(Smaker and Journalist Graeme Wood believe her good fortune also makes it highly unlikely her subjects were planted by the Saudi government.
[2] Smaker describes the men she spoke to as tending to fall into one of the four general types, each having a different primary motivation for joining up and each represented by one of the subjects of the film.
"[16] Jordan Hoffman of The Guardian rated the film 4 out of 5 stars and stated "This is a movie for intelligent people looking to have their preconceived notions challenged.
"[17] Lorraine Ali at Los Angeles Times wrote that the documentary was "a humanizing journey through a complex emotional process of self-reckoning and accountability, and a look at the devastating fallout of flawed U.S. and Saudi policy.
"[19] Jordan Mintzer at The Hollywood Reporter wrote "Megan Smaker gives viewers the rare chance to get up close and personal with the men of no nation, territory or uniform that President Bush kept locked up for so long.
[21] Abby Sun at Filmmaker writes that Smaker is guilty of "unapologetically anti-Muslim jingoism cloaked in a no-less objectionable paternalistic humanitarianism".
[22] Davide Abbatescianni, of The New Arab, acknowledged that "Smaker sheds light, at least in part, on some of the rehabilitation center's practices and controversies," but accused her of failing to "treat her subjects ... with adequate depth and fairness.
One person, who had done nothing but advise Smaker on how to get her hard drives through U.S. customs, was told that she would be publicly outed as Islamophobic if her name remained in the credits.
[12]1:30:40 Following this criticism from "Muslim and MENA filmmakers,"[24] Abigail E. Disney, who served as an executive producer of the film, formally apologized and offered a call to action for more gatekeepers to be mindful of ethical representation in authorship and programming.
[2] Similarly, filmmaker Violeta Ayala described the production as an "entirely white team behind a film about Yemeni and South Arabian men".
[31] However the film itself notes that "neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia" has ever put the men on trial let alone convicted them, and provides evidence that the "circumstances of their imprisonment in Guantánamo were disgraceful, even downright torturous", according to Graeme Wood.
[12]1:25:51 Davide Abbatescianni, among others, accuses Smaker of failing "to embrace some essential ethical principles of non-fiction filmmaking – above all, the subjects' safety and consent.
She improvised and adapted, paid lawyers at weekend rates, and at a cost of nearly $20,000 was handed a report that cleared the film of ethical lapses.
Judith Matloff of Columbia Journalism School watched a cut of the film, interviewed Smaker and others, and wrote on the basis of their answers that “they have met or exceeded standard industry protocols to protect the security” of their subjects.
They speculate that "the men are being re-traumatized by the interrogation process" (Mullen),[21] or that "Smaker continuing to use the scenes depicted" because "she had an overwhelming desire to establish participants were 'backsliding' from the center's lessons ..." (Sun).
Journalists often interview prisoners, and documentaries like The Thin Blue Line give powerful voice to them, without necessarily clearing this purist hurdle of free consent.
"[2] Smaker herself argues in reply to the accusation that her interviews amount to “torture statements,” that the ethical standards advocated by critics would ensure that "no film was ever made about Saudi prisoners".
[33] However, in an October 2022 podcast, Smaker stated, "I've been in contact with the guys throughout that entire time, I literally just got a message from one of them ... yesterday", making no mention of feeling in danger.
[12]2:38:45 Graeme Wood calls the claim that "the existence of this film" places the subjects of it in peril, "the most serious criticism of Smaker’s film", but also "the most mysterious",[5] because[5] all graduates of Saudi Arabia's terror-rehab program, are forbidden by Saudi Arabia (where they live) "from contact with former or current jihadists, including one another, and are not supposed to talk with foreigners or the media", (they were given special permission to talk to Smaker).
Wood asked CAGE and Stafford Smith (the lawyer for Guantanamo prisoners and critic of Smaker's film) "for proof that any of the men has claimed to be at risk.