Zero is long, but efficient. Scenes clip along, and while much may go over your head (like me), the movie gives you enough to follow along and feel like you're with the story. Things happen, you're not always sure why, but you never really get lost. There are a few short-term spoilers that may catch you off guard, but you should feel secure in knowing that you're not going to ruin your experience by exhaustive review perusing before you watch it. The torture scenes are difficult to view, but like everything else that occurs in the film, are necessary to describe the journey the main character Maya is on. For a procedural, the acting is top notch. While there are some solid Emmy-winning TV stars like James Gandolfini and Kyle Chandler, the standouts in the supporting group were Jason Clarke, Reda Kateb, Jennifer Ehle (who left an impression in Contagion and The Ides of March, and seems more Meryl Streep than Mammie Gummer), and just about every last one of the men who played the rockstar Navy SEALS.
At the center of it all is Jessica Chastain as Maya, who holds the whole enterprise together. Chastain's performance is focused and subtle. There is only one scene where she loses her shit (the clip with Kyle Chandler that is available on the internet) and it's justified. There aren't any bells and whistles to her role, nor does there need to be. Her tenacity becomes more apparent as the film progresses and places her firmly in the driver's seat. Some of her lines are real zingers too. When she has to assert her dominance to stake her rightful claim, having already been warned of dirty politics, she spells it out so she doesn't have to repeat herself, "I'm the motherfucker who found this place, sir," she tells one of the direct links to the President. The line got the biggest laugh both times I saw it. And, it's not because Maya is a female that it's humorous either, but because she's right and earned the credit. The film never makes a big deal about Maya's gender, though there are some sly necessary references to what it's undoubtedly like for a woman to be in her position during a changing-of-the-guard in the social fabric of the intelligence agency. A quick, offhand "Was I right?" is all we need to know that she's initially sexually objectified. It dies there, because Maya means business. A remotely catty short exchange develops between the film's only two significant female characters, but it dies there, because Maya means business. She's intelligent and not ashamed to employ her talents, as that is why she was hired. It's an establishing moment of the respect she accrues as she begins to dedicate herself to the mission.
Much has been made about the torture element. And the conversation is a healthy one that needs to be occurring. All I can offer is my take: in the 2000s, I, like many, were disgusted and ashamed by some of the American scandals which surfaced from the wars in the Middle East, and I was knee-jerk against torture. But, "my guy" wasn't president. It was easy to have these opinions, because I didn't hold the man or administration in charge in very high regard. Towards the end of the Bush years, my thoughts laxed. I never wanted the US to be in the wars, but we were; I had no idea what were the best decisions anymore. That never changed once President Obama took office. But, I suspect that my views on torture also neutralized. As unconnected and superficial as it may sound, it may have all to do with who is in the Oval Office. Don't ask me why. I keep asking myself and it's not something that can be put to the test anytime soon. Some experts, including Senator John McCain say that nothing valuable can be derived from torture. And, it's hard to ascertain any one viewpoint from the film, unless, maybe, you sit down and pick apart every line of dialogue, action, and consequence. So much happens throughout the film, there are so many characters and agendas, it's difficult for a person like myself to keep track.
Bigelow and Boal maintain that they took a journalistic approach to the film and purposely did not take a stand one way or another, leaving it up to the viewer. I'll agree with that to an extent. However, I don't believe they are being completely forthcoming. The film isn't predicated in an ambiguous protagonist. While it's clear that Maya has made sacrifices in her life that have cost her, we, as an audience never question her intent or quest. She is a woman on a mission, and we're never asked to question our support for her. She invested nearly a decade of her life into finding one criminal, has gone head to head with top brass, and lost friends along the way. She is a heroine whom we cheer on, but is also someone who will use whatever is at her disposal to accomplish her task. She is not beneath torture, as it was part of her culture when she first entered the CIA. The only reason she doesn't endeavor torture later on in her mission is because a separate outside force removes it from her arsenal.
