Sunday, March 30, 2014
Zero Dark Thirty
In many ways, war today isn't too different from what people usually imagine when they think of the Cold War-- espionage, intelligence operatives, interrogating prisoners, CIA agents working in the field to find military targets. War in the world of terrorism has become a completely different animal from traditional warfare. It isn't about standing armies going toe to toe with each other on a battlefield anymore. In Zero Dark Thirty, the entire first two hours of the movie goes without seeing any soldiers fighting. All of that time, around a decade, is spent trying to find one person. Since the movie spans such a long time, the viewers get to see how intelligence gathering changes as the political world changes. Within the first fifteen minutes of the film is a striking torture scene. What we see the most throughout the film is CIA agents struggling to get a hold of Osama Bin Laden--or even just people working for him. This isn't a war of military mights clashing against each other like it was in the past. It is a war of intelligence, on foreign land, and in densely populated areas. One interesting thing about the change in information gathering methods depicted in the film is that, since it is shown mostly following one CIA agent, the viewer is given a real sense of the frustration involved with having their methods being restricted, even if those methods were terrible and unethical. In the end, they are forced to go on what equates to a hunch of Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts and send a covert team, "canaries," to see whether he was really there or not. What's striking about this mission (in comparison to what we've seen of war previously in the course) is how precise and thorough the team is. They have stealth helicopters, silenced rifles, night-vision goggles, the works. It really shows just how much the U.S. has put into being efficient with warfare, for better or worse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like your observation about how Zero Dark Thirty centers around just one person rather than on a whole army. I think that this is the main difference between this movie and the rest of the stories that we have covered. It is not about open, blatant conflict, but rather the behind the scenes sleuthing and guesswork. I also agree with your point that the film does a good job of projecting the frustrations of the CIA onto the viewer as their methods are restricted. It is very easy to get involved and project yourself into the story. Even if you do not agree with torture, it is difficult to watch them struggle to try and gather important information without it.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think that in previous wars such as WWII and the Vietnam War we wanted to be seen destroying the other sides' soldiers or territories in order to show how strong we were and how much firepower we have. This lead to the view of the enemy being lesser, which was depicted in various other films and texts. Today, however, in the age of terrorism, we want to be as discrete as possible when gathering information. We want everything to be done in secret so that the enemy does not know our next move. Everything today is done in stealth so that it seems like we aren't even there until the big attack is made or something is even accomplished under the radar. However, this stealth is at home and overseas. The mentality of doing whatever is necessary to protect the home base has led to secret operations within one's own nation as well as other nations. In today's society the latest war moves are not plastered across billboards and newspapers as propaganda but sneaked into a part of daily operations among nations. This change in tactics and general outlook has greatly changed the nature of war.
ReplyDeletePatrick, I'm a little confused. At first you said warfare isn't that different from the Cold War, then you go on to say how it's completely different. I'm fairly positive I understand what you mean; the non-combat portions of the GWT and the Cold War are similar whereas the combat portions are different from other engagements the US has been involved with. The only thing I would mention is that the US did experience some of this in Vietnam
ReplyDelete