I think she’s very much one with the philosophy and certainly the aesthetic of ’24′. One wouldn’t, presumably, argue that ’24′ is a deep treatise on the dilemmas posed by torture. Instead, shows like ’24′ and movies like HL and ZDT by their very abdication of the moral/ethical/political ground act as receptacles for the audience’s existing prejudices. You are appalled by torture and so you react viscerally to the graphic scenes in ZDT. Someone else might consider torture a necessary aspect of securing national security, and would only point to the repeated (and arguably false) assurances that al-Kuwaiti and Osama were identified as a direct result of the detainee program. HL, too, was variously advanced as both pro and anti Iraq war, when, in fact, she abandoned even the pretence of engaging with any such question.

Of course, if she were, in fact, trying to ask searching questions about the validity of torture then I’m afraid Bigelow’s missed the bus. The debate on whether we can trade off human dignity against national security has been conclusively resolved, at least on the subject of torture. Whatever else might go on illicitly behind closed doors, the US has today openly rejected the policy of torture – just look at the existence of senate hearing committees probing the use of ‘enhanced interrogation’ and the bipartisan criticism of the film as being factually inaccurate. If Bigelow wants to reopen the torture debate then one can only presume its because she’s unsatisfied with its resolution as it stands. Frankly, I don’t think she gives a damn – she’s into making superficial killer thrillers, and little more. I’m sure she’ll have a great drone film once that debate’s been put to rest in a decade or two.