Friday, January 25, 2013


Read more here.

Now that I finally saw the film, the more I read about Zero Dark Thirty's controversy the more I think the complete opposite of what they are arguing against. So, my main reaction has been this:

And then I desperately want you to see the film:

I'm learning that at some point, Oscar voters 'condemned' the film. At this point, I don't know how the film made it into the Best Picture at all.

Why does it feel like people always end up doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, like glorifying, praising? Especially in Politics. Why there are always the ones who want to shut it out, who want to divert what seems so right in front of us all, as a unique moment of clarity, of understanding, and especially, a moment that brings an incredible opportunity for debate. Debate, not condemnation, denial and deflection.
Why does it seem so clear that this is the great film that combines an historic moment, a film that is able to bring a debate for the decades to come, an important film, but instead, people are condemning in the most outrageous way? It's what they're trying to do, blind people, through politics? Because let's not forget that most of all, Zero Dark Thirty is a really good, solid and consistent piece of work. It's a very entertaining work of fiction.

Naomi Wolf, an author and activist, compared Bigelow to Leni Riefensthal. For those who aren't familiar with the name, she was the 'personal' director of Adolf Hitler, the filmmaker of Nazi propaganda, and for those of you who also don't know, she was a fucking great filmmaker. Leni Riefensthal was one of the great filmmakers of her time, an extremely intelligent woman. Have you seen Triumph of the Will? I saw the majority of the film and it's a great film. And I'm not being fascist am I? I'm looking at things with the artistic take that I should. Was that Naomi Wolf's intention? Did she saw Leni’s work? It should be a great compliment. It should be, but I know what she meant. 

And now it also includes a Senate investigation into the Zero Dark Thirty team, to Kathryn Bigelow.
This is so crazy, so spooky, like Bigelow says, but you know what, it is also so natural, so political, so Washington.
For the Washington people and others around the world really, I say that they should find Dictionaries of Cinema, Books, Essays that explain what it is fiction, what it is a film, what it means when a film says that it's 'inspired by true events'. It's inspired, but it is still fiction. It may be based on real events, but a film as to have a structure so it entertains. It is based in real events but then it becomes a story of its own, a two and a half hour story. It is not reality, it is fiction. Like everyone else in this world with an opinion, Zero Dark Thirty might bring another one. Actually, the film doesn’t bring much of an opinion as it shows clarity through a thorough study of the last ten years into to what have likely happened.
So the question is that Academy Members don't really know the meaning of cinema. They don't actually know what they're doing there, this is the only conclusion I can take. Even for a mere outsider, who happens to know just a little about films can see this things clear, it really does seem this clear to me. It is because the film brings a great storytelling that makes us be so raved about it, that should lead us to our own thoughts and interpretations. In many ways, Zero Dark Thirty has been that successful. But many aren't necessarily interpreting; they're slamming it and not giving it a change to breath.

This is the most illogical thing I can think of, in Oscars and film recent history. Is United States China? Are there in China or something?
Everything about this story is unbelievable, but that's what politics are at most times, un-fucking-believable.

Common, let's think it over shall we?
A (false) propaganda torture?
Since when a film is this crushed just because it might be inaccurate or misleading? 
Let's think of other subjects for once. Let's think of other cases like Child Abuse, like other Political illegalities. Every time a film comes and defies the morals of what's right, of what's acceptable, of what's accurate or not, it is in our own decision to take whatever direction we want. It's our choice, we have the freedom to say and think whatever we think of them. It's a work of fiction. It's part of the so called seventh art. 
Are films about political controversies going to end up in Washington every time they are made? I'm not very aware of that. Is it been this way before? Were there other examples? Is there Senate Investigations every time there is a film like this one? I mean, there are not many films like this one. So, why is this one so special? Are they afraid others filmmakers will get inspired by Bigelow's brave and unprecedented search for truth and honesty? I didn't see them INVESTIGATING and paying any attention to the WOMEN'S RAPE IN THE MILITARY. Instead, they covered it for years and they would keep doing it if there weren't outspoken people who start being finally heard.

My take is that the film community should advocate more for Kathryn Bigelow, and ultimately so should everyone else. But my guess is that once the subject gets trickier people go quieter or they might be afraid that they’re defending torture!

I will talk a little bit more of Zero Dark Thirty in my review.

No comments:

Post a Comment