Intersting Movie--Strip Search

[Big RR]

A friend of mine brought over a rather interesting movie last night. It is called Strip Search and is an HBO movie from around 2003-004, and stars Maggie Gyllenhaaal and Glenn Close. The movie has two parallel plotlines--in the first, a US citizen, (Gyllenhaal) is arrested in China on suspicion of abetting terrorists (the evidence is only hinted at); in the second, a young Arabic man is arrested in the US for the same reason (Close is the interrogator). Both are subjected to intensive and degrading interrogation, culminating in strip and cavity searches (Gyllenhaal's interrogator is a man) done for no other reason than to degrade and humiliate them and break their will. What I find particularly interesting is in both scenarios the same dialogue and script is used to show the similarity of what is being done. There's no easy answer here; indeed, it ends without indicating what happens to either person.
r
It's around 55 minutes long and IMHO worth the watch. It's available online for free downloads (just google Strip Search and you'll find it--but download the full movie, many are just pon sites showing Gyllenhaal's strip search scenes), but from what I read online HBO only showed it once and then canceled further showings (not certain why, some have said government pressure) and major distributors like Amazon refused to carry it (at least then, they might have it now).

I'm sure some will see it as a blatant attempt to show moral equivalency between the "evil" Chinese government that does such things to subjugate their people and the heroic US government that only does such things to "keep us all free", but IMHO I honestly don't think it is. Basically, it shows what our government was (and probably still is) doing in our name and forces us to confront it. And It does make us consider whether the end justifies the means, and indeed, what that end is.

[Lord Jim]

I'm sure some will see it as a blatant attempt to show moral equivalency between the "evil" Chinese government that does such things to subjugate their people and the heroic US government that only does such things to "keep us all free"

That's certainly what the description makes it sound like....

ETA:

In fact this:

What I find particularly interesting is in both scenarios the same dialogue and script is used to show the similarity of what is being done.

Would seem to hit the audience over the head with the fact that the movie is a " blatant attempt to show moral equivalency"...I don't see how they could possibly make it any more obvious...

But I guess if one is inclined to embrace these sorts of moral equivalences they would see this as somehow "thought provoking". To me is sounds like a morally obtuse, naive, lefty polemic. A "feel good movie" for those who tend to view the US government as sinister.

[Big RR]

But I guess if one is inclined to embrace these sorts of moral equivalences they would see this as somehow "thought provoking". To me is sounds like a morally obtuse, naive, lefty polemic. A "feel good movie" for those who tend to view the US government as sinister.

Perhaps Jim; but if you ever see the movie, I would be interested in your reaction.

The opposite of moral equivalency is ends/means justification, which is just as murky and morally obtuse IMHO. One may well say that an immoral act done for a good reason ceases to be immoral, but I fail to understand that. It might be understandable given the circumstances, but IMHO it does not suddenly become moral because we choose to think the end is a good one.

And FWIW, I rarely (if at all) see the US government as sinister but frequently think it is misguided (as I think many of us do at one time or another). Did Jefferson view the government as sinister because he insisted on incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Constitution?

[Econoline]

Never heard of it but it sounds interesting. According to IMDb, not only was it never shown again after one airing on HBO, the original cut was 120 minutes but it was cut down to 56 minutes before being aired at all.




ETA: I just found the entire 55 minute 51 second HBO movie on YouTube:

[Big RR]

Thanks econoline. I wonder what they edited out?

[Long Run]

Obviously, they cut the sinister parts.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Cavity search?

[Big RR]

Obviously, they cut the sinister parts.

Meade--

Cavity search?

[Econoline]

Did you watch it, Meade? (Because a very similar "joke" occurs at one point in the movie.)

Big RR - Given the structure of the movie--pretty much the same exact script filmed with two different sets of characters--I wonder if perhaps the original was even more repetitive, with all the dialogue repeated in full rather than using cuts where the dialogue is done partly by one pair of characters and completed by the other pair? Even if so, there is probably more to it than that; in the Comments section of IMDb someone pointed out that the cast listing they saw contains twice as many actors as there are parts in the 56 minute version.

All in all, it's an interesting little thought-experiment, meant to provoke questions in the viewer's mind to which there are no "right" answers. It definitely does *NOT* preach "moral equivalence"...you may or may not sympathize with any one, two, three, or four--or none--of the main characters: but after that happens, after your mind (or your emotions, or your politics, or whatever) makes that decision, the one question* you have to ask yourself then is "WHY?" (And no, the film does not provide or hint at a "correct" answer to that question: you're on your own at that point.)




* (Well, that and the questions posed by the teacher in the classroom in the opening scene.)

[Lord Jim]

My guess is that they cut a 122 minutes of:

the same dialogue and script is used to show the similarity of what is being done.

Down to 55 minutes of:

the same dialogue and script is used to show the similarity of what is being done.

Doesn't seem like a huge loss...

[Big RR]

Who knows Jim, maybe the longer movie would be a defense of moral relativism and trumpet your views. We can't (or at least shouldn't) make any determinations without seeing it first.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who knows Jim, maybe the longer movie would be a defense of moral relativism and trumpet your views. We can't (or at least shouldn't) make any determinations without seeing it first.

