Pajiba

This country will rue the day it surrendered its principles to a bunch of cowardly thugs in the name of "safety."

See how safe it's going to be in 20 years when some faceless ATF/FBI/Homeland Youth goon is free to knock down your door and put a gun in the back of your skull because you were flagged for saying something that's deemed "threatening."

Well, this review has piqued my interest in the movie, if only for Metwally. I've never been a fan of Reese Witherspoon - something about her is so.....severe. But I may have to make an exception, even if it will be incredibly difficult to watch.

Although this began under Clinton (who didn't even acknowledge there was a serious terrorist threat publicly, calling it a law enforcement problem), the writer of this piece seems eager to bacsh Bush for continuing the practice after the threat of terrorism became obvious to all of us.

Either this kind of practice is wrong or it's not, but I'd have to say that in the days after 9/11, it made a lot more sense to try extrodinary ways to find out if we were all in danger than in the days after Monicagate.

I personally think war is hell and during times of war things get broke - including the rules. Lincoln did it in the Civil War when it was discovered there were enemies amongst us. Roosevelt did it during WWII when the sabotage on domestic shores started. It shouldn't be shocking that some rules got broke by Bush in the wake of an attack that killed thousands in the heart of downtown Manhattan.

The solution to not having things get broken is not to have wars, but it's important to remember we didn't start this one. The assholes on the planes did. (As I understand it, the whole rendition thing is not about Iraq, which I think we all question - it is about terrorism.)

While it's always a tragedy when innocent people get hurt, I can't say I get too weepy about the idea of some jihadist getting his hand slapped when I know he'd slit the throats of my daughters as they slept if given half a chance.

Good God.

Well constructed review, Dan.

I love the last line.

"The solution to not having things get broken is not to have wars, but it's important to remember we didn't start this one"

Oh Johnny, which middle American state do you come from? Because to me it seems like the war started with many possible events (such as, just for example's sake, the US supporting Saddam in his initial rise to power or the US enacting sanctions on certain countries that resulted in the deaths of innocent, poverty-stricken civilians, many of them children) but none of them were those planes in New York on 911. Those angry people were angry for reasons that had less to do with 'hating your freedoms' and more to do with hating the very tangible and unpleasant effects of US policy in their own countries.
Now grow the F up.

I have to agree with princess. This whole "break a few eggs to make an omelet" philosophy is appalling, not to mention a slippery slope towards becoming as bad, if not worse, than those who our government objects to so strongly.

Alright, politics aside, this was a great review. I've loved Hood since Tsotsi, and not just because it's about my homeland. He has a keen eye for the agony of the human condition, and I'm pleased to see him keep it up. Although... his next film is "Wolverine", which befuddles me to no end.

"it's important to remember we didn't start this one"

We didn't? Um, yeah, we did.

I just gotta say this.

My best friend was in Morocco while this was filming and met Jake. Awesome.

Then she followed his caravan down this road to the beach, which was a little stalkerish, I contend, but come on! Awesome!

Beautiful review.

In communist countries, people who were thought to "threaten" the nation were often tortured and jailed with no other reason given to their families. I find a very scary parallel with the current government's logic. That and when I first heard Homeland Security, 1984's Ministry of Love came to mind.

And on a lighter note: Wolverine??? ...You've got to be kidding me.

And yet, it's unfortunate that Hood's film, in all its wisdom and grace and skill and power, is forced to remain politically silent to make a political argument.

Why did the director have to make a political argument? Isn't torture an ethical problem? Shouldn't an ethical argument be made? Was an ethical argument made?

I know everyone wants to believe that we're better than this. I know I want to believe it. However, what is the alternative? Asking politely? To say simply that "desperate times call for desperate measures" would be a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. But, to say that torture doesn't get results would be a fallacy.

I know that torturing someone is wrong. But, what is one to do when someone who has vital information that could save thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of innocent lives is not willing to give up that information? Offer asylum? Give them money? I would truly like to know what the viable alternatives would be. Call me ignorant. Call me what you will. But, I truly don't know what the alternatives are.

