Unthinkable

Just saw a thought-provoking movie called Unthinkable with Samuel L. Jackson and Carrie-Ann Moss. Should be available on Netflix or wherever movies are rented.

In a nutshell, it's the most nightmarish of domestic terrorism scenarios. An American Jihadist has hidden nuclear bombs in cities around the nation, and was captured four days before the bombs are set to explode. It pursues a few different topics and has some twists and turns, but in the end, the watershed decision becomes clear: they must either torture his children or allow (yes, allow) the bombs to go off.

The 2010 movie is a little dated in that now there's public knowledge of the role and efficacy of "enhanced interrogation" in the killing of bin Laden ... something we only speculated at until now. But, without spoiling the movie, the Jihadist withstands all of the known "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as well as some Hollywood-y "artistic interpretation." The movie also portrays some torture as effective, although you'll have to see it to see which methods were effective.

But the choice is dichotomous. You, like the people in the movie, MUST choose one or the other. There's no time left, all other law enforcement efforts to find the bombs have failed. There is no wiggle room, no "hand of God" last-minute rescue, no alternative. The bombs are beyond-all-doubt real, they will otherwise explode, and they are in major, major American cities.

Either you torture the Jihadist's children in his viewing, or up to 20 million Americans die.

FWIW, I know the possibility exists for side-topics to emerge, such as whether or not torture is effective. Even after the bin Laden killing, the sides are still spinning to conform to their pre-held views. But this question is not meant to debate the efficacy or morality of "enhanced interrogation." It is meant to present you with a stark choice: torture the Jihadist's children or 20 million Americans die.

What do you choose?

SPOILER ALERT:
The movie had characters who took either side. I found it repulsive when one character said "torture his children." I found it just as repulsive when another character said, "let the bombs explode." I won't tell you what the movie did to the children, but I will tell you that they did not find the bombs. The movie, somewhat cowardly IMHO, did not deal with the explosions and aftermath, but if you've ever seen a special about Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki, then you were looking at the effect and aftermath of a bomb just a fraction of the size of the ones in the movie.

Hiroshima also saved a million lives so it is said. In this case you have to save the masses.

But that's Hollywood. This many bombs with one terrorist? Quite unlikely.

Wasn't it a famous Vulcan who said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"? Torture the children. As sons and daughters of the jihadists, they were probably already indoctrinated to become suicide bombers anyway, and if they're holding the information and they're not willing to tell you nicely, then torture them... they know the difference between right and wrong.

I agree with the Spock logic. Save the millions. If it truely was an either or choice it would be a simple one for me.

Remember Sophie's Choice? Decide on the spot which of her two children the evil Nazi commandant would kill, or let them both die.

If they wanted to make it real difficult, the characters should have had to consider whether to torture their own children. (Perhaps to appease a terrorist on a video feed phone in a ticking bomb scenario)

Quote: DeMango

Hiroshima also saved a million lives so it is said. In this case you have to save the masses.

But that's Hollywood. This many bombs with one terrorist? Quite unlikely.

Fat Man and Little Boy did save at least a million lives, most of them Japanese.

I'm suprised that Hollywood being Hoillywood they didn't throw it back on the Bible saying the sins of the father will be paid by the child.

Tourture the children, the millions of innocents outweigh the few innocent children.

And tell Hollywood to quit making movies where islamic terriorists are made to look like the victims. John Wayne just killed them and won the war.

Quote: rxwine

Remember Sophie's Choice? Decide on the spot which of her two children the evil Nazi commandant would kill, or let them both die.

Yes. That scene is hard to get out of your head. In her shoes I would have flipped a coin.

Quote: AZDuffman

Fat Man and Little Boy did save at least a million lives, most of them Japanese.

Not least as the alternative method of forcing surrender without invasion, fire bombing, had already claimed about as many lives a single the A-bomb. If not more. The home slands invasion would have been bloody... Given the losses on Okinawa.

Quote: thecesspit

Not least as the alternative method of forcing surrender without invasion, fire bombing, had already claimed about as many lives a single the A-bomb. If not more. The home slands invasion would have been bloody... Given the losses on Okinawa.

Starvation would have been setting in also. Fall and winter were coming up. One book I read said the average waistline of a Japanese male was about 20-22 inches right after the war. It would have been ugly.

Does anyone else agree dropping the two nuclear bombs saved a nuclear war?

Quote: Unthinkable (Sony) Review

– I’ll resist the temptation to make a bad joke at the expense of the title and rename this pretentious polemic of a thriller “Unwatchable,” simply because Sam Jackson is invariably watchable when he does his thing. Even if, as in this film, his thing is the systematic, relentless and inhuman torture of a terrorist suspect.

... it’s a clumsy polemic that bounces between the boundaries of stage-play debate and torture porn spectacle as everyone argues over ethics, morality and just what we are willing to sacrifice to safeguard against a nuclear terrorist strike.

Michael Sheen is the American Muslim who endures the torture, as if to prove a point. Just like the film, which puts everyone to the test and finds that everyone is a hypocrite when survival is at stake: the higher the pay grade, the more hypocritical they are.

Except, of course, the man who actually does the dirty work, who is honest, up-front consistent from start to finish.

...

There’s a reason the film did not get a theatrical release.
..

Full Review

No thanks.

Quote: pacomartin

Quote: Unthinkable (Sony) Review

– I’ll resist the temptation to make a bad joke at the expense of the title and rename this pretentious polemic of a thriller “Unwatchable,” simply because Sam Jackson is invariably watchable when he does his thing. Even if, as in this film, his thing is the systematic, relentless and inhuman torture of a terrorist suspect.

... it’s a clumsy polemic that bounces between the boundaries of stage-play debate and torture porn spectacle as everyone argues over ethics, morality and just what we are willing to sacrifice to safeguard against a nuclear terrorist strike.

Michael Sheen is the American Muslim who endures the torture, as if to prove a point. Just like the film, which puts everyone to the test and finds that everyone is a hypocrite when survival is at stake: the higher the pay grade, the more hypocritical they are.

Except, of course, the man who actually does the dirty work, who is honest, up-front consistent from start to finish.

...

There’s a reason the film did not get a theatrical release.
..

Full Review

No thanks.

Dodging the question like this is ... a ... response, although not a brave one. The fact that it wasn't released and that a critic didn't like it doesn't mean it's not though-provoking or worth watching - lots of art gets harsh criticism and doesn't get released to the public. Funnily, I didn't hear any outcry over censorship in the inability of this movie to get distributed. But it is getting around. My friends at Stanford are twisting themselves in knots because they just can't escape the self-righteousness, absurdity, and stupidity of a character who, in all earnestness, advises the President to let the bomb go off because we have rules about how to treat someone who plants nuclear bombs in public places.

It is just a thought experiment, and I don't think it's likely this would ever happen. But before 9/11, I also didn't imagine planes being flown into buildings, or that an American president would be forced with the choice of allowing another hijacked commercial passenger jet to kill thousands more civilians or order the military shoot it down. Not quite apples-to-apples, but definitely in the same vein.

I believe that the reviewer genuinely didn't like the film, and it may not be the best film out there. But I also believe that there's a head-in-the-sand mentality in Hollywood that absolutely cannot deal with issues like this. It's a world-class dodge, and I hope neither the reviewer nor anyone else as cowardly who would dodge the question hold any positions of significant authority.

Quote: pacomartin

Quote: Unthinkable (Sony) Review

– I’ll resist the temptation to make a bad joke at the expense of the title and rename this pretentious polemic of a thriller “Unwatchable,” simply because Sam Jackson is invariably watchable when he does his thing. Even if, as in this film, his thing is the systematic, relentless and inhuman torture of a terrorist suspect.

... it’s a clumsy polemic that bounces between the boundaries of stage-play debate and torture porn spectacle as everyone argues over ethics, morality and just what we are willing to sacrifice to safeguard against a nuclear terrorist strike.

Michael Sheen is the American Muslim who endures the torture, as if to prove a point. Just like the film, which puts everyone to the test and finds that everyone is a hypocrite when survival is at stake: the higher the pay grade, the more hypocritical they are.

Except, of course, the man who actually does the dirty work, who is honest, up-front consistent from start to finish.

