By Bob Boldt
I have spent my life making documentary films. Some of my mentors, men I have worked for, like Denis Mitchell, are now appreciated only by film historians, while others, like Studs Terkel, are better known. For over half a century I have seen some of the most amazing technical and aesthetic innovations in the area of documentary film and video. I feel as if I have seen the industry move from the stone age of production technology to the digital space age in the span of one lifetime.
There was little to surprise me in Citizenfour (2014 documentary directed by Laura Poitras). I had already seen most of the released interview material with Edward Snowden, which was taped in the Hong Kong hotel room. I have eagerly followed the steady stream of stunning, mind-boggling revelations concerning the depth and breadth of our spy program. And I have a pretty accurate idea of the timeline of those unfolding events, which are still developing. What I really appreciated about the film was the way director Poitras has of humanizing all the characters in the drama. Snowden is an unlikely looking hero – the antithesis of narcissism. I have never been able to abide the hero archetype in the media anyway.
The best documentaries I have seen, by guys like Richard Leacock and D. A. Pennebaker in their famous documentary on JFK, rely almost entirely on letting the footage speak for itself, with as little manipulation as possible. In Citizenfour, we feel as if we are watching the events happening in real time. Now, I am sure some of the footage was shot later as inserted cut-aways: exteriors of the hotel, scenes of Glenn Greenwald driving around in his car, scans of computer communications, etc.
 |
| William Blinney |
In documentaries nothing is as important as the “illusion” of reality – or as Jean-Luc Godard put it, “Truth at 24 frames per second.” Laura Poitras puts us in the scenes. She doesn’t miss a thing. And as a result we truly have the feeling of anticipation, tension, discovery, and even the humor the participants experience. It is like we are looking over Edison’s shoulder when he finally tests the first successful electric light.
This is done with a minimum of manipulative effects. Even the music, when it is added in, does not distract from the impact – the was music does when we sense our emotions are being manipulated. Reality on film (now video) is an elusive quality. The creator is always consciously and unconsciously favoring his own conclusions as to the message he is trying to convey, what evil he is trying to expose, what insights he is illustrating and refining with his camera and his editing scissors. I am an outspoken advocate of the teaching of visual literacy to our children, along with their three R’s. There is so much media manipulation that is never examined critically. Most Amerikans think they know “with perfect accuracy the history of a world that never was” (–Rainer Maria Rilke). I know well every media-Sophist’s trick; they are easy to spot. And yet these manipulations are accepted by the Amerikan public as uncritically as cows examine their fodder. I think Citizenfour is not only a revelation and a wake-up call to us all, but also an incredibly honest, unmanipulated truth. I think that is why critics and the public alike have celebrated this stunning dose of reality and the dire warnings it contains.
Few people since Daniel Ellsberg have so polarized our nation and produced such an adverse reaction from pundits and public officials as Edward Snowden. It seems most of our Democratic or Republican politicians would rather criticize Israel than praise Edward Snowden.
What I come here to do is not to praise Citizenfour so much as to bury those who would defame the film and its message. Make no mistake: our government is already marshalling their own new criticisms of the film’s producers and Snowden himself. Citizenfour has driven a stake into the heart of the President and all the alphabet agencies who brutalize, intimidate and spy on us. I don’t expect anything new from these miscreants—only old wine in new bottles. Here is a litany, by no means complete, of upcoming Snowden criticisms—same old whining.
Before that, I want to recommend a number of excellent debates on the subject of “Edward Snowden—Patriot or Traitor?” I think those who speak against Snowden in these debates represent some of the brightest and best of the government’s NSA spokesmen, folks like Michael Hayden and James Woolsey. If I didn’t know as much as I do about the truth of the whole affair, I might well be persuaded by their articulate arguments. It is valuable to see their valiant attempts to, like the Sophists in Socrates’ day “make the worse appear the better cause.”
- The Oxford Union has one of the best discussions of the issues. Featured are Chris Hedges, Annie Machon, Chris Huhne , and William Binney speaking for the proposition “This House Would Call Edward Snowden a Hero.” Speaking against the proposition were Stewart Baker, Jeffrey Toobin, and Philip J. Crowley. A full summary of the debate and the video are on LeakSource: Your Source for Leaks around the World [1:17:00].
