I had wanted to see this film since I saw the trailer. And I’m glad I did. I wasn’t sure how I would feel, but I went.
After the press went south for the subject, I had hesitated. And I had waffled—-how did I feel about such? But every time I waffled, I rested on the same point: we each must decide for ourselves what these issues mean.
Whether we call this torture or enhanced interrogation, it’s tough. And sometimes, though, it works. Putting this in a movie does not mean it’s glorified; I think most of us can agree it can work—–what we have to decide is when is it worth it.
I talked with two people who work in law enforcement after I saw the movie, one former military and one a detective. And I’ve studied cases of torture used in criminal investigative interrogations. So I have no doubt we all bring different views.
At the end of the day, as a point of humanity, I cannot stand the idea of torture. As a realist, I can understand its use in war. There’s much more that could be said about that, but I’ll leave it at that.
This was yet another movie of this year’s Oscar run that was based on history. Watching a movie based on fact is sometimes difficult: I will readily admit that I did not know the historical accounts of Argo or of the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in Lincoln—-or of just what happened in the search for and killing of Osama Bin Laden. But that was okay with me: I know that all of those were movies first and a film *based on* fact second. Thus, I take it as it was meant to be: entertainment. And I take it as it could be: a glimpse into a part of our past such that I *might* now know at least a little bit more about it.
Along the way, I saw a fine performance by Jessica Chastain, even if she always felt too young and too green to be in this role. Then again, my point above is that maybe she was just perfect for it—-I don’t know the true story. And along the way, I was entertained. And that is, at the end of the day, what I want from a movie.