On-screen violence is one issue that a lot of people find inappropriate. This is difficult because while I genuinely dislike seeing violence in movies--I never watch a movie excited to see realistic violence--it is often necessary to make the point of the movie. One oft-cited example is The Passion of the Christ. Another example that I want to consider here today because it touches on a topic currently in the news is a movie called Unthinkable.
The reason for my lead-in to this is that I'm hesitant to acknowledge that I've watched Unthinkable or to recommend it to others because it's violent in a genuinely disturbing way. Much like The Passion of the Christ, it is not enjoyable to watch, but it is important in the issue and questions it presents. I have no desire to re-watch either of these movies, though I consider both to be extremely important works that have affected me in a positive way.
The protagonist in the movie is an FBI agent played by Carrie-Anne Moss, and she is told to oversee the work of an interrogator played by Samuel L. Jackson. He's attempting to extract information from a terrorist who claims to have planted bombs in major cities. We're meant to work through the moral trade-offs involved with enhanced interrogation through the decisions that Moss' character is forced to make. Throughout the movie, she constantly has to decide whether to allow the torture we're witnessing to continue and escalate further or potentially allow thousands to millions to die in a nuclear incident. Some of the questions forced on the audience follow.
- Is there a way to weigh the moral values of torture against the life that would be lost without it?
- Is a little bit of torture okay if it saves lives?
- Is more extreme torture okay if it saves lives?
- Is there ever a point where the actions necessary to save lives are so unthinkable (hence the movie's name) that it's preferable not to take them?
- *Spoiler (highlight to reveal)* Is it acceptable to torture an innocent if that could save lives? *Spoiler*
The reason I "like" (not enjoy) this movie is that I didn't believe it forced the audience to believe one way or the other on torture. Where 24* or Zero Dark Thirty* may extol the effectiveness of torture, or where Rendition* may present it as something that will be abused, my take on Unthinkable was that the movie intended for audiences to simply understand the trade-off for taking either a pro- or anti-torture position**. I didn't finish the movie believing that being for or against torture was an easy choice. I finished the movie believing that every option in such situations is a bad option, and the real question is determine which the least bad option is***.
So, I'm sort of recommending the movie without recommending it in the same way I would do so with The Passion of the Christ. If you're not up to watching a violent and disturbing movie don't watch this. If you could stomach Mel Gibson's movie, though, and want to see a movie that handles the subject of torture against terrorism in an unflinching and honest light, it is worth a consideration.
* I actually have only watched a little bit of 24, and none of Zero Dark Thirty or Rendition. You can discredit my opinion related to those movies if you like, since I'm only going off second-hand information.
** Full disclosure, I have been anti-torture for a few years now after having believed for a while that it was an acceptable trade-off to stopping acts of terrorism. This being said, I am genuinely torn on some of the moral conundrums certain scenarios present.
*** I do also think I should acknowledge that one criticism I've seen of the movie is that it may actually be slanted pro-torture. There is real dispute as to whether torture is effective in getting accurate information from individuals, and while this is somewhat addressed in the movie, the audience may still walk away thinking that torture is more effective than it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment