The Report and cinema’s changing attitude to… | Little White Lies

The Report and cinema’s chang­ing atti­tude to on-screen torture

27 Oct 2019

Words by Prahlad Srihari

A man in a suit sits at a desk, looking at photographs and documents.
A man in a suit sits at a desk, looking at photographs and documents.
Scott Z Burns’ docu­d­ra­ma expos­es some hard truths about the CIA’s anti-ter­ror­ism tactics.

There was a time when Jack Bauer embod­ied a nation’s col­lec­tive rage as he drugged, elec­tro­cut­ed and water­board­ed ter­ror sus­pects for infor­ma­tion. When he’d say things like, You prob­a­bly don’t think that I can force this tow­el down your throat – trust me, I can,” a ton of Amer­i­cans prob­a­bly got patri­ot­ic bon­ers. Post 911, 24 became a chief weapon in America’s pro­pa­gan­da cam­paign to per­suade the pub­lic that tor­ture was an intel-pro­duc­ing necessity.

It wasn’t, as was revealed in a Sen­ate Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee report, which is also the sub­ject of Scott Z Burns’ The Report. The film tells the sto­ry of Sen­ate staffer Daniel J Jones (Adam Dri­ver), who led a six-year-long inves­ti­ga­tion to uncov­er the truth behind CIA’s enhanced inter­ro­ga­tion tac­tics” (EIT) in the wake of 911. The film makes for a stun­ning moral indict­ment of America’s insti­tu­tion­alised cru­el­ty dur­ing the admin­is­tra­tion of George W Bush. It’s a docu­d­ra­ma that sits some­where between Alex Gibney’s Taxi to the Dark Side and Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thir­ty. Thank­ful­ly, it’s clos­er to the for­mer than the latter.

Taxi to the Dark Side traced the chain of com­mand from the pris­ons in Afghanistan and Guan­tanamo to the offices of Don­ald Rums­feld and Dick Cheney – through the sto­ry of Dilawar, an inno­cent Afghan cab dri­ver who was tor­tured and killed in Amer­i­can cus­tody. Like Gib­ney, Jones seeks account­abil­i­ty for those respon­si­ble for the crimes. The com­mit­tee dis­cov­ers the enhanced inter­ro­ga­tion pro­gramme was mas­ter­mind­ed by two psy­chol­o­gists, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, but it was endorsed at the high­est lev­els of gov­ern­ment even when they knew they were vio­lat­ing the Gene­va Convention.

They piece togeth­er how the Bush admin­is­tra­tion pro­vid­ed a legal frame­work for the pro­gramme by allow­ing it to be run in CIA black sites over­seas. CIA even denies they are tor­tur­ing pris­on­ers by cre­at­ing its own def­i­n­i­tion of tor­ture (EIT) and kid­nap­ping (extra­or­di­nary ren­di­tion) with less objec­tion­able euphemisms. But the bomb­shell among them is they mis­rep­re­sent­ed the effec­tive­ness of the pro­gramme when, in fact, there was enough evi­dence to sug­gest that treat­ing ter­ror­ists humane­ly and empathis­ing with them yield­ed bet­ter results.

Even Zero Dark Thir­ty erro­neous­ly implies that tor­ture yield­ed key infor­ma­tion in the find­ing and killing of Osama bin Laden. But the Sen­ate report found that it was not a cen­tral com­po­nent” in find­ing the for­mer Al Qae­da leader. So, the film’s depic­tion of tor­ture as a suc­cess­ful inter­ro­ga­tion tac­tic works noth­ing more than as pro­pa­gan­da to con­vince the gen­er­al pub­lic that human rights abus­es are accept­able in the glob­al war on ter­ror” as long as Amer­i­ca is the one doing it. Both Zero Dark Thir­ty and 24 helped jus­ti­fy the use of tor­ture as CIA used pop cul­ture as a pul­pit from which to pon­tif­i­cate patriotism.

Woman sitting at computer desk, deep in thought, surrounded by work materials.

But patri­o­tism can nev­er become a defence for this lev­el of bar­bar­i­ty. This is sim­i­lar to the 2017 Win­ston Churchill biopic Dark­est Hour, which white­wash­es his­to­ry to glo­ri­fy the for­mer Con­ser­v­a­tive Prime Min­is­ter with­out chal­leng­ing the well-doc­u­ment­ed per­cep­tion that he was an unapolo­getic racist, clas­sist and impe­ri­al­ist. Instead, direc­tor Joe Wright gives us a Churchill-takes-the-Lon­don Under­ground scene.

The Report crit­i­cal­ly engages the audi­ence on how Amer­i­ca jus­ti­fied its use of tor­ture in the straight­for­ward man­ner of a doc­u­men­tary. Yet, at the same time, it drama­tis­es one hon­est man’s sto­ry with­in the larg­er con­text of America’s war on ter­ror in the form of a more palat­able fea­ture film. But this does not come at the cost of cer­tain unde­ni­able empir­i­cal facts and it does not treat them like they were flex­i­ble para­me­ters. It sim­u­lates real­i­ty through a care­ful­ly researched recre­ation of doc­u­ment­ed events.

Burns’ docu­d­ra­ma approach is rem­i­nis­cent of HBO’s Con­spir­a­cy, which drama­tis­es the 1942 Wannsee Con­fer­ence where Nazi offi­cers gath­ered to dis­cuss and imple­ment the so-called Final Solu­tion of the Jew­ish Ques­tion”. It takes a sim­i­lar didac­tic approach in its efforts to edu­cate and enter­tain, with its doc­u­men­tary real­ism keep­ing it from col­laps­ing into a mere moral­i­ty tale. Thus, the film works as an effec­tive com­pan­ion piece to Taxi to the Dark Side, offer­ing much the same lessons in a more palat­able way. By con­trast, Zero Dark Thir­ty manip­u­lates audi­ences by alter­ing nar­ra­tive ele­ments in its cre­ative treat­ment of reality.

Docu­d­ra­mas are a depic­tion of real­i­ty, not an imi­ta­tion of it. But the prob­lem aris­es when film­mak­ers eschew facts for fic­tion sole­ly for the sake of dra­mat­ic poten­tial. There is a del­i­cate bal­ance to this dual­i­ty – and, as The Report does so well, a bal­anced docu­d­ra­ma must take a scrupu­lous­ly jour­nal­is­tic approach.

You might like