• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Zero Dark Thirty - upcoming movie on the hunt and raid that killed Bin Laden

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeL
  • Start date Start date
M

MikeL

Guest
trailer - http://www.ew.com/ew/static/h/exclusives/20120806.html

FIRST LOOK: 'Zero Dark Thirty' dramatizes hunt for Osama bin Laden -- EXCLUSIVE

It’s already the year’s most controversial movie, though almost no one knows anything about it.
Zero Dark Thirty, a chronicle of the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, began generating partisan critiques before even a frame of film was shot. Now director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal are finally opening up — though they remain extremely guarded — in their first interviews about the project.
Entertainment Weekly has the exclusive preview of the film’s teaser trailer, as well as five images from the movie, out Dec. 19. Check them out below: (I actually put the link above)

Zero Dark Thirty will be an unusual film in that the climax of the story is already widely known and it’s the set-up that remains mysterious. Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011 by the U.S. Navy’s elite SEAL Team Six, but what remains largely unknown is the true backstory behind the raid, and how intelligence agencies and the military connected the dots that eventually brought them to that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
“I’m fascinated by people who dedicate themselves to really difficult and dangerous things for the greater good,” Boal said in a phone interview. “I think they’re heroic and I’m intrigued by them. I’m fascinated by the world they inhabit. I personally want to know how they caught bin Laden. All I can do is hope that it interests other people.”

The trailer is highly stylized, emphasizing the secrecy of the story with its use of the kind of bars used to black out information on redacted classified documents. In an email interview, Bigelow explains the significance of the title: “It’s a military term for 30 minutes after midnight, and it refers also to the darkness and secrecy that cloaked the entire decade long mission.”
The teaser also suggests a grittier, more deadly, boots-on-the-ground pursuit of information, rather than a drama about decisions made at the top in Washington.

This has been the primary source of controversy: Opponents of President Barack Obama have been eager for the public to avoid any reminders this election year that the Commander-in-Chief gave that order authorizing the raid that finally took down the terrorist mastermind.
The makers of Zero Dark Thirty insist their film is a study of the unsung heroes who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to take down bin Laden, not a celebration of Obama’s decision. When they made the Iraq War drama The Hurt Locker in 2008, which won them Oscars for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Picture, Bigelow and Boal were praised (and sometimes slammed) for leaving politics out of the film. They say they’re doing the same thing this time.

“There’s no political agenda in the film. Full stop. Period,” says Boal, a veteran journalist and war correspondent. “A lot of people are going to be surprised when they see the film. For example, the president is not depicted in the movie. He’s just not in the movie.”

continued at http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/08/06/zero-dark-thirty-first-look/2/
 
My husband and I just watched this last night. (Yes, guilty of watching it via streaming--one of those "for your consideration" versions online...).  Putting aside the debate of whether the US tortures or not (for the record, the torture scenes are very few, and not graphic in nature), I enjoyed it.  For those who have followed the headlines closely related to the validity/accuracy of this film, there are a few tidbits added for dramatic effect, but overall very well done.  Definitely check it out. Not overly dramatic, not overly Hollywood-ized, great acting, good suspense.
 
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2012-press-releasese-statements/message-from-adcia-zero-dark-thirty.html

Message from the Acting Director: "Zero Dark Thirty"
Statement to Employees from Acting Director Michael Morell: "Zero Dark Thirty"

December 21, 2012


I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty, which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context.  The film, which premiered this week, addresses the successful hunt for Usama Bin Ladin that was the focus of incredibly dedicated men and women across our Agency, Intelligence Community, and military partners for many years.  But in doing so, the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.

What I want you to know is that Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatization, not a realistic portrayal of the facts.  CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product.

It would not be practical for me to walk through all the fiction in the film, but let me highlight a few aspects that particularly underscore the extent to which the film departs from reality.

First, the hunt for Usama Bin Ladin was a decade-long effort that depended on the selfless commitment of hundreds of officers.  The filmmakers attributed the actions of our entire Agency—and the broader Intelligence Community—to just a few individuals.  This may make for more compelling entertainment, but it does not reflect the facts.  The success of the May 1st 2011 operation was a team effort—and a very large team at that.
Second, the film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin.  That impression is false.  As we have said before, the truth is that multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was hiding in Abbottabad.  Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well.  And, importantly, whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.
Third, the film takes considerable liberties in its depiction of CIA personnel and their actions, including some who died while serving our country.  We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory of them.
Commentators will have much to say about this film in the weeks ahead.  Through it all, I want you to remember that Zero Dark Thirty is not a documentary.  What you should also remember is that the Bin Ladin operation was a landmark achievement by our country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency.

