[np] Zizek on Zero Dark Thirty and other things under the sun

[rich]

Fwiw..

Decades from now folks well be directed to this movie to get some sort
of background to 9/11 and subsequent events. as mark said it wants to
be seen as factual yet it's a very dangerous game by even suggesting
that torture led to bin laden's death because those facts aren't
clear.

i found much of the movie a bore in any case.

read steve coll's critque in the ny review of books. it's online

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/07/disturbing-misleading-zero-dark-thirty/?pagination=false

Boal and Bigelow have offered two main responses to the criticism they
have received. One is that as dramatists compressing a complex history
into a cinematic narrative, they must be granted a degree of artistic
license.

That is unarguable, of course, and yet the filmmakers cannot, on the
one hand, claim authenticity as journalists while, on the other,
citing art as an excuse for shoddy reporting about a subject as
important as whether torture had a vital part in the search for bin
Laden, and therefore might be, for some, defensible as public policy.
Boal and Bigelow—not their critics—first promoted the film as a kind
of journalism. Bigelow has called Zero Dark Thirty a “reported film.”
Boal told a New York Times interviewer before the controversy erupted,
“I don’t want to play fast and loose with history.”

rich

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:22 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have refused to watch that movie because of its pro torture portrayal
> (from media accounts).
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013, Kai Frederik Lorentzen wrote:
>>
>>
>> English talk on yesterday's TV-show Kulturzeit:
>>
>> http://www.3sat.de/mediathek/index.php?display=1&mode=play&obj=35116
>>
>> Was already off-turned by the torture scenes from 24, so let me ask:
>> Is there a better reason to watch that movie?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>