![]() |
| Jessica Chastain as Maya in Zero Dark Thirty |
Written by Megan Kearns. | Warning: Spoilers ahead!!
Driven, relentless, bad-ass women in film always hold a special place in my heart. Ripley from Alien and Aliens, Patty Hewes from Damages, Carrie Mathison from Homeland. Maya, the female protagonist of Zero Dark Thirty, is no exception. But can a film be feminist if it depicts horrific violations of human rights?
Played effortlessly by Jessica Chastain, Maya is a smart,
tenacious and perceptive CIA analyst who navigates the 10-year hunt for
al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Intense and focused, she
relentlessly pursues her work with one singular goal: finding bin Laden.
Unyielding, she refuses to give up. She’s a cinematic version of Carrie
Mathison. Interestingly both women have an irrefutable compass when it comes to
being right. They boldly trust and follow their uncanny instincts.
Zero Dark Thirty
is riveting, fascinating and jarring. It assaults the senses with evocative
images, haunting music, booming explosions and chilling 911 calls on 9/11.
Powerful and exquisitely crafted by Kathryn Bigelow, it is unrelenting in its
vision.
As Candice Frederick asserts, Maya anchors and propels the film. With a woman at the center of this story, it’s hard not to question gender. Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t overtly discuss gender politics, as Bigelow points out. Yet it reveals gender dynamics in subtle and important ways.
As Candice Frederick asserts, Maya anchors and propels the film. With a woman at the center of this story, it’s hard not to question gender. Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t overtly discuss gender politics, as Bigelow points out. Yet it reveals gender dynamics in subtle and important ways.
In the beginning of the film, Maya appears queasy about
torture. Yet she refuses to turn away. When Dan (Jason Clarke), another CIA analyst, says she can watch the
interrogation on video, she insists on being in the room. Early on, a colleague
calls her a “killer,” a moniker that doesn’t quite seem to fit her composed
demeanor and soft-spoken voice. Or is that supposed to challenge our stereotypical gender assumptions? But it certainly fits as the film progresses.
![]() |
| Maya (Jessica Chastain) in Zero Dark Thirty |
We witness a hyper-masculine environment in which Maya’s
boss George (Mark Strong) slams his fist on the desk screaming at CIA analysts, “I want
targets. Do your fucking jobs. Bring me people to kill.” After years in the
field, after her friends have died, after relentlessly pursuing bin Laden, Maya
swears, screams at a superior and boldly tells the CIA Director (James Gandolfini) in a room full of
men, “I'm the motherfucker that found this place, sir.”
Inoo Kang asserts this one statement draws attention to her gender: “anyone
can be a motherfucker, man or woman – just like anyone can find bin Laden.”
Does she adopt stereotypical masculine behavior to adapt? Or is her aggression
merely a manifestation of her frustration and obsession? Or is she merely a
bundle of contradictions, like most people?
Writer Katey Rich said she was fascinated how Maya’s “femininity
is never talked about out loud, but influences everything she does and the way
her colleagues react to her.” All of the male colleagues and superiors
refer to her as the infantilizing term “girl” rather than “woman.” Yet Maya
engenders enormous respect from her colleagues and superiors. Two times in the
film, a superior asks one of Maya’s colleagues if she’s up for the job. In each
instance, she’s described as “a killer” and “intelligent,” although James
Gandolfini as the CIA Director dismisses that assertion by saying, “We’re all
intelligent.” A Navy SEAL trusts Maya’s judgment on bin Laden’s location because
of her unwavering confidence.
One of the best things about having a female director? Not only do we see an intelligent and complex female protagonist. We also see female friendship. Passing the Bechdel Test, we see Maya and her colleague and friend Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) debate, strategize, unwind and challenge each other. Reinforcing their friendship with a visual cue, Maya’s screensaver on her computer is a picture of her and Jessica.
One of the best things about having a female director? Not only do we see an intelligent and complex female protagonist. We also see female friendship. Passing the Bechdel Test, we see Maya and her colleague and friend Jessica (Jennifer Ehle) debate, strategize, unwind and challenge each other. Reinforcing their friendship with a visual cue, Maya’s screensaver on her computer is a picture of her and Jessica.
![]() |
| Jennifer Ehle as Jessica in Zero Dark Thirty |
After Maya becomes convinced that a vital lead is dead, it’s
young analyst Debbie (Jessica Collins) who makes a crucial discovery through
researching old files. She tells Maya that she’s been her inspiration. It was
nice to see female admiration and camaraderie, even if Maya is too busy, too
focused on work to acknowledge her compliment.
When Jessica asks Maya if she has a boyfriend or is sleeping
with a co-worker, Maya firmly tells her no. Jessica encourages her to get a
little somethin’ somethin’ to take the edge off. She says, “I’m not that girl
that fucks – it’s unbecoming.” Now I’m not exactly thrilled with that
statement. But I’m delighted Maya isn’t defined by her relationship to a man.
