Pop Culture & the Law: Zero Day

Leaving Things Open to Interpretation

Ambiguous endings are not unheard of in popular shows and movies. The Sopranos black screen comes to mind. Inception left its dream versus reality question unresolved. In the latest example, Zero Day, a Netflix hit, leaves a crucial plot point unresolved.

‍Zero Day follows former President George Mullen as he oversees a committee investigating the Zero Day terror attack. The one minute cyberattack shut off all computers and communication devices, causing chaos and thousands of deaths. As the episodes unfold, we learn that President Mullen hears music that isn’t there, scribbles nonsense in his journals, and talks to imaginary people. His mental decay is either the result of aging or a cyber weapon, Proteus.

‍

‍

Proteus appears to be modeled after Havana Syndrome, a mysterious condition affecting U.S. federal employees living abroad. Symptoms range from headaches to hearing strange sounds to traumatic brain injury. There have been allegations but no proof that the Syndrome is the result of a weapon.

Co-creater and co-showrunner, Eric Newman said that when writing the show, he believed that Proteus was being used on President Mullen but wanted it to be left open to interpretation. In an interesting twist, Newman told Netflix:  “Having now watched the show, I’m not so sure.” He explained, “I think that happens occasionally. There are things in movies and TV shows that take on a life of their own and have a meaning that goes beyond what anyone intended, even the person or people who made it.”

‍

Trusting Your Audience

Storytelling involves a lot of trust. The storyteller needs to trust that the audience can make their own conclusions and don’t need to be spoon-fed everything. The audience needs to trust the storyteller to deliver what was promised. 

Zero Day is a thriller, meant to keep viewers on the edge of their seats, anxiously waiting to see what happens. As long as this tension is maintained, an ambiguous ending will not be inherently unsatisfying.

In contrast, a mystery may contain edge-of-your-seat elements, but the expectation is that the ending will not be ambiguous. In a mystery, the audience wants to solve the puzzle alongside the detective. The cardinal rule is that the reveal should make sense in a way that feels obvious in hindsight. 

In the legal world, our stories need to follow the mystery framework. True ambiguous endings like those in The Sopranos, Inception and Zero Day, are not going to work. We can’t have people feeling uncertain about what happened in our cases. However, the ambiguity in Zero Day reminded me of the importance of showing versus telling. We saw President Mullen talk to an imaginary employee, we watched him lie about hearing music that wasn’t in the room, and fail to remember things. If we were told that he may have been the victim of a neurological weapon, it would not have been as impactful as being shown the symptoms. 

‍

“Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.” - Anton Chekhov

‍

Being lectured at is never as persuasive as reaching a conclusion on your own. Presenting a case is a balance between showing and telling. Sometimes, telling is going to be necessary for context. However, showing allows your audience to experience your case. That is essential if you want an invested audience that cares about what happens. In mysteries, the detective uncovers clues but we don’t find out what it all means until the end. This helps keep the audience engaged as they work to figure out the significance of the facts.

Next time you watch a favorite movie or show that has an ambiguous ending, make a list of the evidence that was presented to the viewer. It is going to be a lot longer than a single sentence telling you what happened. 

Another reason to resist the temptation to only tell is that it can blind us to evidence on the other side. For example, in Zero Day, President Mullen found a device in his bird feeder. He thought the device might be responsible for his symptoms but testing was inconclusive. It may be tempting to ignore this unhelpful evidence, and focus on only the evidence that supports the case that Proteus was used. Instead, it would be stronger to acknowledge the inconclusive test but explain that Proteus was designed to be untraceable. At the end of the show, there was enough evidence on either side for viewers to reach opposite conclusions.

As you prepare your case, reflecting on shows and films with ambiguous endings can be helpful. Was there one piece of evidence that would have convinced you? Was there an essential question left unanswered? Was a character untrustworthy? These questions can help you evaluate whether you have enough facts to override any doubts about what happened. Ambiguity might be fine in thrillers, but in litigation you want your audience to reach a conclusion that feels obvious in hindsight.

‍

‍Leslie Hulburt is a co-founder of Hulburt Law Firm. She is an experienced trial attorney who has litigated cases against major corporations, manufacturers and government entities. In addition to the law, she has worked at the washingtonpost.com and as a garden teacher for elementary school students. These experiences give her a unique perspective on the most compelling way to present a case. Leslie finds inspiration in countless places, including movies, tv shows, books and podcasts. Pop Culture & the Law explores the ways our favorite entertainment can offer wisdom in the practice of law.

‍