tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349382186889721635.post5727768865883033084..comments2024-02-06T12:29:18.715-06:00Comments on Nerdy Feminist: Zero Dark Thirty. Strong Female Character, But Dangerous MessagesA. Lynnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00404038071133506982noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349382186889721635.post-8253401979966980432013-01-18T10:22:24.318-06:002013-01-18T10:22:24.318-06:00Hello,
Thanks for your very thoughtful comments. ...Hello,<br /><br />Thanks for your very thoughtful comments. I'll tackle the part about does the film take a stance on torture first. Like I mentioned, when I first watched the film, I didn't walk away thinking, "Damn that movie was pro torture!" I think it is ambiguous but that means there's legitimacy to the interpretation that it does endorse torture. <br /><br />You said: "But you misread a key aspect of ZDT, and that is that the prisoner at the beginning refuses to give them any usable information and it is only when they trick him by pretending that he'd help stop the terrorist attack that he gives up the name which Maya pursues for the duration of the film. There's no indication that torturing him led to him finally breaking, and if anything it seems to imply that treating him like a hero (An altogether different tactic) led him to abandon his cause."<br /><br />That's true, and I get what you mean. But to me, the problem here is that the prisoner character isn't based on a real person or a true series of events. He represents a composite of MANY actual detainees and by collapsing all those people down to just him, it can make it appear like his fear of further torture inspires him to tell them the truth. You say that the dinner setting is them tricking him, while that plays a critical role. But let's be honest, when the audience see that they previously beat the shit out of him, suffocated him, and left him locked in a box, etc., it's hard to believe that he wouldn't approach the situation without all of that in his mind. So the chosen story arch of using that ONE character who was tortured and then treated w/ kindness, a meal, etc. makes it look like the torture at least played a role.<br /><br />Here's the thing...the FACT is that the torture never led to actionable evidence, but the FICTION of the film makes it at least look like it was an important factor. I think there was unnecessary ambiguity pumped into the story. It was probably done to keep the cast down to a smaller number of character for simplicity, but the fact remains that it's a pretty big issue to simplify and leave open to this interpretation when we know the reality of the true life situation. It feels like they're playing loose and fast with it for no good reason. If they had created a totally fictional psychological thriller, I'd get it, but this is supposed to be grounded in reality. <br /><br />As for Maya's role and whether or not the film is feminist--I think, we see eye to eye on that one. I was going to add in some extra thoughts about how the movie doesn't really directly confront gender issues in high level defense related government work (and there are many!) but I thought I had already rambled on enough...so yes, I agree with you about that. While Maya is strong, her character and the film don't necessarily take that next step to ask the viewed to think critically about her gender or societal structures.<br /><br />A. Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00404038071133506982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3349382186889721635.post-72467626394504306312013-01-18T00:49:56.125-06:002013-01-18T00:49:56.125-06:00Let me preface this by saying I have not read any ...Let me preface this by saying I have not read any of your previous posts, and so I may not have your same definition of feminism.<br /><br />I just saw ZDT the previous night and concur with a lot of what you said about how impressive it was that Maya's gender was barely a factor. She maintained her presence in the operation, even speaking up to a CIA analyst to make sure he was aware of her skills, and he never mentioned her gender or how impressive it was that a women had done all this. <br />That said, I do not believe it is necessarily a feminist movie, but I ALSO do not believe it is a legitimizing torture. My reasons for both are as follows.<br />I feel that based on my definition of feminism that film does not meet this criteria due to not directly addressing the issues of patriarchal influence on an individual's life, rather it is a film which is an EXAMPLE of gender equality. I too, do not believe that making a film with a female protagonist, even a strong one, is automatically feminist; rather such a film is evidence of a widening acceptance for the diversity of female roles. ZDT goes further to achieving equal treatment of men and women not NOT being solely about female roles. I would argue that the violence in the film is essential to emphasize how the task force is victimized in some way, be it physical danger, or the mental cost.<br /><br />Now, onto the less savory aspects of the film.<br />Torture is of course, abhorrent. It dehumanizes us yet the normalization of it can create the sense that it is acceptable when we "Have no choice"<br />But you misread a key aspect of ZDT, and that is that the prisoner at the beginning refuses to give them any usable information and it is only when they trick him by pretending that he'd help stop the terrorist attack that he gives up the name which Maya pursues for the duration of the film. There's no indication that torturing him led to him finally breaking, and if anything it seems to imply that treating him like a hero (An altogether different tactic) led him to abandon his cause.<br />While the events depicted do not show torture to be entirely successful, it also does not suggest that what they are doing is wrong (The only exception being Maya's look of discomfort as she watches the prisoner in the first scene), and so I would move to say that ZDT occupies a neutral stance on the subject, opposite "24" whose cartoonish version of this is always shown to be successful.<br /><br />If anything, the events in the film seem to indicate that without people like Maya, devoted, resourceful, and smart, no one would have followed the trail to it's very end; regardless of what they got through their interrogations. But the film is not simply about Maya as a hero, but what this heroism cost her. <br /><br />I want propose that the most important message of the film is the cost of this manhunt on Maya herself. The various actions she takes are all in the name of finding this lone target, yet you'll notice that it is almost never elaborated WHY he must be found (With the exception of the idea that he influences other terrorists) and even more troubling, WHAT she or anyone will do once he has been brought to justice. This is a classic case of showing the dangerous of obsession with retribution, and rather than showing her triumphant, that final scene show her realizing how achieving her goal has done nothing visible. Though bringing him to justice may have made a symbol of U.S. power and perhaps gave the government and people hope, all we see in that scene is how the obsession with killing him had blinded her from any thoughts of the future.<br /> <br />Stephen Spielgerg's film Munich asked; "Did we ever really accomplish anything?" and watching Maya in that final scene, I can't help but imagine that she is thinking the same question.<br /><br /><br /><br />I thank you for reading this, and hope you respond.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com