Why Julian Assange Should Embrace 'The Fifth Estate' 194
Nerval's Lobster writes "It's no secret that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a low opinion of the new film, "The Fifth Estate," in which he's portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. He's railed against it several times, culminating in a lengthy statement (posted Oct. 9) in which he called it 'a geriatric snoozefest that only the US government could love.' That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.' WikiLeaks and Assange are clearly attempting a bit of damage control ahead of the film's Oct. 11 release in the U.K. (followed by its U.S. debut on Oct. 18). But what if that pushback is the wrong reaction? That's not to say that Assange should gleefully embrace the film —the script portrays him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past. Whatever its qualities, however, the film could get people talking about WikiLeaks' role in the broader geopolitical context, and that's ultimately a good thing for the organization: It's been quite some time since Assange and company have provided the world with an explosive, game-changing revelation. If nothing else, Assange can take some cold comfort from the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for the worst as the release date approached, but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth."
You can't get everything you want (Score:0, Insightful)
I say he should embrace the film as one of the inevitable results of attempting to somehow be an attention-seeker while simultaneously hiding from anyone and anything that doesn't completely agree with his ideals. There's only so much you can do to control the public's perception of your character, true, but you throw even that away if you hide from public view and only defend yourself in secrecy.
Up With Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that Wikileaks can continue to get information to the public. I suspect that government agents have infested WikiLeaks in every way they can and wonder if Wikileaks can still function.
Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (Score:5, Insightful)
> These guys employ terrorist tactics,
Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.
> act like they are above any law
Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?
> That's terrorism
who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?
I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.
Rewriting the facts (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me this is a pretty good attempt for the media to portray Assange any way they like. The public will lap it up and believe every bit of it, regardless of it's true-to-life accuracy. It's a lot easier to vilify people when you have the masses on your side already.
Re:Well duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.
It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.
History would indicate otherwise. The move "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson took terrible liberties with history, painting the British to be far worse than they ever were. One example, the movie contains a scene where locals were rounded up, herded into a church, and burned alive (with the church). This happened...in France, during world war II. So Mel Gibson and his writers took a Nazi atrocity perpetrated in France, and portrayed it as an atrocity committed by the British against Americans, when no such thing ever happened.
Similiar falsehoods were spread in another Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart, regarding the Scottish rising up against the English (true) in reaction to various English atrocities against the Scots portrayed in the movie that were demonstrably false and never happened.
The result in both cases: acts of intimidation, threats, and in some cases violence against the English by Americans (in the case of "The Patriot") and the Scots (in the case of "Braveheart"). These type of historical falsehoods are not rejected by audiences, and are in some cases taken very seriously. If similar falsehoods are being spread about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, then he is right to be pissed off, and right to push back.
Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you touch on something pretty obvious which is close to what I was going to state. This movie, like the other mentioned Zuckerberg film, is a propaganda tool.
The MIC, as you mentioned, does have ties to Hollywood. Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US. Those ties have grown in the last couple decades, and its honestly rare not to find propaganda in movies (if you look). The themes, items shown, etc... are all done intentionally. People argue that it's "all for money" and all the connections to propaganda are accidental, but would a studio full of professional's making multiple millions of dollars really be doing things "accidentally"? By the way, many books are the same way. They must be vetted and rewritten to suite someone's taste and not just the story the Author is trying to present.
So Assange is shown as a person to hate in this movie. Zuckerberg, even though there is much controversy about his beginnings and what he stole to get a company going, was presented as a good guy. Those are the messages they want people to get out of the movie. Whistle blowers are evil bad people, while those that hand all your data to the Government are the good guys.
There is much to study in subliminal messages in movies. Numerous books are out there showing how they do things, in addition to videos showing you what you may have missed seeing in movies but your subconscious picks up.
I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.
Re:Er, wait what? (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason The Social Network had no effect on Zuckerberg's reputation was because it portrayed him as a kinda-douchey, hard-working, intelligent dork. This was exactly what people assumed he was.
Re:Overrated? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving.
High profile people tend to have large egos. Go figure.
He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information,
And yet he *is* stuck in an embassy for reasons that defy any real logic, stemming from a case that has been prosecuted in a truly baffling manner.
Just one example would be the level of commitment the UK police have demonstrated in ensuring he stays in that embassy -- a 24x7 stakeout for coming up on 16 months at cost of around 300,000 GPB per month... so closing in on 5 million GPB for a guy accused of something ranging from a misdemeanor sexual assault to something like date-rape.
Not that I condone date rape or think he should get away with it... but 1 in 4 college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape... how many UK rape victims could they have investigated with 5 million GPB?
One would think it would be pretty hard to justify that budget for keeping one penned up in an embassy for years on end over a sexual misconduct in another country for which the evidence ultimately amounts to he-said she-said.
Re:Well duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...
How would you feel if you had started a movement that you truly believed it, only to have some filmmaker come along and try to discredit that movement on the big screen by smearing your personal life with a cartoonish, exaggerated, and sometimes downright fictional portrayal (based on the work of a guy who had betrayed said moment, no less)? I can understand why he might be more than a little pissed at that.