Zero Dark Thirty (2012) - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden….It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
-         George W. Bush - 9/13/01

“…We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

-      Barack Obama - 10/8/08 

It was that accursed white whale that razed me; made a poor pegging lubber of me for ever and a day!... I'll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for, men! To chase that white whale on both sides of land, and over all sides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out.

 -         Herman Melville - Moby Dick

2012 is littered with the refuse of my own disenchantment with cinema. I was waiting and waiting for a savior that never seemed to come. There were a few films that were great, but nothing that seemed incredibly earth shattering. Then there was Zero Dark Thirty. It might be a perfect movie. I think it was about 80 minutes into the film, when Jessica Chastain as CIA agent Maya is yelling at her superior, expletives flying, that I finally felt I was seeing something with real meat to it. The fact that the film has obtained a good deal of controversy perhaps points to the fact that it feels so realistic, that it is so well-made, that it is being taken as "the truth". Whether Bigelow embellishes certain aspects of the story or not isn't really as important to me as how good the film is and Bigelow has in fact made quite a film.

Bigelow’s film follows the 10-year manhunt of Osama bin Laden by the United States. Mark Boal’s excellent script zooms in on a CIA operative named Maya (whose story is purportedly based on a real individual), who in the first scenes of the movie, we see her viewing the torture and interrogation of a detainee at an undisclosed location. Her early years on the case researching detainees and interrogations allows her to find a lead to a purported courier of bin Laden’s. Maya’s dogged determination throughout the years to support her idea and to find and kill bin Laden are what we follow, and like all great procedural films (All the President’s Men, The Insider), there is a great deal of suspense. Yet there’s also a noted dose of humanism here as well. Maya’s determination, leadership, and near obsessive sense of purpose create intense human drama. 

Jessica Chastain is ruthless AND human in a performance that indicates she is quickly becoming one of the best and most versatile actresses around. She seems to know exactly how much to emphasize in a certain scene….never laying it on too thick, always striving for believability and genuineness. I find Chastain’s Maya is an existential woman on a mission. She IS her job and we see her do but little else. Even when interacting with others, it's usually through work. It's amazing in fact, how often Maya is framed alone on-screen. She's a lone wolf. Her determination to pursue her prey is tested on numerous occasions though: when her friend is blown up in a suicide bombing; when she is nearly blown up at the Marriott Hotel bombing; when she is shot at in her car. Yet she pushes on and we understand her sense of urgency, her pain at the loss of friends and colleagues…..it’s all there on her face. Her character development is interesting as we watch her disgust early on as she looks on during scenes of torture, but soon enough when she conducts her own interrogations, she is asking a fellow interrogator to smack someone on the face. Her learning curve is a short one in this film, but her story of near maniacal zeal is what gives the film its drive. Mark Boal deserves some fine credit for his script here, allowing for moments of feeling and fiery emotion in the midst of the procedures. But Bigelow’s sense for pacing is just as spectacular and one of the film’s greatest assets. Though the film is 157 minutes long, there is genuine intrigue all throughout, building to the climactic raid on bin Laden’s compound, that is staged about as well as anyone could imagine it to be.   

Although the scenes of torture have been getting attention from nearly everyone, I find there is an element to them that has strangely been getting little attention. The film clearly places the torture scenes early in the narrative within the era of the Bush administration. During the era of the Obama administration, we are not shown any further scenes of torture. In a conflicting portion of the back story of this film, is something called the Military-Entertainment Complex. This term (which I'd never heard of before) refers to the little discussed practice of the exchange of capital and information between branches of our Military and Government factions and filmmakers. For example, Paramount Pictures was able to gain access to all the aircraft they needed at a steep discount to make Top Gun back in 1986…..but they had to submit the script to the military for approval and positioning.  This amounts to near propaganda if you ask me, and it’s no wonder that most ordinary war films amount to nothing. Now the question becomes, did Bigelow in fact receive assistance from the military and the government? According to The Freedom of Information Act, it appears that she and screenwriter Boal DID make contact and received some information from the government, despite the fact that Chastain said last week on The Daily Show with John Stewart that they didn't receive help. In this clip she mentions not only this, but that Bigelow also thus avoided government intrusion by not working with them and that they apparently did not receive equipment from the military for the film.

If by chance Bigelow and Boal did happen to work closely with the government (as seems to be documented), and if we presume the government was then able to review the script, why would they approve of a film that puts the CIA and our country’s practices in a bad light? That gets back to the Republican/Democrat divide and differences in approach between the two administrations and how those means are portrayed in the timeline of the film. Of course if Bigelow did NOT have to submit her script for approval, it would stand to reason that the tone and placement of the torture scenes were her own idea. I feel much better about the intent of the filmmakers, knowing that the film came out after the election, not allowing it to be construed as propaganda for the election. Either way, I find it interesting that the torture scenes have received just about every interpretation imaginable, which would indicate to me that whoever had the most influence over those moments did not allow any particular agenda to come to the fore. They exist here in the film because they happened.

Bigelow’s and Boal’s narrative achieves additional depth and troubling moral implications as it takes us face-to-face with revenge, and this is where the film starts flirting with truly epic importance. It follows in the tradition of both literary and cinematic revenge stories, perhaps foremost... Moby Dick. Maya is the Ahab and bin Laden is the White Whale. In cinematic terms, she's a modern incarnation of John Wayne as Ethan Edwards in The Searchers, or Clint Eastwood as The Outlaw Josey Wales. But the masterstroke of the whole film, is that in portraying Maya as this type of protagonist, complete with her obsessive, single minded-goal, Bigelow is able to reflect and implicate the United States as a whole in the film. Maya is simply the micro level version of our country’s macro concerns in the years following 9/11. For many in our nation, including some of our leaders, killing bin Laden was some kind of holy grail.  Parallels between ZDT’s real-world example and the narrative traditions that it recalls, adds layers to an already complex and far-reaching story, as the sometimes ugly nature of those fictional tales hits home here, but in an all-too-real fashion.

As a document of revenge and manhunt and the search for justice, Bigelow’s film is infinitely fascinating, and she rightfully avoids any sense of rah-rah enthusiasm. There’s also a melancholy fatalism to the whole thing. Punctuated throughout the plot are reminders of various terrorist attacks from the London bus-bombing, to the Marriott Hotel bombing in Pakistan. We’re reminded of WHY Maya is doing what she’s doing and why she feels it’s important, even if when the movie's over, there is a feeling of “now what?”. Zero Dark Thirty is also a fascinating document of craft, of the existential distillation of one woman’s determination for an end-goal and the process to reach it. The film is not without potential ideological pitfalls and moral implications, the likes of which may not fully be known yet. But the manhunt, and watching the woman get her man, makes for absolutely riveting and epic cinema.

The Tree of Life (2011) - Directed by Terrence Malick

Note: My review contains spoilers so that if you haven't seen the film please read with caution. 


Preface: It has been pointed out by multiple critics and bloggers that the film takes place within the context of Western religion, specifically Christianity. My review and analysis takes place within that context as that is how I have viewed the film and its meaning.

Terrence Malick's newest magnum opus is a gushing, uninhibited look at life and its purpose. It's a nearly 2 1/2 hour film filled with lots of ideas, and it could have easily been hours longer. In plot, the film basically follows the summer experience of a boy named Jack. He has two younger brothers and a father and mother. He lives in a Neighborhood, which is a stand-in for a universal neighborhood of sorts, a place where one plays, learns, experiments, experiences life in all its glories and tragedies but still under the guidance and love of ones parents, so there is a safety net. Later in life, the family is stricken with the news that the middle child has passed away at age 19, from what we do not know. The mother and father clearly have their faith challenged. This is where the early reference to Job in the film's opening passage comes into play. It's also clear that Jack as a grown man, played by Sean Penn, is clearly searching in the void to fill a vacancy in his life. 

Malick’s title, The Tree of Life, references the passages in Genesis 2:9, "And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground -- trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It’s clear that God presented two choices to Adam and Eve and gave them the option of following their own intent, or following the way of everlasting permanence with God. Adam and Eve followed the way of “Nature” and ignored the salvation/tree of life in the garden. This of course leads to the need for grace or salvation following The Fall of Humanity in Christian theology. This is synonymous with the film’s subject matter. I believe the film is basically about the boy coming to the understanding that his parents are fallible, reaching the point in time where he cannot rely on them to be his saviors. He realizes that there is death, that life is finite, that this innocent boyhood will come to an end. His parents try as they might, but they cannot save him through their human love. He has to be saved through his own search. Jack is reminded of this through the behavior of his father and mother. Both love their children but in different ways. The father is a perfectionist and strict disciplinarian but he loves his children and teaches them that they must stand up for themselves. Mr. O'Brien wants so badly to have his children obey him though that he gets frustrated easily and has a temper. The mother is eternally loving, providing comfort, warmth, and grace, but she is meek and not able to convey the strength that the boy needs at times. Jack doesn't find complete solace in either of them and instead tries to find his own way. There's a specific moment where Jack says, "What I want to do, I can't do. I do what I hate." which seems to directly reference a passage from the Bible, Romans 7:19 where Paul says, "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep doing." It's moments like this where perhaps Malick tips his hand as to where the film's theology and philosophy lie.