Yeah, well it has the words "strip" and "Glenn Close" in it - so there's a determination to be made not to see it before deciding whether to see it. (And no, Econo, I didn't see it and have somewhat less than zero interest in seeing it. It's probably packed with foul language, filth and other non-edifying things.

(Oh God - a value judgement without first engaging in it to see if a value judgement is called for - shock! horror!)

[Lord Jim]

I don't plan to see this, ( the using the same script for both scenes to me is a big red flag as to what the agenda is here)

But Gen'l your blue nose attitude about "bad language":

It's probably packed with foul language

is cutting you off from some truly high quality productions...

Over the past year we've watched two HBO series, Deadwood and The Wire that were chock-a-block with bad language, but they were also two of the best written, best acted productions I've ever seen.

In both cases the "foul language" was essential to the authenticity of the narrative. It would have been ridiculous to have Wild West mining town saloon owners, or contemporary urban drug dealers, running around saying "oh shoot" and "gosh darn it" and calling people "knuckleheads" and "dorks" (as opposed to "motherfuckers" and "cocksuckers")

Now, I don't care to have my five year old son watching programs with excessive bad language, because he hasn't developed the judgement yet to fully understand the difference between hearing something and repeating it (a failing which he has demonstrated in a couple of embarrassing situations ) plus at his age, there are some words he doesn't need to know the meaning of yet.

(And being the inquisitive sort, whenever he hears a word he hasn't heard before he always asks what it means. "Daddy, what's a cocksucker?" is really not a conversation I care to have with my five year old.)

On the other hand, while I was initially uncomfortable with having Tati watch these programs, she's interested in acting and they're high quality shows, and at just a couple of months shy of 16 she's old enough to know the difference between seeing language used in a movie or a TV show and thinking it would be appropriate for her to use in conversation.

You really have become quite a prude in your old age...

[Econoline]

Meade - no, there's not much "foul language" or "filth" in it (actually none at all that I can recall)...though there is some full-frontal nudity (both male and female--separately, not together) which is absolutely essential to the plot and done in a completely non-prurient fashion. As for "non-edifying"...well, the dictionary defines "edifying" as "providing moral or intellectual instruction" so if you really need someone to instruct you and don't trust your own moral or intellectual values, then no, I guess you wouldn't find it "edifying".

Jim - there really is no agenda, other than to make you think about your own reactions to the four different main characters characters. Like I said before, it's an interesting little thought-experiment.

[Lord Jim]

there really is no agenda

I'm sorry Econo, but I'm just not buying the "no agenda" thing...

The decision to use the exact same script and dialog to portray a PRC interrogation and a US interrogation, SCREAMS AGENDA!!! to me...

Perhaps you and Big RR don't see the agenda because it conforms with what you already believe

I've noticed that people are disinclined to see a bias or POV when the POV conforms to their own POV. In that situation folks will frequently see the "information" as "objective" rather than agenda driven...

(This is why you have a number of people who see FOX News as biased, but believe NPR is "objective" )

[Crackpot]

As the news networks go NPR is by far the most objective

[MajGenl.Meade]

Perhaps so Jim, but if I don't want to hear it, I don't have to hear it. One reason I don't have HBO (or any other premium movie channel), actually, is to avoid series like that. So thanks for the warning. Nor do I care to be "entertained" by contemporary urban drug dealers or their ilk.

In a general sense, throughout history humans have left piles of steaming shit in various places but the movies don't lovingly dwell upon excretory functions (other than juvenile arsehole movies) because it's "real, man. Real". So I reject the "realist" argument - swearing is not at all 'necessary' for excellent, informative and worthwhile entertainment, as is evidenced by scores of years of movies before saying "fuck" became something amazingly clever instead of just the province of ignorant clods - which it still is.

CP Econo*- thanks; nudity of a non-gratuitous nature doesn't bother me. This particular movie sounds deeply uninteresting to me so I'll skip it.

*corrected per CP's advice

[Crackpot]

That wasn't me

[Big RR]

Code: Select all

The decision to use the exact same script and dialog to portray a PRC interrogation and a US interrogation, SCREAMS AGENDA!!! to me

Jim--maybe there is an agenda, one of rooting out moral relativism. If you do the exact same thing for two different reasons, then the only difference is the reason it is done. You have to make the decision whether that difference is sufficient or not. And face it, the same thing is being done many times in a number of different places for a number of different reasons. You are the one who has to draw the conclusion if it is justified or not; the movie does not lead you there. What more would you have it do to allow the decision to be made; give the moral relativist the cover to say "these are two different things being done" by altering the scenes slightly. It forces everyone to confront what they will and won't tolerate and why.

I understand you think we are far more justified in doing certain things than the PRC because we are facing a serious threat; I do not thin the threat justifies the actions taken and the suspension of civil liberties. I am more than happy to say that is my position; do you really need some cover ("we're not doing the same things") to state yours?