Controversy attaches to Oscar nominations as reliably as it does to American actions in combating terrorism (which isnt to equate the type or degree). Rarer is the case when it overlaps.The absence of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow from the nominee list for best director has some wondering whether something else is afoot, something in fact related to the events Zero Dark Thirty depicts. The movie is frank in its portrayal of what was euphemistically termed enhanced interrogation, and theres a scene that has gained some scrutiny for possibly suggesting that torture helped extract key information in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Now the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, whose Democratic members have long contended that torture played no role in revealing clues to bin Ladens whereabouts, wants to investigate whether Bigelow and screenwriter Michael Boal were used by CIA consultants on the film to advance CIA propagandanamely, that torture was used and thus is effective. The committee may go so far as to examine records of CIA officials contact with the filmmakers.The scene in question is murkier than the reaction from the senators and other concerned viewers might suggest. If anything, it leaves the impression that the detainee subjected to stress positions, water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and other torture techniques was rendered incapable of lucid response, to say nothing of offering what has come to be known as actionable intelligence. But neither does the movie use the moment to make plain that torture did not work. What the movie does is show torture, as we have come to understand what that entailed in the years that members of the Bush administration were systematically redefining it and lowering barriers to its use.Yet whether it worked or not is beside the point. In depicting torture, the filmmakers had the opportunity to take a moral position on its use. But they didnt, at least not in any obvious way. Should Bigelow and Boal be faulted for this? Zero Dark Thirty is a creative representation of actual events. Its power as a dramatic work lies mainly in the chasethe gains and the setbacks, the details of forensic procedure and surveillance, the persistence of the protagonist (played by best actress nominee Jessica Chastain). There is no character development to speak of; the principles are pose-able action figures programmed to deliver TV-grade dialogue and stare intently into computer monitors. None is shown to be troubled by what the detainees suffer; none questions orders or methods; none contemplates the ramifications, not even expressively in solitary moments. The only thing that bothers anyone is the apparent lack of useful leads.Finelet the viewer make his or her own judgment. But the movie does not establish a thematic or aesthetic space in which a viewer can do so. The CIA operative conducting the most brutal of the interrogationsand meting the punishment out directlyis rugged and intelligent, quick with the quips, dashing in his scruffy beard and dusty jeans. He doesnt brood or agonize. Hes cute, as a female operative notes, and theres a frisson of sexual attraction between him and the Chastain character (the other female operative character explicitly raises the prospect of physical intimacy). What is one supposed to make of this? What is one supposed to make of the scene in which hes near tears beside an empty cage because the monkeys hes kept as pets have been confiscated? That theres inner kindness and depth, or that theres madness? What about when hes shown later, having returned to Washington, clean-shaven in a shirt and tie, efficiently and articulately contributing in high-level meetings at CIA headquarters? That torturers might also come in suits? That hes civilized? That really hes just a simple technocrat whose actions in Afghanistan were solely the result of the unforgiving environment into which hed been thrust?Maybe the nature of their work governs against real-life agents possessing agency. But when theyre characters in movies, they really should have some. Their creator cannot take cover behind the flimsy screen of objectivity when so much subjectivity is otherwise at work. A filmmaker devises the dramatic situations that define character, so that the character might act in response to the situation, thus becoming more defined as a character in the process (and yes, that includes morally defined). Whether the filmmakers elusiveness on this point is intentional or the result of faulty execution amounts to the same thing: They get to have it every way they wantpraise not only for unflinchingly portraying violence, but also for providing sexy heroes, riveting action, and a satisfying ending, in that the objective of the actual mission is met. Thus too is the cynically cinematic one.