Better Off In The Dark? Hidden Propaganda In Cinema

Kathryn Bigelow is a pretty fascinating person and director, partly because of how she chooses to spell her first name, but mostly because of her directorial style and themes. Like therapy, many directors use their films as a medium to explore their interests or fascinations. That is often how they become an ‘auteur’. Bergman has God and faith, Tarantino has violence, Scorsese has American crime culture and New York, and Bigelow has war psychology.

Her fascinations and obsessions are ones I also share, and I believe most people would share.

When one thinks of war, most minds turn to the great wars and battles that have shaped our history and landscapes. However, Bigelow deals in modern warfare, in which battles shape the landscape of towns most of us have never heard of. Unlike Tarantino, it isn’t the violence that interests her but what a soldier is thinking. Most people walk away from what may kill them, but a soldier walks towards it willingly and rather than be relieved by safety when their duty is served, they often miss the ‘action’.

Something I have always enjoyed about Bigelow’s films is her lack of bias. Her films are about the person on the frontlines, not their political stance, not if they are good or bad, but what they are thinking and feeling. Americans have a habit of forming biased viewpoints regarding war; glorifying their soldiers and showing the opposition as near-inhuman savages. This can be seen as far back as popular westerns, where cowboys cull the barbaric Indians. However, Bigelow's unbiased filmmaking that I admire so much changed with her extremely popular 2012 film, Zero Dark Thirty.

For those of you who have not managed to see it yet, it follows the hunt for Osama bin Laden in a post 9/11 America and his subsequent death in 2011. The whole world knew when bin Laden was killed and it was most certainly a day of great celebration in America, but was the film a true representation of what really happened? I don’t think so and my question this week is: at what point does a film become propaganda?

I’m sure this film is uplifting for many Americans and feels like some kind of victory, however small, after the total and utter devastation caused by the terror attacks in New York. You can understand the psychology of a nation that has suffered such an unbelievable loss, but which path to justice was the real one?

Films like The Report or even The Mauritanian tell a different story and show the darker side of American warfare. Zero Dark Thirty shows the work of the military and highlights their questionable interrogation techniques, but shows these techniques as being an integral part of bringing about bin Laden's death. In The Report and The Mauritanian, the story shows the illegal and inhuman interaction techniques used by the U.S Military as being almost totally ineffective. Their methods are enough to make anyone ashamed. Still, Zero Dark Thirty champions these techniques and claims that they were key to discovering the location of bin Laden despite many opposing viewpoints on that.

The Report and The Mauritanian rightly places the hard work and dedication of those carrying out interviews and building relationships in the spotlight. It was this gathering of crucial intelligence by dedicated officials that led to a successful mission. Not only does Zero Dark Thirty not emphasise the illegality of what was done, but it is misleading in how critical it was to the overall success of the mission.

So, the question remains: why did Bigelow choose to tell that version of the story rather than the truth (or at least something closer to the truth)? Is it the violence, or rather lack of it had she gone with a more realistic telling of the events? Does the violence make it more gratifying? Or satisfying? Does it make it an eye for an eye and does that feel better? Bigelow is typically interested in what drives men towards possible death and violence. Why is she not interested in what drove men to carry out such barbaric and inhuman acts?

The Report and The Mauritanian are willing to show the flaws of the American government (and rightly so). They still show its successes, achievements and quest for justice, but it does not shy away from how the path to justice and success was paved. By not showing the dark side to success, is that not just propaganda? Taking the past but throwing away the ugly parts; is that not some sort of propaganda?

Would the true story not have been enough for those who suffered such personal loss and for a whole nation that grieved? Was Bigelow’s aim to uplift a broken nation and was she willing to achieve that at all costs, even the truth? And, if so, why?

Propaganda is almost always instantly recognisable. We are used to seeing it used by dictators or others that like trying to dominate and attractively spread their message of hate. Is Bigelow not doing something similar, showing something attractive and uplifting to gloss over the heinous acts that it takes to get there. It is an interesting dilemma and shows a fine line between fact and propaganda. Did she do the wrong thing morally? But the right thing emotionally? And which one is more important in the end?