Michael Morell


Posted: Dec 21, 2012 03:08 PM
Last Updated: Dec 21, 2012 03:59 PM
Last Reviewed: Dec 21, 2012 03:08 PM
 
I think Morrell downplays how well they attempted to depict everything though, as in he's being modest--probably to stave off as much political backlash as possible. The movie was very clear in several scenes through the script-writing and scene/act description that the mission took several years.  There are also several scenes depicting some of the "team" of individuals who aided in locating Usama's position. Yes, the movie primarily focuses on one individual's plight throughout, but ultimately I believe this was done for two reasons.

1) it would have been too difficult to equally include the entire team's individual contributions throughout the entire mission and then try and fit as much as possible into a reasonable time-frame for a major Hollywood production (as in not turning it into a "Dances with Wolves" viewing length...)

2) focusing on the female protagonist adds a certain level of emotional connection between the audience and the character for that amicable balance of political vs. non-political tug'o'war that viewers can ultimately relate to.

I used the phrase "...not overly Hollywood-ized..." loosely.  As in, there were no over-the-top, out of place explosions, fights/arguments, blood, etc. Everything was believable (regardless of how historically accurate--and let's face it--I don't think ANYone will ever now how accurate it is except those personally involved--who may be facing prison for divulging classified information?, or so I've read/heard...)
 
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-03/opinions/36209291_1_zero-dark-thirty-cia-officers-interrogation-program

It is an odd experience to enter a darkened room and, for more than 21/2 hours, watch someone tell a story that you experienced intimately in your own life. But that is what happened recently as I sat in a movie theater near Times Square and watched “Zero Dark Thirty,” the new Hollywood blockbuster about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

When I was head of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center from 2002 to 2004 and then director of the National Clandestine Service until late 2007, the campaign against al-Qaeda was my life and obsession.

I must say, I agree with both the film critics who love “Zero Dark Thirty” as entertainment and the administration officials and prominent senators who hate the movie for the message it sends — although my reasons are entirely opposite theirs.

Indeed, as I watched the story unfold on the screen, I found myself alternating between repulsion and delight.

First, my reasons for repulsion. “Zero Dark Thirty,” which will open for Washington audiences Friday, inaccurately links torture with intelligence success and mischaracterizes how America’s enemies have been treated in the fight against terrorism. Many others object to the film, however, because they think that the depiction of torture by the CIA is accurate but that the movie is wrong to imply that our interrogation techniques worked.

They are wrong on both counts. I was intimately involved in setting up and administering the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program, and I left the agency in 2007 secure in the knowledge not only that our program worked — but that it was not torture.

One of the advantages of inhabiting the world of Hollywood is that you can have things both ways. In the publicity campaign for the movie, the director and the screenwriter have stressed that “Zero Dark Thirty” was carefully researched and is fact-based. When discussing the so-called torture scenes, director Kathryn Bigelow has said: “I wish it was not part of our history, but it was.” Yet when pressed about inaccuracies, screenwriter Mark Boal has been quick to remind everyone: “This is not a documentary.”

What I haven’t heard anyone acknowledge is that the interrogation scenes torture the truth. Despite popular fiction — and the fiction that often masquerades as unbiased reporting — the enhanced interrogation program was carefully monitored and conducted. It bore little resemblance to what is shown on the screen.

The film shows CIA officers brutalizing detainees — beating them mercilessly, suspending them from the ceiling with chains, leading them around in dog collars and, on the spur of the moment, throwing them on the floor, grabbing a large bucket and administering a vicious ad hoc waterboarding. The movie implies that such treatment went on for years.

The truth is that no one was bloodied or beaten in the enhanced interrogation program which I supervised from 2002 to 2007. Most detainees received no enhanced interrogation techniques, and the relative few who did faced harsh measures for only a few days or weeks at the start of their detention. To give a detainee a single open-fingered slap across the face, CIA officers had to receive written authorization from Washington. No one was hung from ceilings. The filmmakers stole the dog-collar scenes from the abuses committed by Army personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. No such thing was ever done at CIA “black sites.”

The CIA did waterboard three of the worst terrorists on the planet — Abu Zubaida, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — in an effort to get them to cooperate. Instead of a large bucket, small plastic water bottles were used on the three men, who were on medical gurneys. The procedure was totally unlike the one seen in the movie but was consistent with the same tactic used, without physical or psychological damage, on tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel as part of their training.

Most Americans probably think waterboarding was stopped by President Obama once he took office in 2009. Few know that the technique was last used in 2003, when Obama was still an unknown state senator in Illinois.

