Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

'Zero Dark Thirty' Vs. 'Seal Team Six': How 2 Films Tackle Torture, 9/11 & The Hunt For Bin Laden

by Kevin Jagernauth
January 9, 2013 10:57 AM
  • |

Zero Dark Thirty
Identifying Bin Laden: Getting The Facts Right
What both films get right is that right up until the moment the Navy SEALs were in the building facing down Osama Bin Laden with the business end of a military weapon, no one knew for sure if he was actually there. He never left the compound, the windows of the building were blacked out, and when he did go out for fresh air, it was in an orchard of grapes, with the leaves so thick above his head that satellite photos couldn't identify him. Not that the CIA didn't try their best to get a positive ID, but what "Seal Team Six" puts forth as the methods used to identify Bin Laden, "Zero Dark Thirty" refutes.

First off, Stockwell's film puts forward the narrative that two agents managed to snag an apartment within perfect binocular and telescope distance from the compound, with an unobscured view. And from there, they gathered countless footage and recordings of Bin Laden's little fortress. However, they needed to make sure they had the right man, so "Seal Team Six" explores the CIA's fake vaccination plan, in which undercover operatives were let onto the compound to inoculate everyone living there, in the hopes that a strain of Bin Laden DNA would be found on the needles from one of his children, proving his presence.

However, in "Zero Dark Thirty," screenwriter Mark Boal and Bigelow reveal that the vaccination plan, while real, didn't work, and moreover, there were no agents taking video and photos of the Abbotabad house.They were mostly working off satellite images, using shadows of walls and people, along with blurry video from way up above, to determine the heights, gender, ages and more of the people with Bin Laden. As for the big guy himself, even as the mission launched, opinions were wildly varied among intelligence officials as to whether or not he would be found.

Seal Team Six
Torture: Did They Or Didn't They?
Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it? As you read above, "Seal Team Six" begins with a Guantanamo Bay detainee giving up Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. But why does he do it? Because he's threatened with being shipped to Saudi Arabia, so their intelligence community can interrogate him. The detainee is warned that not only will the flesh be ripped from his skin in Saudi Arabia's "state of the art" torture facilities, his wife and children will be brought in too. Essentially, the implication is made that if the United States does torture or treat their prisoners harshly, that's nothing compared to what some of their allies might do.

Stockwell defends this decision in a piece in the Huffington Post where he writes: "There is certainly an argument to be made that torture played a role in finding OBL but we chose to use the 'threat' of being sent to Saudi Arabia and facing their 'torture chambers' then depicting torture itself as useful in obtaining any credible information. Like so many other things in this mission, this argument will never be fully resolved, but it seemed more interesting to see the critical information obtained by a carrot then a stick. I'm confident torture was used many times during our war on terror but I'm also fairly certain it resulted in as much false information as real, actionable intelligence." 

However, that final sentiment in Stockwell's quote is exactly what Bigelow and Boal achieve despite the continued "pro-torture" card that keeps being thrown at their film. Yes, "Zero Dark Thirty" presents some very tough scenes in which detainees are waterboarded, hung from their wrists, handcuffed to steel desks, put in a wooden box, deprived of sleep and more. But what most people seem to be missing is that, for the most part, those tactics don't work in their movie. Ammar, the source who endures the most punishment we see, gives up al-Kuwaiti not when he's in shackles, but after, when he's plyed with food, fresh air and cigarettes. And while later in the picture another detainee gives up intel to avoid further enhanced interrogation techniques, the movie is asking a larger question.

"Zero Dark Thirty" forces audiences to consider what is going on (or went on) at the CIA black sites, and face the uneasy relationship one might have with torture, but it does so without coming down on either side. And it's a smart play, because while one may vehemently and morally object to torture, one also has to acknowledge that while it's largely been proven to be ineffective, in some instances it did help the CIA on their mission. Reconciling that is uncomfortable, and Bigelow's film bravely leaves you in that space. For investigations to be launched asking if the CIA misled the filmmakers in an effort to pursue their own agenda, or to stick your head in the sand and pretend there was no torture and no intelligence gathered from such techniques, is to simply ignore history. And to posit that the movie is "pro-torture" is simply engaging "Zero Dark Thirty" on the most facile level possible.

