Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

28109Glenn Greenwald on Zero Dark Thirty: "CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda"

Expand Messages
  • Rick Kissell
    Dec 14, 2012
      Zero Dark Thirty: CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda
      As it turns out, the film as a political statement is worse than even its harshest early critics warned

      by Glenn Greenwald
      The Guardian (U.K.)

      I've now seen "Zero Dark Thirty". Before getting to that: the controversy triggered this week by my commentary on the debate over that film was one of the most ridiculous in which I've ever been involved. It was astounding to watch critics of what I wrote just pretend that I had simply invented or "guessed at" the only point of the film I discussed - that it falsely depicted torture as valuable in finding bin Laden - all while concealing from their readers the ample factual bases I cited: namely, the fact that countless writers, almost unanimously, categorically stated that the film showed exactly this (see here for a partial list of reviewers and commentators who made this factual statement definitively about the film - that it depicts torture as valuable in finding bin Laden - both before and after my column).

      Of course it's permissible to comment on reviews that are written.That's why they're written - and why they're published before the film is released, in this case weeks before its release. I discussed the film's depiction of torture as valuable in finding bin Laden because I did not believe that the New York Times' Frank Bruni, The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins, New York's David Edelstein, CNN's Peter Bergen and all sorts of other commentators had simultaneously hallucinated or decided to fabricate on this key factual question.

      That it's legitimate to opine on the factual claims (as opposed to the value judgments) of reviewers is not some exotic or idiosyncratic theory that I invented. All kinds of writers who had not seen the film nonetheless similarly condemned this singular aspect of it based on this evidence, including: Andrew Sullivan, twice ("Bigelow constructs a movie upon a grotesque lie" and torture techniques "were not instrumental in capturing and killing Osama bin Laden - which is the premise of the movie"); Mother Jones' Adam Serwer ("The critical acclaim Zero Dark Thirty is already receiving suggests that it may do what Karl Rove could not have done with all the money in the world: embed in the popular imagination the efficacy, even the necessity, of torture"); NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen ("WTF is Kathryn Bigelow doing inserting torture into her film, Zero Dark Thirty, if it wasn't used to get Bin Laden?"); The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky ("Can I just say
      that I am equally bothered, and indeed even more
      bothered, by the fact that the movie opens with 9-11. . . . According to reports, I haven't seen the film, so maybe it's handled well, that
      decisions [sic] seems to make the film automatically and definitionally a work of propaganda"), and so on.

      None of us was "reviewing" the
      film but rather rebutting and condemning its false assertion that
      torture was critical in finding bin Laden. As Sullivan put it in yet another post about the film: "the mere facts about the movie, as reported by many viewers, do not require a review. They demand a rebuttal." Indeed (and all of that's independent of the primary point I examined - regarding critics who simultaneously acknowledge that the film falsely
      depicts torture as valuable yet still hail it as "great": an abstract
      discussion on the obligations of filmmakers that obviously is not
      dependent upon the film's content).

      Having now seen the film, it
      turns out that Bruni, Filkins, Edelstein, Bergen and the others did not
      in fact hallucinate or fabricate. The film absolutely and unambiguously
      shows torture as extremely valuable in finding bin Laden - exactly as
      they said it did - and it does so in multiple ways.

      Zero Dark Thirty and the utility and glory of torture
      I'll explain why this is so in a moment (and if you don't want "spoilers",
      don't read this), but first, I want to explain why this point matters so much. In US political culture, there is no event in the last decade
      that has inspired as much collective pride and pervasive consensus as
      the killing of Osama bin Laden.

      This event has obtained sacred
      status in American political lore. Nobody can speak ill of it, or even
      question it, without immediately prompting an avalanche of anger and
      resentment. The news of his death triggered an outburst of patriotic
      street chanting and nationalistic glee that continued unabated two years later into the Democratic National Convention. As Wired's Pentagon
      reporter Spencer Ackerman put it in his defense of the film, the killing of bin Laden makes him (and most others) "very, very proud to be American." Very, very proud.

