here it is.
Nice that she thanks her film-making team for getting the picture made, without crediting crucial help from the CIA. And revealing, "As a lifelong pacifist, I support all protests against the use of torture, and, quite simply, inhumane treatment of any kind," does not get to the point of the criticism of her film, does it? Most critics have suggested that maybe she did not mean to show that torture works, but did not recognize that she was conveying that very message.
Once again she goes out on a limb and backs the First Amendment, and makes the ludicrous charge, as an artist, that critics don't seem to know "depiction" does not equal "endorsement." Everyone understands that, but she insists on peopling her piece with "straw men." What she doesn't own up to is that her "depiction" of the usefulness of torture in the film is likely not based on facts--and, in fact, the film endorses the view that torture was crucial in helping to get bin Laden. (See a brief clip from key scene here, for example.) In the op-ed, she admits that she and screenwriter Mark Boal chose to accept the disputed view that torture did play a role in nailing bin Laden. So much for the claims of her defenders who state that her film does no such thing.
She had a right to "depict" that in the film. But she should own up to it, frankly. Also: One can only laugh at her claim that, hey, if we didn't give film-makers freedom to show "harsh" realities we'd never have seen any of the great war films of the past. Funny, I don't recall Paths of Glory suggesting that, hey, since some of the men in the trenches were cowards it justifies shooting a few of the innocent to keep others in line. Kubrick took an unflinching, complex look at the "realities"--but didn't let his ethically challenged characters off the hook.
While Bigelow claims to be anti-torture herself, there are no scenes--in fact, hardly any words--in the film that suggest anyone "depicted" really has any real problem with it, except maybe growing tired of it (the poor souls). In the op-ed she claims that it shows the "moral consequences" of torture. I haven't seen her or anyone else reveal where that happens in the film. In fact, in the scene where the two female CIA characters gaze at President Obama on a TV screen as he attacks torture they simply look at each other as if to say, "Where does that guy come off saying that--what does he know about it?"
Finally, she closes with this morally bankrupt whitewashing: "Bin Laden wasn't defeated by superheroes zooming down from the sky; he
was defeated by ordinary Americans who fought bravely even as they sometimes
crossed moral lines, who labored greatly and intently, who gave all of
themselves in both victory and defeat, in life and in death, for the
defense of this nation." In this way, she lets all of them off the hook--as she did in her film with the central character Maya.
She also offers a plea to not forget the victims of 9/11. Okay, we get it, Kathryn. Like in your film--9/11 justifies torture. (See links to key critiques from experts such as Jane Mayer and Steve Coll.)
Greg Mitchell has written over a
dozen books on subjects including influential political campaigns,
atomic cover-ups, WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, the death penalty in
America, even Beethoven --see the books here or on rail at right on this blog.