100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 7. Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

 

            “Zero Dark Thirty” is the story of the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden and his assassination. It was directed by Kathryn Bigelow. It was her next film after winning Best Picture and Best Director for “The Hurt Locker”. She was the first female director to win Best Director. She co-produced “Zero Dark Thirty”. Her screenwriter again was Mark Boal. The duo had intended to make a film about the Battle of Tora Bora, but before they started production, Bin Laden was killed and they decided to shift the focus to how that came about. Luckily, a lot of Boal’s research was applicable to the new focus. The movie cost about $50 million. Some of that money to a recreation of Bin Laden's compound. The film was successful and made $133 million. It was acclaimed and made many critics’ top ten lists. It was nominated for Oscars for Best Picture (losing to the inferior “Argo”), Best Actress (Jessica Chastain lost to Jennifer Lawrence in “Silver Linings Playbook”), Best Original Score (Boal lost to Tarantino for “Django Unchained”), and Best Film Editing. It won for Best Sound Editing. The film was a favorite for Best Picture, but criticism of its depiction of the use of torture created a backlash.

            The movie starts powerfully with telephone calls from victims of the Twin Towers destruction on 9/11. Once the stakes are established, the film becomes the story of one woman’s quest to get Bin Laden. Jessica Chastain plays Maya, who is a composite character, but based on an actual female CIA agent.  She portrays the CIA operative as obsessive and persevering (to the point of being a pain in the ass to her superiors).  Her evolution from naïve to hard as nails in the world of black sites is a theme.  Bigelow and Boal made a great decision to concentrate on this woman and build up to the mission by showing the frustrating quest to locate OBL (the movie does not dumb it down for the current events-challenged masses). The quest involves torture ("enhanced interrogation") which leads eventually to a courier which leads to the compound Bin Laden was living in. It’s not an easy journey and includes the suicide bomb death of her colleague Jessica (Jennifer Ehle). The last act is the mission to kill Bin Laden. The SEAL team is America’s best special forces operatives and they are realistically played. The reenactment is mesmerizing even for those who know what will happen.  The flight into Abbottabad  has the best use of music that I can recall in a scene like this.  Not bombastic.  I would best describe it as SEALish.  The “assault” is a blend of POV  (through night vision goggles) and fly on the wall cinematography. It’s a happy ending that was not forced because it is true.

Chastain deserved the Oscar. She is perfect in a role that would normally be a male role. Chastain is well-supported by a strong cast. It’s not all-star, but you’ll recognize many solid performers.  The biggest surprise is Chris Pratt as a Navy SEAL.  He does inject a little humor into a deadly serious movie. He’s not the class clown, but elite military types often have good senses of humor.  By the way, there is also a major part for one of my favorite actresses - Jennifer Ehle (the miniseries “Pride and Prejudice”).

            I won’t give away the plot.  The movie works on two levels.  If you are like me and have a working knowledge of the war on terrorism, it is exciting to see some key events reenacted suspensefully.  It does help to know the basics.  The dialogue assumes that.  There are numerous references to KSM (google his ugly ass).  I almost envy the majority of Americans who will find the entire movie suspenseful because they do not know what will happen next.

ACTING:   A+                

ACTION:   A+ (6/10) the only combat is the kill mission

ACCURACY: A  (hard to judge since the CIA actions are classified)      

PLOT:  A               

REALISM:   A 

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A

SCORE:   A

SCENE:  the mission

QUOTE:  Maya:  [to Navy SEALs] Quite frankly, I didn't even want to use you guys, with your dip and velcro and all your gear bullshit. I wanted to drop a bomb. But people didn't believe in this lead enough to drop a bomb. So they're using you guys as canaries. And, in theory, if bin Laden isn't there, you can sneak away and no one will be the wiser. But bin Laden is there. And you're going to kill him for me.

