Zero Dark Dirty

I don't claim to have seen the film. 

In fact there is nothing that I  abhor more than the idea of reviewing a work that i haven't seen. Having said that, there a number of statements made both by people who have seen the film and people who have not (including the filmmakers!),  regarding not just the politics of THE film, but regarding politics and political interpretation on film in general that were false at best misleading disingenuous at worse. So much so that it seems appropriate to engage in a discussion regarding the discussion of the film.

it would seem that after nearly a century of serious political, sociological, film studies, we have forgotten how to approach politics in film, how it works, how to interpret, who has the last say etc. Reporting on film seems to have plunged to the low standard of reporting in all disciplines. Instead of trying to discover the truth about a film through empirical, logical analysis and investigation, we tend to take words from the filmmakers mouth as gospel as though their stated intent,is the only factor that weighs in the political interpretation of their film.

So when filmmakers say that the film isn't intended to be political, should we believe them? 

 When they say that they tried not to be biased, how credible is that stance given that it is an american movie on the topic of foreign policy?

Can any american movie on the topic be free of political bias?

Indeed, Bigelow and Boal's use of the word political in their statements seems so ridiculous that one feels forced to challenge their understanding of the word. Indeed, Boal and Bigelow reveal their political bias precisely in their denial of a political bias, because such a gainsaying reveals a narrow (biased?) view of the term 'political' that they seem to employ as a tacit synonym for the word 'partisan'. So when filmmakers say that the film is not political, what they really mean that the film is bi-partisan. As though that is any real indication of moral balance or political impartiality. Then again maybe given their wealth and status, they can afford to be aloof. 

Given the subject of the film, the context of the times, the nationality of the filmmakers, the way the filmmakers admit that despite their claims of realism, they manipulated facts, (cinema is confection after all) this anti-bias stance beggars belief beyond the point of penury.--taking for granted as they do: 

That the only political meaning/positions to be taken from the work are the ones that state explicitly by the filmmaker or characters in the film. 

That the political intent of the film is always equivalent to its political impact or meaning.

That no implied meanings hover around the periphery of a film, or leak through cracks along the edges of a film etc.

That the very act of an american director making film about the capture of Bin Laden could be anything but political. 

That deeming 'operation to kill Bin Laden' as something worthy of examination or celebration isn't a biased political act in and of itself. 

That Homeland Security would have been cooperative had they suspected a heavily critical approach to the material by the filmmakers.

That 40 million dollars would have been invested for a very critical film.

That political means partisan and that as long as the film doesn't appear to be supporting one of the binary political parties, that it isn't political.

All of these factors and more would contribute to a definite political bias, IN ANY FILM

But we know that political analysis of film have more to do with whether the filmmaker is supporting one political party vs the other, don't we? Doesn't political analysis of the film also involve examining the construction of the film: narrative weight given to certain events, identification of certain characters vs negative portrayal or  exclusion of others. You know white hat cowboys vs black hat cowboys. Such question of inherent political bias  that can be simply swatted away by a filmmaker by saying we just tried to make it realistic as possible.

That line is a red herring. ALL FILMS ARE ARTIFICE. ALL FILMS ARE CONSTRUCTS EVEN DOCUMENTARIES. 

Filmmakers always make specific choices in order to conform their material to the big screen. That means a lot of truncating and a lot simplification, a lot of glamourizing, a lot of make-up and a lot of light.  And it is precisely in examining how this is done, how the resources are marshalled, specific choices made, deviations made from reality, that a filmmaker's political bias can be detected. 

And according to the filmmakers themselves, some crucial deviations WERE made, despite their extensive research.(good tool for propaganda)

For instance, Boal and Bigelow have stated that they say that the film doesn't endorse torture, that they wanted to stick the facts and just depict the process as realistically as possible.

If that is the case, why did they choose to depict events in their film suggesting that torture techniques were useful in leading homeland to Bin Laden's courier, when individuals involved in the intelligence community say that it wasn't a helpful tool in this PARTICULAR case.

