Here's a link to the full report detailing the relationship between the CIA and the film makers of Zero Dark Thirty.

https://news.vice.com/article/tequila-painted-pearls-and-prada-how-the-cia-helped-produce-zero-dark-thirty

So, it is now officially confirmed that Zero Dark Thirty is a propaganda film, aided every step of the way by CIA involvement, including the illegal leaking of classified material. The report also details bribes given to CIA officials by the film-makers.

Here's a question: do you think Leon Panetta will face arrest for leaking classified material? Unfortunately, I seriously doubt it. That kind of treatment is reserved only for leakers who expose things the government doesn't want released (ex. Edward Snowden).

Zero Dark Thirty is an incredible film, and this article's political lean is the real disgusting propaganda.

Read the actual report (the first link). The article I pasted is just talking about what's in the report itself.

>>2

Zero Dark Thirty is an incredible film, and this article's political lean is the real disgusting propaganda.

What political lean? Are you pro-torture?

Like the movie all you want, but keep in mind that government is picking winners and losers. You pay tax so some rich hooker gets 30 million dollars.

Tthis article, which is more of an editorial take on the content of the report.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/11/the_cias_insidious_hollywood_propaganda_new_report_highlights_alarming_details_about_zero_dark_thirty/

But still, it's only "biased" in the sense that it openly considers the CIA's involvement to be wrong. Honestly, if one tries to be "objective" about that in the common journalistic sense, it only serves to benefit the guilty parties by artificially glossing over what they did under the guise of "fairness." The facts are undeniable at this point. Telling it like it is isn't "bias."

https://reason.com/archives/2010/06/21/whos-afraid-of-subliminal-adve

In the late 1990s, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) made about $25 million worth of deals with Hollywood studios and production companies to craft story lines with strong anti-drug messages on programs such as Beverly Hills 90210, ER, and The Drew Carey Show. The initiative, which was so hush-hush that most of the talent producing the shows weren’t aware of the government’s involvement, came to an end after Salon published a series of exposés about it.

NBC wasn’t the first organization to use the phrase behavior placement. In 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $30,000 grant to the Environmental Finance Center, a nonprofit, university-based organization that wanted to incorporate green messages into TV shows. “Possible examples include having actors bring cloth bags to the grocery store, recycle soda cans, use worm bins, and consider how to properly dispose of a computer monitor and other electronic waste accumulating in their closets,” an EPA bulletin explained.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304364904575166581279549318

an episode of the Bravo reality series "Millionaire Matchmaker" in which a 39-year-old tycoon with an eco-friendly clothing line goes into a rage after his blind date orders red meat.

I remember we had a discussion about this. The report seems to check out. There are other references to the same information around the internet.

I'm not surprised though I gave the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt. I didn't hold Zero Dark Thirty in high regard in any case.

It's not a good film, even aside from the deceitful pro-torture propaganda and the promotion of a false version of history. I was bored to death watching it. Honestly, I have no idea where it gets its reputation as a gripping psychological thriller.

That's all they talked about during the promo campaign when the film was released. The other Bryce Dallas Howard who starred in ZDT went on every talk show and talked about shadowing the super-secret CIA analyst her character was modeled on.

I don't mind films being a work of fiction as long as they show beefy handsome Americans torturing middle eastern evildoers.

I remember thinking at the time that Chastain's rhetoric during the promotion of the film was disgraceful. Her constant proclamation that her character is a "badass" was seriously misguided, considering her willingness to gladly aid in torture.

How far does this go? More to consider. Bigelow and company obviously had no problem with this. What does that say about the integrity of these kinds of people? But were they just complicit or did they instigate it? Maybe there were threats of blacklisting. Was Hurt Locker propaganda too? Was it a test run, or a submission of some kind, so they would be picked for Zero Dark Thirty?

Bigelow is a scumbag. She's done some cool work in the past (Strange Days), but her recent work is shameful (in a political sense).

There were rumors already back in 2011, that the White House/CIA was involved in making an election-year film with Bigelow. David Sirota wrote about it at the time.

I'm not surprised it's official by now, I thought everyone already knew. But thanks for the link.

Yes, there has been speculation about it for years in a "where there's smoke there's probably fire" kind of way, so it was already basically known, but this report has all the actual proof.

The article make it sound a little bit the other way around, filmmakers bribing cia people to get some information and feeling about the events to make their movie, then cia bribing them to make sure they make the movie the Cia want to see.

What would be the leak you are talking about:
The previously undisclosed detail about Boal's phone call to the CIA was included in more than 100 pages of internal CIA documents obtained exclusively by VICE News in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The documents contain the most detailed information to date about the controversial role the CIA played in the production of Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT).

Seem to have been obtained legally by Vice.

filmmakers bribing cia people to get some information and feeling about the events to make their movie, then cia bribing them to make sure they make the movie the Cia want to see.

It's clear they were in it together and established a mutually beneficial relationship. The end result being what essentially amounts to a CIA propaganda film.

What would be the leak you are talking about:

For one thing... Boal was invited to a secret ceremony honoring the people involved in the bin Laden hunt. There, CIA chief Leon Panetta wound up discussing classified information, even though Boal wasn’t authorized to hear it.

Leon Panetta wound up discussing classified information, even though Boal wasn’t authorized to hear it.

Ok thanks.

It's clear they were in it together and established a mutually beneficial relationship. The end result being what essentially amounts to a CIA propaganda film.

That need to be "demonstrated", if I do a movie about any real life event, chance are I would want to discuss the real event with the real people, for any subject it is possible that they will try to manipulate the end result to look good, that the filmmaker job if he want to not be too much influenced to protect itself.

As long that it is the filmmakers bribing the C.I.A. and not the other way around and that the communication is before the shoot-process it does not mean that it is a propaganda piece and not what the filmmaker wanted to do, if the benefit received by the Cia was bribe and not a script movie they could see in the making it should be ok.

It's mutually beneficial. The CIA had a vested interest in controlling the narrative in their favor, and the film makers wanted access. It seems to me that what is demonstrated here is the willingness of the film-makers to allow themselves to be used in the service of advancing a narrative beneficial to the agency.

Hah, that is awesome. I had a buddy that wrote for Vice News about 10 years ago. Neat. I'll try to read the article sometime I'm not feeling a little too jerky.