Inspired perhaps more by past movies than first-hand accounts, “Zero Dark Thirty” shows detainees being asked a question, tortured a little, asked another question and then tortured some more. That did not happen. Detainees were given the opportunity to cooperate. If they resisted and were believed to hold critical information, they might receive — with Washington’s approval — some of the enhanced techniques, such as being grabbed by the collar, deprived of sleep or, in rare cases, waterboarded. (The Justice Department assured us in writing at the time that these techniques did not constitute torture.) When the detainee became compliant, the techniques stopped — forever.

Some of those objecting to the movie are doing so not because of how the interrogations are depicted, but because of what the movie implies came out of them. The film suggests that waterboarding directly contributed to obtaining vital information about bin Laden’s courier — a break that eventually led to the al-Qaeda leader. Opponents of the CIA are quick to insist that waterboarding played no role in tracking him down. Both the movie and those critics are wrong.

The first substantive information about the courier came in 2004 from a detainee who received some enhanced interrogation techniques but was not waterboarded. Although we had heard the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, until that time we were unaware of the central role he played in bin Laden’s communications. Subsequently, as we always did, we checked out this information with other detainees. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who had been waterboarded, was by then cooperating with us to some extent. He denied any knowledge of the courier, but so adamantly that we knew we were on to something. We then intercepted secret messages that Mohammed was sending to other detainees, ordering them to say nothing about al-Kuwaiti.

After obtaining this essential lead on the courier, years of meticulous intelligence work followed. Having the black sites and compliant terrorists allowed us to repeatedly go back to the detainees to check leads, ask follow-up questions and clarify information. Without that capacity, we would have been lost.

“Zero Dark Thirty” has some minor flaws that will be laughable to CIA veterans. For example, early in the film, the agency’s chief of station in Islamabad walks around with a CIA lapel pin — not the best of tradecraft. Agency officers talk openly in hotels and restaurants about ongoing operations, and a junior officer threatens to have her boss hauled in front of a congressional oversight committee. (Now that would be torture.)

But Bigelow and Boal get a lot of things right, too. They portray the hunt for bin Laden as a 10-year marathon, rather than a sprint ordered by a new president. The film gives a glimpse of the extraordinary cooperation between the CIA and the U.S. military, a relationship that has only deepened in the years since Sept. 11, 2001.

And, if you pay close attention, “Zero Dark Thirty” also concedes that it was a matrix of intelligence capabilities — including interrogation, other human intelligence, expert analysis, signals intelligence and imagery analysis — that came together to lead the SEALs to bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad. I say “if you pay close attention” because the intelligence tradecraft is overwhelmed by the intense and misleading interrogation scenes at the start of the movie.

I had to smile at one scene in which a White House official demands more information from the CIA, only to be asked how the agency is supposed to obtain it when the detention and interrogation program has been taken away. The screenwriter seemed to catch the nuance that the administration has made the CIA’s job much harder.

No doubt, the filmmakers had a very difficult task. They had to boil down a decade of grueling work into a few hours — and make it entertaining. It is impossible for even the most skilled filmmakers to fully capture the context of the times. During the first few years after Sept. 11, the CIA was under enormous pressure, fearing an imminent and deadlier reprise of the attacks. There were credible reports of al-Qaeda seeking fissile nuclear material. Those who say we should have taken a more cautious and deliberate approach to finding out what men like Mohammed knew never stood in our shoes.

It is hard to accurately tell a story that spans more than a decade and involves a real-world cast of thousands. So Bigelow and Boal develop their narrative through the eyes of a small number of characters, such as a CIA officer they call Maya. I do not want to diminish the contributions of any individual. Indeed, I have often said that a handful of officers, mainly women, in the Counterterrorism Center deserve a disproportionately large share of the credit for the relentless focus that eventually brought bin Laden to his well-deserved demise. But, while there are real-world equivalents of Maya and her colleagues in “Zero Dark Thirty,” the successes and the failures in this mission were the work of many, not a few.

The film includes another female character, unnamed in the movie but clearly based on CIA officer Jennifer Matthews, who tragically was killed in the 2009 suicide bombing at an agency base in Khost, Afghanistan. Perhaps to build up the Maya character, the filmmakers wrongly portray this other woman as overly ambitious and less than serious. The real person was an exceptionally talented officer who was responsible for some enormous intelligence successes, including playing a prominent role in the capture of al-Qaeda logistics expert Abu Zubaida in 2002. Her true story and memory deserve much better.

According to recent news reports, the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating whether the CIA inappropriately cooperated with the filmmakers. I saw nothing in “Zero Dark Thirty” that I believed to be classified — unless one considers secret the notion that enhanced interrogation techniques played a role in getting bin Laden. The Senate committee seems to want to punish the agency for telling that truth.

Inevitably, films like this come to be seen by the public as a sort of proxy for reality. Even those who should know better get caught up in false arguments, debating, for example, “Can torture (as shown in the film) be justified?” rather than “Are harsh but legal measures (as not shown in the film) sometimes necessary?”

