The recent controversy over the film Zero Dark Thirty implicates free expression, artistic freedom and public policy issues that are of great concern.
Michaelangelo once said that "the greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." Hillary Clinton has never done that. I have a feeling she's not planning on lowering her sights anytime soon.
Unquestionably, there have been a number of innocent people killed in drone attacks, either by proximity and/or mistake. But what is this in comparison to the land invasions and mass aerial bombings of the pre-drone era?
One subject, at least, got remarkably little attention during the inaugural blitz and, when mentioned, certainly struck few as odd or worth dwelling on. Yet nothing better caught our changing American world.
The version of events offered by Zero Dark Thirty substitutes pulp fiction -- of the mythological kind -- for truth. It satisfies a gnawing hunger; it meets a powerfully felt need.
The answers given by Bigelow and Boal to justify the normalizing of torture in Zero Dark Thirty have been vain, wheedling, and dodgy. They are a clever pair of filmmakers, without political or moral depth, but here, perhaps more than they realized, they were playing with fire.
This week Leon Panetta said America has "a responsibility to go after al Qaeda wherever they are." He was referring to U.S. efforts to assist the French in Mali. Yet, not that far away, the U.S. turns a blind eye to extreme Islamist policies and actions that threaten America's security.
I didn't know what the filmmakers were trying to say with this film and as such, by default, the only idea I took out of the screening was that torture works.
At the Crossroads will stretch you, challenge you, shake you up and hopefully wake you up. Ultimately it will inspire you to see the world and yourself in a new way.
Zero Dark Thirty is a film about torture and its impacts. But those claiming that these were bad choices that could have been avoided without undermining the story of the hunt for bin Laden miss the point.
When we talk about torture "working" -- in the context of al Qaeda, for instance -- we presumably mean successfully extracting accurate information. But that's not what torture is about, and never has been.
Granting impunity to the torturers combined with propaganda films like Zero Dark Thirty, which may well win multiple Oscars, dilutes any meaningful public opposition to our government's cruel interrogation techniques.
Truly adult films don't hold our hands and explain everything to the audience. And in today's 24-hour shock/outrage news cycle, there is no real chance for such a film.
Zero Dark Thirty works as a crime procedural, but its irresponsible, destructive, dishonest stance on torture absolutely ruined it for me, and I feel Zero Dark Thirty should not be on any best-of-the-year lists, nor is it deserving of Oscar consideration.
Zero Dark Thirty is destined to become a classic much the same as The Battle of Algiers. That these films respectively focus attention on controversial and unsavory aspects of history, raising difficult and troubling questions, is precisely their strength.
What was this significant information? We are not told, but we are told what it was not: It was not the courier's true name or location, and it was not about the house in Abbottabad, where bin Laden was staying.