...

There’s a reason the film did not get a theatrical release.
..

Full Review

No thanks.

The bolded sentence makes me think the reviewer either didn't watch the movie at all or made up his mind at some point in the middle and just disregarded the rest of the movie. Not to be a spoiler, but at the climatic scenes where the decision is being played out, the characters as a whole move away from the idea of torturing the children. It's that momentum that twists the audience in a knot because that decision condemns millions - including children - to die, in some cases, slow, painful, torturous deaths.

Yeah, this guy didn't watch it with anything like a true movie critic's eye, but I guess he watched it with a "I don't want my comfy worldview challenged" eye. Not that there's anything wrong with that ... it's not an easy movie to process and it dramatizes some very difficult topics. And seeing your worldview challenged will always cause defensiveness, especially if you hold the "wrong" worldview. But he should tell the truth and say it offended him, rather than pretend he's a movie critic, when he writes that cowardly drivel.

But hey, the movie is out there. Watch it for yourselves and come to your own conclusions.

EDIT: If it's a polemic, it sure is hard to tell which side it's railing against. I think it's harsh, but I don't think it's a polemic.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

But this question is not meant to debate the efficacy or morality of "enhanced interrogation." It is meant to present you with a stark choice: torture the Jihadist's children or 20 million Americans die.

20 million is a lot. Most large U.S. cites run around a couple million at best.

When is a city or town too small in population to torture some children to save? Or is it all the greater numbers, greater good question?

Quote: rxwine

20 million is a lot. Most large U.S. cites run around a couple million at best.

When is a city or town too small in population to torture some children to save? Or is it all the greater numbers, greater good question?

If WIkipedia is right, the 2010 census is going to land about 19 million in the NYC tri-state area, about 12 million in the LA metro, about 10 million in Chicago, and about 5 million in Dallas/Ft. Worth, making them the top four MSAs in the nation. Using those metro areas, bombs would explode in areas that populate about 46 million. Say only half die, so call it 23 million. So 20 million is not a bad guess.

But the second question is interesting. I would avoid the term "SOME" children, since they're not picking up children off the street and torturing them. It's specifically the Jihadist's children.

Haven't seen the movie so maybe there is something in it which makes it clear that torturing the kids will make the terrorist talk. In reality it seems this tactic might not make the terrorist talk, and you just tortured some kids with no result. Even if there is only a chance it would work, that would still be my choice.

On a different note, does anyone else get really sick of Hollywood tackling issues through a fictitious script? Just dance and sing and leave the thinking to us.

I'm not so much concerned with either/or, questions like this, but if/maybe questions? And of course, we could also be eventually considering U.S. citizens that are jihadists too.

if you're a U.S. citizen willing to be tortured on a "maybe we'll get some useful information from you basis", that's giving up a quite a chunk of rights for security. I'm less concerned if we have proof of a ticking bomb and people will be able to prove it also. I'm not concerned that much for people who would make a decision to torture in such a scenario, because even people sitting in judgement should be given latitude judging those people. Well, I think they should.

It's like one of those judgements that award a dollar. You don't make extra-legal powers for the government to fuck us over, but you give people in judgement the ability to administer a slap on the wrist where necessary.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Dodging the question like this is ... a ... response, although not a brave one. The fact that it wasn't released and that a critic didn't like it doesn't mean it's not though-provoking or worth watching - lots of art gets harsh criticism and doesn't get released to the public. Funnily, I didn't hear any outcry over censorship in the inability of this movie to get distributed. But it is getting around. My friends at Stanford are twisting themselves in knots because they just can't escape the self-righteousness, absurdity, and stupidity of a character who, in all earnestness, advises the President to let the bomb go off because we have rules about how to treat someone who plants nuclear bombs in public places.

Usually this area in the map is the most densely populated Combined Metropolitan Statistica Area in the USA, and it was 21.2 million in the year 2000 (6,720 sq. mi.). No single device will kill everyone in an area this big.

In comparison, the land area of Clark County is 7,910 sq mi.


I should have given a longer answer than two words. I can't abide movies with torture in them. It doesn't matter if the objective is good or bad, if the movie is well made or cheap. I don't care if the objective is to be thought provoking or just mindless torture-porn.

