In May 2011, director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal had just wrapped a meticulously researched script about the 2001 siege of al-Qaeda’s hollow mountain Afghani hideout Tora Bora, when their story changed: they learned that an elite American special forces team had killed Osama bin Laden after a ten year manhunt.Like any good obsessive-compulsive creative duo, they completely scrapped the project and started a new one. The resulting film, Zero Dark Thirty, a follow-up to the team’s Academy Award-winning film The Hurt Locker, is the purported inside story of the search for and killing of the world’s most wanted man.Unsurprisingly, the announcement of Zero Dark Thirty immediately positioned it as the centerpiece of political controversy. Republicans, who’ve really learned to love and embrace the whole “it’s not fair” crybaby image they’ve cultivated these past four years, were instantly incensed about the film’s October 2012 release date. They insisted it was a political move by those commies over at Sony to get Obama reelected in November. This despite the fact that Bigelow and Boal’s previous film was a decidedly apolitical, boots on the ground, military thriller, and all signs point to Zero Dark Thirty as being precisely the same sort of film.It would be funny if it ended there, but Jesus Christ if it doesn’t get so much better — in the form of a non-partisan 501c4 called Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund formed in 2012, with the specific intention of using Zero Dark Thirty as one example of the Obama administration’s willful disclosure of classified information for both political advantage and plain old narcissistic braggadocio. Critics have questioned the administration’s collaboration with Bigelow and Boal, and last year Rep. Peter King (R – NY) called for an investigation into the film.OPSEC produced their own film, Dishonorable Disclosures, which is either a deliberately-timed partisan attack during election season (like Republicans claim Zero Dark Thirty is) or a practical lesson in the art of deceptive film editing. Check out, for instance, the mention of Zero Dark Thirty at 11:50, and Obama’s heavily and sloppily edited death-of-Osama speech at 6:09, wherein he appears to be taking all the credit for the killing of Osama, and making no acknowledgement of the military’s role.Here’s the unedited Obama speech, from the White House’s YouTube Channel:Unfortunately, Sony caved to the GOPressure and pushed the film’s release date back to December 19. Thus it will premier shortly after the election but still in time for Oscar contention. Despite this lame feat of placation to people who deserve none, the studio did release a great teaser trailer for the film at the beginning of August.The trailer for Zero Dark Thirty employs a textbook perfect example of the proper way to use motion graphics. Large swaths of fat black lines, like those the military and intelligence agencies use to redact sensitive information, run throughout the trailer. They reveal titles, criss-crossing over briefly held, yet intriguing shots that then wipe back to outlining streets along satellite imagery and finally back into key scenes. I’m making that “OK” hand signal the chef on pizza boxes makes right now. To me, this trailer has been cut together to create one of the most thematically relevant, consistent, and subtle design concepts I’ve ever seen used in movie marketing. Watch the trailer, capiche?Follow O'Coin on Twitter: @OCOIN.Watch This Trailer is an ongoing series meant to draw Motherboard readers' attention to the art of film advertising. For better or for worse. Previously on Watch This Trailer: ‘Cloud Atlas’ Is Going to Be Insane.
Advertisement
Advertisement