      For that reason, to depict X as valuable in enabling the killing of bin
      Laden is - by definition - to glorify X. That formula will lead huge
      numbers of American viewers to regard X as justified and important. In
      this film: X = torture. That's why it glorifies torture: because it
      powerfully depicts it as a vital step - the first, indispensable step -
      in what enabled the US to hunt down and pump bullets into America's most hated public enemy.

      The fact that nice liberals who already
      opposed torture (like Spencer Ackerman) felt squeamish and uncomfortable watching the torture scenes is irrelevant. That does not negate this
      point at all. People who support torture don't support it because they
      don't realize it's brutal. They know it's brutal - that's precisely why
      they think it works - and they believe it's justifiable because of its
      brutality: because it is helpful in extracting important information,
      catching terrorists, and keeping them safe. This film repeatedly
      reinforces that belief by depicting torture exactly as its supporters
      like to see it: as an ugly though necessary tactic used by brave and
      patriotic CIA agents in stopping hateful, violent terrorists.

      Indeed, here is how Slate's Emily Bazelon, who defends the film even while acknowledging that it "reads as pro-torture", describes her reaction to the torture scenes:
      "At the end of the interrogation scenes, I felt shaken but not morally repulsed, becausethe movie had successfully led me to adopt, if only temporarily, [the
      CIA agent]'s point of view: This treatment is a legitimate way of
      securing information vital to US interests."
      That's the effect it had on a liberal who proclaims herself to be adamantly
      opposed to torture and is a professional journalist well-versed in these issues. Imagine how someone less committed to an anti-torture position
      will regard the message.

      If you're a national security journalist
      who studies and writes about these issues, then you can convince
      yourself that the film focuses on the part of the bin Laden hunt that
      you like: all the nice "police work" that ultimately led the CIA to find bin Laden's house. But the film dramatically posits that this is
      possible only because of the information extracted from detainees who
      were tortured. The unmistakable and overwhelming impression created is
      that, as Bruni put it: "no waterboarding, no Bin Laden."

      Everything about the film reinforces this message. It immediately goes from its
      emotionally exploitative start - harrowing audio tapes of 9/11 victims
      crying for help - into CIA torture sessions of Muslim terrorists that
      take up a good portion of the film's first forty-five minutes.

      The key evidence - the identity of bin Laden's courier - is revealed only
      after a detainee is brutally and repeatedly abused. Sitting at a table
      with his CIA torturer, who gives him food as part of a ruse, that
      detainee reveals this critical information only after the CIA torturer
      says to him: "I can always go eat with some other guy - and hang you
      back up to the ceiling." That's when the detainee coughs up the war name of bin Laden's courier - after he's threatened with more torture - and
      the entire rest of the film is then devoted to tracking that information about the courier, which is what leads them to bin Laden.

      But the film touts the value of torture in all sorts of other ways. Other
      detainees whose arms are shackled to the ceiling are shown confirming
      the courier's identity. Another detainee, after being threatened with
      rendition to Israel, pleads: "I have no wish to be tortured again - ask
      me a question, and I will answer it."

      And worst of all, the
      film's pure, saintly heroine - a dogged CIA agent who sacrifices her
      entire life and career to find bin Laden - herself presides over
      multiple torture sessions, including a waterboarding scene and an
      interrogation session where she repeatedly encourages some US agent to
      slap the face of the detainee when he refuses to answer. "You do
      realize, this is not a normal prison: you determine how you are
      treated", our noble heroine tells an abused detainee.

      There is
      zero opposition expressed to torture. None of the internal objections
      from the FBI or even CIA is mentioned. The only hint of a debate comes
      when Obama is shown briefly on television decreeing that torture must
      not be used, which is later followed by one of the CIA officials - now
      hot on bin Laden's trail - lamenting in the Situation Room when told to
      find proof that bin Laden has been found: "You know we lost the ability
      to prove that when we lost the detainee program - who the hell am I
      supposed to ask: some guy in GITMO who is all lawyered up?" Nobody ever
      contests or challenges that view.

      This film presents torture as
      its CIA proponents and administrators see it: as a dirty, ugly business
      that is necessary to protect America. There is zero doubt, as so many reviewers have said, that the standard viewer will get the message loud and clear: we found
      and killed bin Laden because we tortured The Terrorists. No matter how
      you slice it, no matter how upset it makes progressive commentators to
      watch people being waterboarded, that - whether intended or not - is the film's glorification of torture.