I couldn't stand Seven (with Brad Pitt), or even Robo-cop. I certainly don't watch Saw or Hostel or one of those types of movie. I had friends that went through training to be SEALS, and I admire them, but I can't watch it in a movie.

And you don't need a weapons of mass destruction scenario to ask this question. Would you torture an innocent child to save the life of your own child?

Interesting article about effect of terrorist nuclear attack in NYC.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=29862

Let's say that this would be what happens in four cities, which, besides what the initial blasts would do, would exacerbate the conversations with Russia and China.

Quote:

But the choice is dichotomous. You, like the people in the movie, MUST choose one or the other. There's no time left, all other law enforcement efforts to find the bombs have failed. There is no wiggle room, no "hand of God" last-minute rescue, no alternative. The bombs are beyond-all-doubt real, they will otherwise explode, and they are in major, major American cities.

Either you torture the Jihadist's children in his viewing, or up to 20 million Americans die.

I don't find this a difficult decision.

Quote: clarkacal

On a different note, does anyone else get really sick of Hollywood tackling issues through a fictitious script? Just dance and sing and leave the thinking to us.

Not really. I think it's interesting that film makers tackle issues through scripts. Just not if they ham-handed it.

This is just a variation on the trolley car thought experiment. Do you flick a switch to save a run away trolley car full of people? Do you do it if the switch means the car is saved but it hits an innocent bystander? Do you do it if instead of flicking a switch you have to push the bystander into the runaway car, killing them and saving the car? Do you do it if the switch will kill less people? Do you do it if the switch will save the people at the back of the car and kill a random (lower) number of people at the front? What if the front of the car is children and the back adults? What if it's vice versa?

And on and on and repeat.

With all these moral questions, while they are good to examine one's own thoughts and ideas, and build up some sort of parsimonious framework, real life -tends- to be less cut and dried. You don't always know the exact result of your actions, and whether they will have the desired effect, or some variant on it.

Churchill didn't -know- if warning the people of Coventry and the RAF defending the city of an impending German bombing would have given away the fact the Allies had an Enigma machine. I'm sure you can find other examples where before the action, the effects might save lives, but might not.

I'd find it very hard to order the torture of children, not least that just because they're Dad is jihadist terrorist doesn't mean their lives are worth any less. I'd also find it very hard not to take action knowing 20 million lives will vapourize. It's just that it's easier to personalize 2 people over 20 million.

Luckily, there are people who can make that decision (which ever way), and I'm unlikely to get myself in such a position.

Quote: thecesspit

Luckily, there are people who can make that decision (which ever way), and I'm unlikely to get myself in such a position.

I decided I would probably dither too long on torturing children until eventually the cities would get nuked. Then I'd probably jump out a window.

In A Bridge to the Sun an American woman who married a Japanese diplomat in Washington, DC and insisted on staying with him when he was returned to Japan after Pearl Harbor, there is a description of how she suddenly realized how long just combing her hair was taking her each morning because of the weakness and malnutrition.

Starvation would have been politically correct too, so I wonder why they dropped the bombs. Stalin already knew that Trinity had taken place but the USA was not aware he knew.

Ethics of warfare?
Eisenhower never ordered POWs to be shot, he simply said that certain POWs were "not to be brought into Division Headquarters". Well, what did he think would happen at the Company level? That they would build a hotel for them?

When a German battleship covered its guns with the international flag for Church Services and broadcast that it was steaming solely to rescue hundreds of men in the water, allied bombers were ordered to locate and attack the vessel.

Our firebombing of Dresden killed more than our atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In Dresden even the streets burned.

Concentration Camps? Hah! Both the practice and the phrase were first used by Great Britain in the Boer War, known in some quarters as the War of Zionist Aggression.

Quote: rxwine

I'm not so much concerned with either/or, questions like this, but if/maybe questions? And of course, we could also be eventually considering U.S. citizens that are jihadists too.

if you're a U.S. citizen willing to be tortured on a "maybe we'll get some useful information from you basis", that's giving up a quite a chunk of rights for security. I'm less concerned if we have proof of a ticking bomb and people will be able to prove it also. I'm not concerned that much for people who would make a decision to torture in such a scenario, because even people sitting in judgement should be given latitude judging those people. Well, I think they should.

