Wikileaks
is an online organization that allows whistleblowers a virtual space to publish
unedited, leaked documents that are deemed politically important and in the
interest of individuals, as opposed to institutions. This seems to me like a noble and democratic
aim, if not slightly vague on the nuances of handling sensitive
information. The problem with making a
decent film about an organization like this is that by its very construct,
cinema has to edit, exaggerate and editorialize information in order to gain an
audience – thus doing everything that goes against the principles of the focus
of the film. It is only possible to give
a version of events, instead of the definitive account of an event – a line
that is spoken towards the end of the film by Julian Assange, the founder of
the website. Here is my version, of the
version of events contained within the film:
The narrative begins with Daniel Burg
(Daniel Brühl) refreshing his web browser on the eve of The Guardian, The New
York Times and Die Spiegel simultaneously publishing thousands of leaked war
logs recounting the Afghanistan war. The
story then jumps back two years to a time when Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch)
first meets Daniel in Berlin as he is trying to get information about his web
vision to any audience who will listen.
The two get together and publish their first big story, information
about tax fraud committed by a Swiss bank.
As they begin to get more and more leaks published, a tension grows
between them about whether it is ethical to edit the information before
release, in order to protect people, or whether any redactions declare inherent
bias. The story then dramatically builds
to the moment where we began on the eve of the war logs release and the
immediate geopolitical aftermath.
Wikileaks (or more specifically Assange
himself) have denied the version of events depicted in the film claiming that
it is a case of character
assassination as opposed to focus on the wider point. They decided to leak a copy of the script on the eve of
the films release in order to spoil the debut.
However, there are far more troubling elements in the film that the
representation of the protagonist. In
order to visualize the ethical dichotomy that Daniel is in, the film keeps
referring back to a clumsy visual metaphor of a never-ending office space full
of computers that is manned at times entirely of Julians, or nothing but
Daniels. This reminds me of the scene in
W., another recent-history
biopic, where George Bush is stood on the baseball field waiting for the ball
to land…needlessly ‘symbolic’.
The
Fifth Estate feels a
lot like David Fincher’s brilliant The Social Network, yet Fincher
frankly had a better script to work from.
Both have lofty names using the definitive article “The” in order to
signal the announcement of a new online landscape; both films have loads of
shots of computers and servers and characters talking about IP addresses and
coding; and they also both largely ignore women in their utopian digital
futures. The only two real female characters
in The Fifth Estate are an emotionally drained old-school Washington bureaucrat
(Laura Linney) whose only function is to despair about her undercover
operatives around the world and their safety in the face of Assange and his
online radicals, and Daniel’s girlfriend Anke (Alicia Vikander) who plays the
stereotypical role of ‘moral female’ who makes Daniel question his own motives
in publishing private information about individuals (in this case, the names
and addresses of BNP members).
There is much to be enjoyed in the film,
especially for an audience of news junkies.
All of the scenes filmed inside the Guardian, NYT and Die Spiegel
buildings give an interesting insight into journalistic practice, and are
filmed with a reverence that obviously declares the political persuasion of the
filmmakers. It is an unashamedly liberal
film aimed at liberal audiences, with the negativity that is aimed at Assange being
entirely against his egotism than his vision.
The film is also hugely celebratory of
European metorpolitanism. Berlin,
Zurich, London and somewhere called Hacking at Random in Vierhouten
(Netherlands) are all presented as the centre of the digital universe, where cutting
edge hackers are creating an idealistic resistance to corrupt globalization and
governments – a kind of underground Silicon Valley. The filmmakers want you to believe that the
age of governments and corporations is ending and the rise of the empowered
digital individual is upon us (the final speech from Assange is almost
cringingly optimistic), yet by showing so much danger and corruption in Africa
and the Middle East, it simply reinforces this European supremacy.
Overall, I think the film deserves to be
seen, even if only by a sympathetic liberal audience (the cinema I watched it
in was whisper quiet and mainly inhabited by solo viewers). I can’t help but wonder how this film will
play in the USA…
For the Alex Gibney documentary about Wikileaks - click here
For the Alex Gibney documentary about Wikileaks - click here
No comments:
Post a Comment