HOME    ABOUT    GREEN    VIOLET    RED    SCARLET    RAINBOW    BLACK    MUSIC    ART    POETRY    PHILOSOPHY    RANDOM
Showing posts with label film review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film review. Show all posts

Thursday, September 22, 2016

"Snowden"


Directed by Oliver Stone
In cinemas now

How often in real life do people stand up to the behemoth that is the mighty US spy/war apparatus and get away with it? Not often enough. But if you count living in limbo in Russia – unable to fly to asylum in a third country once his passport was cancelled, unable to return home to the USA without fear of a rigged, secret trial on espionage charges – as getting away with it, Edward Snowden not only did that, but in a massive leak of classified information, gave the US and world public information about the unprecedented surveillance of US and global citizens, information essential for public discussion about privacy and the reach of government and corporate data collection.

Oliver Stone's newly released film “Snowden” recounts the story in a dramatisation that takes us on a journey from Snowden's administrative discharge from the military with fractures in both shins in around 2004, into his career in the CIA and then as an intelligence contractor, up to the momentous events of 2013 when he passed information about the PRISM program and other surveillance activities to journalists Laura Poitras, Glen Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill.

The information is publicly available, so it's no spoiler to speak of Snowden eluding capture in Hong Kong and being granted first one then three years' asylum in Russia, where he remains now.

The film is well made, acted and scripted. It portrays Snowden's transition from a patriot who believes in the rightness of his country and his commander-in-chief's decisions, to one deeply troubled by the impact of surveillance activities justified in the name of counter-terrorism but in reality, designed to ensure US government supremacy. The final straw for Snowden is the realisation that unimpeded data collection by US federal spy agencies and their contractors is primarily focused, not on the USA's rivals or enemies, but on US citizens.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as a convincing Snowden, and Shailene Woodley, as Lindsay Mills, Snowden's partner. Their political differences (she's a liberal who signs an anti-war petition; he's a conservative who is sure the Iraq war is right) make for an amusing foil to show that Snowden was no radical, intent on harming US security. It pitches him to a US audience as someone who simply takes seriously the US constitution's fourth amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures), and who was prepared to defend it at great personal cost. The impact of the life of a spy and even more, of a spy who becomes convinced his government is doing something fundamentally flawed is played out in the strain on their relationship and in Snowden's decision not to tell Mills what he has found or what he is going to do, in order to protect her from being an accomplice in his data breach.

Snowden's relationships with others in the spy community add another interesting, and personal dimension, though it's the nature of the biopic genre that we're left wondering where creative license begins and ends. The portrayal of macho culture in the military and casual sexism in the spy community seems undoubtedly realistic. How Snowden copies and smuggles the all-important files out makes for great drama and suggests loyalty of like-minded friends.

This film has already begun to have an impact on audiences. It is likely to be more powerful for those not already familiar with the story, particularly those who haven't watched Laura Poitras' documentary, Citzenfour and perhaps other films. But even those who've seen Citizenfour may enjoy the background provided by “Snowden,” and the personal dimension it provides, even as it breaks down what's wrong with what the spy agencies are doing, in ways that non-geeks can understand.

Towards the end of the film, news headlines are used to indicate the extent of legal reform triggered by Snowden's leak. It would be too much to ask the film to delve into how much these laws are window dressing for public consumption and whether they have resulted in any changes in mass surveillance in practice, and it really doesn't go there. But what is clear is that Snowden's brave actions triggered a global discussion. And a US federal appeals court finding that the surveillance program was illegal is certainly vindication of his rationale for his leak.

In an unusual twist, Edward Snowden appears as himself at the end of the film, responding to questions in a forum connecting him by videolink to a live audience. It provides an extra dose of realism: it's a dramatic story, but true, and still being played out by a person still at risk from the secret government he exposed.

The release of the film is well-timed for the campaign for Snowden's pardon. Obama came to power promising whistleblower protection, but instead has made history as the US president whose administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other. As the campaign gears up to call on Obama to use his last days in the presidency to pardon the best-known US whistleblower of the 21st century, “Snowden” has potential to entertain, inform, and call to act.

More information about that campaign can be found at PardonSnowden.

In song: Prism

Sunday, November 16, 2014

The Little Death

Written and directed by Josh Lawson

This Australian-made film opens by explaining that in French, “the little death” is slang for orgasm. It then takes us on a light-hearted romp through the bedrooms, garages, parking lots and a few other places of a suburban neighbourhood, scratching its head, so to speak, at the lengths to which some straight, white, monogamous people will go in their quest for sexual satisfaction.

It’s a comedy. Though allusion is repeatedly made to sexual predation (in the shape of the new neighbour who offers home-made biscuits as a gesture to soften the disclosure he is obliged to make that he’s a convicted sex offender), the film never gets too dark.

And as a comedy, I guess it’s asking too much for it to have delved deeply into the community of kink, in its survey of fetishes from somnophilia (getting turned on by watching someone sleep) to role-playing to rape fantasy. Instead, it hovers around the edge of mocking without engaging, though maybe it’s what the audience brings that is decisive. Scenes I saw as poignant had others laughing aloud. How much is that the film’s invitation to ridicule and how much, the audience’s expectation that watching anything to do with kink will be funny? I’m not sure.

[Of course, from a certain perspective, just about anything to do with human sexuality – from the straightest of straight vanilla sex to the most latex-covered group rope or needle play dreamt up by any voyeur – has its ridiculous side. Here we are, hurtling through space on a planet that’s become more and more hostile to life as it’s currently evolved – and people put vast amounts of effort into all sorts of things for sexual gratification. And making and watching films about it, for that matter.]

And yet, there is the poignant side.

There’s Phil, the man threatened with the sack for sleeping at work – staying awake nights turned on by watching his wife Maureen sleep: a wife who, awake, has only criticism of him, seems to be unhappy because of him, never listens to him; a wife who accidentally drinks the tea he made for himself with a dose of the sedative drug given to him by his boss to ensure he gets a decent night's sleep. Finding he can tell her how much he loves her, he takes to deliberately drugging her – violating her trust not for sex, as such, but for a strange kind of sad, illusory companionship.

Or Rowena and Richard, having lots of sex to try to get pregnant – lots of incredibly boring, joyless sex, at least to judge by Rowena’s face. Told that the doctor has advised conception is more likely to happen if the she has orgasms, Richard objects dismissively, “but you have lots of orgasms,” leaving Rowena crestfallen, agreeing, “yeah… so I guess we’ll just keep on doing what we’re doing.” When she discovers she has a tear fetish – sexually aroused by her partner’s tears – how can she begin to explain?

She can’t.

And if there’s a recurring theme, it seems to be the hopelessness of imagining anything positive can come out of exploring kink. While not every scenario is pursued without consent, even where there’s consent (Maeve indulges Paul’s foot fetish; Paul attempts to indulge her rape fantasy… did I mention it’s a comedy? The results are pretty funny), only the strength of the relationship makes the disappointment of the unfulfilled fantasy bearable.

The closest the film comes to hope is in the midst of the absurd situation of Sam, a deaf man unable to sleep, making a call to a phone sex line answered by a worker who needs the money to look after her nan who’s had a stroke – with Monica, an Auslan interpreter, in between. The hope is not about the phone sex – which of course is pretty funny and kind of fizzles out – but for the warm connection made by Sam and Monica despite, or perhaps because of, the absurdity.

But kinky sex? Look, it was never going to be a substitute for Dan and Evie learning to communicate, no matter how hot their role-playing scenarios got. But really? No-one was able to negotiate their way to something consensual, intense, pleasurable and connecting?

I guess I’m still waiting for that film.