She defines herself.
Some have called Zero
Dark Thirty “a
feminist epic” based on “the real women of the CIA." But it’s also been
criticized for its
perpetuation of the Lone Wolf Heroine trope. When asked about the role of
Maya’s gender, Bigelow – who was pleasantly surprised to discover how many
women were involved in the CIA’s search for bin Laden – said “the
beauty of the narrative” is that Maya is “defined by her dedication, her
courage, her fearlessness.”
![]() |
| Maya (Jessica Chastain) in Zero Dark Thirty |
I’m honestly not entirely sure if Zero
Dark Thirty is a feminist film. But with its subtle gender commentary, female
friendship, and female protagonist who’s defined by her actions rather than her
appearance or her relationships, it’s hard for me to say it’s not.
Bigelow is a talented filmmaker who made an exceptional film.
Which is why it’s shocking she didn’t receive an Oscar nomination. Kathryn
Bigelow has continually faced sexism, whether it’s with asshat writer Bret
Easton Ellis calling her overrated because she’s “hot,” or by not being
awarded an Oscar nomination, despite
winning numerous film awards. It’s also unfortunate because the Academy so
rarely nominates directors of women-centric films.
Only 4 women have ever been nominated for a Best Director
Oscar: Lina Wertmüller (Seven Beauties),
Jane Campion (The Piano), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation) and Kathryn
Bigelow (The Hurt Locker). Out of these 4, only
the Piano was female-centric. Bigelow is the only woman to ever win. Ever.
Did the Academy ignore Kathryn Bigelow because of sexism?
Did they not want to honor a female director twice? Or was it because of the raging
shitstorm of controversy regarding the film’s depiction of torture? Or was it
because of the pending Senate investigation? And would the Senate have even
investigated Zero Dark Thirty had it
been directed by a man? I have a sneaking suspicion that sexism resides at the
root of each of these questions.
![]() |
| Maya (Jessica Chastain) in Zero Dark Thirty |
Many have raised
the question whether Zero Dark Thirty
excuses
or glorifies
or endorses
torture while others have refuted
these claims, arguing it depicts but doesn’t
defend torture or is ambiguous in its stance. Some of the same people who
didn’t give two shits about torture and halting human rights atrocities in Abu
Ghraib and Guantanamo – including Senator John McCain, himself a torture
survivor with a “spotty
record on torture” as he speaks out against torture yet votes
in favor of it -- are the same
vocalizing outrage over Zero Dark Thirty.
Both
Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have vehemently denied the film being an
endorsement of torture. Yet Bigelow has been called a Nazi making propaganda,
“torture’s
handmaiden” as well as having “zero
conscience.” Wow. That’s ridiculously
harsh, don’t you think? While I’m all for critiquing art, as Stephen
Colbert (of all people!) pointed out, why are we railing against a
filmmaker rather than the government who still hasn’t fully investigated the
use of torture in the War on Terror?
Now does depicting horrific atrocities equate approval? Absolutely
not. Films like The Accused and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo portray
rape graphically yet exist to combat victim-blaming rape culture. What matters
is in the film’s portrayal.
Zero Dark Thirty
does not shy away from graphic depictions of torture. Bigelow said that while
she wished torture “was
not part of that history,” it was. Within the first 20 minutes, we witness
detainee Ammar (Reda Kateb) waterboarded, beaten, humiliated, starved, sleep deprived, stress
positions by being forced into a tiny box, disoriented with lights and heavy
metal music, and walked around with a collar and a chain like a dog. Later, we
see other detainees in jumpsuits with wounds and scars. The abuse is horrifying and
disturbing to watch. It's repulsive to see the culmination of the racist, xenophobic colonialism that spurred the use of torture against Muslim Arabs.
Torture does not yield accurate information. Yet Dan repeatedly says to Ammar, “You lie, I hurt you.” When Ammar begs Maya for help, she tells him, “You can help yourself by telling the truth.” Not only does it subvert our gendered assumptions that she would be sympathetic to him. It puts the onus on the tortured detainees, not on the racist atrocities committed by government officials.
Torture does not yield accurate information. Yet Dan repeatedly says to Ammar, “You lie, I hurt you.” When Ammar begs Maya for help, she tells him, “You can help yourself by telling the truth.” Not only does it subvert our gendered assumptions that she would be sympathetic to him. It puts the onus on the tortured detainees, not on the racist atrocities committed by government officials.
![]() |
| Admiral Bill McCraven (Christopher Stanley) and Maya (Jessica Chastain) in Zero Dark Thirty |
But Zero Dark Thirty
also shows the inefficacy of torture. When Ammar is put into the box, he lies
that he doesn’t know if there will be another attack. And yet we quickly see an
attack in Saudi Arabia. We see CIA analysts uncovering intelligence without
torture. After Ammar has been abused, demoralized and dehumanized repeatedly
for months (years?), Maya and Dan eventually treat him with a modicum of
decency and respect. Only then does he finally provide accurate and vital
information.
