Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 29, 2013
Film Zizek Destroys Zero Dark Thirty
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:03 AM
The key paragraph of the philosopher's attack concerns the film's normalization of torture...
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, raising difficult questions and thus compelling us to think (plus, some critics add, she "deconstructs" feminine cliches – Maya displays no sentimentality, she is tough and dedicated to her task like men). But with torture, one should not "think". A parallel with rape imposes itself here: what if a film were to show a brutal rape in the same neutral way, claiming that one should avoid cheap moralism and start to think about rape in all its complexity? Our guts tell us that there is something terribly wrong here; I would like to live in a society where rape is simply considered unacceptable, so that anyone who argues for it appears an eccentric idiot, not in a society where one has to argue against it. The same goes for torture: a sign of ethical progress is the fact that torture is "dogmatically" rejected as repulsive, without any need for argument.Any doubt of philosophy's value in our scientific/technological age will be dispelled by this kind of sharp and productive criticism. The function of philosophy is not to explain the meaning of life (there is no meaning to explain), but to explain the proximate and ultimate causes of cultural, social, and economic phenomena.
1
"Detainee program." That phrase creeped me out in the movie. "We lost our detainee program."
I suspect that most folks just accepted that innocuous phrase as ... normal.
I suspect that most folks just accepted that innocuous phrase as ... normal.
2
Good Morning Charles,
First of all, if you haven't seen the film I recommend it strongly.
I beg to differ with Mr. Zizek. I've seen the film and "Zero Dark Thirty" is a masterpiece. Technically and logistically (it was photographed among other places, in Jordan & India) it is superb. As for the screenplay, it is merely an apolitical account (as apolitical as one can be) of the hunt and neutralization (read: killing) of Osama bin Laden.
It is also graphic and brutal. That is indisputable. However, just because one dislpays torture in a work (be it in any art form book, film etc.) does not mean one condones it. I've viewed "Irreversible" which shows a rape scene. I viewed with revulsion. But, the narrative whether based on fact or fiction isn't necessarily compelled to render an opinion. The audience can if it so chooses. Where would we be without "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote? It is an extraordinary account of the mass murder of family in Kansas. Does the movie condone that act? Of course not.
Zizek is mistaken. No doubt, murder, torture and rape are ALL wrong. "Zero Dark Thirty" is an outstanding account and it got it right.
First of all, if you haven't seen the film I recommend it strongly.
I beg to differ with Mr. Zizek. I've seen the film and "Zero Dark Thirty" is a masterpiece. Technically and logistically (it was photographed among other places, in Jordan & India) it is superb. As for the screenplay, it is merely an apolitical account (as apolitical as one can be) of the hunt and neutralization (read: killing) of Osama bin Laden.
It is also graphic and brutal. That is indisputable. However, just because one dislpays torture in a work (be it in any art form book, film etc.) does not mean one condones it. I've viewed "Irreversible" which shows a rape scene. I viewed with revulsion. But, the narrative whether based on fact or fiction isn't necessarily compelled to render an opinion. The audience can if it so chooses. Where would we be without "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote? It is an extraordinary account of the mass murder of family in Kansas. Does the movie condone that act? Of course not.
Zizek is mistaken. No doubt, murder, torture and rape are ALL wrong. "Zero Dark Thirty" is an outstanding account and it got it right.
3
The function of philosophy is not to explain the meaning of life (there is no meaning to explain), but to explain the proximate and ultimate causes of cultural, social, and economic phenomena.No, that is the function of science. One of the functions of philosophy is to provide the arguments in support of the scientific method. Another is to understand the meaning and bases of knowledge, among which is that it might not even be possible to know the ultimate causes. Another is to provide arguments for ethics (like the above argument), and yet another is to try to explain the meaning (or un-meaning) of life. Philosophy is a very broad topic.
5
@2 -- I agree. I'm not sure that we saw the same film as Zizek. Or perhaps Bigelow's exceptional film is just proof that we all see only what we want to see at the movies. I felt that Zero Dark Thirty presented the torture scenes repulsive and disagree with his assertion that Chastain's performance was unsentimental.
6
Zizek destroys Zero Dark Thirty. Bigelow and producers refund viewers' money, return Golden Globes. Chastain denounces role: "That wasn't me." Audiences worldwide begin lengthy 'unseeing' process.
7
No one said the film condones torture simply by showing it. The film condones torture by making the claim that torture was a key to finding OBL, when all the evidence indicates it was in fact not helpful to finding him.