Zero Dark Thirty
The Raid: Two Variations On A Shootout
Well, here's an instance where "Seal Team Six" has a slight leg up on "Zero Dark Thirty." While Bigelow's film doesn't ignore the extraordinary length of time between the discovery of Bin Laden's hideout and the Navy SEALs being ordered to do the job, it pretty much skips over their training period. As many accounts have illustrated, it was at the end of March 2011 that plans started being put together for a helicopter raid, and the SEALs trained extensively on a replica compound. Stockwell's film includes this, while Bigelow's leaves it out.

And while both films underscore the risk involved, "Seal Team Six" emphasizes that if even one Navy SEAL was lost in the mission, it would potentially be perceived as a failure (particularly if the target wasn't killed or captured). However, when it comes to how it played out on the ground, once again the restrained hand of Bigelow comes out on top. Stockwell presents the raid on the compound almost like the Alamo, with the team going in guns blazing -- for a covert operation, there's barely any silence. This is the rootin'-est, tootin'-est killing of Bin Laden ever (almost video-game-like), and furthermore, the big climax even becomes a bonding moment for two SEALs who weren't getting along. Aww.

"Zero Dark Thirty" is easily the more realistic depiction. Bigelow's movie not only spends much longer on the raid, it highlights the uncertainty and danger of every measured step and every silenced shot they took (why Stockwell's guys didn't muzzle their guns is puzzling). Even right up until Osama Bin Laden is killed, when the body is on the ground, they momentarily aren't sure if he's even the guy. You already know the outcome, but Bigelow's filmmaking still leaves your pulse racing and palms sweaty.

Still can't decide which version to watch? Let us put it this way: one movie is about Cam Gigandet proving he can lead a team of Navy SEALs. The other is a crackling and intelligent procedural about an effort that spanned the world to find Osama Bin Laden. One movie has Eddie Kaye Thomas from "American Pie," who winds up getting only a couple of lines, because it seems the bulk of his role was left on the cutting room floor. The other features an ensemble of Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Ehle, Mark Strong, James Gandolfini, Kyle Chandler, Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke, Chris Pratt, Edgar Ramirez, Mark Duplass, Harold Perrineau and more all giving fantastic performances in a dense and knotty story. Choose wisely.

"Seal Team Six: The Raid On Osama Bin Laden" is now on home video. "Zero Dark Thirty" goes wide on Friday.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Tommy Jones | March 19, 2013 5:59 AMReply



  • Landon F | March 19, 2013 1:54 AMReply

    *Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden*
    Let me save you some time. This "movie" is terrible! It is downright offensive to the SEALs and CIA ops that it tries to depict. NOTHING is right in this movie. Total fiction. Almost None of the gear is right, none of the dialogue is right, and it seems to try and make President Obama out to be some sort of hero, which is laughable. Obama had nothing to do with the raid except for pissing some SEALs off by making them wait longer than they should have. Thank God they are awesome and performed near flawlessly.

    When it comes to units and missions like this, people expect it to be as realistic as possible. This wasn't even close. The actual SEALs that did the real mission condemned this film profusely.

    Dont waste your time. Go watch Zero Dark Thirty instead. Or better yet, read the book No Easy Day for a first hand account.

    *Zero Dark Thirty*

    AWESOME. Go see it asap

  • van013 | March 23, 2013 5:12 PM

    In support of Landon F opinion:

    It is hard to compare these two movies objectively and fair, primarily due to unequal budget.

