Jeremy’s Tophunder №16: Zero Dark Thirty

9 min readJun 24, 2020

When Zero Dark Thirty was released in 2012, it seemed like the overwhelming amount of conversation regarding the movie was focused on either the first 20–30 minutes, which feature depictions of what has come to euphemistically be called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and the final 30 minutes or so, which depicts the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. I even know people who went to see the movie specifically for those two portions of the movie.

The thing is, to me, those are the least interesting elements of the movie.

The first half hour was rather controversial. CIA dude Dan, played by Jason Clarke, engages in “enhanced interrogation” (read: torture) of detainees at CIA black sites. The movie depicts hooding, sleep disruption, sleep deprivation, use of dog collars, and yes, waterboarding and confinement in small, coffin-like boxes. It’s a rather rough sequence. These methods result in the CIA obtaining useful intelligence with which to build their case, which is where a decent portion of the criticism stemmed from, claiming the movie takes a pro-torture stance. The CIA Director at the time said that the movie “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 Laden. That impression is false.” The filmmakers, meanwhile, argued that they were simply depicting the reality of the situation: the CIA did in fact torture many detainees.

I’m not sure exactly where I land. Yes, the CIA did torture people, and I think it’s important to expose people to that fact. Where I think I would take issue with it is the fact that the movie seems to clearly thread a needle from the torture scenes to the CIA obtaining useful intelligence from those detainees. I think that’s a bit problematic. In reality, the torture of detainees leading to actionable intelligence was relatively uncommon. In most cases, particularly with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (although not shown in the movie), the information obtained via torture was unreliable, misleading, or outright false. But at the same time, the CIA has a vested interest to get people to believe that torture wasn’t a key factor in locating Bin Laden, and part of me almost has to believe that while perhaps it wasn’t as integral as the movie kind of implies, it probably did have an impact. I’ll admit that I’m by no means an expert on the efficacy of torture in interrogations. From a moral perspective, I find it to be repulsive. But a very small piece of me sometimes feels that when the torture is being directed at a group of terrorists that murdered civilians, I’m willing to turn a blind eye. Or at least I am in the context of this movie, because the movie assures us that this guy is a Bad Guy, and the information he gives helps us find Bin Laden.

And let me be clear — I’m incredibly angry at myself and embarrassed that I sometimes feel that way. But I do feel that way sometimes.

Yet, again, the opening half hour isn’t why this movie makes my list, and finishes so high on it. To me, the best elements of the movie come from the middle 90 minutes, in which Maya (Jessica Chastain) leaves no stone unturned in a search for Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, who she believes to be Bin Laden’s courier. She is consistently the smartest person in the room, despite often being the youngest person in the room. She’s confident in a way that borders on brash, and has no problem undressing the CIA Station Chief in Islamabad right before he walks into a meeting or flexing her muscles in a meeting with the CIA director.

At its core, the movie is about Maya, who starts as an idealistic young CIA analyst, and over the course of the movie, slowly descends into a maniacal obsession to find Abu Ahmed, and through him, Bin Laden. She routinely passes on opportunities to develop a more “normal” life, because that would get in the way of her goal. Finding Bin Laden becomes her entire life, and it consumes the entire middle act of the movie.

Obviously, Maya is a woman. When the movie was released, I think a lot of people took it as a political statement — the lead character in a movie about covert intelligence and military operations would historically have been played by an A-List leading man. To some extent, I read it that way myself, but certainly not in a negative way. I thought it was cool to subvert our expectations and show us a character that has all the beats of a traditional male lead in this type of movie, but make her a woman. It wasn’t until later that I realized that it wasn’t an artistic choice on the part of the filmmakers to center the story around a woman. Maya was a composite character, based on a number of women who were at the center of the CIA’s effort to capture Bin Laden. In fact, Maya is partially inspired by the same real-life CIA operatives who also served as partial inspirations for Carrie Mathison, the main character of Showtime’s Homeland.

