Slashdot Mirror
Why Julian Assange Should Embrace 'The Fifth Estate'
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."
...cannot be a good thing for his credibility, no matter what geopolitical issues it brings to the fore.
What Assange should embrace is a better legal team to get him out of the embassy.
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.'
That sounds vaguely like the changes against Assange in Sweden .... talented but debauched performance.
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...
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.
Don't. Stop. Don't. Stop. Don't . . . stop. Don't stop.
And Julian Assange is their Osama. There I said it.
These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law. That's terrorism, that's wikileaks.
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.
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
Taking extra money showers, then wiping their arse with $100 bills? Please! The entire business model of Facebook has been around monetization. They don't care about reputation as long as it sells. "Zuckerberg is evil! Buy this book!" Er, ok. "Zuckerberg is God! Buy this book!" Er, ok. Either way... the book is bought.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Out how to make the will recall that it centralized models may be hurtinG the Trying to %dissect
Cries uncle !! "We had no idea what we were doing. Sorry for that. We good?" !!
Hes probably just mad that its not him playing himself in the movie. Even with Wikileaks he made it about Julian Asange instead of about the leaks.
Thanks to the casting choice of this movie, If I ever meet Julian Assange, I am going to walk up to him and say "KHAN!!!!!"
So they might as well make a movie about him instead. Character assassination and a profit, everyone wins.
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.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Assange's reaction is interesting because everything I've seen about that movie led me to believe it was going to be an overly positive portrayal.
While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving. I've found it rather obnoxious the way he's been deified by some in the press. He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information, but he's wrapped his whole personality around it. People have been leaking information well before the advent of Wikileaks. It's not like the service is the be all and end all for anything. There are a million and one channels for making information public this just makes it somewhat more convenient.
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.'
So let me get this straight, wikileaks relies on a steady stream of gov't employees willing to risk their own careers to stay relevant?
Are they any different than the cold era KGB/CIA in that their main goal is to spy on the gov't?
Wikileaks has been over for some time now. Let's start ignoring it already. Other leakers can handle the future.
embrace, extend, extinguish? :-)
Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between. This is not going to be a "Batman" blockbuster. It's not even going to be a "The Social Network" blockbuster.
Anyone who had an opinion on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg was sort of a sleaze did not have their opinion changed by seeing "The Social Network."
He's being portrayed in a way he doesn't like by somebody that has an agenda that involves gain on their part by making others look bad. This is happening by using information provided by others and the whole thing is outside of his control. The media is then being involved to make sure that the exploitation is maximized for greatest impact. The bully gets his due and doesn't like the taste of his own medicine and is off to cry to his mommy about how others are treating him.
This couldn't have happened to a more deserving person if they tried. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The fifth estate is a mediocre movie. The fact that the talented Cumberbach plays Assange means that Assange becomes human rather than a political figure. When Cumberbach is not on screen, it has the feel of a PBS UK import.
The movie is through the perspective of Assange's friend and so, Assange comes off as a mystery rather than a liar.
As for the movie, it is just middling. People who dislike Assange will find more reasons to confirm their dislike and those who like Assange will find more reasons to do so.
Maybe I missed it during the movie but the speech where Assange/Cumberbach says "they are afraid of you" that is in the trailers is not in the movie.
In every dictionary of English, the explanation of the political term 'useful idiot' should use Assange as the primary example. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the recent history of whistle-blowing and leaking KNOWS wikileaks was created to destroy honest, non co-opted groups that were attempting to give public access to 'secret' information. Assange was chosen because of his sociopathic personality. The group overseeing the real control of Wikileaks and Assange was led by British Intelligence, under another of Tony Blair's war-mongering projects.
The British have a long history of using these intelligence methods. During WW2, Britain was injecting control messages into the mainstream media of West Europe, even to the extent of taking over Nazi radio broadcasts seamlessly, with voice impersonators replacing the usual radio announcers (the BBC actually handled the recruitment of the voice talent, leading to the little known fact that the so-called Churchill Radio broadcasts on the BBC were actually spoken by an impressionist, while Churchill was at home- usually outside of London because he was such a coward- drunk).
Assange was the stooge used to create the circumstances for strife and war in the Middle East- especially Egypt and Syria. Not one of his so-called 'leaks' harmed Israel or the USA- what an amazing coincidence. Assange's ego (and low intelligence) made him the ideal dupe.
On the other hand, Snowden is the real deal- except even in his case he is a dupe telling us powerful truths, but truths that your masters decided had better come into the open at this time- for fear that an uncontrolled release of the truth later could have a very nasty, uncontrollable backlash. Snowden was allowed to gather and inform us of a FRACTION of the extent of abuses by the intelligence agencies of the West in an inoculation (you inject a little bit of the real 'poison' to allow the body to become immune to further 'poison' in the future).
Now when informed people tell their sheeple friends about the extent of government evil, their friends yawn, shrug their shoulders and say "heard it all before, and what can anyone do about it?".
