Yes, Zero Dark Thirty condones torture, because it shows torture in the movie. It also shows that torture works. They say that torture works to produce intelligence information that is reliable. When it paints torture in a positive light, the movie can be said to be condoning torture. It shows that torture works.
I have yet to see the movie. Which means, I can not give a 100 percent accurate answer on my own behalf. From what people told me, the move did show torture. Whether torture really happened in real life is not 100 percent fact. Most people are pretty sure America tortured their prisoners. The movie showed that being tortured worked, and they gained valuable info from the tortured prisoners. Showing that the movie did indeed condone torture.
Having watched Zero Dark Thirty several times, I believe the film does condone torture, as well as the characters contained in that film. It is a prominent part of the film and I believe it illustrates the acceptance level seen in the ranks. No one in that environment speaks out because they are getting orders from higher ranks. So while the film does condone and show torture, I believe the reason it was done that way was to show people what the circumstances are really like, rather than censor it or leave it out. I don't believe its presence says that people should support torture, I think it just puts it out there, here's what they're talking about it when they say enhanced interrogation methods.
Condones torture by never questioning the methods by which intelligence is gained and uncritically portraying torture as a legitimate means to an end. A movie in which a terrorist attack on a bus in London is a terrible thing but where it is okay to detain Pakistani nationalists without trial and subject them to torture. It seems like a Western life is worth some 10,000 middle Eastern lives. Shame on the writers, actors and film makers. Shame.
The main character, the CIA agent, began her career in Pakistan with clear concern for what was going on in these Black Sites. She could not participate in the beginning yet she ended up doing the same disgusting 'enhanced interrogation techniques' of the Agency. For those who say 'Waterboarding' is not torture, including G.W.Bush, why don't you try it at home.
And, please do not tell me this was just a fiction movie. This is a bad argument.
Though this movie has been delivered as a piece of fiction, it loosely resembles the actual, so-called "War on Terror" and events leading to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Part of the truth behind this story is the prison at Guantanamo Bay, where torture was regularly used against innocent persons. This fact alone should cause every American to question what our country has turned into, and for Zero Dark Thirty to portray torture as an effective method of finding intel is condoning torture - something no civilized country should find acceptable.
While I will say that the movie does not seem to explicitly, actively support torture, a thing that I am quite grateful for, there does seem to be a strong undercurrent of condoning it.
I'm sure that some will argue that it actually is just condoning "enhanced interrogation techniques". While we can go around and around the block about whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" constitute torture, I will just say that putting a pretty ribbon on horse manure does not magically make it a rose.
The strong undertone of the movie is that torture was vital to the capturing of Bin Laden, and it's an undertone that is so strong that it comes close to an explicit statement. Reasonably, I cannot turn a blind eye to such a glaringly obvious undercurrent, and therefore I must say that, yes, Zero Dark Thirty absolutely does condone torture.
The film 'Zero Dark Thirty' is based on actual events. If torture did occur then the film would be obligated to feature this in the narrative. I don't think the film condones torture. The film simply acknowledges the reality of the practice. The truth condones nothing. I don't think the film was in any way political or polemical. I think the aim of the filmmakers was to show in a dramatic medium recent world history.
The movie Zero Dark Thirty does not condone torture. Despite many critics from the left who say the movie condones torture, it does not. It shows the true side of torture and goes against torture. Proponents of the movie would agree with me on this topic. I believe the movie shows how bad torture is and that we can capture and get information from bad guys without torture.
Movies, by definition, are fictional. They are art. They will take things that happen in real life and make a compelling story. Was this movie billed as a documentary? Or as a training manual? I don't think so. Did the TV show "24" condone torture in real life? Did "Kill Bill" condone cutting up people with a sword? We need to stop blaming movies for people doing things wrong. Movies are simply a reflection of real life.
It's a movie. Art. It doesn't condone torture in anyway, it doesn't glorify it, it doesn't support it. People always try to make something out of nothing, and this is just the latest case of it. The general public is misinformed and ignorant in general, and sadly enough, many people (assuming they've even heard of it) have wrong thoughts on this.