It's like one of those judgements that award a dollar. You don't make extra-legal powers for the government to fuck us over, but you give people in judgement the ability to administer a slap on the wrist where necessary.

I just watched this movie last night because of this forum, thanks to Netflix streaming. In this movie, the terrorist is a full blown American born citizen. When the main female character initially objected to his torture on the grounds that he is a US citizen and violation of the Geneva Convention, etc, one of the 'higher ups' said they revoked his citizenship and were treating him as an enemy combatant. I'm not very knowledgeable as to whether or not that type of thing is actually possible. Most of this movie, besides the moral issue of intense torture, were all the 'higher ups' knowing that they had to condone this torture but wording it and acting in a way to cover their ass from prosecution after the fact.

I know I'm a bit late to this party, but I just caught this movie on one of the cable movie channels and only watched because of this thread.

What a waste of time. All the characters knew what was at stake, and I'm embarrassed for all the military types in the torture room who were too pussified to to the right thing. Only Samuel L. Jackson's "H" character had any balls to him, and he was constantly met with interference by Carrie Ann Moss (Agent Brody) who cried "Are we barbarians? We can't hurt the children!" or something similar every 5 minutes. Movie was so awful, the character of the General in charge of getting the info from our jihadist pronounced "nuclear" as "nucular" like our idiot last president did. Even if that actor couldn't pronounce it properly, you'd think someone in the studio would yell "CUT!" and correct him. Just a horrible movie. No wonder it wasn't released in theaters. Just my 2 cents. Please don't start another thread about a different shitty movie and have me waste another 1.5 hours. Thank you.

Quote: zippyboy

I know I'm a bit late to this party, but I just caught this movie on one of the cable movie channels and only watched because of this thread..

Quote: Unthinkable (Sony) Review

... it’s a clumsy polemic that bounces between the boundaries of stage-play debate and torture porn spectacle as everyone argues over ethics, morality and just what we are willing to sacrifice to safeguard against a nuclear terrorist strike.
Full Review

I did post the review.

Yep, paco, I guess you did. I should've read it rather than just blindly watching that movie just so I could catch up in this thread. In my short time on this forum, I've learned you are the respectable authority on virtually all things social or casino-related, and I'll be sure to listen next time. Seriously.

[/flatter]

Was this movie a comedy? I laughed and laughed. The military is a portrayed as a bunch of simpering morons who have to depend on a midevil torturer to get the job done. They literally run and hide while Jackson bitch slaps the criminal and gives him a hotfoot. But the wascally Muslim fools them all, he wanted to be tortured because he knew he wouldn't break. They should have turned him over to the Mob. The Boys say everybody breaks, theres never been a holdout. One of the dumbest, most obvious and crappily done movies I've seen in years. I'm serious, I was laughing my ass off, it was very funny.

Quote: EvenBob

But the wascally Muslim fools them all, he wanted to be tortured because he knew he wouldn't break.

Yeah, but then break he did, like immediately, when his kids were brought into the room. Screamed like a little bitch, then shot himself so he wouldn't have to watch their pain.

The description on my DVR listing gave it 4 stars (!!) so I thought it might be worth a look. 4 stars! I think even Titanic and Avatar only got 3 stars, and they lead the Oscar statues for all history. Unthinkable didn't even get an theatrical release. Cable provider Cox Communications kinda loses credibility when they give it 4 stars. Shouldda named it Stinkable.

Quote: zippyboy

Yeah, but then break he did, like immediately, when his kids were brought into the room. Screamed like a little bitch, then shot himself so he wouldn't have to watch their pain.

Thats not what I got from it. They said he had planned all along to give up the 3 bombs and keep the 4th a secret by making them think he was broken.

Quote: zippyboy

I know I'm a bit late to this party, but I just caught this movie on one of the cable movie channels and only watched because of this thread.

