Dorathen Better Late Then Never
Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.
Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
Alex Deleon Whatever your view of Julian Assange, whether as a fearless crusader for truth or a heartless hacker and ego-maniac, Alex Gibney's amazing documentary following the Rise and Fall of Assange and the scapegoating of his sexually confused US Army collaborator, Bradley Manning, asks all the hard questions from every angle and paints a woeful picture of the crisis in western democracy. When the Wikileaks news was breaking it was so fragmented and intertwined with other war news, sensations, and scandals, that many people were unable to unscramble what was what, and who was who. For one thing with all the references to asylum in Sweden and the peculiar surname there were probably some who thought Assange was himself a Swede (he is not) and others who were possibly confusing wiki-leakage with the info website Wikipedia.All this is straightened out and put into context by Alex Gibney's "We Steal Secrets", which is partly an inquest into the dynamics of investigative journalism, and is itself a sparkling piece of investigative journalism -- in addition to which it has the feeling of an espionage thriller.The basics are this: Julian Assange (not his original name but the anglicized form of an Cantonese name) is Australian and started out as an expert computer hacker, later journalist and political activist, campaigning avidly for transparency of government information, particularly with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Numerous deaths of civilians were blithely written off as "collateral damage" by the military, but because of Assange's Wikileaks website activity were eventually exposed as blatant murder of noncombatants. This is only the tip of the iceberg: Loads of secret army files were turned over to Assange by a young American soldier, also an expert hacker, Bradley Manning an intelligence analyst stationed in Baghdad who had access to all the information stored in the computers there. Bradley was openly gay but because of his computer expertise his top secret clearance was never pulled. Eventually, when he realized what was going on and his conscience got the better of him he made the moral decision to his privileged information on to Assange in order to expose the atrocities he had discovered. In 2010 when Assange put hundreds of such files out on the worldwide web through his Wikileaks website he was hailed as an international hero by those against the war and condemned as a dangerous enemy agent by the U.S. governmentGibney's movie traces Assange's rise to notoriety via interviews with various journalists who followed him around, especially one Australian journalist and fervent Assange disciple Mark Davis. The entire first half of the film paints a very positive picture of a valiant charismatic crusader sporting long silvery hair something like an aging rock star. We see constant street demonstrations expressing solidarity with Assange in placards such as "Telling the truth is not a crime". Assange has become a public hero, but later when he gets into trouble in Sweden the picture begins to change. Two young female groupies accuse him of illicit sex and purposely breaking the condom! His extradition from England for trial in Sweden is demanded. At this point the US government also wants to get hold of him as an enemy agent and the plot thickens rapidly. By equating the mission of Wikileaks with his own campaign to discredit the sexual assault charges in Sweden, and advocating the kind of secrecy he had been fighting against all along, Assange manages to alienate many of his closest ers. If the Swedes get him the next step could be extradition to the USA. To save him from extradition Ecuador offers him sanctuary in their London embassy. Gibney offered to interview him there so that he could present his side of the story in this film but Assange demanded one million dollars or nothing so that interview was canceled. But this is only half of the story --the parallel story of the persecution of Pfc Bardley Manning is the other half of the picture. Without Bradley there would have been no such mass leakage of military and political secrets. Bradley denounced by a buddy who later in the film repents tearfully, has been wallowing in an army brig for three years without being brought to trial. This parallel story interwoven with the meteoric ascent of Assange reveals Bradley's struggle with gender identity --he really wants to be a woman -- and his personal torment over what to reveal and what not to reveal. If construed as giving aid to the enemy the beef against him could carry a sentence of death. The government condemns Bradley but its that little was revealed which could directly place US military personnel in jeopardy. The most striking statement comes from Michael Hayden, former CIA chief, who its with surprising candor, "Yes, we steal secrets from other governments -- it's all part of what we have to do to preserve democracy..." -- a remark which informs the title of the film. Manning will come to trial on June 4. The release of this film at this point in time will surely cause many people to rethink their views on the whole leakage business and the whole attitude and role of the US military.The big question posed by this film is not whether Mr. Assange is a good guy or a bad guy, but the thornier question of control versus free flow of information in a democratic society; how much revelation of government secrets can a democracy tolerate?What will actually happen now is anybody's guess but it is very unlikely that Assange will ever go to Sweden to face the charges there or leave the Ecuadorian embassy anytime soon. They have a place called "Gitmo" for people who are deemed as being overly dangerous to the American way of life ...
