Snowden

Dir: Oliver Stone

2016

****

My first reaction to the announcement that Oliver Stone was going to make a biographical movie about infamous whistle-blower Edward Snowden was ‘why’? CitizenFour - Laura Poitras’s ground-breaking interview with Snowden as he revealed himself (but not his location) to the world was only released in 2014, why a dramatization of the events just two years later? Why a dramatization of events at all? However, a short time into the film it clicked. We all know who Edward Snowden is, we know something about his career and we certainly know what he did, but actually, the general public really doesn’t know anything about him at all, least of all the sacrifice he made and what lead him to turn on everything he had ever worked towards. He has been painted by the UC government as a bad guy, an anti-American, unpatriotic and a traitor, but actually, he’s something of a modern day hero. The script is based partly on Time of the Octopus by Anatoly Kucherena which is in turn based on interviews with Snowden but is fictional, but it’s mainly based on The Snowden Files by Luke Harding. It’s very much the sort of film you expect from Oliver Stone these days, political as always but without too much dramatization, it’s never over cooked, somewhere between documentary and reconstruction, albeit featuring some of Hollywood’s biggest stars. It’s a classy political thriller, if he’d written it as a fictional piece back in the 90s it would be just as exciting, but knowing it is the truth gives it gravitas, the fact you know Stone can be trusted with the facts even more so. I feel Stone has highlighted the history and long-term effect of Snowden’s actions for those who read about it and treated it as that particular day’s news. CitizenFour came out in 2014 and it is right that the story be revisited and the public reminded about what is going on and how it will affect them and the course of history. Okay, so it should be said that Stone did try and force Laura Poitras to delay the release of CitizenFour as he felt a big feature would have more impact – she took offense and didn’t speak to him again – but one wonders whether he was right. In any case, the situation will transcend presidents, senators and governments, the less it is discussed the worse things are. I’m the sort of person that feels such subjects should be covered in balanced documentaries but as investigative documentaries are becoming more and more emotionally manipulative (and dangerous) maybe it’s better that history is played out in Hollywood by well-known actors of the day – so long as it sticks to the facts of course. Stone is one of very few directors who can be trusted, he was accused of being apathetic after his 2008 biopic W - about George W. Bush – even though he called him the second worst president of all time after Richard Nixon. When you can’t please everyone on such subjects, it means you’re balanced. The turn of events in Snowden are very easy to follow, Stone doesn’t use unnecessary trickery in terms of narrative or editing, the story is told in order of events and is fluid. Stone met with Snowden several times before working on the script, both men had their doubts about it – Snowden didn’t know how he felt about a film made of his life and relationships and Stone was working on another controversial subject at the time, about the last few years in the life of Martin Luther King Jr. and did not immediately wish to tackle a project as incendiary again. However, Stone soon got engrossed with the story, met with parties involved and was pushed by a need to address certain wrongs. He made a valid point when he said "It's a very strange thing to do [a story about] an American man, and not be able to finance this movie in America. And that's very disturbing, if you think about its implications on any subject that is not overtly pro-American. They say we have freedom of expression; but thought is financed, and thought is controlled, and the media is controlled. This country is very tight on that, and there's no criticism allowed at a certain level. You can make movies about civil rights leaders who are dead, but it's not easy to make one about a current man." Stone ended up having to fund the film himself after all American companies who agreed to finance it pulled out for fear of seeming unpatriotic. Due to fear of interference by the National Security Agency, Stone decided to shoot the film mostly outside of the United States. Most of the filming was done in Germany, with German and French support, because of fears of the film leaking, Stone employed self-described ethical hacker Ralph Echemendia as a technical supervisor, and made sure all cast and crew used a secure chat-and-file-sharing program and he wrote the script on an older computer that didn’t have internet connection. It is a frightening and ridiculous situation, although I bet Stone was in his element. Joseph Gordon-Levitt met with Snowden and was cast almost immediately, Snowdon’s parents commented to him during a private screening that his portrayal of their son was perfect, something that he later cited as the most meaningful encouragement he has ever received for a performance. The actor pledged to donate his entire salary from the film to "help facilitate the conversation" about the relationship between technology and democracy. He is perfect for the role and seems to be the go to actor when you need a documentary made into a feature film (he even acknowledged this and also compered Snowden to Philippe Petit whom he portrayed the year before in The Walk (based in Man on Wire). Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto and Tom Wilkinson play Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill respectively in the Hong Kong hotel scenes, Leo and Wilkinson are convincing but I thought Quinto overcooked his performance slightly. The rest of the supporting cast are good and while Rhys Ifans actually plays a character who is an amalgamation of real people (undisclosed for good reason) his is the films stand out performance. His name O’Brian is a nod to a main character called O’Brian of the thought police from George Orwell’s 1984. Nicolas Cage played another character who was an amalgamation of real people but inspired mostly on NSA whistleblower William Binney. Cage is said to have taken the part as a favour to Stone but surely it was the other way around? Pay the man for goodness sake, although he isn’t great and he has become something of a distraction in everything he’s in these days. Overall the performances are good, particularly from Gordon-Levitt. It’s probably one of Oliver Stone’s most important works, although it will never be deemed as iconic as Wall Street or Platoon. The critics loved it but it was the lowest opening for a film Stone had made to date. When it comes to patriotism people are deaf and blind, many have made their mind’s up without even wanting to listen to the facts, their rights be damned. It’s a must see film that should be followed by CitizenFour if you haven’t already seen it, I just fear not enough people are listening or concentrating on what is happening around them. Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it, Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.