8
@2: Irreversible immediately came to my mind too while reading that. I haven't seen Zero Dark Thirty, so I can't make any comparisons, but the former shows a brutal act of violence at the very beginning of the film, slowly revealing that the act is arguably understandable and maybe even noble, given later (previous) events. I can see how a similar narrative in Thirty might make viewers uncomfortable, even for opposite reasons.
9
If nothing else, the persistent gap between thoughtful, honest people who perceive it and thoughtful, honest people who don't perceive it means I don't need to hold it against the director for not perceiving it in her own work.
10
Oh look, more reviews of the film by people who refuse to watch it yet know exactly what was meant by the portrayal of torture therein. *yawn*
11
Everybody read @7.
The film implicitly posits torture as a necessary evil, when in fact "information" acquired through torture was immaterial to the results of the search for Bin Laden.
Like 24 before it, Zero Dark implies causation where there is no causation, invokes "moral ambiguity" where there is none: torture is wrong, and torture does not work.
The damage is compounded in that this fiction purports to be fact, and in that this is likely to become the dominant narrative version of these events in the public memory.
Fuck Bigelow for that.
The film implicitly posits torture as a necessary evil, when in fact "information" acquired through torture was immaterial to the results of the search for Bin Laden.
Like 24 before it, Zero Dark implies causation where there is no causation, invokes "moral ambiguity" where there is none: torture is wrong, and torture does not work.
The damage is compounded in that this fiction purports to be fact, and in that this is likely to become the dominant narrative version of these events in the public memory.
Fuck Bigelow for that.
12
Didactic art is pretty much always bad art. If Zizek is promoting didactic art here, he is a philistine. Art has no obligation to tell you what to think just because some in its audience are idiots.
13
Yeah, I know. I watched the movie and squirmed for the first hour or so. Then I couldn't believe the movie led to a discussion on the merits of torture. The merits of WHAT? Torture is wrong. Period. Many say it doesn't produce valuable info and that there were many other factors leading to the discovery of Bin Laden's location.
But I'm glad the film was made. It's excellent film-making. It works as art. And it has reminded Americans - in a very movie-real way - what has been done (and what is being done?) in their name. I think a large segment of our country is complacent or cavalier about torture - that it is something that happens not at home, but in Never, Never Land. Zero Dark Thirty put it right on the front porch. That has to be a good thing, right?
But I'm glad the film was made. It's excellent film-making. It works as art. And it has reminded Americans - in a very movie-real way - what has been done (and what is being done?) in their name. I think a large segment of our country is complacent or cavalier about torture - that it is something that happens not at home, but in Never, Never Land. Zero Dark Thirty put it right on the front porch. That has to be a good thing, right?
14
So what you're saying is this: A philosopher is just a movie critic, but with an even bigger attitude problem.
Good to know!
Good to know!
15
@11, what I've come to believe is that Bigelow didn't intend that effect. Artists have limited control over the meaning viewers will find in their work, right?
Don't get me wrong - how you describe the film's meaning is EXACTLY how I would. But what interests me is the fact that so many attentive, reasonable people genuinely do not find that meaning in it. Nor, apparently - and I am coming to believe her - does its creator.
Don't get me wrong - how you describe the film's meaning is EXACTLY how I would. But what interests me is the fact that so many attentive, reasonable people genuinely do not find that meaning in it. Nor, apparently - and I am coming to believe her - does its creator.
16
Once you accept that killing is acceptable, and that imprisoning people is acceptable, the idea that torture is acceptable isn't much of a stretch. Wait until we have enough female terrorist "suspects" that we need to start raping them to get vital information out of them.
17
One thing that I have not yet seen mentioned about this film: any fool that insists that waterboarding is not torture (of which there are many in this country apparently) who sees it realistically depicted here, might have just a slightly more difficult time clinging to that ludicrous idea.
18
I guess that while I find the reaction to ZDT really fascinating, I'm exhausted of complaints and arguments about it from people who haven't seen it.
I think that the film could easily be viewed as an indictment of the "war on terror" and the shameful "enhanced interrogation" program that proved so ineffective in preventing so many terrorist attacks. While this argument is somewhat facile (the only real progress occurs post-GWB in a rigorous law-and-order criminal investigation context), I appreciate that the film is rich enough to not force one particular narrative on a very messy history.
