View Single Post
  #54  
Old 01-15-2013, 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentasylum View Post
I mean, did anyone feel safer when he was killed? and it's weird how they found him in a place we all knew he might be. I think his whereabouts were known but no one did anything about it. that is until Obama got to the white house and he okayed the raid.

that to me would of been a more interesting story. the one where politicians in Washington ignored Osama bin laden's whereabouts and instead went after suddam hussein for reasons still unclear.
There's not really any evidence or "first-hand accounts" that say we knew where OBL was post-9/11. Much more interesting to me is that fact that small but passionate contingents in the intelligence community relentlessly tried to convince their superiors to eliminate/kidnap him before 9/11 -- as early as 1994.

As for the torture aspects, I'm pretty much with Q, especially with this:

Quote:
It's worth noting again that for the most part the film really does stick to the facts or to a fair and reasonable approximation of the facts, minor changes are the usual stuff of compressing time/characters, etc. for adaptations so it makes the fact that it is so misleading and directly counter to the truth in its handling of torture particularly stand out as troubling.
Yep. For me (and I liked the film overall more than Q did, admittedly) the most effective scene was

Spoiler:
the suicide bomber at Camp Chapman


largely because I was well-informed about the incident due to having read some articles and such about it. And aside from the name-changes, they made everything in that scene identical to the official accounts of it, right down to the specific things said and even the clothes being worn. To exploit that for suspense and then waver on other facts seems off to me.

I will say that I don't think Boal has/had an agenda. I think (as Q hinted at) he simply chose to take the account of the limited few who said torture led to OBL because he found that storyline more interesting, or potentially controversial, or whatever. And regardless of the morality of that choice itself, it points to his desire to shape the facts around his story and not the other way around.
Reply With Quote