Who is the real Maya in Zero Dark Thirty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually- my understanding is it was realistic. Loved it.

The depiction of the use of torture to obtain critical information was not accurate.

Agree. At the end of the movie, I turned to my husband and said "this was propaganda bullshit, and blatantly inaccurate.".

[Anonymous]

It was a major Hollywood movie, people. Are you really surprised it was sensationalized?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually- my understanding is it was realistic. Loved it.

Oh, so after sleeping on that couch in Afghanistan, she woke up and washed her hair, blowdried it with the dryer she brought from home (good thing she remembered her converter!), then took another 30 minutes to curl it all (good thing she remembered her curling iron!), then teased the front up (good thing she remembered her soft-bristle brush!), then smoothed it back and pinned the side pieces up (good thing she remembered those bobby pins!), then layered the top piece back over it to hide those pins (such a perfectionist, that one). I mean, you wouldn't want to go to a meeting with all TWO of your coworkers in the dusty desert looking like ass, now, would you?

Come on. I can't take that shit seriously.

The fact that the actress's hair was styled doesn't mean the story itself was inaccurate. And while I agree that the movie was somewhat misleading in its depiction of how key information was obtained, it's my understanding that other aspects were pretty spot on.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually- my understanding is it was realistic. Loved it.

The depiction of the use of torture to obtain critical information was not accurate.

NP here and actually, I think that the scene of using torture is supposed to be accurate, unfortunately.

The scene may be an accurate depiction of techniques used, but the context was inaccurate. Senators Feinstein, Levin, and McCain wrote a very harsh letter to Sony Pictures about this:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/542919/12-12-19-sony-letter.pdf

"We believe the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden."

These three Senators are on the Intelligence Committee and have been thoroughly briefed on the topic. In addition, then CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed to McCain that "no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier's full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means."

It's troubling that the movie would portray torture when torture wasn't used. When the U.S. is struggling with image problems abroad, why fan the flames with false images? Inappropriate and troubling decision on the part of the moviemakers.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It's troubling that the movie would portray torture when torture wasn't used. When the U.S. is struggling with image problems abroad, why fan the flames with false images? Inappropriate and troubling decision on the part of the moviemakers.

Indeed. The more cynical among us would suggest that certain "powers that be" had an interest in implanting a justification for torture in the minds of American movie-goers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually- my understanding is it was realistic. Loved it.

Oh, so after sleeping on that couch in Afghanistan, she woke up and washed her hair, blowdried it with the dryer she brought from home (good thing she remembered her converter!), then took another 30 minutes to curl it all (good thing she remembered her curling iron!), then teased the front up (good thing she remembered her soft-bristle brush!), then smoothed it back and pinned the side pieces up (good thing she remembered those bobby pins!), then layered the top piece back over it to hide those pins (such a perfectionist, that one). I mean, you wouldn't want to go to a meeting with all TWO of your coworkers in the dusty desert looking like ass, now, would you?

Come on. I can't take that shit seriously.

The fact that the actress's hair was styled doesn't mean the story itself was inaccurate. And while I agree that the movie was somewhat misleading in its depiction of how key information was obtained, it's my understanding that other aspects were pretty spot on.

What PP fails to notice is that they used that to show the changes in her during the movie. She started making her hair and all girly gilr and in the end she was pretty tough looking with the hair pulled back in a bun and no earings

[Anonymous]

Water-boarding....inaccurate in the movie? Who cares, you get the point. I wish they would dunk them in the river, cut off their b@lls. I don't care as long as they get the Intel they need to stop this evil. Do you think OBL or Al Qaeda would stop short of cutting you Mother's head off? I think not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Water-boarding....inaccurate in the movie? Who cares, you get the point. I wish they would dunk them in the river, cut off their b@lls. I don't care as long as they get the Intel they need to stop this evil. Do you think OBL or Al Qaeda would stop short of cutting you Mother's head off? I think not!

see, this SHOULD be the difference between us and the terrorists. I wouldn't be upset if someone went all vigilante on their asses NOT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE, but when we do it in the name of the U.S., that makes us no better than them. Which makes me ill - our country is better than that...or should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible, stupid, unrealistic Hollywood movie.

Whatever... I LOVED IT!!!!!

Me too!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Water-boarding....inaccurate in the movie? Who cares, you get the point. I wish they would dunk them in the river, cut off their b@lls. I don't care as long as they get the Intel they need to stop this evil. Do you think OBL or Al Qaeda would stop short of cutting you Mother's head off? I think not!

see, this SHOULD be the difference between us and the terrorists. I wouldn't be upset if someone went all vigilante on their asses NOT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE, but when we do it in the name of the U.S., that makes us no better than them. Which makes me ill - our country is better than that...or should be.

Aren't you mixing up issues? Torture v. Terrorism. Innocent Bystander v. Warrior.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually- my understanding is it was realistic. Loved it.



The depiction of the use of torture to obtain critical information was not accurate.



NP here and actually, I think that the scene of using torture is supposed to be accurate, unfortunately.



The scene may be an accurate depiction of techniques used, but the context was inaccurate. Senators Feinstein, Levin, and McCain wrote a very harsh letter to Sony Pictures about this:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/542919/12-12-19-sony-letter.pdf

"We believe the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden."

These three Senators are on the Intelligence Committee and have been thoroughly briefed on the topic. In addition, then CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed to McCain that "no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier's full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means."




It's troubling that the movie would portray torture when torture wasn't used. When the U.S. is struggling with image problems abroad, why fan the flames with false images? Inappropriate and troubling decision on the part of the moviemakers.

The point is not that torture wasn't used. It most definitely was used. The inaccuracy is that the torture did not lead to information that resulted in capturing bin Laden. That information had already come up months earlier through legal, non-torture methods by the FBI and through good old-fashioned intel work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Water-boarding....inaccurate in the movie? Who cares, you get the point. I wish they would dunk them in the river, cut off their b@lls. I don't care as long as they get the Intel they need to stop this evil. Do you think OBL or Al Qaeda would stop short of cutting you Mother's head off? I think not!

see, this SHOULD be the difference between us and the terrorists. I wouldn't be upset if someone went all vigilante on their asses NOT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE, but when we do it in the name of the U.S., that makes us no better than them. Which makes me ill - our country is better than that...or should be.

Aren't you mixing up issues? Torture v. Terrorism. Innocent Bystander v. Warrior.

Nope. Just because the terrorists are vile in their actions doesn't justify our nation being just as vile in our treatment of them. Nothing excuses state sponsored torture - nothing.

[Anonymous]

You know what I found so interesting about this movie?

The lead torturer/CIA Agent decides he's had enough...tortured enough guys. He announces to Maya that he intends to go back to Washington and settle down and "do something for the environment."

So this is why this city is so filled with assholes and road rage...

[Anonymous]

Do any of you really believe that this is the first time we have used questionable means to archive an end. Agent Orange anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you really believe that this is the first time we have used questionable means to archive an end. Agent Orange anyone?

Of course nobody believes that. But, those other examples are not part of the moving being discussed.