I think that the film could easily be viewed as an indictment of the "war on terror" and the shameful "enhanced interrogation" program that proved so ineffective in preventing so many terrorist attacks. While this argument is somewhat facile (the only real progress occurs post-GWB in a rigorous law-and-order criminal investigation context), I appreciate that the film is rich enough to not force one particular narrative on a very messy history.
21
Man, @2, my thoughts exactly.
@7, I don't recall the information from the actual torture sequences bearing any positive info at all. I DO recall a manipulation/lie (in a good-cop scene on the totally opposite end of the spectrum from the waterboarding) regarding what the detainee allegedly already confessed during sleep deprivation bearing some partial fruit, and so if anything workable information came only when constructing a warm/artificial scenario in which allegedly information was already given (when in fact it was not). How does THAT make the case for torture providing good intel? If anything it undercuts that claim.
Did you see the movie? How many people here actually have *seen* the movie and walked away feeling like Zizek? I did. I am unequivocally anti-torture, and whole-heartedly disagree with Zizek/Naomi Wolf/#7's interpretation.
@7, I don't recall the information from the actual torture sequences bearing any positive info at all. I DO recall a manipulation/lie (in a good-cop scene on the totally opposite end of the spectrum from the waterboarding) regarding what the detainee allegedly already confessed during sleep deprivation bearing some partial fruit, and so if anything workable information came only when constructing a warm/artificial scenario in which allegedly information was already given (when in fact it was not). How does THAT make the case for torture providing good intel? If anything it undercuts that claim.
Did you see the movie? How many people here actually have *seen* the movie and walked away feeling like Zizek? I did. I am unequivocally anti-torture, and whole-heartedly disagree with Zizek/Naomi Wolf/#7's interpretation.
22
Every time I read 'torture doesn't work', I want to qualify the statement by saying it does not work toward its declared purpose (useful intelligence gathering) because torture does work toward dehumanizing and terrorizing targets and perpetrators that are more or less perpetual ingredients of warfare. Torture is indeed a useful tool for the end justifies the means crowd. Also note that institutionalizing and making the practice widely known to the public under false pretense is the ultimate way to further the unstated purpose of torture (inducing terror and dehumanization). I haven't seen the film but if it doesn't discuss the effective role of torture and infers that it works toward its stated aim, it inscribes itself in the process of making torture more effective at what it does well.
23
Zizek appears to be making a false analogy in terms of motivation. Rape is patently repugnant because in our typical parlance we think of it as serving the fancy of one person fulfilling a sick desire. If we think of torture in this way, it is also patently offensive. With torture, however, there is a far different motivation. Bracketing any theories of the CIA using torture just to satisfy its agents' thirst for brutality, the motivation for torture is a decision to inflict pain in order to obtain sensitive data that would ostensively save many lives. Regardless of whether this actually works, there is no reason to doubt that this is the motivation.
Of course, Zizek seems to be arguing a strict Kantian repugnance to torture. Many levelheaded Kantians, however, loosen their grip once the cost of the trade off of rights gets high enough.
Of course, Zizek seems to be arguing a strict Kantian repugnance to torture. Many levelheaded Kantians, however, loosen their grip once the cost of the trade off of rights gets high enough.
24
@23 - In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: "Perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill-treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualisations obscure the purpose of torture ... The aim of torture is to dehumanise the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may…
25
@24 Well, that's a pretty specious claim. Sure, torture can 'dehumanise the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim,' but the CIA is still doing that to stave off what they deem is a larger threat (not that I agree that is is an effective or moral means) . The point is, they're not operating like a 7-year-old boy burning ants with a magnifying glass to get his kicks.
26
@23: You obviously never understood Kant if you think any Kantian would support torture. Kantian ethics would say that you can never consider a human being to be the means to an end. They must be the ends in and of themselves. Torture is a pure "the ends justify the means" method. If you are unable to predict the future (as in "Saddam is about to destroy Tel Aviv with his massive stocks of WMDs and then he'll build nukes out of the yellowcake he is stockpiling; therefore, we must invade") then the Utilitarian argument of "the ends justify the means" fails. Fascists, McCarthyists, and Stalinists love "the ends justify the means" because it gives them an excuse to violate civil rights and advance their agenda, all in the name of the public good. Torture is just another example.
27
I just watched an episode of Bill Maher and I was both raped AND tortured. I wish Dr. Zizek would address that.
28
@12: Anyone calling Bigelow's piles of shit "art" is probably more in line with the phillistines.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS