Shared publicly  - 
The New York Film Critics Circle has dishonored itself by naming the odious "Zero Dark Thirty" as best picture of 2012. This is a movie that lies about history and -- contrary to the posturing of the film makers -- endorses torture as an effective (and in the Bin Laden case essential, the biggest lie) method. 

Dan Froomkin explains why this movie deserves to be shunned, not celebrated.
I finally saw “Zero Dark Thirty” last night, which according to my film critic friends means that only now am I actually allowed to opine on it. (I don’t agree, having Tweeted up a storm about its...
Richard Kelwick's profile photoBarry Solow's profile photoDarlene Wallach's profile photoAzarudeen Mohamed's profile photo
I'm not sure I agree that film critics have to also be historians in providing their commentary and selecting the films they think are the "best".  I understand the film has significant factual errors, but aren't the film critics selecting based on the quality of the movie itself - considering the quality of the writing (not the historical accuracy), the directing, acting, cinematography, costumes, etc. 

I suspect your perspective is that the historical accuracy should be included as a key criteria in evaluating the writing, right?  And if so, then if it isn't historically accurate it can't be a great picture.
Is anybody here cleared to say what interrogations methods were used and how effective they were? (Rhetorical question, the answer is no, and if you were privy to that info, you couldn't say it).  I'll see the movie and get back to you.
Tortures are extremely effective at convincing people to please their torturers. And that's the main problem.
+Roger Kerr Not saying historical inaccuracy is, by itself, a disqualification. But let's say Oliver Stone's JFK had been a better film in the ways you (and the critics) believe are the only ones that matter -- despite being a grotesque conspiracy theory masquerading as history (again, the ZDT people have been saying this is based on reality, not made up). It wouldn't have had a prayer of winning best picture. The critics are wearing blinders, on purpose, and that discredits their judgment. Part of a movie's quality is whether, when its makers purport to tell a true story, they are deliberately telling lies -- especially egregious when the lies serve to defend a practice as immoral as torture.

+Paul Newport Tarantino's picture doesn't really pretend to describe actual events by historical figures. It's an ultra violent graphic novel with purported historical overtones. This one does, and -- to credit your hair-splitting -- the makers of the film are plainly saying torture helped find Bin Laden (and therefore that it's a valuable technique).
Dan I'm a bit ambivalent about taking your notions of honor seriously, considering your take on outing legal, registered gun owners' privacy in that thread that you abandoned without any good answers.  Have you given any thought to that position, praising the journalist?
(when gun apologists start to mix threads and pontificate about honor, it's a very clear sign that it's the time for a few minutes of Fallout)
+Dan Gillmor While torture is a "no no" no matter who's in power, most of the movie is basically a spin of what someone thought happened and it should be taken simply as that.  It all gets back to creative reporting, journalists and screenwriters who will and do anything to make themselves  a name and hence profit from it.  

We are constantly blindsided by newspapers printing fake stories, Congressional hearings which go nowhere, lack of accountability and a viscous cycle of scandals and it's beyond me why it has to be that way but in any case citizens of all countries are pretty sick and tired of continual war because a select few individuals wanted it for their own greed.
Honor is another slippery term, especially from some people. I'll stop there.
They invited the firestorm when they decided to begin the film with the statement that it was 'based on firsthand accounts of actual events.' Can't have it both ways.
+Daniel Rubin a so-called firsthand account can be someones idea of watching what they see on the nightly news however inaccurate it may be.  While the movie Casino Jack (Abramoff) was fairly accurate based upon what transpired at the time it still left out a great portion of what really transpired and still is to this date so when you hear "firsthand account" it only means someone else introduced the movie as they saw fit.  This type of opening was used religiously over the last few decades and apparently is seeing a resurgence.
They should add a preface to the movie that states " the depiction of torture as an important, or even useful method of gaining important information that lead to the location of A.B.L. is entirely fictional". Then there would be much less outcry over this despicable portrayal of torture as " important and necessary".
+Gal Shpantzer You're right, I don't know what interrogation technique led to which intelligence breakthrough. But Senators McCain, Feinstein (Senate Intelligence Committee Chair) and Levin (Senate Armed Services Committee Chair) called the movie "grossly inaccurate and misleading" in suggesting that harsh interrogations led us to bin Laden. I figure they know.
The term "firsthand account" actually still has a clear meaning. However, the phrase "based on" is where the fine print can creep in.
How is it the CIA collaborates on, yet criticizes this movie? Am I missing something here?
If I may paraphrase the Bard:  Me thinks they doth protest too much ...  I think the whole "controversy" has been manufactured to get more viewers.  How many of the people are upset about the honesty of the movie "JFK".  Chill out dudes its just a movie!
"Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back... and to the left..."
There was that other movie that got a lot of flak for having a lot of torture and being historically accurate -- "The Passion of ... something or another" 
Add a comment...