Also, comparing modern day America to Orwell's 1984 is as an antiquated argument against torture as the "Desperate times call for desperate measures" argument is in favor of torture. FDR authorized Japanese Americans to be rounded up and interned! Can you fathom the shit-storm that would rain down in Washington if anyone in the administration even whispered the word "internment" for consideration in this day and age?

I was iffy on this one. In fact, the only reason I debated seeing it at all is my insane love for Peter Sarsgaard (fine, and my soft spot for Reese Witherspoon), but your review makes it sound powerful and worthwhile. Hmmm...

I watched this last night, and this review is pretty much spot on. The only thing I would say though, is that in the effort to cover all possible stories and opinions in this film, it feels as though the viewer never gets close to any of the characters. It's very difficult to empathise with any of them (the torture scenes are difficult to watch, because of what they are, but there's no pity for the character himself, if that makes sense). Because of this, there are scenes which might, with a bit more empathy, have had me in tears, but unfortunately didn't.
On a more unfortunate note, I found that male members of the audience I was with laughed (yes, laughed) at some of the torture scenes. I gather from the comments that they felt their masculinity was threatened by the scenes, so obviously the way to deal with that is to make stupid jokes and giggle. Real mature, men of SE London. I'm so proud that you attempted to understand this film rather than regress to the age of 5 because someone was naked and pain on screen.

Johnny,

People like Ann Coulter advocate torturing one person for the (alleged) good of the many, but the problem with this is where do you draw the line? After the London bombings, when police were given permission to shoot-to-kill, they killed a completely innocent (middle eastern-looking) man. Where is the line? (Clearly, Ms Coulter herself doesn't actually have a line - I recall reading something of Anne's where she said that she wished Middles Eastern people weren't allowed on planes at all and if they had to fly she encouraged full body searches for every one of 'them').
I go to law school, and one of the legal philosophies that I've encountered that really struck a chord with me is that of Ronald Dworkin. His theories basically focus on the notion of "equal concern and respect for all" - the rights of the individual are trumps, and cannot be trodden on for the sake of the majority. In our modern political climate, some may think its naive or ignorant to say that torture in any context is wrong. I, however, believe that focusing on an individual's rights should be supreme and can be powerful. Not only does this send the right message/example to all our 'enemies', but by treating the suspects with the base respect for their humanity that they deserve (and which all our home-grown serial killers/rapists/mass murderers receive) can begin to institute monumental change at a fundamental level. We all have heard how anger and hostility is fostered by our own foreign policy and its administration - isn't the perfect place to start by showing that we treat the lowest-of-the-low (ie the alleged terrorists) with respect for their humanity. It will better enable us to demand the same in return.

Also, what kind of government is it that asks its citizens to perform such acts of torture? Surely one cannot compartmentalize forever.

Ah, TK! That's where I remember Gavin Hood! Thank you. Also, Wolverine is still getting made? Why? Is that the Hugh Jackman movie?

where is the 30 days of night review?????????
i need it asap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"30 Days of Night" blows and the comic was better.

There you go.

I've been looking forward to this so much, and this review makes me want to see it even more. As much as I agree with you that it would have been good to have it more politically explicit, I must say I'd rather have a thriller that keeps a little too silent than a heavy-handed screed that fails as a movie and gives ammunition to the film's detractors.

I know that torturing someone is wrong. But, what is one to do when someone who has vital information that could save thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of innocent lives is not willing to give up that information?

Part of the problem with this argument is that many of the people who are tortured are really not in the position of having such critical information that cannot be discovered in any other way. For example in the London bombing, the bombers were identified and traced in under 24h simply from CCTV footage. If any of them had survived, there would have been no need to torture them to find their associates. And there weren't any further bombs (not within the time it took to trace them without torture).

What if you torture 20 *suspects* (remember the evidence linking these people to the terrorists may be flimsy at best) in order to stop a bomb that kills a dozen people? The idea that some hypthethetical scenario exists in which someone MAY have critical information, can't be used to justify torturing every suspect.

Also won't critical information be time sensitive? Any real terrorists would surely have deadletter systems to let their colleagues know if they were captured. Would any information that takes more than a few days to extract really be that critical and impossible to find out any other way?

