http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/zero-dark-thirty-normalises-torture-unjustifiable
[…]
Imagine a documentary that depicted the Holocaust in a cool,
disinterested way as a big industrial-logistic operation, focusing on the
technical problems involved (transport, disposal of the bodies, preventing
panic among the prisoners to be gassed). Such a film would either embody a
deeply immoral fascination with its topic, or it would count on the obscene
neutrality of its style to engender dismay and horror in spectators.
Where is
Bigelow here?
Without a shadow of a doubt, she is on the side of the
normalisation of torture. When Maya, the film's heroine, first witnesses
waterboarding, she is a little shocked, but she quickly learns the ropes; later
in the film she coldly blackmails a high-level Arab prisoner with, "If you
don't talk to us, we will deliver you to Israel".
Her fanatical pursuit of
Bin Laden helps to neutralise ordinary moral qualms. Much more ominous is her
partner, a young, bearded CIA agent who masters perfectly the art of passing
glibly from torture to friendliness once the victim is broken (lighting his
cigarette and sharing jokes). There is something deeply disturbing in how,
later, he changes from a torturer in jeans to a well-dressed Washington
bureaucrat. This is normalisation at its purest and most efficient – there is a
little unease, more about the hurt sensitivity than about ethics, but the job
has to be done. This awareness of the torturer's hurt sensitivity as the (main)
human cost of torture ensures that the film is not cheap rightwing propaganda:
the psychological complexity is depicted so that liberals can enjoy the film
without feeling guilty. This is why Zero Dark Thirty is much worse than 24,
where at least Jack Bauer breaks down at the series finale.
[…]
No comments:
Post a Comment