know the ending. For Zero Dark Thirty this is increasingly challenging because its events have occurred so recently.
Instead of the traditional drama of not knowing the conclusion, the drama that the film produces is based on our knowledge of the ending, which is almost counter intuitive. It reminded me of watching the end of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. At the end of the film, Anakin and Obi-Wan and the Emperor and Yoda are seemingly locked in battles to the death. The only problem is we know that all four of them survive. As I was watching that film, I kept thinking about how they were going resolve play it out so that Anakin becomes Vader and Yoda goes into exile. It was fascinating to watch. Its the thrill of the journey rather than the destination. I felt Zero Dark Thirty takes the same drama and amplifies the tension by naming the location of events. When the film shows London and a double-decker bus, I was cringing because I knew it was going to be about the London attacks. The most excruciating scenes were when you realize Maya's colleague and friend, Jessica, is (spoiler alert: if that is possible in a historical film) going to be killed when an Al-Qaeda informant turns out to be a suicide bomber and detonates his bomb inside a US military base in Afghanistan. Its almost hard to watch, because Jessica is so exciting at the prospect of a turncoat within Al-Qaeda she bakes him a cake. All the meanwhile, we know from our knowledge of recent events that this will turn out in tragedy.
While Zero Dark Thirty is not about the characters, it ironically is about the people that made this happen. We view them all through the lens of their interactions with Maya who is obsessed with her potential lead to catch Bin Laden. We see the CIA officers, the intelligence gatherers, the locals who looked for this mysterious white SUV, the intelligence analysts, and the soldiers who went on the raid. These were real people. In a large bureaucracy it is sometimes hard to imagine the actual people behind the actual data gathering, analysis, and execution in any operation. I think the scene that showed this the best was a scene in which all the CIA analysts are nervously sitting around a table when a guy clearly in charge walks in and starts yelling something like, "Did you think there was some other team working on Al-Qaeda? There's not there is only the people in this room and we are failing." You suddenly get the sense that these people, who we've become somewhat familiar with, are in charge of one of the most important tasks in the country and are the only thing separating us from another horrifying attack.
The part of this film which leaves me the most conflicted is the very limited approach of the film in terms of its storytelling. There doesn't seem to be any metaphor or underlying ideology. On one hand I admire it because it allows us to provide the judgment on the actions of the characters and what they mean in a larger context. On the other hand, I almost want the filmmaker to give us an overarching theme or metaphor to get some perspective on the events she is portraying.
The best example of this is the most divisive issue in this film, the use of torture in the film as a means for justifying CIA black sites and enhanced interrogation techniques. For the most part, I think the film shows its use and the opinions of the officers in charge of torturing without judgment. On one hand, they do not suffer any moral consequences. On the other hand, I thought the movie showed, in graphic detail, the realities of this type of torture. It reminded me of a scene in John Adams where there is a loyalist who gets tarred and feathered. It was not a pretty scene and showed the human graphic realities of the term tar and feather. Similarly, this film didn't glamorize or celebrate the torture but showed it for what it was. However, there was one scene where I thought the movie let slip its bias towards torture when they characters lament its demise due to Obama and Congressional hearings.
My final impression of this film was the reaction of the audience I saw it with. Usually, after a movie, there is a noticeable buzz as people get up to leave and others quietly discuss with their friends. After this film, there was a noticeable silence as everybody sat still for a few moments. I don't really know why this happened, but maybe it shows the emotion this country still holds as a result of 9-11. But I think the silence also shows why Zero Dark Thirty is a good film. A movie about the killing of Bin Laden could have the biggest American high-five pat yourself on the back film, but Zero Dark Thirty avoids celebration, and instead at the end of the film we get a silent, solitary tear. This is ultimately a much more powerful image and left my theater speechless.
No comments:
Post a Comment