I saw "Zero Dark Thirty" so did I endorse torture?

And I didn't walk out of it thinking that torture works. In between all the gun nut stories this week I have come across several posts, many by favored liberal voices, discussing the film Zero Dark Thirty and the notion that it promotes or endorses torture. Primarily because it appears that one piece of the puzzle leading up to the finding and assassination of Osama bin Laden is obtained by torture early on in the film. So, somehow that makes this movie questionable and it seems that it has been decided that the director Kathryn Bigelow is said to have been snubbed for a best director Oscar nomination as a result. The controversy is apparently based in the idea that the movie "endorses" the war on terror and though it's merely a movie that is about things that actually happened I guess it was wrong to not include seminal scenes of liberal bloggers wagging their fingers at whatever parts they disagree with, I guess.

I am not really sure. Now, I am not pro-torture and those scenes in this excellent film are horrendous. I am not really for most of what this country did post 9/11 nor did I walk out of the movie, with patriotic fists pumping, filled with pride that we have conducted all sorts of henious actions with our clandestine services any more than I am excited that we continue such action using drone strikes and who knows what else. I also wasn't convinced that the small amount of "information" acquired from the torture scenes was necessarily demonstrating that torture works and is worth doing. Some of characters seemed to think so but that didn't convince me that it's fucking true so I didn't walk out of the movie believing anything different about torture than I did walking in, that is to say, I am against it.

I do acknowledge, however, that those things are happening (have happened) whether I like it or not and a movie that depicts what is happening does not automatically make it an endorsement. Bigelow has even stated:

First of all: I support every American's 1st Amendment right to create works of art and speak their conscience without government interference or harassment. As a lifelong pacifist, I support all protests against the use of torture, and, quite simply, inhumane treatment of any kind.
But I do wonder if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen.

Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time.
This is an important principle to stand up for, and it bears repeating. For confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist's ability and right to shine a light on dark deeds, especially when those deeds are cloaked in layers of secrecy and government obfuscation.

 Apparently this is not good enough as Bill Maher said in his blog recently:

But what about the stuff about depiction not being endorsement? Does she really believe that? If only we could be sure she was telling the truth. Maybe with jumper cables.

To which I ask, Why would she lie? Has she really become a partisan advocate for the war on terror and is actually making pro-torture propaganda? Was the U.S. highlighted as the "good guys" in that movie? I didn't think so, in fact, a lot of what I thought about after seeing it was just how dark things are, how dark we had to become. That along with the usual notion of what a completely insulated bubble of western comfort and riches we are truly living in. We are floating in this puffy cloud, stuffing our faces, polluting the world with our junk food and junk culutre and we seem to be more upset at the moment with the fact that a movie semi-accurately depicted a part of the world that most of us barely even realize is out there. Truth is most of the world looks like those third world ghettos depicted in that film and it's no wonder that so many of the people live in that real world would hate the shit out of our flabby, entitled asses. This isn't me agreeing with such a sentiment as it is my recognizing another point of view, not unlike the movie does to some extent.

Bigelow also says:

On a practical and political level, it does seem illogical to me to make a case against torture by ignoring or denying the role it played in U.S. counter-terrorism policy and practices.
 Experts disagree sharply on the facts and particulars of the intelligence hunt, and doubtlessly that debate will continue. As for what I personally believe, which has been the subject of inquiries, accusations and speculation, I think Osama bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work. Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn't mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn't ignore. War, obviously, isn't pretty, and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences.
In that vein, we should never discount and never forget the thousands of innocent lives lost on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. We should never forget the brave work of those professionals in the military and intelligence communities who paid the ultimate price in the effort to combat a grave threat to this nation's safety and security.
Bin Laden wasn't defeated by superheroes zooming down from the sky; he was defeated by ordinary Americans who fought bravely even as they sometimes crossed moral lines, who labored greatly and intently, who gave all of themselves in both victory and defeat, in life and in death, for the defense of this nation.

But I suppose that is more disingenuous propaganda since there's probably people out there who cheered when Osama was killed and walked away from the film thinking that it was torture that lead to his death and completely ignore the years and years of hard work and research or, as Bigelow calls it, detective work is completely discounted and invalid. None of it was right, none of this should be what our supposed moral nation should have done, or continue to do, so isn't the real issue with the nation and not Kathryn Bigelow's movie? Maybe I am just put off because people who I like and respect make me feel like that by liking this movie as much as I did I therefore am also somehow endorsing torture. I also liked "Django Unchained" so I wonder if that endorsed slavery by depiction?

I suppose this is certainly not the most important debate right now but it really kind of got in my craw largely because the movie is so god damn good. Maybe that was part of the problem, enjoying this exhilarating ride brings with it guilt because it was all executed at the cost of our own, imagined moral compass for America.