What a waste of time. All the characters knew what was at stake, and I'm embarrassed for all the military types in the torture room who were too pussified to to the right thing. Only Samuel L. Jackson's "H" character had any balls to him, and he was constantly met with interference by Carrie Ann Moss (Agent Brody) who cried "Are we barbarians? We can't hurt the children!" or something similar every 5 minutes. Movie was so awful, the character of the General in charge of getting the info from our jihadist pronounced "nuclear" as "nucular" like our idiot last president did. Even if that actor couldn't pronounce it properly, you'd think someone in the studio would yell "CUT!" and correct him. Just a horrible movie. No wonder it wasn't released in theaters. Just my 2 cents. Please don't start another thread about a different shitty movie and have me waste another 1.5 hours. Thank you.

Quote: EvenBob

Was this movie a comedy? I laughed and laughed. The military is a portrayed as a bunch of simpering morons who have to depend on a midevil torturer to get the job done. They literally run and hide while Jackson bitch slaps the criminal and gives him a hotfoot. But the wascally Muslim fools them all, he wanted to be tortured because he knew he wouldn't break. They should have turned him over to the Mob. The Boys say everybody breaks, theres never been a holdout. One of the dumbest, most obvious and crappily done movies I've seen in years. I'm serious, I was laughing my ass off, it was very funny.

I didn't say the movie was good. I said it was thought-provoking. I also said that the Sony reviewer was so off on the content that he probably didn't watch it, and I also said that Hollywood simply cannot deal with some topics because of their political pre-disposition. It makes sense to me that a part of the world that thinks of these issues as a bunch of caricatures and trite stereotypes produces a film full of the same things. Sam Jackson's portrayal stands out because he's the only one who brought depth to any of the roles. The rest of them were just ... caricatures.

But it still poses the question and provokes thought with all its faults. I would also say that it's a dodge to avoid the question just because the movie is poor. I agree that a better-produced, better-thought-out, don't-assume-the-Hollywood-liberal-paradigm movie would be much more thought-provoking. But even that would still get attacked in a different way ... see also "Passion of the Christ."

So ... I would suggest you overlook the movie's faults and try to answer the question it poses. Anything else, like attacking its quality or however attacks on Passion took form, is just a transparent dodge. If someone is going to attack art because of the artist(s), that someone has to attack lots of the greatest art throughout history, which would, officially, make them a Grade A nimrod.

If you are into movies with tough moral dilemma's, I recommend "Gone, Baby, Gone". Produced in 2007, it was written and directed by Ben Affleck (but don't hold that against it), and "stars" Morgan Freeman (who actually has a fairly small role) and Casey Affleck.

I don't want to give the whole thing away, but the film centers on the kidnapping of a young girl, and Casey Affleck's attempt to unravel the case.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I didn't say the movie was good. I said it was thought-provoking.

Yeah, it provoked me into wanting to smash my TV. It was a low budget, poorly written and acted piece of trash. It would have a made a dollar and a half if it had been released in theatres. Hollywood types love making crap like this. Sleep deprivation and pulling off the guys fingernails, they haven't used that kind of torture since the Korean conflict.

An alternative answer here:

Perhaps you needn't torture the children, but if you can make the person think you are torturing them.

Surely, if you planned ahead, (actually formulated a plan with experts) using a combination of Hollywood FX and magician trickery you could probably concoct a plan where your terrorist was convinced that his children were not only being tortured, but were right there in the room with him.

It probably would require some rough treatment -- for instance throwing a kid into a rubberized wall -- he wouldn't be hurt, but bagging the terrorists head a moment afterward and making the appropriate sounds letting his imagination work out the details.

I actually, believe this would be possible, with lots of pre-practice, and I think it would excape the conundrum posed in a lot of cases.

Of course, one could argue we tortured the terrorist by any definition. Making him believe you were torturing his children would surely classify as true torture whether true or not. Emotions are real. If a policeman, or someone who looks like one, shows up at your door and tells you a close family member is dead in a car accident, it would certainly be as terrible as the real thing if you had no reason to doubt it at that moment.

...magicians can create effects where the head and torso are a real person, but the bare feet with electrodes attached could belong to a child actor substitute who wasn't being shocked at all --- and etc., That sort of thing.