>There are plenty of scenes in which Chastain shows masked
>disgust, especially towards the beginning. She hasn't gotten
>her hands dirty yet. Then she makes the choice when the guy
>asks her to help him, the same man who she winced at seeing
>tortured at first... and she tells him to be truthful. She's
>now complicit. I thought that was clear.

That only serves to create sympathy for the torturer. Not the person getting tortured. I never said that this movie presents 'torture' as being an 'enjoyable practise'. It presents torture as an unpleasant yet necessary means to accomplish justified foreign policy. The fact that the torturers 'wince' while they do it certainly does not represent any viewpoint that stands against torture. Even people who argue that torture is a justifiable practise wouldn't suggest that it is enjoyable to do. So the fact that the torture is presented as 'unpleasant' for the torturer in no way serves as a counter-point to the advocation in this film.

>Also, not directly to torture but definitely directly to the
>violence, the raid at the end has no flag-waving or woo-hoos.
>It's actually a quiet, tonally dark moment.

Yah...that's complete bullshit. Sorry. People wanted to see Bin Laden's compound invaded and Bin Laden shot. It's a perverse indulgence with no other function.

>Finally, the scene you mentioned when Jason Clarke says he's
>burned out... he also mentions seeing the other torturers
>every day as part of it. He sees himself when he sees others
>do it, and it makes him want out, because, yes, it's ungodly.

No...it's not presented as 'ungodly' in Clarke's character. It's presented as a hardship that Clarke (and later, Chastain) must endure in order to 'get the job done'. The film evokes sympathy for the torturers...not the people getting tortured.

In response to the suggestion that the movie fails to recognize the point that torture creates more terrorism than it prevents...you wrote:

>We see the government get sued. We see the pursuit of lines of
>questioning that distract us from current security issues,
>which leads to acts of terrorism. We see giant Middle Eastern
>protests, and we see that those known to be torturers become
>targets themselves. So yes, we do see that.

Any middle eastern protests depicted in the film are not attributed to a policy of torture by American military. The anger towards America is without explanation.....and treated as completely irrational. I'd argue that Affleck's 'Argo' actually provides a context for Iranian anger towards the states. I'm referring to the beginning montage of 'Argo'....and a character that says 'My son was murdered by the Shah' while they visit the bizarre. ZD30 does NOT do the same for Palestine or Afghanistan. I request ONE instance that attempts to provide context for why people in that region might be justifiably angry at the USA in ZD30.


>>It leads to false intel.
>
>We DEFINITELY SEE THIS! lol, a giant plot point is that they
>were pursuing something that they got from tortured people
>that was wrong. They misidentified Abu Ahmed. That's
>absolutely a clear point.

That is only because Osama's courier was given multiple names/identities to people in that infrastructure. In the movie....the tortured prisoners THINK they are giving the correct information even though they are not. The argument that torture leads to false intel suggests that prisoners will do ANYTHING to stop the pain. ie They will give false info. The example you gave, the prisoners THINK they are giving the correct information.

>See above. They bring that up, but the final point, the one
>that leads to the about-face in the investigation that leads
>to Bin Laden's compound, comes from realizing that intel they
>got from tortured people was inaccurate.

Again, to be clear....the critique that torture leads to false intel holds that prisoners will give FALSE info to stop from being tortured. But the movie depicts the torture victims as giving WHAT THEY THINK is the proper info. So the movie's explanation is that torture did not 'work perfectly' because Al Queda does not properly inform their operatives. Not because victims of torture will say anything, even false info, to stop the pain. Two very different things....cause if the prisoners are telling what they 'think' is the truth, than torture works. Yah?


>I think you need to see the movie again. Because I promise,
>all of that stuff that you want is there. It's just presented
>alongside the other side of the coin as well, portraying both
>sides, going back to my "journalism not advocacy" point.

I WAS somewhat biased. I thought Hurt Locker was a racist movie and I had that preconception going in. Bigelow is a hawk and racist against arab people imo.