Hadrian Beath After watching this film, I wanted to research this film further (something I typically do after watching a documentary, rather than taking a film at face value).After internet searching for Assange's response to the documentary, I found the Wikileaks' response in the form of an annotated transcript of the film. The documentary appears to be a slick piece of anti-Wikileaks propaganda, peddled as critical and objective journalism. I won't go into this further as other reviews provide information challenging the factual errors.I encourage you to read the transcript yourself and make up your own mind. Because IMDb does not allow reviews to include URLs, I can not provide the direct link to the transcript. However, it can be found by performing an internet search for the following: "We Steal Secrets the annotated transcript".
seanrkearney If this film tells us anything its that the mainstream media like their corporate paymasters are very much in bed with the governmental organizations who Julian Assange and others looks to expose. From its title its clear that this is film offers little in the way of objective journalism and instead tows the mainstream media line that Assange is not a whistle blower but in fact an irresponsible thief. There is some interesting facts included in the documentary but its inability to remain objective for me at least undermined its credibility and its value as a serious work. Of course without Assange and people like Bradley Manning the worst excesses of government and corporate society would never come to light. A message this film conspicuously overlooks.
paulwaidelich I'm a retiree living in Mexico who doesn't read newspapers, internet news or watch television. I'm as unbiased as you can get. I was stunned by the venom of many reviewers, most of whom are pro Assange. I kept reading reviews, waiting for someone to state what I considered the obvious point of the movie makers. I didn't see it, so here is my opinion of what the movie is about.People are weak. We easily lose sight of our original goals when we obtain power. Through power, we become what we originally detested. It's inherent in human nature, and cannot be avoided.The United States struggles worldwide. Each public servant begins with ideals. Gradually, though the accumulation of power, they face the same decisions as their predecessors. Often, they make the same mistakes. Thus, the Obama of today becomes what the pre-presidential Obama would have considered a war criminal. Ironically, WikiLeaks began the same; idealistically. Then they, particularly Julian Assange, succumbed to the same faults in human nature as their government antagonists. The documentary is the story of good people doing bad things, including Assange. It is also the story of inevitable consequences. If you make a credible challenge to the United States government, don't expect the enemies you've made to say "thank you, you're right, nice job." When a small power declares war on a larger power, don't expect fair play. Expect annihilation.In war amongst nations, strange allies are created. Assange living in the Ecuadorian embassy? If you believe, as I do, that you can tell the character of a person (or nation) by their friends, what does this say about Assange? One thread of the movie is the character development of this unusual and charismatic man, from idealist to Rock Star Rebel screwing attractive women without thoughts of consequence to paranoid recluse turning on his own friends and ideals to fugitive living under the protection of a corrupt government that is the antithesis of every ideal of freedom he began with. The documentary shows clearly that Assange is just a human being misusing immense power, no different that the governments he first turned on. The movie would have been better if he had been interviewed, but succeeds in making it's point without it. Assange, the man who supposedly puts the dissemination of information ahead of all other considerations, won't do the interview without being paid huge sums of cash. He will also accept in payment secrets damaging to his enemies. He ends up being what he originally hated. Like all great main characters in all good stories, he changes from who he was at the beginning. Through the power of media, he becomes a digital Dorian Gray, an ugly reflection of what once was a beautiful, courageous person.The documentary carefully gives credit to the original ideal of WikiLeaks, and shows the inevitable path of every idealistic rebel in history (except the American Founding Fathers, especially George Washington) who gains power then becomes what he hated...a corrupt person who puts the protection of acquired power ahead of all other goals.The movie ends with an image of earth viewed from space, and questions of how we can save ourselves from this vicious cycle of idealism becoming corrupted with power. Every who views this movie with a political axe to grind gets disappointed. There are no heroes or villains in this movie. The documentary is an indictment of human nature, a problem they evoke clearly and with great skill. It's also a problem they don't attempt to solve, except by initiating a dialog.To those wanted this movie to reflect their own political, moral or legal views, try setting aside your agenda and watching it again. This is a remarkably well made movie with balanced reporting. Their only agenda is telling the truth.