Finally, having tortured a suspect, who then turns out to be totally innocent, what do you do? If you let him go won't he press charges? Do you have to kill them off afterwards? Is the torturer really willing to risk the scandal (Ok obviously they are, but still).

My good friend works for Witness, an org that uses video to disseminate info about human rights abuses. She told me that when the DVD of this film is released, it will include Witness's own documentary about rendition, which I've seen and it's devastating. If you're interested in seeing it you can find it on the Witness website.

I tried to post the link but I got junked--so if you do a Google search for "Witness rendition" the vid will come up. Really upsetting. I forwarded it to my more conservative family members (retaliation for some of those "Jesus will love you if you send this to 5 people" emails) but I never heard back. Hmmmm...

Okay people just think of it this way: if it was you in that room getting tortured for vital information would you not reach a point where you would tell them anything just to get them to stop?? Because I think I probably would.
And to me that's the problem, I don't think torture works because the torture continues until the torturer hears what they want to. If you didn't do it you can't tell them it but you'll reach a point where you tell them what they want to hear just to make it stop.
Which endangers life further as they are then working on duff info.

It's totally self defeating
Look at the history, it didn't work for the British in Ireland it just helped the IRA's recruiting. And before any snarky comments are made my home town was bombed by the IRA with 2 little boys killed so if torture worked and could save lives of innocents like them I would fully endorse it but it doesn't

Reese Witherspoon's character had the chance to marry hunky Peter Sarsgaard but opts for a fucking muslim? Are we supposed to believe this unlikely scenario? Really sick of these liberal Hollywood let's-feel-sorry-for-al-quada movies that are starting to pop up in popular culture. I don't care how "Americanized" elements of this cult is, they are still just as dangerous as Christian conservatives in their influence on Western politics.

"But, what is one to do when someone who has vital information that could save thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of innocent lives is not willing to give up that information?"

We always here the same cliche when talking about torture and 99.9% of the time, it's a lie. Did the Abu Ghraib prisoners have any secret information? Do those poor idiots at Gitmo have any time sensitive info four years into their captivity, did they know anything about an imminent terror plot when they got to Gitmo two weeks after they were captured... of course not.

Any smart organization would have changed a terror plot as soon as a key person got captured. Sure, you can still get useful information about a terror organization months later. But torturing the person won't generally have much imminent effect because it happens weeks or months after the capture. The fact is that torture isn't nearly as effective as Kiefer Sutherland makes it out to be.

The real issue, and one that the review doesn't really touch on is that whatever small gain that torture will bring is offset by the damage.

Right now the entire world believes, rightly believes, that the US tortures Arabs. And as a result the entire world feels we have lost our moral stature as a nation. That has done enormous damage to us -- and governments from Russia to Iran are making the most of that weakness.

And about a billion Arabs believe that we torture them because we think they are less human than ourselves. They see that we don't give Gitmo prisoners lawyers or trials. They saw us sexually humiliating the prisoners in Iraq. And when terrorists talk to simple minded folks on the Arab street, more and more of those folks listen.

Torture is the best recruiting tool Bin Laden could have been given.

We in Canada have just gone through a real case involving a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent, Maher Arar, who was sent to Syria for torture by the CIA when he passed through New York on his way back from vacation. The Canadian secret service and the RCMP were found responsible by a parliamentary committee for providing the information that led to his rendition, and for not stopping it. The government of Canada eventually gave him a formal apology and a cash settlement. Canadians were outraged that such a thing happened and ashamed that they participated, but they were not surprised that it happened in the US. I think Americans are apt to forget that the whole world watches their actions very closely, and that torture is not acceptable to the other Western democracies. Breaking the Geneva Convention is a very serious matter, and has done massive harm to America's reputation, yet I see that there are still some among you that see torture as necessary domestic policy because it is convenient for your present internal political purposes.

Reese Witherspoon's character had the chance to marry hunky Peter Sarsgaard but opts for a fucking muslim?

WTF?? apparently in real live white girls only marry hunky all american white boys and please we all have to stop generalizing, just because a white american teenager goes and kills his classmates are we supossed to think everyone that fits that description is going to do something like that, is just plain stupid!!

