Asking the wrong question: What the debate about Zero Dark Thirty reveals

about us
Published February 2013
http://bpr.berkeley.edu/2013/02/asking-the-wrong-question-what-the-debate-about-zero-
dark-thirty-reveals-about-us/

The view from the Red Carpet at the Washington premier of ZDT- organized by Amnesty
International. (WTOP/Michelle Basch)

Watching Zero Dark Thirty made me uncomfortable- not least because of how I found
myself reacting to it.

Walking out of the theater, I had two thoughts. The first was that the film was strikingly
well made, and the second was that every Muslim and Arab character in the film was a
terrorist (except, of course, the one working with the CIA). That second thought made me
immediately regret the first.

Many of our films and television shows could fairly be described as torture porn- what
makes Zero Dark Thirty unique is its packaging. It seduces you with promises of slick
narration and that strong female lead, then it feeds you that tired chestnut: torture was a
necessary evil used as a desperate measure to find Osama Bin Laden. In the words of
director Catherine Bigelow says, The film doesnt have an agenda, and it doesnt judge.

Bullshit. To quote Glenn Greenwald- 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.

The narrative begins with the 9/11 attack and throughout the film, various terrorist
attacks, such as the suicide bombing of Camp Chapman, are depicted as the main
characters motivations for pursuing Osama bin Laden. As journalist Larry Everest noted
in a panel discussion about the film what is never mentioned are the terrorists
motivations for the attack. Camp Chapman, a nerve center for coordinating drone
strikes- was attacked in retaliation to the drone program.

As so many have noted in defense of Zero Dark Thirtys portrayal of torture, depicting an
event is not the same as condoning it. And to depict the motivations for torture without
discussing those for terror is akin to deliberate misinformation. They are two sides of the
same coin.

The discussion ensuing from Zero Dark Thirty has largely been one about the facts- did
torture really produce the information leading to the killing of bin Laden (No. See: here
and here), motivated by the desire to answer the question Does torture work? But
embedded in this question is the assumption that any methods are acceptable if the object
is to protect American lives- that that the lives of American citizens are worth more than
the lives of other people.

This is a destructive assumption- the same assumption that allows the operation of a
drone program that kills more innocent civilians than terrorists, that keeps locked in
Guantanamo Bay men who have long been cleared for release, that lead to the horrific
sexual abuse in Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

In light of this, its not all that surprising that Pakistanis in this film for speak in Arabic
rather than Urdu, nor that nearly all of the non-American characters are terrorists. Nearly
all of our television and media preach the same gospel about the terror wars- They
attacked us because they hate our freedom; we must defend our borders by any means
necessary.

Zero Dark Thirty both reflects and dangerously reentrenches a narrative of the events that
prevent us from turning a critical eye on our own actions, while posing as an objective
portrayal of historys greatest manhunt. On Twitter, it inspired a spate of bigotry and
anti-Arab and Muslim racism: Zero dark thirty made me want to shoot any Arab in the
face. #patriot.

The same film has been critically acclaimed by the New York Times and nominated for
an Oscar- its no longer surprising that I could have briefly considered it well made. We
live in a society where audiences are flocking to see a film that sells torture- its clear that
we need to take a long, hard look. Not at the facts- but at ourselves.