    Zero Dark Thirty is better in:

    · Overall cinematography
    · scenery and equipment are very authentic
    · likelihood of events is quite convincible
    · It goes much deeper in details
    · Dialogs sound closer to reality
    · Cast - perfect selection
    · Seal team characters look very authentic. Probably many of us already have seen pictures of real special forces soldiers from multiple sources available from Internet.
    · Maya is awesome - Jessica Chastain did excellent job
    · As we already know - SEAL's combat chatting and assault longevity were ridiculous - unnecessary failure.

    Seal Team Six is inferior in almost every segment:

    · The worst - SEAL's appearance, they look like boy scouts
    · Rest of cast is third-rate
    · Impression - pretty much as propaganda for Obama
    · Some facts around assault that are missing from Zero Dark Thirty, are here mentioned, particularly wider air support concept, contact with Pakistani jets and preparedness for clash with Pakistani military. Very interesting was agent's activity on site, around compound, which was not shown in Zero Dark Thirty.

    Zero Dark Thirty is highly watchable; due to visual luxury and story comprehensiveness, it is multiple times better than Seal Team Six. In spite of missing critical facts shown in Seal Team Six and misrepresented SEAL's combat behavior it is absolute winner.

  • Sir Rodeheaver | March 14, 2013 5:15 AMReply

    You said Zero Dark Thirty had a more accurate account of the Compound scene at the end in which they breach the compound and shoot Bin Laden, but the actual shooter, in his interview with Esquire, said that there were 7 things wrong with the scene. One being all the noise made and talking. He commented specifically on the scene when someone yelled, "Breacher!", stating that they are trained not to do so. Silence is practiced. I appreciate your effort in attempting to address the two movies because that's what I was searching the net for, but it looks like you just winged it and didn't research. Just my thoughts.

  • Adam | February 18, 2013 3:08 PMReply

    LOL. Neither is realistic. But at least Seal Team 6 is interesting.

    Way to be a stereotypical critic, espousing a false reality that doesn't exist. Bigelow's movie was boring with a bad story and poorly acted. Chastain's portrayal was worse than a 90210 actors portrayal merely because she was emotionless and pointless to the plot.

    Zero Dark Thirty sucked as it failed as both a documentary and a fictionary war story.

  • Sir Rodeheaver | March 14, 2013 5:17 AM

    I agree Adam. Waisted a total of 4 hours on those two movies.

  • Jerry | January 23, 2013 3:23 AMReply

    Seal Team Six was absolutely the better of the two.

    Zero Dark Thirty was a discombobulated film which left me wondering why it is getting so many glowing reviews. It wasn't a bad film, but it certainly wasn't great and deserving of all the praise heaped upon it. There were certainly interesting aspects of intelligence gathering efforts but it still it seemed more like watching a documentary than a movie. It was just plain bland. The torture scenes were benign in my opinion, but were just plain too long.

    Seal Team Six is a better film on a much smaller budget. Better acting, tighter story and full of actual characters. It felt more compelling and emotional. The tie-ins with the actual government/POTUS footage worked quite well. I have no idea why showing the towers coming down is referred to as being "exploitative" in this review here. It happened and we've all seen the images of it happening countless times so why is a few seconds of seeing it in a movie about getting the mastermind behind it considered bad taste? "They came out guns blazing like a video game" says this review? I found both raids at the end to be fairly similar so that comment seemed more of an extra knock at ST6 to pump up the contrived ZDT gushing.

  • John | January 13, 2013 12:04 PMReply

    Seal Team Six is the better movie. The writing is much crisper and the story flows better

  • william joe fergusom EMT/P/P.A. | January 11, 2013 11:11 AMReply

    After seeing SEALteam 6 I do want to see stockwells movie and then I will make my comment, after all ive seen over 20 movies with very high budgets never tell the CORRECT story cant wait to see the HOLLWOOD VERISION being released TODAY. later medic joe

  • Bob Bear | January 10, 2013 12:39 PMReply

    That was your opinion, here's mine!
    I saw both movies, and I liked Seal Team 6 better,!
    I disagree with you on how torture was played out in Zero Dark 30, the guy says how am I supposed to get the answer now(after torture was stopped), ask him? This film was pro torture, and they made a concerted effort to get you to almost cheer it on, to get even! The torture scenes were far too long also, enough already, we got the idea!
    And lastly, the bigger name actors didn't do a better job on this comparison, sorry to disagree with you!
    See both, and decide for yourself!