But, what is one to do when someone who has vital information that could save thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of innocent lives is not willing to give up that information?

Several commenters have already done an excellent job of debunking this ignorance; I'd just like to add a mention of the recent article about the WWII vets who interrogated Nazi POWs at Fort Hunt WITHOUT using torture. "'We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,' said Henry Kolm, 90." "'During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,' said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. 'We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I'm proud to say I never compromised my humanity.' "

"Reese Witherspoon's character had the chance to marry hunky Peter Sarsgaard but opts for a fucking muslim? Are we supposed to believe this unlikely scenario? Really sick of these liberal Hollywood let's-feel-sorry-for-al-quada movies that are starting to pop up in popular culture. I don't care how "Americanized" elements of this cult is, they are still just as dangerous as Christian conservatives in their influence on Western politics."

O_o *blinks with disbelief*
What. The. Fuck.
Have you ever READ a book?

"Reese Witherspoon's character had the chance to marry hunky Peter Sarsgaard but opts for a fucking muslim? Are we supposed to believe this unlikely scenario? Really sick of these liberal Hollywood let's-feel-sorry-for-al-quada movies that are starting to pop up in popular culture. I don't care how "Americanized" elements of this cult is, they are still just as dangerous as Christian conservatives in their influence on Western politics."

Yeah, I know, Kate. Here's hoping that guy was engaging in some stupid humor, because OTHERWISE.. Wow. Nice to know that in 2007, interracial relationships are still INCONVENIENT for busybody OUTSIDERS. Bigoted moron.

I'm more impressed by the fact that Reese Witherspoon is in this than anything else -- I thought she was a Bush-loving Republican, even though I admittedly have no proof. I only heard some rumor that she made some dumb "Support the President"-esque comment back in '03 or so. I assumed that, since she's from the South, and if she would make a comment like that, then she's a Kool-Aid Drinker like so many others are around here (I'm in Atlanta), but.. Hm. Oh, well. It's nice to be one's assumptions challenged, isn't it? :)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Britney Spears? She made a comment like that around that time.

That's coz Muslims have bigger dicks Matt...

Seriously though Matt, Muslims practice Islam as a religion, A RELIGION MATT, there's no ethnicity involved in it. So that 'fucking Muslim' could be that hunky, white Peter Saarsgard. What you mean is how could she have chosen that 'fucking coloured' guy over the white guy?

Incidentally, What's the weather like in Jena these days Matt?

That's coz Muslims have bigger dicks Matt...

Seriously though Matt, Muslims practice Islam as a religion, A RELIGION MATT, there's no ethnicity involved in it. So that 'fucking Muslim' could be that hunky, white Peter Saarsgard. What you mean is how could she have chosen that 'fucking coloured' guy over the white guy?

Incidentally, What's the weather like in Jena these days Matt?

I like superkays comment, I think it deserved to be posted twice.

Every human being has a right not to be tortured. Doesn't matter who it is, or what they have done, torture no good.

Your country scares the fu*k out of me.

It's not a 'war', it's an invasion. You (and sadly we Brits), invaded Iraq as an occupying force. There was no mutual declaration of war.

I do wish America would stop calling it war, cos that makes it sound like there are two sides.

As for keeping 'Middle Easterners' off flights... some of the London Bombers were born in the UK. So do you just ban anyone with a hint of colour in their skin?

America scares me too Peter G. It's why I left.

Damn, late to the party.

See how safe it's going to be in 20 years when some faceless ATF/FBI/Homeland Youth goon is free to knock down your door and put a gun in the back of your skull because you were flagged for saying something that's deemed "threatening."

B-Slim, you constantly surprise.

This idea that torture gains meaningful information has been debunked by many Americans with far more experience than those in our government who would use it -- e.g., John McCain, a Bush ally who was himself tortured and condemns the practice from a seat of authority. Aside from the ethical issues, the mechanical problem with using torture should be obvious, as was pointed out above: The torturer can never know when the prisoner is finally telling the truth, which leads to more abuse, followed by the prisoner changing his story, etc., etc. And, as also pointed out above, in a "cell" structure, a terrorist organization is highly unlikely to be stopped by one person giving information. (I.e., if you caught the person with the information, you've already stopped the attack because you have the attacker.)

