One Zero Dark Greenwald

Perhaps only Glenn Greenwald could go on at length in passionate condemnation of a film he hasn't seen--a journalistic disgrace so irresponsible that he thrice wimps out and doubles back to "remind" the reader that "I have not seen this film" but "am ... writing about the reaction to the film: the way in which its fabrications about the benefits of torture seem to be no impediment to its being adored and celebrated" [italics mine].

No mentally competent reader would possibly buy that defense after reading Greenwald's stunningly obvious review, so Greenwald explodes in an initial "update" that "Anyone claiming I've reviewed this film is plagued either by severe reading comprehension problems and/or a desire to distort." (I like that really clarifying "and/or" part.) In his second update, Greenwald attempts some subject-diverting mush about the merits of film reviewing sans film viewing, that sort of thing, which is so manic it's downright embarrassing.

The film that Greenwald hasn't seen and isn't reviewing is Zero Dark Thirty, the new cinematic splash about finding and killing bin Laden. To repeat, Greenwald insists that he isn't reviewing, he is merely "writing about the reaction to the film." Yet he proceeds to write such point-blank, matter-of-fact passages as "the film's glorifying claims about torture are demonstrably, factually false"; "What this film does ... is uncritically presents as fact the highly self-serving, and factually false, claims by the CIA that its torture techniques were crucial in finding bin Laden"; and "torture is depicted as indispensable in finding America's most hatred enemy."

Oh, the irony. Greenwald has become the Bush-Cheney administration. He has his Curveball sources (those who have seen the film), whose perhaps wildly mistaken or intentionally misleading impressions he takes and converts into absolute facts for public consumption. Greenwald bothers not with his own human intelligence about the film: he buffers, he filters, he distances himself from the actual product so that his plausible deniability might remain intact should his propagandistic conclusions prove an immense humiliation. And on all counts, he fails.

By the way, Wired.com's national security reporter, Spencer Ackerman, has seen the film, about which he observes: Film Director Kathryn "Bigelow is being presented as a torture apologist, and it’s a bum rap.... Zero Dark Thirty does not present torture as a silver bullet that led to bin Laden; it presents torture as the ignorant alternative to that silver bullet."

Of course, it may be that Mr. Ackerman is merely plagued by severe viewing-comprehension problems and/or a desire to distort.

Comments

[japa21]

I have not seen the film, and probably will not see the film. I have, however, read that the film does show a prisoner being waterboarded and implies that the information derived from that torture is what led to bin Laden.

Here is the problem. Are most people who see the film going to be able to discern the difference as Ackerman did? I don't know, although I hope it is clear enough in the film.

However, there are enough torture apologists out there that the meme that it was torture that led to bin Laden, and the film proves that, will spread anyway.

The problem with Greenwald's statements, to get back to your original point, is that he is accepting the meme I just mentioned as fact without verifying that the film does, in fact, do what he says it does.

He would have done his readers a much greater service if he had actually seen the film and then come back and said that the film does NOT in fact endorse tortue and if they hear it does, they should push back against it.

[Marc McKenzie]

@japa21: Good points. I do intend to see ZDT, because as Malcolm X once said, you have to get into the habit of seeing things for yourself. To condemn a film without seeing it is a bulls**t move, and Greenwald performed it with amazing grace and skill.

"Here is the problem. Are most people who see the film going to be able to discern the difference as Ackerman did? I don't know, although I hope it is clear enough in the film."

This is a genuine concern, but I would counter that, well, we all hear about how film audiences today are "sophisticated and smart". At the same time, the reviews of ZDT--from those who have actually seen it--have made the point that the film does not endorse torture. Of course, art being subjective (not objective; that way lies madness), some may take a different POV...but of course, they'll have to see the film.

And as for Greenwald....Christ, why do people still give him notice? He's a smug, self-righteous tosser who believes that the only things that matter in the world are the three or four issues that he champions: drone strikes, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange being a hero and Barack Obama being the worst human being to sit in the White House. Disagree with him and you're a mindless robot following the orders of some evil puppetmaster.

In other words, he's an a*****e.