There have been many readings and interpretations of the film and the characters. Some might make the assumption that The Father, Mr. O'Brien is a God figure. I can’t go down that path. Mr. O'Brien is clearly not perfect nor without sin and I can't substitute him for God in this way at all. On the flipside, if Malick were making some parallels between Mr. O'Brien and God, making him out to be a strict disciplinarian and domineering figure, then it really wouldn't fit with themes of the film regarding forgiveness and grace. Another point of contention for many, the beach sequence at the end of the film, has been claimed to be the afterlife or heaven. It does not feel like a heaven experience to me in the strict sense. In Christianity, one knows that when believers die, they go to heaven. There is no indication that the Sean Penn character dies. He clearly talks to his Dad on the phone in one instance, so we know his father is not dead either. In the film, he goes in his mind to a place of understanding and where his memories are reconciled to himself. So, I don't believe it's a heaven sequence but a spiritual birth sequence and moment of reconciliation and forgiveness. In fact, it is his moment of salvation or accepting of God's grace. The imagery used and repeated during this sequence is of entering through a doorway, which happens at least twice during this sequence. In the Bible, Mathew 7:7 reads, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." Again, Malick's references to biblical passages are more than just coincidental here. 


I think all of these spiritual overtones lead some to feel that this film is heavyhanded (where everyone would know exactly what is being said). I don't think it's heavyhanded, but more a film that is unrestrained. It is unrestrained in its efforts to display the power of creation, the comparison of father and mother, the realization of our speck of existence, childhood and the loss of innocence, the portrayal of salvation. This unrestrained quality gives the viewer a challenge in that one must view it actively. You can't just tune out, but you must meet the film on an equally active level of engagement to appreciate what Malick is trying to say.

There are some troubling aspects to interpreting the film through the lens of western Christianity though. If the film is truly a distillation of Christian themes, why does the creation sequence resemble more of what would be considered The Big Bang? There clearly is chaos in effect during the sequences and furthermore, there is more than a hint of Evolution portrayed through the development of single cells and gradually more complex organisms brought to life. I don't think that creation and The Big Bang are completely mutually exclusive, but traditional evangelical views do not espouse a belief in The Big Bang or Evolution. Does this mean that the interpretation of the film through the lens of Christianity is not valid? I'm not sure. I think it's a troubling aspect, and one I am not clear is reconcilable depending on how one views the remaining of the film.   

Philosophically and spiritually, the film provides a lot to think about. But, as a film experience it holds great power as well. The sequences of childhood are probably some of the best distillations of youth ever put on film. Even the camerawork by Emmanuel Lubezki seems to have the perspective of youth imbued upon it. Everything seems to be regarded with the naïveté and the mischief of a young mind. A window is regarded from the perspective of whether it should be broken with a rock or not. A lizard is not just a reptile to marvel at, it’s something to scare your mother with. This perspective really provides the lens of credibility that the films needs to convey its aura. As for the acting in the film, I'm never one to directly provide much praise to Brad Pitt. But, his performance here really strikes the right notes and is probably his best and most nuanced performance of his career. Jessica Chastain as Mrs. O'Brien also gives a breathless and near wordless performance filled with graceful and stern looks. I'm hoping we see more of her in the future. However, the star of the film is Hunter McCracken as Jack, who steals nearly every scene he's in and is able to carry the emotional weight of the film on his young shoulders. Sean Penn though is not given nearly much to do as the adult Jack and one wonders whether there was a larger plot thread involved at one point in the film's development. 

Outside of the “creation” sequence, most of what follows is similar to other Malick films in terms of its storytelling manner and are familiar to Malick-ites: Mostly wordless sequences involving individuals, distilled to actions or looks, shots of nature to convey mood and tension, and enhanced with musical interludes. All of the middle sequences are just stunning as the poetry of life unfolds in all its beauty and tragedy. However, the structure of the film is deliberately fractured, and at times nearly impenetrable. I think there is evidence of much more storyline involving Sean Penn's adult Jack. In the beach sequence we witness a woman who might be his wife and a girl who might be his daughter, but there is no attempt to explain who they are in this version of the film. There are rumors of a 4-6 hour version in the works, so it's entirely possible that the Sean Penn sequences could contain a great deal more information than we're given in the current version.

The Tree of Life is beautiful, transcendent and spiritual, but so are Malick's other films in different ways. So, I won’t go so far to say it’s his best one. I also will stop short of conveying any sense of this being the most ambitious or important film in multiple decades, as I’ve seen some call it. For me it’s no more ambitious than Lynch’s work, Von Trier's, or Kieslowski’s among others. Malick belongs to a family of filmmakers intent on conveying, in their own way, their outlook and perspective on life and the artistry of conveying it. This film is an important work that demands to be seen and should be seen by anyone interested or believing in film that is capable of grandeur. The Tree of Life is ultimately a challenging, sometimes messy, and rewarding work of cinematic art because of its ability to convey the ineffable of a spiritual journey and life itself through the medium of film. It’s as simple as that for me.