      CIA propaganda beyond torture
      As it turns out, the most pernicious propagandistic aspect of this film is not its pro-torture message. It is its overarching, suffocating
      jingoism. This film has only one perspective of the world - the CIA's -
      and it uncritically presents it for its entire 2 1/2 hour duration.
      All agents of the US government - especially in its intelligence and
      military agencies - are heroic, noble, self-sacrificing crusaders
      devoted to stopping The Terrorists; their only sin is all-consuming,
      sometimes excessive devotion to this task. Almost every Muslim and Arab
      in the film is a villainous, one-dimensional cartoon figure: dark,
      seedy, violent, shadowy, menacing, and part of a Terrorist network (the
      sole exception being a high-level Muslim CIA official, who takes a break from praying to authorize the use of funds to bribe a Kuwaiti official
      for information; the only good Muslim is found at the CIA).

      than the last scene in which the bin Laden house is raided, all of the
      hard-core, bloody violence is carried out by Muslims, with Americans as
      the victims. The CIA heroine dines at the Islamabad Marriott when it is
      suddenly blown up; she is shot at outside of a US embassy in Pakistan;
      she sits on the floor, devastated, after hearing that seven CIA agents,
      including one of her friends, a "mother of three", has been killed by an Al Qaeda double-agent suicide-bomber at a CIA base in Afghanistan.

      News footage is gratuitously shown that reports on the arrest of the
      attempted Times Square bomber, followed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's
      pronouncement that "there are some people around the world who find our
      freedom so threatening that they are willing to kill themselves and
      others to prevent us from enjoying them." One CIA official dramatically
      reminds us: "They attacked us on land in '98, by sea in 2000, and by air in 2001. They murdered 3000 of our citizens in cold blood." Nobody is
      ever heard talking about the civilian-destroying violence brought to the world by the US.

      The CIA and the US government are the Good Guys, the innocent targets of terrorist violence, the courageous warriors
      seeking justice for the 9/11 victims. Muslims and Arabs are the
      dastardly villains, attacking and killing without motive (other than the one provided by Bloomberg) and without scruples. Almost all Hollywood
      action films end with the good guys vanquishing the big, bad villain -
      so that the audience can leave feeling good about the world and
      themselves - and this is exactly the script to which this film adheres.

      None of this is surprising. The controversy preceding the film arose from
      the deep access and secret information given to the filmmakers by the
      CIA. As is usually the case, this special access was richly rewarded.

      In The Atlantic this morning, Peter Maass makes this point perfectly in his piece entitled "Don't
      Trust 'Zero Dark Thirty'". That, he writes, is because "it represents a
      troubling new frontier of government-embedded filmmaking." He continues: "An already problematic practice - giving special access
      to vetted journalists - is now deployed for the larger goal of creating
      cinematic myths that are favorable to the sponsoring entity (in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA)."

      Indeed, from start to finish,
      this is the CIA's film: its perspective, its morality, its side of the
      story, The Agency as the supreme heroes. (That there is ample evidence to suspect that the film's CIA heroine is, at least in composite part, based on the same female CIA agent responsible for the kidnapping, drugging and torture of Khalid El-Masri in 2003, an innocent man just awarded compensation this week by the European Court of Human Rights, just symbolizes the
      odious aspects of uncritically venerating the CIA in this manner).

      It is a true sign of the times that Liberal Hollywood has produced the
      ultimate hagiography of the most secretive arm of America's National
      Security State, while liberal film critics lead the parade of praise and line up to bestow it with every imaginable accolade. Like the bin Laden killing itself, this is a film that tells Americans to feel good about
      themselves, to feel gratitude for the violence done in their name, to
      perceive the War-on-Terror-era CIA not as lawless criminals but as
      honorable heroes.

      Nothing inspires loyalty and gratitude more
      than making people feel good about themselves. Few films accomplish that as effectively and powerfully as this one does. That's why critics of
      the film inspire anger almost as much as critics of the bin Laden
      killing itself: what is being maligned is a holy chapter in the Gospel
      of America's Goodness.

