Documentary
filmmaker Laura Poitras started filming the inner-circle of Wikileaks
in 2010 when they first burst into the headlines. She filmed them on
and off for the next six years. She was originally sympathetic to
their commitment to releasing controversial governmental documents
that offer difficult insights into the inner-workings of large and
powerful institutions. However, she became quite intimately involved
with the group, even becoming lovers with one of them, Jacob
Appelbaum, and on this human level she became personally disappointed
with the group, particularly Julian Assange. As a result, she seems
to have chosen to cobble together a collection of unconnected moments
from over the years of Julian Assange not living up to his heroic
reputation, rather than telling a coherent story of this critical
period in the history of Wikileaks.
Assange
indeed appears in some scenes to be arrogant, paranoid, dismissive
and possibly even sexist, but if these were the most revealing
moments she shot in six years, it doesn't reveal much. I think most
people would be horrified if someone had filmed them for six years
and then simply cut together the moments when they were most
revealing of the least savoury parts of their personality. I'm not
sure I would come off well given the same treatment, though most
people consider me a nice person.
Poitras
has already displayed her ability to convey the urgency of a historic
moment from the inside in her documentary Citizenfour [2014], in
which she recorded the moment that Edward Snowden conscientiously
released documents revealing the NSA's illegal surveillance of large
numbers of people in collaboration with other intelligence agencies
around the world. So her inability to edit her footage into anything
coherent or interesting when the group involved is extremely
interesting and her access was total, is surely a result of her conflicts
of interest.
Although
Assange's dismissal of the two women who claimed to have been
sexually assaulted by him borders on sexism, the film itself has also
been criticised for marginalising the women centrally involved in the
running of Wikileaks in favour of more screen-time for Assange and
Appelbaum.
The
story of Wikileaks and the flawed personality of Assange have already
been effectively communicated in Alex Gibney's documentary We Steal
Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks [2013] and Risk does not offer any
deeper insight, despite intimate access and being three years more
up-to-date.
A documentary carefully examining the precarious line
between performing a valuable, dangerous and always ethically
ambiguous role in institutional transparency, and attempting to
remain humble, respectful and balanced in the process would be a very
interesting film to watch. Sadly, this confused and superfluous
documentary is not it.
No comments:
Post a Comment