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."
Well duh... (Score:0, Interesting)
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.
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.
But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...
Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (Score:5, Interesting)
It's no secret that the US military has a close relationship with hollywood at times. They loan military hardware for use as props, in return for assurances that the movies will portray them in a good way. This isn't a shadowy backroom dealing - a few minutes googling will show it's all done out in the open. There is even a small department within the Pentagon, the Film Liaison Office, dedicated to the task.
So is it possible that someone pressured the studios involved (Principly Dreamworks) to make sure that Assange was shown in a suitably scoundral-like manner? I'm not talking about anything serious like threats of jail for no-cooperating, just a reminder that studios which insult the military or lend support to wanted enemies of the state are not going to be getting any of those oh-so-useful support agreements in future. 'If you make Assange look good, don't come to us next time you want to film scenes on an aircraft carrier.'
Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Being portrayed as a liar...by Daniel Domscheit-Berg
FTFY. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is behind this movie, as he was the book [amazon.com] on which it's based. And it's my strong suspicion that Berg was either a CIA or FBI plant at WikiLeaks. He began sabotaging the operation almost from day one, attempted (successfully) to destroy many of its documents, and has actively participated in the concerted effort to discredit Assange ever since he got canned.
I would call him a "traitor," but that would imply that he was ever an actual ally.
Re:Overrated? (Score:5, Interesting)
In both cases the sex act was consensual. In one case he told the woman he would wear a condom and didn't. In the second case, a day earlier than the first, he had sex with a condom and then woke up in the middle of the night and had sex again, this time without a condom. The women, who knew each other, wanted him to get tested for stds. Both charges are misdemeanors in Sweden, punishable by a fine, and not even a crime in the UK.
Assange has offered to receive questioning in a neutral location and Sweden has refused. He has offered to return to Sweden for questioning if they promise, with the force of law, that he will not be extradited to the U.S. Again, Sweden refused. Between Sweden and the UK, they have spent more than $10 million on this case.
What Assange did is not acceptable behavior, but the actions of Sweden and UK make little sense solely given the crimes for which he is accused.
Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (Score:2, Interesting)
Manning wasn't betrayed by Adrian Lamo. Lamo was just the actor, Manning was betrayed by 'WIRED MAGAZINE' who did it for profit, with the hopes of increased readership, remember that when and if you go to that POS website.
Reality is Assange feels exposed because many of those who support Wikileaks believe he should takes his lumps for seemingly carrying on like a douche and purposely disrupting birth control measure in order to get women pregnant when it was not their intention. Right now he is a dead weight on Wikileaks and needs to man up, step aside and face his accusers and likely take his punishment.
Either Wikileaks can stand on it's own, free from the pretensions of a pseudo celebrity and exist as a true collective work or it will fail.