Too much drama for history, and too much history for drama

Rating: 9/10 (21 January 2013)

This is a peculiar film. And an important one.
Zero Dark Thrity is one of those films that has to be done. If Kathryn Bigelow hadn't done it, someone will. There will be many ways to tell this story - or shall we call it history? It can be easily imagined that there be a documentary about it, and just as easily imagined a big patriotic Hollywood action picture about it.
Zero Dark Thirty is neither. And for the atmosphere and mood created by this film, we should feel much grateful to Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal. Most of the time the film possesses a quiet, reserved attitude. In the opening sequence about 9/11 - which is perhaps bound to be another classic scene in film history - all we could hear is screaming and yelling and reporting and talking; there was no image, for the entire scene. In the final take-down sequence, there was no triumphant and emotional music; there was, in fact, almost no sign of victory at all. There was only the dark (or green) images, running after, with, and alongside soldiers. In the end, there wasn't even one frontal shot of Osama Bin Laden's face. We could not feel triumph. We weren't supposed to.
In this aspect, Zero Dark Thirty is quite similar to Lincoln. Both are made by master filmmakers, both tell stories that are more or less known by everyone, and both succeeded in not looking cheesy by exhibiting exceptional reservation.
Both the camera and the music were masterfully handled. The cinematography is still hand-held documentary style, but this time it's well done. Where The Hurt Locker had overdone it to such a degree that the cinematography just distracted and annoyed, Zero Dark Thirty did just right.
Music was also reserved and appropriate. At the supposedly most exciting moments, there were, however, no music underlining the triumphant emotions. When it requires it, as in the helicopter scenes before the final operation, it is there.
Sadly, although the filmmaking of Zero is splendid, the film is not.
Zero is not exactly a film; it is too restrained by history. What ended up on the screen is not really a story, but mere segments of history told in chronological order. Compiling a film with segments instead of one whole story is nothing wrong in itself: Wong Kar Wai always does that, from Days of Being Wild to The Grandmaster. Quentin did that. But between these segments there must be connection: they may be connected by theme, by character, by parallel stories, by something.
In Zero Dark Thirty that connection is history and character. But the history connection is weak, the character connection weaker. Zero's story is Hunting for Bin Laden. And it did that, recounting events from 2001 to 2011. But what exactly does that offer? What depth does the film go into except that of a history textbook?
Of course, criticism on a film must consider the film's intention. If all Zero aspired to be is a history textbook, then we need not question its depth of story. However, it is evident that Zero is not history. As has been criticized by only too many, Zero has put all its focus and almost all the credits onto one woman, Maya. For history, Zero is too personal,
Yet it is not personal enough. Despite all the focus and all her screen time, Maya, as a character, makes us feel no more intimate or connected to her at the end than we did at the beginning of the film. We did not see a development through the story. We didn't really care. All we saw was a persistent hero. Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal has made up quite a bit of non-historic drama, but they didn't nearly make enough.
So I can't help but ask myself, again and again: What exactly is the point of this film? You might answer: there is no point, and it's just history. But for that there is too much drama. And if it's trying to make a point as a drama - well, can't see any.