Should've warned about spoilers ;) Interesting to read your critiques of it Rich, looking forward to rereading your email after seeing the film.
Colin On October 24, 2014 2:58:22 PM EDT, Rich Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >Saw this last night - an obvious must-watch for all CPunks. I think it >was >probably the most important documentary film of all time. As Roger >Ebert >said, "it’s as if Daniel Ellsberg had a friend with a movie camera who >filmed his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or >if >the Watergate burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their >crimes >and the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues “Citizenfour” >deals >with are, arguably, a thousand times more potent than Vietnam or >Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we have been waiting for >since >2013. > >The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible boob >Glenn >Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him give an >extremely >disappointing talk earlier this year, but I don't think I quite >understood >how useless this guy really is. He's constantly asking the wrong >questions, >displays a technical ineptness (to the point of deliberate ignorance) >that >obviously hampers the journalism, and at very step shows a very clear >desire to keep the document cache to himself for careerist purposes. At >one >point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of there being a >Wikileaks-esque >document explorer, and Ed says that this would be the best outcome for >the >documents, and Greenwald quickly dismisses the idea to talk about his >publishing schedule. I still have immense respect for him, but I found >it >very frustrating and quite cringey to watch him treat the whole event >in >news-cycle terms, while everybody around him is obviously thinking in >historical context. For instance, there is a moment when they are >prepping >for Ed's first on-camera interview and he asks the reporters how much >background he should give about himself, and they give different >answers. >Poitras asks for as much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically >says >that isn't important, just be short so we get a good soundbite. > >More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to talk >about >*power*. This is something Edward himself has addressed, but it isn't >really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, and the only time >it's >mentioned in the film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking before a >European council of some sort, quite astutely comments that >surveillance >and control are one and the same. I think the film should probably have >spent another hour or so investigating, naming and confronting those >who >profit from that control. Other than a few choice C-SPAN snippets, the >enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for the pervading sense >paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves many questions >unasked. >Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the viewer, but I think the >general >take-away message from both the reporting and to a slightly lesser >extent >the film is that any "solution" will be token reform of policy and not >dismantlement of power structures. > >Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his girlfriend >back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected >happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately. > >Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of it. (JY, >you >should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be screenshotting >and >analyzing all of the new document shots the film contains.) > >R