Torture doesn't work. American POWs have repeatedly and convincingly established this fact.

Beyond that, the suggestion that we should abandon our national conscience for unlawful tools of oppression is ridiculous. As long as there are laws to be upheld, we must be the first and last to uphold them. The foundational principle of our country is that no one -- NO ONE -- is too high or too low to be subject to or protected by the rule of law. There can be no exceptions, or we have no country.

It's been over six years since 9/11; plenty of time for Bush to seek express authority from Congress to torture prisoners. But he and his cronies are, at bottom, empty cowards who do not want to acknowledge that power rests in the legislature or to explain why they think it's okay to abuse other people with no trial and no oversight. Fucking disgraceful.

I fear that most people don't actually worry about any 'slippery slopes' when it comes to their freedoms - it's not like most of them have ever actually had their freedoms truly threatened. So it's an abstract idea that has no basis in anyone's reality. It makes it that much easier to dismiss out of hand. Torturing some Middle Eastern looking man seems to be a small price to pay for the continuation of the fantasy.

It reminds me of a line from "The Good Shepherd" where Matt Damon's character is talking w/ Joe Pesci: You know, we Italians have our families and the church, the Irish have the homeland, the Jews their tradition... What do you guys have?
Edward Wilson: We have the United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

That, to me, sums up why some people in America (mostly white males) believe torture of foreigners (even American-born ones) is ok.

Wow JJ pulling out the Dworkin (Ronald not Andrea) outstanding! How about a little John Rawls and contractarian citizenship? This blog is gettin' edumacated... ;-D

Dear dear me I wish people would leave Lincoln alone. Firstly, we split ourselves not another country, so of course enemies were on our soil. Secondly Lincoln was a LAWYER who knew exactly what he was doing, the temporary nature of wartime powers and the danger of too much power in the Presidency.

Roosevelt enacted those temporary powers (again short term b/c WWII was SHORTER than this Iraq war) because the East Coast was getting hit repeatedly by German U-boats and Pearl Harbor caught us by surprise. We apologized, decades late, to the Japanese-Americans who were interned throughout the West Coast.

Johnny your flippant use of "It shouldn't be shocking that some rules got broke by Bush" would turn Lincoln in his grave. Some rules huh? Yikes.

Good movies, especially political movies, are like essays. They are inevitably weaker if there is no conclusion. Not every film needs to take a stand but why pick a powerful subject and not follow through?

Most folks would agree torture itself is a bad thing. In the Army, we learned it was bad because, namely, if you knew your boys were being tortured, you'd rather die first...and would fight to the death. You'd rather not give them an excuse to get motivated. That is in addition to the moral agruments against it as well. But it is important to distinguish what exactly torture is. Beating the s**t out of someone: torture. Mentally tricking someone to give you info...not so much (water board stuff comes to mind). The threat of pain is not pain itself - keep that in mind. I guess this movie makes it clear, there's no gray area. if only real life were not so gray (Abu Ghraib was dehumanizing, not torture IMHO - wrong, but not as wrong as actually shocking guys testicles).

I would agree with most posters that sub-contracting torture to more morally permissive enviroments is never a good idea. I also know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Clintons probably thought this wouldn't get used to much in case of emergencies -well, the Bushes (and I agree, for the most part) think the events of 9/11 qualified as emergency events.

Our state department, CIA and department of defense are made up of human beings who have to make very difficult decisions on the handling of potential (real and otherwise) terrorists. We hope their education and training allows them to see right from wrong - and also to divine what information is needed in an emergency and those, with, perhaps, can be take a bit longer to draw out.

A lot of posters think that Bush himself is authorizing these types of interrogations. No - these are tools available to our intelligence professionals. They are the ones who choose to use them. We just pray they use them correctly. Not only is the tortured an individual, so are those that supervise it. I think we all would prefer a black and white world where torture is always wrong and should never occur. The reality is life is a bit gray - and the policies and programs about what is legal and what is not should be in black and white for our experts to use so that we can be humane AND protective of our citizens at the same time.