            Interestingly, the movie does not do the cliché of describing the mission plan.  This was a good decision for both the informed and the historical illiterates.  It also does not flesh out the SEAL characters.  However, small touches make it clear they are not only heroes, but professionals.  There is an understated scene where Maya watches them play horse shoes and is stunned to learn that they know they are going on the mission that very night.  Subtle, but brilliant.  The movie also avoids the cliché of the corrupt or clueless authorities.  No Americans are villains.  It does take to task the risk-averse, but they are portrayed as simply too careful.   Then again, Maya is portrayed as an obsessed bitch.  Thank God she was!  CIA Director Leon Panetta comes off well, but there is little reference to Obama and none to Bush, Jr.  The movie does not lionize Obama for giving the green light.  It does not demonize Muslims.  In fact, a CIA official is tellingly depicted on his prayer mat.

            As far as accuracy, I could detect nothing egregious. The Camp Chapman suicide bombing is accurately depicted. However, much of the movie depicts events that are still classified. I trust Boal when he says the screenplay is based on research.  It also does not sugar coat what happened in that compound.  Spoiler alert:  there is no attempt to take OBL alive.  As to the controversial depiction of torture and the actionable results from inhumane interrogation, I would be surprised if those types of things did not happen.  You may want to believe otherwise, but get your head out of the sand.   It is a crying shame that the ostriches prevented this movie from a deserved Best Picture Oscar.  It is a travesty that they deprived Bigelow of a director nomination.

            In conclusion, “Zero Dark Thirty” tells the story many had been waiting to see.  It does it in a well-crafted way that does justice to history.  It is better than “The Hurt Locker” and “Lincoln”.  It will have its detractors and where you stand on this is telling.  I can tell you this much, if the movie would have been about Tora Bora, where we completely botched the chance to kill the most wanted man on Earth, it would have been a very depressing movie. You would not have left the theater thinking “USA USA USA!” You did with this movie even though it was not trying to elicit that response.

THE100 BEST WAR MOVIES: #38 (tie) Eye in the Sky (2015)

               

               “Eye in the Sky” was directed by Gavin Hood (“Ender’s Game”).  He used locations in his home country of South Africa.  Screenwriter Guy Hibbert was interested in depicting the involvement of the “kill chain” in the implementation of drone targeting.  His script shifts between the various locations of the military personnel and politicians.  In the first five minutes of the film, we jump to five different locales.  All of the locales are tied in via modern technology so all the participants are watching the event unfold and can have input.

            The movie opens with a quote from Aeschylus:  “In war, truth is the first casualty.”  British Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is heading a mission to capture some high profile terrorist targets in Kenya.  The big fish are two British nationals (husband and wife) who have joined the Al Shabaab terrorist organization.  Powell is especially interested in the woman, who she has been tracking for six years.  The suspects have been located in a safe house in Nairobi and the Kenyan special forces are set to raid it.  Powell’s team uses an ornithopter (a radio-controlled cybird with a camera) to get visual identification of the woman, Susan Helen Danford.  Unfortunately for Powell, Danford and several other targets leave the house to go to another location in an Al Shabaab-dominated neighborhood.  This change of venue is monitored by a Reaper drone crew located at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada.  In this case, a insectothopter (a cybug with a camera) is used to infiltrate the house.  The beetlecam discovers that the terrorists are gearing up for a suicide-vest bombing.  Since the special forces cannot realistically storm the house, the mission now shifts from capture to kill.  And politicians get involved.

            At this point, the movie becomes a study in drone assassination decision-making.  Powell is pushing for an immediate Hellfire missile strike.  Her official argument is it will save lives.  This view is supported by her commanding officer Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) who is at COBRA (the Cabinet Office Briefing Room) at Whitehall in London.  In the room with him are several politicians who are mainly interested in covering their asses and passing the buck.  At first the hemming and hawing revolves around whether they have the authority and justification to go for a kill shot.  Soon a complication arises as a young girl enters the picture, literally.  She sets up a bread stand near the building and could possibly be within the kill zone.  What is the life of one girl compared to the potential deaths of civilians in a shopping mall if the suicide bombers are allowed to leave?

ACTING:   A+                 

ACTION:   N/A

ACCURACY:  N/A           

PLOT:  A+                         

REALISM:   A         

CINEMATOGRAPHY:    B

SCORE:   C                

 

SCENE:  will the kid be killed?

QUOTE:  Lt. Gen. Frank Benson: “Never tell a soldier  that he doesn’t know the cost of war.”   

            “Eye in the Sky” is well-acted by a strong cast.  Helen Mirren anchors the movie as Powell.  She is perfect as the hard as nails techno-assassin.  Powell is willing to bend the rules of engagement in order to get her girl.  You’ve seen this character before, but never as a female.  Speaking of stereotypes, the Powell character is balanced by the female politician in COBRA who represents the other end of the spectrum in potential bread-selling kid casualties.  Rickman, in one of his last roles, is his usual dependable self.  Surprisingly, his Lt. Gen. Benson is not another Turgidson from “Dr. Strangelove”.  Benson is in COBRA to present the military’s point of view.  Rickman is wonderful at depicting the focused military man who has to deal with a room full of wimpy pols who are continually passing the buck upward so they can avoid making a tough decision.  Buck-passing is one of the themes of the movie and it almost becomes a running joke.  This theme has a “Dr. Strangelove” feel to it, but “Eye” is far from a satire.  By the way, if buck-passing is a theme, a subtheme is when the buck is passed to Americans the decision is always “take the shot”.

            The other key characters are Aaron Paul as the drone pilot and Barkhad Abdi as the undercover agent sent into the neighborhood with his beetle drone.  Paul is good as the conflicted pilot.  An earlier view of the hula-hooping little girl makes her situation even more personal for him.  He represents the “what would you do?” perspective.  This perspective is paired with the movie’s debate over whether the kill order is the right decision.  This debate takes place in several locales.  (The four principal actors did not meet during the shoot.)  The movie moves briskly from place to place with the common thread of everyone (including the audience) viewing the proceedings on computer screens.  There is a clock-ticking suspense. 

            “Eye in the Sky” is not based on a true story, but it is meant to be instructive on how drone warfare works.  Since drones have been an important aspect of the war on terror, Hibbert and Hood had a goal of informing the British and American public of the greyness of the policy of killing terrorists by unmanned stand-off vehicles.  Most people are aware of the collateral damage of civilian casualties, but few are aware of all that goes into the lead-up to the button pushing.  The movie makes it clear that the decision to fire a Hellfire missile is not taken lightly.  There are rules of engagement that must (should?) be followed.  There are legal matters to consider.  There are political criteria to be factored in.  At one point in the movie, a politician opines that “if they blow up a mall, we win the propaganda war;  if we kill the little girl, they win.” 

            As far as this particular scenario, Susan Helen Danford is based on the infamous “White Widow” of British tabloid fame.  Samantha Lewthwaite is a British woman who was a convert to jihadism.  Her husband was one of the 7/7 London bombers.  She is accused of being involved in over 400 civilian deaths.  She escaped Great Britain and ended up in Kenya as part of Al Shabaab.  Al Shabaab is a jihadist organization based in Somalia, but active in East Africa.  It is most famous for the suicide attack on the Westgate mall in Kenya.  Lewthwaite has been linked to that attack.  No doubt there is a Powell (and many others) tasked with bringing her to justice and when it happens it will probably involve a drone.  The movie is excellent at showing how drone warfare works (or will work in the future – apparently the movie is ahead of its time a bit on ornithopters and insectothopters).

 When the day of reckoning for the “White Widow” comes, it’s doubtful it will be as cinematic.  Without the constraints of “based on a true story”, the screenplay can manipulate the narrative to edge the audience consistently toward the edge of their seats.  Everything that happens has to happen to reach the conclusion.  Pull one domino out and the whole arc collapses.  For example, Farah risks his life to buy the rest of the bread, so Alia can go home, but… Still, I prefer this kind of manipulation for entertainment purposes over “true” stories that take liberties with the facts.

Americans are comfortably clueless about what is going on in the drone war against terrorism.  The movie makes you think about the subject, but does not tell you what to think.  Hawks and doves can both enjoy the movie and hopefully contemplate the other side of the argument.  I feel Hibbert meant for the movie to question the use of drones for targeted assassinations, but he is admirably balanced.  When the female politician pronounces that the whole affair was shameful, Benson gets the last word:  “Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war.”   I personally cannot confidently say whether the decision made in the movie was the right one.  Isn’t that what we want in a movie that provokes thought?