Realism, huh? Why did they choose, among all of the possible scenes/sequences in the movie, where deviation from their realism would have been less conspicuous, less telling,? Why did they allow their dedication to realism to waver in this instance, opting instead for dramatic manipulation, in such a thematically conspicuous juncture in the film? where it would have the most dramatic weight, where it could skew the documentary truth of the process that led to Bin Laden's capture?

Because folks, (and keep in mind that i haven't seen the film) that is a clear example of what and implicit political bias would like (if that is in fact what takes place in the film). Bigelow and Boal don't necessarily have to depict characters spouting patriotic dialogue espousing virtues of torture in voice over, to be endorsing of torture. That can be achieved in the 'language' of the film narrative, and its manipulation.

It doesn't even have to be conscious on the part of filmmakers, certain film genres are inherently political even when not depicting a political milieu, per sei. And we know that spy movies involving homeland security, are as political (both big P and little p) as you can get..

What ensues is a flurry of of critical commentary, forcing the filmmakers to pipe up when you expected them to shut up. (betraying principles not to elucidate the film almost as quickly as they purportedly abandoned strict path of realism  mentioned earlier)

Isn't it interesting how filmmakers who essay a serious political issue, and posit a kind of pusillanimous let-the-film-speak-for-itself impartiality,  INVARIABLY pipe up when they feel that their film is being misinterpreted, or when the discourse gets a little unwieldy. What did they think would happen? I thought that you wanted to stay above the fray: like 

The only thing more cowardly than abandoning your position not to clarify the points in your unbiased movies, is being too cowardly to express a political opinion in or surrounding your own political film

Why would a political filmmaker demonstrate such self-disdain as to renounce the political content of their own film?

Does the filmmaker adopt that stance as a shield to protect them from the political implications/fallout of their own work?

 Or is it the pose of the artiste, swathing themselves artistic pretension that they hope would elevate them above fray of political debate?

More likely it is because the film itself (as well as the filmmakers) are the product of an extremely polarized political climate, fuelled by the reactionary relativism of fox news and tea party, that endeavours to shoehorn any political issue, no matter how morally repugnant to the human project  (be it slavery or torture), into simplified system of binary choices,  as with two competing consumer brands, reducing the exchange of ideas to the status of a commercial transaction, paving the way for the possible acceptance of any policy, regardless of how repugnant or retrograde, or repressive.

It is a form of reactionary relativism resulting from persistent pressure from wealthy corporate interests,  capable of purchasing the platform necessary to elevate  their material and financial interests, so that they achieve a status that is equivalent to the basic human needs and concerns that actually preoccupy the population at large:  the people who have to struggle to eke out a living with increasingly diminishing returns. Unless this problem is addressed, reactionary relativism will always overlay every public issue like a glaucous film diminishing our political perspective. And if the filmmaker's timid comments are anything to go by, the cumulative effect of all of this reactionary relativism is that it reduces the political artist to a pusillanimous political patsy lacking the the fortitude to promote the political implications of their own political work.

Not only is this stance cowardly, it is disingenuous and hypocritical to for the filmmakers to feign bemusement at all of the political noise that their film has elicited, when surely Boal and Bigelow chose this material because it was provocative and political. And how disingenuous for them to believe that we would believe the homeland security would have offered any assistance at all, unless the depiction was fair, (i.e. tolerant) of the methods, and his fair depiction in this case really fair..to everyone, or is that in itself a bias?

Apologists will say that this cowardliness is really a canny tactic that is conducive to maximum commerce, a compromise designed to avoid alienating viewing public.

Fair enough...

But then don't take credit for having the courage to have done something that you really didn't follow through on. 

Even as the filmmakers continue to forge this timid path in heavily partisan political landscape, effectively balancing themselves out of any meaningful discourse, they are also reaping accolades and awards for their artistic courage that they never necessarily showed.

Does the all of this talk of impartiality void any political (progressive or otherwise) value that the film may have? Does absence of an explicit political viewpoint in the film, despite the 40 million dollar budget, despite access to classified information, despite the seriousness of the topic, and despite recreation of Bin Laden's compound to the last detail, (filmmakers are sticklers for visual realism, socio-political, not so much) reduce her inflated confection to just another slick  hollow thriller to go alongside those that almost exclusively populate her filmography. Or do we just need filmmakers that are brave enough to stand by their vision?