It's been interesting to listen to liberals squirm around the issue of torture while loving on this movie. Additionally, it puts it back on the Obama-hating conservatives for what they emphatically believed and wrought, even stopping short of saying: they were right in more ways than one. You can't just remove yourself and your beliefs from the equation and say, "The film is ambiguous and leaves it up to the audience." The film is ambiguous: the idea of whether or not torture is a fruitful or fruitless action is a distraction as far as the film is concerned. The film does however, put it on the viewer. Usama Bin Laden aside, if you cheered this Maya on, you were cheering on whatever means necessary were required for her to succeed. Simply put, you have to endorse torture, at least, a little bit. Otherwise, you're lying to yourself. How more complex this controversy would be if the movie was exactly what it was, but there was a Republican in the White House.
I wrote most of this post last night, but saw this morning that Sasha over at AD covers the torture aspect yet again, but gets into actual specifics. She won't say we have blood on our hands. But, I will: if you wanted Usama Bin Laden dead, you have blood on our hands. Do Bigelow and Boal? I'm not sure if it matters. But, Clarice Starling had a job to do (fictional as it may have been). Was it really necessary, then, to play the 9/11 calls at the beginning. Me thinks Bigelow and Boal were more passionate about the story then they're letting on. They can play possum all they want. I only fault them for not being more honest about it. As you may have heard, President Barack Obama figures very little in it, and it's fascinating to watch the film put his involvement into context. The chain of command that separates him from the Maya character is complicated. The film gives him his credit and couples the victory in sobering, matter-of-fact terms that doesn't prop him up anymore than is necessary, nor diminish his role.
Maya cries at the very end. It's a moving moment and partially asks the viewer: Was it all worth it? In the grander scheme of things, the movie's version of the assassination makes the actual assassination appear to be symbolic and negligible. Bin Laden was hiding out in a neighborhood under strict anonymity, but the surveillance and security was quite pathetic for the man deemed #1 Most Wanted in the World. It also seemed to suggest that he lost a great deal of his power. Yet, despite all of this, perhaps out of hallow bloodlust, I'm glad the man is dead. Of course, there are millions who believe he had already been dead or isn't and his actual assassination was a farce; to those, this film will only be mythical propaganda. But, the tears are more indicative of a person who has not rested for ten years to accomplish a mission she held in high regard, to finally be able to take a breath, because she's done. She's invested all of this time, emotion, intelligence; her hard work has finally paid off. Relief, is what I got, mostly.
Was the film accurate? It's Hollywood, so, I can't separate the fact from fiction. From a narrative standpoint, the movie was well-edited, intense, and thrilling. Bigelow sustained my attention for over 2 1/2 hours. She told a story that was partially true and embellished, I'm sure, a great deal, based on data and information however compromised, but my instinct is she shaped whatever access she had to the real story so that it would be appropriate for great storytelling purposes, holding onto what was significant and connecting the dots in the most exciting way she knew possible.
Oscar Prospects
As far as Oscar is concerned, I really hate going along with the pack, but the critics groups and fans have it right: this is one of the best, if not the best, film of 2012. It's also one of those films that given the right year could win Best Picture (2011, as an example). Some people say that this year has been a spoil of riches in film. I'm not one of them. Last year was much better, and I liked 2010 even more. But, as far as BP contenders and the Oscar game is concerned, there are three formidable candidates in the ring (I haven't seen Les Misérables yet): Zero, Lincoln, and Argo. While I found Zero to be superior to Argo and didn't care all that much for Lincoln, all three films are the type of movies that can win Best Picture, given the competition. Lincoln is the more traditional biopic, which boasts well of its chances. Zero and Argo are action-thrillers, which don't often make it into the BP field, but, with the right subject matter, can stand right up and be counted. I have a feeling however, that there will be a vote split between them. Zero will no doubt be competitive in directing, editing (like Argo), cinematography, art direction, and the dual sound categories.
0 comments:
Post a Comment