Chris, I appreciate everything you said and agree with a lot of it, but don't forget the 2002 Gonzales Geneva Convention memo to the White House, establishing an environment of permissive use of what most Americans would consider barbaric brutality if it were practiced on someone they know. (Everything changes when it happens in your MonkeySphere -- thank you, Cracked.com!). A CIA officer, NSA operative, or military intelligence agent is an executive branch employee, and the message from their boss is a firm "we're fine with you doing this."

Okay people just think of it this way: if it was you in that room getting tortured for vital information would you not reach a point where you would tell them anything just to get them to stop?? Because I think I probably would.
And to me that's the problem, I don't think torture works because the torture continues until the torturer hears what they want to. If you didn't do it you can't tell them it but you'll reach a point where you tell them what they want to hear just to make it stop.

First off, I agree with this completely. But I want to say what I thought of as soon as I read what you wrote:
"If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it fucking so!" -Reservoir Dogs.

Hahaha. Additionally, this movie sounds awesome. I wasn't even considering watching it but now I think I'm down. =) Thanks Pajiba!

But it is important to distinguish what exactly torture is. Beating the s**t out of someone: torture. Mentally tricking someone to give you info...not so much (water board stuff comes to mind). The threat of pain is not pain itself - keep that in mind.

I would have to disagree, there, Chris. For one thing, having someone put a piece of plastic over a guy's face and pouring water onto it while he is inclined in order to simulate drowning sounds quite painful to me. I do not think convulsing because your body is starved for oxygen can be considered painless.

Second, mentally tricking someone does not need to include physical contact by definition. If they want to do such a thing, why not make the target believe his people are betraying him? Or plying him with promises of reward for giving information? They don't even have to be fulfilled, if the information is bad, or even if it is good. Plus, what are they gonna do, call no backsies? You can take back a lie, but you can't take back a beating or a waterboarding.

And last, if we were to apply that kind of logic to our court system, then as long as an abusive person doesn't actually hit their spouse or children, then they cannot be considered abusive. So a man can keep his wife locked up in their home, constantly berating her verbally and controlling her life, but as long as he doesn't inflict physical pain (only saying he will do so), then he isn't abusing her. A mother can force her child to sleep in a closet or consume dishwashing liquid as a punishment, but she will only be considered a bad mother if she strikes the child. That doesn't work. Yes, there are myriad ways to cause trauma without physical pain, but it still torture.

For those of you who deride torture because it clearly does not work, as represented in "Rendition", I would direct you to seasons 1-5 of "24", where torture works very well, thank you.

'Preparedness meets Opportunity'--a line from the frontline doc. describing Dick Cheney's (with Addington's diabolical legal acumen on his side) methodical (pre 9/11) actions aimed at expanding the executive branch's powers in relation to personal liberties. I can only imagine the many dress rehearsals involved in the planned takeover of international resources, only to, poof, have the opportunity handed to them like a gift from Santy Claus...ohhh wait, I stopped believing in Santa Claus around six years ago.

"For those of you who deride torture because it clearly does not work, as represented in "Rendition", I would direct you to seasons 1-5 of "24", where torture works very well, thank you. "

And basing governmental policy on a TV show in which a character never uses the bathroom is such a great idea.

I watched the film last night and thought it was very good, for exactly the reason that it didn't glamour things up too much,(although all those impossible good looking people did end up a distraction) and it didn't overly sensationalise the subject matter too much.

To the matter of the rights and wrongs of torture- which is an interesting discussion to find on a film review site- there has to be some things which by natural law all people draw the line at. If we do not draw the line at these things there is no point having a line. How can one believe that a bomb which kills lots of people is 'wrong' but torturing someone else is 'right'? The end does not justify the means. The means justify our humanity. Didn't anyone get taught by their mamas not to 'stoop to their level'?

I do not believe there is any justification in the argument that sacrificing one person to save many is ok; because if a country legally allows people to be tortured, on their soil or on someone else's (and that's the biggest joke of all) they sacrifice their humanity altogether.

Well, that's my opinion anyway. But what would I know, I've never even been to 'the land of the free'...