- “The Munk Debate on State Surveillance” pitted Glenn Greenwald and Alexis Ohanian against Michael Hayden and Alan Dershowitz. Hayden is brilliant! [1:33:37]
- And last, but not least, is the Intelligence Squared debate that argues the proposition that “Snowden Was Justified,” with Daniel Ellsburg and Ben Wizner pitted against James Woolsey and Andrew C. McCarthy.
So what exactly are the best arguments against Edward Snowden that our government is advancing in order to prosecute him?
Snowden’s laptops were hacked by China and Russia’s IT guys.
Wrong. The data was proven to have been impervious to any unauthorized access attempt.
He should have gone through channels.
Wrong. He had ample evidence of the fate of guys like William Blinney, who was mercilessly persecuted and prosecuted for going thorough channels.
He should “man up,” return to the US, and present his evidence of innocence in a court.
Wrong. There is ample evidence that the US justice system does not protect whiltleblowers or those who expose the crimes of the military or other government officials and programs. Certain evidence of intent on Snowden’s part is not even admissible.
He should not have dumped the data so irresponsibly.
Wrong. The reason he gave all the evidence to Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian was so they could responsibly vet the data so no security would be threatened. All Snowden wanted was to present evidence of illegality and abuses by our intelligence community and the administration.
He has cost and endangered American lies.
Wrong. No lives were endangered. In fact, a lot of the data in question was reviewed by the government itself to assure that no agents or legitimate programs would be endangered.
He is a self-centered, selfish little narcissist.
Wrong. An ad hominem argument is fallacious on its face. Snowden literally gave up nearly all his creature comforts, a well-paying job, and put his own life in constant danger to do what he felt was the right thing for his country and the American people.
He is a traitor.
Wrong Whom did he betray? Who is the enemy? The American people?
He sought refuge in two countries with horrendous human rights abuses.
Wrong. His intention before his US passport was revoked was to seek safe passage and asylum in Cuba, Ecuador, or some other sympathetic country. If you recall, President Obama was even willing to commit a serious violation of international law when he forced Bolivia’s President Evo Morales’s plane down because of suspicion he might be harboring Snowden aboard.
He took the job at Booz Allen Hamilton specifically to steal data before he knew there was any spying going on at BAH.
True. He took the job at BAH only because he already had suspicions, and the new job would help him to gather definitive and extensive further evidence of crimes and wrongdoing.
He caused the NSA to have to change their spy programs.
Wrong. It is a well-known fact that the agency has to change its programs regularly because those “hostiles” being spied on inevitably get wise to the programs.
Greenwald was not elected by the people to decide what should or should not remain classified.
True. However, the Fourth Estate – the only business specifically protected by the Constitution – is given advantages and special treatment largely as a check on exactly the sorts of abuses Snowden discovered. The universal surveillance presently in effect has essentially ended investigative journalism.
Congress is the proper oversight agency to supervise and reign in the NSA, not Edward Snowden.
I hope the reader will forgive my lack of citations. Due to deadline, I literally wrote most of it off the top of my head. I do welcome all documented challenges to my assertions and hope this will engender a vigorous debate. Above all, please listen to the debates I provided links to. They are really exciting to witness.
In addition, you might like to check out Intercept, a magazine founded by the intrepid heroes Poitras, Greenwald, and Jeremy Scahill, “[serving in the short term] as a platform to report on the documents released by Edward Snowden and [in the long term] to ‘produce fearless, adversarial journalism across a wide range of issues.’” [–Wikipedia]
 |  |  |
| Laura Poitras | Glenn Greenwald | Jeremy Scahill |
[As of Friday, it was possible to watch Citizenfour online for free, at Video Neat.]
| Copyright © 2015 by Bob Boldt |
A review of an Oscar-winning documentary film by documentary filmmaker Bob Boldt, what could be better than that? And he has closely followed and written about the Edward Snowden affair besides.
ReplyDelete