The monsters that rule you spend tens of billions of each on psychological warfare against YOU. You, on the other hand, have exactly one person's collections of resources to fight back- not exactly an even contest. So when YOU try to figure out the real truth behind Assange and Snowden, if there is ANY sheeple instinct in you, you will fail. In truth, even if you consider yourself cynical, you still believe the 'push' information the mainstream media feeds you. You WILL be distracted by the sex crime charges against Assange, for instance, thus limiting your ability to see the bigger picture- that Assange is an identical play to so many used by the British during WW2.
Hollywood makes movies to make money. I don't know Assange, but weren't there some shady things in his past? I'm not an expert and not accusing him of anything, but when the stories were breaking they ranged from "he is a saint" to "he is the devil." The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Repeating an assertion without evidence doesn't make it true. How has Asange made it about himself - it's not like he asked the Swedish government to cook up a witch hunt as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, after he asked for and was given permission to leave the country.
Reminds me of the pro-gov slanted news and media in Russia, China, Syria, etc.
Just mix in some non-factual shit, call it "artistic license", and you can paint whichever real events however you want in the minds of fools -- The largest voting demographic...
Wikileaks is about exposing hidden truth. Assange would be a hypocrite to go along with a production that he feels hides the truth.
Assange might be wrong about what constitutes truth in this situation because, unlike something as straight-forward as publishing secret documents, some truths are a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, you can't reasonably expect Assange to go along with something he believes is not truthful.
Comparisons to facebook miss the point. Facebook is about making money and while they may have lofty corporatespeak goal - they are a publicly traded company and therefore can't honestly aspire to anything more than the almighty dollar.
Producer (one of them)
Steve Golin (born March 6, 1955)[1] is the founder and CEO of Anonymous Content LLP, a multimedia development, production and talent management company and co-founder and former CEO of Propaganda Films.[2]
"producing spots and campaigns for Nike, Intel, Citibank, United Airlines, Ford, Audi, Coca-Cola, Pepsi"
Well versed in propaganda, or for the slow people "A really good liar"
Bill Condon ( winner of the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director for his work on The Twilight Saga) is a shlock artist well versed in writing mindless garbage, also a big fan of propaganda (that benefits him of course).
All in all the reason Assange isn't happy about the film is it's a hit piece, a dilution of a critical issue.
Making a movie is the first step to marginalizing Assange and wikileaks into meaningless.
Hollywood knows this, look at how well they marginalized the American public and destroyed this country.
The comparison to the Facebook movie is a naive and simplistic view that is entirely incorrect.
Everyone making that film knew it would appeal to the young set.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
One of the main criticisms of Wikileaks is that the movie just skips this part, so instead of talking about Wikileak's role in the broader geopolitical context, people will just talk about the rest (just like they are talking about Snowden and not about the crimes). It skips where the troops got out of Iraq (officially ending the war) because they were going to start being charged for their crimes over there. It skips where Tunisia and other dictatorships fell because of the leaks. It just skips everything that matters and talks about him instead.
Any movie that does not portray the US government crimes properly is biased in their favor, it's not impartial or balanced.
how_to_merge_the_truth_with_fiction_-_the_film.avi
The biggest problem with the Fifth Estate is that it's subjective fiction, and Assange has been one of the biggest targets of government-driven propaganda smear campaigns around. There is still a far superior movie waiting to be made about this subject written by investigative journalists as a documentary.
Religion isn't the nail this time. I'm sorry but your example is just as clueless as the idiotic climate science is a religion/biology is a religion/geology is a religion/apple fanboyism is a religion posts.
1984 was written as a response to Brave New World; without it, 1984 would not have happened. 1984 is based upon almost entirely negative feedback and censorship for total control. Brave New World was based entirely upon positive feedback controls and distraction; censorship wasn't heavy handed; it didn't need to be. It was more imaginative and trying to point out new methods of control (which were beginning to be used at the time) and new problems while 1984 was a rebuttal, reminding people how human nature has always worked and therefore is likely to continue to work - both go to extremes in their opposite directions for emphasis. Both fail (probably intentionally) to address the flip side.
Creating entertaining versions of history and news which distort truth while NOT censoring the actual truth is totally like Brave New World and is not like 1984. Conditioning people to be such wimps that when they do find the truth it is so unpleasant that they essentially punish themselves with their inability to handle truth.... meanwhile being surrounded in numerous escapes... also makes it difficult to spread bad news around-- no big brother required... distributed decentralized control is even possible. FOX News is a great example, they use both techniques.
You don't need to Torture somebody to make them a loyal party member.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So why is it that you treat it like a documentary and claim WL and JA are "doing damage limitation"?
A fiction based on real life (like that submarnine in WW2 thing) will "sex things up" to get an interesting movie rather than a strait documentary and pointing it out to people is not "Damage limitation", it's reminding people "It's a fookin MOVIE".