Did the Obama administration grant Bigelow info for Zero Dark Thirty?

[GusFring]

If so, why? The movie sucked and doesn't make him look good anyways.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I doubt it. Haven't seen it but it sounds like typical schlock crap action movie.

What reasons would producers have to go to Obama, and what reason would Obama have to assist?

Producers don't need permission and they don't care if they're accurate.

It seems they even had an agenda to make torture look pedestrian and common.

Fuck them.

[cilla4progress]

2. I don't know if it is even accurate?

I don't plan to watch it, but have heard media reports. It sounds like it's not even true. Why is it up for awards?

[GusFring]

4. A lot of awards, and I dont ger it. The lead character Maya seems to be based off Jen from the book

SEAL guy wrote. She played the part horribly imo.

[Bjorn Against]

3. My understanding is that they did

I know the Pentagon had meetings with the film's writers and producers, what sort of info was given I don't know. It is actually common for the Pentagon to help out film producers in this way, in exchange the Pentagon is able to impact the content of the script. If you ever have wondered why you don't see movies like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket that really showed the brutality of war being made these days this is the reason. Back in the 80's the movie studios did not work with the Pentagon, once the Pentagon started offering them access the scripts became much more tame.

This is why you should not watch Zero Dark Thirty or most other modern war movies, it is pure propaganda.

[GusFring]

5. it felt like CIA propaganda more than anything. I think CIA Bushites just leaked what they wanted to

[Enrique]

6. emails

MV=Mark Vickers, Undersecretary of Defense
MB=Mark Boal, screenwriter
KB=Bigelow



much more info from the hated Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/wh_leaks_for_propaganda_film/

[GusFring]

7. This what I heard, but the movie doesnt make Obama look good. The only propaganda is CIA.

[Enrique]

8. that particular Defense official is CIA

with an interesting background, given what we're talking about:

In the mid-1980s, Vickers became involved with Operation Cyclone, the CIA program to arm Islamist Mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He was the head military strategist for the US, coordinating an effort that involved ten countries and providing direction to forces made up of over 500,000 Afghan fighters.

So Vickers's first motivation was probably glorifying the CIA and Special Forces, but he didn't forget his current boss. This is what he pushed for in his talks with the filmmakers. Whether they did it or not I don't know, I didn't see the movie:

[CANDO]

9. I saw the movie

I was sort of underwhelmed by it. It's mostly about showing the persistence of the woman CIA agent in finding the the proverbial needle in the haystack. It didn't show Obama in a bad way, or even a good one. It barely showed him at all. It didn't even feel like it was pro-CIA. It actually portrayed aspects of some CIA people protecting their turf instead of working together. The torture scenes were not horrifically graphic in my opinion. And the movie shows there wasn't much actionable Intel garnered by its use. If people want to spin the movie one way or another they should at least see it for themselves before doing so. Warning... beware the unexpected explosions which will make you nearly jump from your seat.

[GusFring]

10. well Barack Obama is potus and they made it seem like he had nothing to do with it.

That kinda makes him look bad .Like all the politicians did was get in the way of the woman and the CIA.

[CANDO]

11. In that portion of the movie...

It was a given as to whom was making the decision to go in. They don't play it from a top down perspective. The top official shown was the Director of CIA. And even he made it clear that someone higher up the food chain needed more evidence before it would be a go.