      The "art" excuse
      A common objection to what I wrote about the film is that even if it falsely depicts
      torture as valuable in finding bin Laden, those kinds of "political
      objections" do not and should not preclude praise for the film because
      "art" need not accommodate ideology or political agendas. Time's critic
      James Poniewozik accused me of having "a simplistic way of looking at art" which, he said, is "not
      surprising, because Greenwald is a political writer (or at least an
      ideological public-affairs writer), and this is the political way of
      looking at art." Salon's critic Andrew O'Hehir, gushing about the film, opines: "I'm not suggesting that the moral and ethical deconstruction doesn't matter, but the movie is much bigger than that."

      Contrary to Poniewozik's insinuations, I don't think fictional works must
      reflect or advance my political beliefs in order to be worthy of praise. As but one example, I've defended the Showtime program "Homeland" - despite some valid criticisms that it promotes some heinous viewpoints - on the ground that (unlike
      Zero Dark Thirty) it includes a full range of views on those issues and
      thus avoids endorsing or propagandizing on them (as but one example: a
      US Marine Sergeant becomes an anti-US "terrorist" after he watches the
      US government knowingly slaughter dozens of Iraqi children in a drone
      attack, including one to whom he had become close - the 10-year-old son
      of a bin Laden-like figure - only to lie about it afterward). I agree
      with Poniewozik and other film critics who insist that it's perfectly
      legitimate for works of fiction to depict, without adopting, even the
      most heinous views.

      But the idea that Zero Dark Thirty should be
      regarded purely as an apolitical "work of art" and not be held
      accountable for its political implications is, in my view, pretentious,
      pseudo-intellectual, and ultimately amoral claptrap. That's true for
      several reasons.
      First, this excuse completely contradicts what the filmmakers themselves say about what they are doing. Bigelow has been praising herself for the "journalistic" approach she has taken to depicting these
      events. The film's first screen assures viewers that it is all "based on first hand accounts of actual events". You can't claim you're doing
      journalism and then scream "art" to justify radical inaccuracies. Serwer aptly noted the manipulative shell-game driving this: "If you're
      thinking of giving them an award, Zero Dark Thirty is 'history'; if
      you're a journalist asking a question about a factual error in the film, it's just a movie."

      Second, the very idea that
      this is some sort of apolitical work of art is ludicrous. The film is
      about the two most politicized events of the last decade: the 9/11
      attack (which it starts with) and the killing of bin Laden (which it
      ends with). George Bush got re-elected running on the former, while
      Obama just got re-elected running on the latter. It was made with the
      close cooperation of the CIA, Pentagon and White House. Everything about this film - its subject, its claims, its mode of production, its
      implications - are political to its core. It does not have an apolitical bone in its body. Demanding that political considerations be excluded
      from how this film is judged is nonsensical; it's a political film from
      start to finish.

      Third, to demand that this movie be treated as "art" is to expand that term beyond any real recognition. This film is Hollywood shlock. The brave crusaders slay the Evil
      Villains, and everyone cheers.

      While parts of the film are
      technically well-executed, it features almost every cliche of Hollywood
      action/military films. The characters are one-dimensional cartoons: the
      heroine is a much less interesting and less complex knock-off of
      Homeland's Carrie: a CIA agent who sacrifices her personal life,
      disregards bureaucratic and social niceties, her careerist interests,
      and even her own physical well-being, in monomaniacal pursuit of The Big Terrorist.

      Worst of all, it does not challenge, subvert, or even unsettle a single nationalistic orthodoxy. It grapples with no big
      questions, takes no risks in the political values it promotes, and is
      even too fearful of letting upsetting views be heard, let alone
      validated (such as the grievances of Terrorists that lead them to engage in violence, or the equivalence between their methods and "ours").

