If there is one film you decide to see this year it is Zero Dark Thirty. This film is the closest to the realities of steps needed to protect Americans from the threat of radical Islam.
The best analysis of the film was done by Shane Harris from the Washingtonian. Harris writes, “For a moment, put aside the important and probably irresolvable debate over torture that has been generated by the new film Zero Dark Thirty…”.
“While the film does not advocate torture, the filmmakers undoubtedly make the argument that brutal and sustained interrogations of suspected terrorists produced useful, maybe even crucial intelligence that led the CIA to Osama bin Laden’s doorstep in Pakistan. This is an assertion that the director and screenwriter have backed away from while promoting their Oscar-buzzed movie, perhaps so not to further enrage critics and a few lawmakers who say Zero Dark Thirty describes torture as the key to the CIA’s decade-long hunt,” reports Harris.
Perhaps it is time to rethink the use of enhanced interrogation techniques given the recent events in Algeria?
Watch the trailer:
“Zero Dark Thirty is one of the most accurate depictions of intelligence work that I’ve ever seen in film. And of intelligence analysis in particular. This is pain-staking stuff. Slow-going. Often frustrated by a paucity of leads, by competing priorities, and by physical exhaustion. The movie’s protagonist, Maya, who is based on a real-life CIA officer, can think of nothing else but getting bin Laden,” notes Harris.
I must agree totally.