Despite its flaws, inaccuracies and shortcuts, I do believe this film is well worth seeing. Like the real hunt for bin Laden, it goes on way too long, but there is value in the end. Theatergoers should understand, however, that “Zero Dark Thirty” is more than a movie and less than the literal truth. This is especially apparent in the final scene, with Maya in tears, drained, not sure where to go or what to do next.

Her real-world counterparts have no doubt: The battle against al-Qaeda is far from over.
 
I liked the guns... and the wierd night vision stuff... and the really hot red headed CIA chick.... and the waterboarding

Hi, I am daftandbarmy and I'm an infantry guy  :camo:
 
If there's scenes of interrogations and tortures of freedom-haters than I'll revise my previous statement and go and see it.
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
If there's scenes of interrogations and tortures of freedom-haters than I'll revise my previous statement and go and see it.

Hey, it's NOT torture... it's 'Enhanced Interrogation Methods'.
 
Initially I wasn't going to see it as I feared it would be another "Hurt Locker".  I was wrong and found that I really enjoyed all of it.  The enhanced interrogation scenes and the happy ending made my day.  In fact the end of Osama made me chuckle.  It was, no Hurt Locker and I'll watch it again.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Initially I wasn't going to see it as I feared it would be another "Hurt Locker".  I was wrong and found that I really enjoyed all of it.  The enhanced interrogation scenes and the happy ending made my day.  In fact the end of Osama made me chuckle.  It was, no Hurt Locker and I'll watch it again.

Good to hear that it wasn't another "Hurt Locker", as that was a hard movie to sit through.
 
‘Zero Dark Thirty’ Actor Prepared For Bin Laden Role By Founding Al Qaeda Cell, Bombing Bus

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/01/zero-dark-thirty-actor-prepared-for-bin-laden-role-by-founding-al-qaeda-cell-bombing-bus/

LONDON, UK – January’s academy award nominations included many surprises, though none bigger than the out-of-left-field nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Ricky Sekhon was nominated for his work playing wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden in the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

While other actors, such as Daniel Day Lewis and Shia Labeouf, are well known for their extreme method acting, novice Sekhon took it to a new level: getting in touch with his inner-terrorist by founding an active al Qaeda cell and blowing up a bus station in Pakistan.

“In hindsight it was a stroke of genius,” Sekhon told The Duffel Blog from his cell in Guantanamo Bay. ”So many terrorists you see on camera are one-dimensional cardboard cutouts, and I just didn’t want that to be me.”

Ironically Sekhon, a 29-year-old Sikh, said he knew almost nothing about radical Islam or terrorism before taking his role. ”The casting call just said ‘Six foot plus, swarthy complexion, bearded. Individuals frequently stopped at airports will receive preference.’”

To prepare for the role, Sekhon flew to Karachi, Pakistan. There, he quickly met a group of actual Al Qaeda terrorists who kidnapped him straight out of passport control. While they initially planned on cutting his throat for being an apostate Sikh, in between beatings Sekhon gradually persuaded them to help him prepare for the role.

The very next day he produced his first video, declaring the formation of the Second Unit Martyrs Battalion of Sound Stage 5.

According to Sekhon, playing a terrorist mastermind was nowhere near what he expected.

“In the movies these guys all have supermodels for henchmen, nuclear devices, secret mountain-top lairs, but it’s all bullshit. You know what I spent all my time doing?  Raising money and sitting through meetings.”

He pantomimed talking on the phone: “Hello, is this Major General Qassim Suleimani? I have an exciting once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to blow up an Israeli embassy and all it will cost you is [click] … hello?  hello?”  He then grumbled, “Every. . .damn. . .day.”

Finally, after two months Sekhon decided he had to commit an actual terrorist act, both to establish some “street cred” with his men, and because Kathryn Bigelow was anxious to start shooting.

“They told me, ‘No no no, that’s not how it works!’  You just go out and make a video of yourself firing a machine gun and then we edit it to make you look like a super badass.’  I think I can see why so many of these guys look pissed off in their videos.”

Under the advice from studio lawyers, the Second Unit Martyrs Battalion decided to downgrade their planned attack on the Aiwan-e-Sadr presidential palace to an attack on a bus stop on Dr. Daud Pota Road at 3am on a Sunday.

While the attack ultimately caused superficial damage and no injuries, Sekhon was targeted shortly thereafter by US Special Forces who incorrectly believed he was Al Qaeda’s new second-in-command.

“That scene where the SEALs come into the room and shoot me?  That was real, those were real bullets, I’m really getting shot,” Sekhon said, proudly displaying several scars on his chest.

Sekhon is already working on his next project, “Escape from Guantanamo Bay.”
 
Back
Top