Most tellingly, Dan says he’s leaving as he no longer can
torture people. He says he wants to go to DC and do something “normal.” He
warns Maya not to be “the last one holding a dog collar when the oversight committee comes.” This sense of awareness doesn’t acquit
Dan’s or Maya’s actions. But it does convey that Dan knows that torture is
fundamentally wrong.
But Zero Dark Thirty
also portrays characters who repeatedly say that they can’t do their job
without torture -- or as they put it “enhanced interrogation techniques” --
even after finding leads without torture and even after torture fails to stop
terrorist attacks, which undercuts the message that torture is ineffective and
reprehensible. It frames torture more as a Machiavellian means to an end: it’s
not pleasant but still kinda necessary. But maybe that’s the point -- to
showcase the traditional thinking of the CIA in how to obtain intelligence,
even when everything points in the opposite direction. While it certainly doesn’t condone torture, sadly Zero Dark Thirty doesn’t outright condemn
human rights atrocities either.
It is this back and forth, this ambiguous juxtaposition of
narratives and views that makes it difficult to analyze and open to interpretation. Zero Dark Thirty has been called a “reverse
Rohrsach test” where everyone will see in it “something they would rather not
see, but no one can agree on what's wrong.” Take the opening: some will see
replaying voices calling 911 on 9/11 as inciting fear and terror, while others (aka me) will see it as
transporting us back to that time, reminding us why we as a nation reacted –
right or wrong – the way we did. Bigelow herself said “there's
certainly a moral complexity to that 10-year hunt” for bin Laden. Bigelow
and Boal didn’t
spell everything out for us and “didn’t
spoon-feed their opinions to the audience in a way that made for easy digestion.” They expect us to complete the puzzle for ourselves.
![]() |
| Maya (Jessica Chastain) in Zero Dark Thirty |
However, the biggest clue as to the film’s overall stance appears in its finale. Zero Dark Thirty may not criticize torture as much as it could or should. But that doesn’t mean it panders to politics. Rather it questions the course the U.S. has taken. It makes a bold and damning statement critiquing post-9/11 failures and the emptiness of the War on Terror. When bin Laden’s compound is invaded and he’s killed, it’s a taut and suspenseful albeit disturbing sequence. In the end, there’s no rejoicing, no celebration.
The last image we see is Maya, alone shedding silent tears.
She allows herself a much-needed emotional release. While she should be
satisfied at the culmination of her life’s work, pain tinges this moment. Lost
and forlorn, she doesn’t know where to go next.
Zero Dark Thirty
doesn’t provide any easy answers. Rather it asks complex questions. Like any
masterful work of art, it challenges us and pushes us, at times in
uncomfortable ways. It forces us to look at ourselves as a nation, to our
collective pain and to our response to tragedy. Zero Dark Thirty essentially asks us if it was all worth it. It
asks how we can move forward. Just like Maya, where do we go from here?







3 comments:
Awesome review! I might see this today ...
Bless you for this piece, Megan. The backlash against this film is astounding to me. I can't see how anyone can see this movie and think it was an advertisement or propaganda for torture. To criticize it as being too AMBIGUOUS on torture is perhaps valid, but I also think Bigelow was challenging the viewer by not making a huge anti-torture statement. I truly believe that any person who thought waterboarding "didn't count" as torture would change their minds after seeing this film.
I'll be writing a piece about the backlash against her next week, because I've had it with this sexist nonsense! Thank you for your complex reading of the movie.
This is a truly excellent piece, especially the discussions
of torture and gender. And I'm glad you point out that "In the end,
there’s no rejoicing, no celebration" and that "It forces us to look
at ourselves as a nation...[and ask] if it was all worth it." I couldn't
agree more.
The bottom line about the torture issue is that people in
our country need to SEE what our country has done to prisoners of war, to SEE
what the cost of "freedom" is. If we don't see it and read about it,
it's not real to us, and we can continue to live in our McMansions and drive
our SUVs and use our iPhones without understanding what has been done to make
our lives as comfortable as they are.
As for gender, this movie does an outstanding job showing us
what it's like for a woman to work in a world that is dominated by men and have
to adapt to that world to get her job done as well as she does it. And don't
kid yourself—this kind of adaptation isn't only required in the CIA or the
military; it's required in all male-dominated work environments. For that
reason alone, this is a feminist film, not to mention that it passes the
Bechdel test.
But it's also a feminist film because it shows a woman
succeeding at the toughest job of the last decade. Maya is a "killer"
not because she kills, but because she gets it done, which is a great
compliment in her male-dominated world even though it is couched inside the
implicit criticism of her being a "girl," which she is called even
after they "get" Bin Laden because of her work. It's a feminist film,
too, because it sends the message that macho behavior isn't what gets the job
done, but intelligence, determination, and tenacity do.
Post a Comment