I find this to be incredibly important. For years, intelligence agencies were depicted as boys’ clubs. Especially in older movies, the main character is a man, the Bad Guy is a man, and the only female characters of any consequence are usually a generic love interest, or a femme fatale double-agent. Zero Dark Thirty flipped that on its head to show us how integral these women were to the hunt for Bin Laden and the events that led to his capture and death.

Speaking of which, the movie does go into a lot of detail with the assault on Bin Laden’s compound. It takes up about 25 minutes of screen time, which is only a few minutes shorter than the actual assault was. The scenes are filmed in near total darkness, with some shots lit only by the green light of night-vision goggles. It’s incredibly well-paced, and doesn’t feel like a Hollywood depiction of a military raid. The movie seemed to make a point about telling an authentic story throughout, and the final half hour only serve to hammer that point home.

I would compare the last half hour of Zero Dark Thirty to the last half hour of Apollo 13, or All The President’s Men. We already know the ending to the story, but somehow, when we watch the events unfold on the screen, we can’t help but get sucked into the tension. To me, that’s a sign of great filmmaking.

The movie’s final scene is Maya identifying Bin Laden’s body, and then, with the mission complete, boarding a cargo plane to go anywhere she wants to go. But the tone is far from celebratory.

On the plane, Maya starts to break into tears, but they aren’t tears of joy. They’re the tears of someone who has spend the last decade with a singular focus, and then quite suddenly, that focus is removed. Her entire life boiled down to one goal, and when that goal was completed, she suddenly has no idea what to do. She’s rudderless. When the pilot asks her where she wants to go, she doesn’t have an answer for him. It’s an incredibly powerful moment. You realize the extent to which Maya has obsessed over her mission. It’s possible that she never seriously expected to actually complete it, given how clearly unprepared she is for whatever lies on the other side. It also sells the degree to which she sacrificed other parts of her life — she doesn’t have anybody to celebrate with. She’s completely alone. She won, but it doesn’t quite feel like winning.

One of the reasons I love Zero Dark Thirty is because of these complex moments. It’s in stark contrast with “Codename: Geronimo,” a made-for-TV movie that had a pure rah-rah flag waving ending. And obviously, a made-for-TV movie is almost never going to hold up to an effort from a director (Kathryn Bigelow) and screenwriter (Mark Boal) who both won Oscars in 2009 for their work on The Hurt Locker. But Zero Dark Thirty presents the events with a gritty realism that give the movie a much more resonant tone. The mood of the movie stays with you for much longer. It’s a movie that actually makes me confront the ambivalence I feel about the death of another human being, regardless of how despicable that person was. It makes me wonder — while I generally oppose the death penalty, why do I seem to be more or less okay with the U.S. military summarily executing Osama Bin Laden with no trial? Obviously, there are degrees, and there’s a difference between a criminal proceeding and a military operation. But it does make me think about it.

Movies that leave you with conflicted feelings about your views of the world are important, and I value them a lot. I had several thoughts while watching the movie and writing this post about whether or not liking the movie says anything about me as a person. Does liking this movie mean I in any way endorse the torture that went on, or the way the U.S. military conducts itself in the Middle East? I really hope it doesn’t, because I don’t. Does liking this movie mean that I enjoy the fact that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Or more simply, do I actually enjoy that? Is it inherently bad to draw joy from that? I don’t have clear answers for these, but Zero Dark Thirty forces me to think about them. Ultimately, I’m really glad that this movie exists, because it provides me with a framework to ask myself these questions. It’s certainly not an easy movie to watch, but somehow, I love watching it.

(For a refresher on the project, I introduced it in a Facebook Post on Day 1)

Here’s our progress on the list so far:

2. A Few Good Men

3. The Social Network

4. Dazed and Confused

5. The Shawshank Redemption

6. The Fugitive

7. The Dark Knight

8. The Departed

9. Saving Private Ryan

10. Inglourious Basterds

11. The Big Short