  • polfilmblog | January 9, 2013 11:26 PMReply

    Spielberg is set to do an Osama bin Laden bio-pic, showing the CIA support for him and his network since the 1980s and Pakistani intelligence protection of bin Laden after 9/11. The decisions to allow Osama to get away repeatedly and escape to Pakistan should be included. Other US support of radical terrorist outfits like MEK, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the "Free Syrian Army" may get a mention ...

  • Ben | January 9, 2013 10:26 PMReply

    Can't believe I'm saying this but "Seal Team Six" had Eddie Kaye Thomas from "American Pie" not Thomas Ian Nichols.

  • Dani | January 9, 2013 6:38 PMReply


    I think Zero Dark Thirty has gotten a bad rap for being 'pro-torture'. Part of what makes the movie so brilliant is it's ambiguity and neutral morality. Bigelow assumes a mature audience that is willingy to come to it's own conclusions in regards to historical War on Terror practices, without the need for heavy-handed editorializing like an Oliver Stone flick. That being said, you and many other critics and commentators are inaccurately describing the opening interrogation scene. You wrote:

    "Ammar, the source who endures the most punishment we see, gives up al-Kuwaiti not when he's in shackles, but after, when he's plyed with food, fresh air and cigarettes."


    Dan and Maya are interrogating Ammar, an Al Qaeda money man, at a CIA black site. Despite attempts at coercion, Dan fails to elicit information regarding the Saudi Group that could have possibly prevented the Khobar attack in 2004. So in this respect, the interrogators fail. However, soon thereafter, Maya devises a ruse: because Ammar had been brutalized by prolonged sleep deprivation, she believes Ammar can be bluffed and manipulated. Memory loss, Dan later tells us, is a consequence of sleep deprivation. So Maya and Dan inform Ammar that he had coughed up information after he was kept awake for 96 hours, helping to prevent the Khobar attack. As a result, Ammar feels comfortable talking over a meal because he is under the false impression that he has already spilled operational secrets to his interrogators and that his interrogators are happy with him. During this lunch, when Ammar hesitates naming Al Qaeda colleagues who were with him in Afghanistan, Dan reminds Ammar that he could always go eat with someone else and "hang [Ammar] back up to the ceiling." Right after Dan says this, Ammar gives up some war names, including that of Abu Ahmed al Kuwaiti, the Bin Laden courier who would eventually lead the CIA to the now-famous compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

    I wouldn't say that this opening scene is positively an argument for the efficacy of torture, but you didn't accurately complete the narrative in your comments.

  • Sir | March 14, 2013 5:25 AM

    You are not as accurate as well my friend. The whole scene with the food, cigarettes and fresh air followed an epiphany by Maya to bluff him. It was a desperate act, almost.

  • Brandt Hardin | January 9, 2013 5:39 PMReply

    This movie is trash and glamorizes the American atrocity which is the “War on Terror.” Well over a year after Bin Laden’s death and over 10 years since 9/11, American citizens are still blindly allowing their civil liberties to be taken away one piece of legislation at a time in the naming of fighting terrorism. Even our own citizens can be detained and tortured without trial. What difference did it make killing Bin Laden and Hussein if nothing has changed? You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at

  • Tom | January 9, 2013 3:33 PMReply

    Interesting article. Thanks. I might have to check out Seal Team Six and compare it with Zero Dark Thirty this weekend.

Email Updates