      There's nothing courageous, or impressive, about any of this. As one friend who is a long-time journalist put it to me by email (I'm quoting this
      because I can't improve on how it's expressed):
      also feel like there's this tendency of critics to give credit to
      artists (argh, novelists, too) for simply raising uncomfortable issues,
      even when they don't bother to coherently think them through, as though
      just wallowing in the gray areas of the human condition is a noble thing (and sure, it can be, but it can be lazy, too)."
      Perhaps film critics are forced to watch so many shoddy Hollywood films that
      their expectations are very low and they are easily pleased. But if this is high-minded "art", then anything produced by turning on a camera is. As one friend, who works in the film industry, put it:

      >As that blog you linked to said - it's perfect for people who are so called PC and cool liberal types.
      Everything about it - how it's framed and branded as some cool
      Traffic-style movie so people feel as though they're smart by watching
      But despite all that, this film deserves the
      debate it is attracting. It matters. Huge numbers of people are going to see it. Critics are swooning for it and it will be lavished with all
      sorts of awards. Mass entertainment has at least as much of an impact on political perceptions as overtly political writing does - probably more so. It's reckless to insist that a film that will have this big of an
      impact on matters so consequential - the commission by the US of grave
      war crimes both in the past and potentially in the future - should be
      shielded from discussions of its political claims and consequences.

      That doesn't mean it has an affirmative responsibility to preach or
      propagandize. If the torture claims it makes were actually true - that
      torture played a key role in finding bin Laden - then there would be
      nothing wrong with depicting that (although opposing perspectives should be included as well).

      Emily Bazelon is right when she says that
      "we opponents of harsh interrogation need to remember that we can make
      the moral case against torture . . . without resorting to the claim that torture never accomplishes anything." In all the years I've been
      arguing about torture, I never once claimed it never works - because
      that claim is, to me, both untrue and irrelevant. Torture - like murder - is categorically wrong no matter what benefits it produces.

      The issue here is falsity. The problem isn't that they showed torture working. The problem, as Adam Serwer and Andrew Sullivan amply document, is that the claims it makes are false. Given the likely consequences of this fabrication - making even more Americans more
      supportive of torture, perhaps even making the use of torture more
      likely in the future - that this is a so-called "work of art" does not
      excuse it (notably, Bigelow is not defending the film on the ground that she showed torture as valuable because it was; she's disingenuously
      denying that the film shows torture as having value).

      Ultimately, I really want to know whether the critics who defend this film on the
      grounds of "art" really believe the principles they are espousing. I
      raised the Leni Reifenstahl debate in my first piece not to compare Zero Dark Thirty to Triumph of the Will - or to compare Bigelow to the
      German director - but because this is the debate that has long been at
      the heart of the controversy over her career.

      Do the defenders of this film believe Riefenstahl has also gotten a bad rap on the ground
      that she was making art, and political objections (ie, her films
      glorified Nazism) thus have no place in discussions of her films? I've
      actually always been ambivalent about that debate because, unlike Zero
      Dark Thirty, Riefenstahl's films only depicted real events and did not
      rely on fabrications.

      But I always perceived myself in the
      minority on that question due to that ambivalence. It always seemed to
      me there was a consensus in the west that Riefenstahl was culpable and
      her defense of "I was just an artist" unacceptable.

      Do defenders
      of Zero Dark Thirty view Riefenstahl critics as overly ideological
      heathens who demand that art adhere to their ideology? If the KKK next
      year produces a superbly executed film devoted to touting the virtues of white supremacy, would it be wrong to object if it wins the Best
      Picture Oscar on the ground that it promotes repellent ideas?

      have a very hard time seeing liberal defenders of Zero Dark Thirty
      extending their alleged principles about art to films that, unlike this
      film, are actually unsettling, provocative and controversial. It's quite easy to defend this film because it's ultimately going to be pleasing
      to the vast majority of US viewers as it bolsters and validates their
      assumptions. That's why it seems to me that the love this film is
      inspiring is inseparable from its political content: it's precisely
      because it makes Americans feel so good - about an event that Ackerman
      says makes him "very, very proud to be American" - that it is so

      Whatever else is true about it, Zero Dark Thirty is an
      aggressively political film with a very dubious political message that
      it embraces and instills in every way it can. David Edelstein, the New
      York Magazine critic, had it exactly right when he wrote that it
      "borders on the politically and morally reprehensible", though I think
      it crosses that border. It's thus not only legitimate, but necessary, to engage it as what it is: a political argument that advances - whether
      by design or effect - the interests of powerful political factions.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]