We Steal Secrets: the Story of Wikileaks

Pitch:
   This is the story about two people and their secrets stealing journey: Julian Assange, builder of Wikileaks, considered by some as free-speech hero and by others as traitors and terrorists. Bradley Manning, young soldier who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents to Wikileaks.
Access and Editing
Alex said: "the biggest challenge was how to tell the story, and particularly how to tell the story when the two main characters either can't or won't talk to you” (Digital Spy). I think he solved both problems well. He used footage from Mark Davis. This is inspirational. Many people film the same subject and not all of them will be able to come up with a film. Using their interviews and footages is wonderful. The animation of Manning’s chat with Lama is fantastic. I think I learned enough of Manning from his words. According to Alex, Assuage believes that “a documentary about him and WikiLeaks cannot be truthful if he does not participate (The Monthly). He is wrong. Of course the documentary can be truthful without him.
I like the way he started with Assange’s background. Alex said: " I was pretty conscious that I wanted people to feel enormous sympathy and affection for Assange, for maybe a good half of the film, and then it changes.” This is a character study. Showing all aspects of Assange makes him human. Alex said: “it is about human beings, and how flawed human beings can do incredible things. …To pretend that people are supermen is an illusion, and ultimately is a trap” (Businessweek).

Subtext
   More than just a character study, this is a story about the Internet era. Like Alex said: “It’s all about the contradictions of the internet in terms of privacy, secrecy, transparency, and also truth and lies”(Collider). I think one of the things that the film says is almighty Internet need human stand behind it, making decisions. Wikileaks was a leaking machine in Assange’s hands. Information and transparency is not everything. The desire to reveal information shouldn’t overcome the people who might be affected by these information (Flavor Wire).
Again, this is a story about truth and lie and “noble cause corruption”. The idea that because you do something good, it entitles you to be a little bit bad is not acceptable. The ends cannot justify the means.

Gift:
Play about Two Rights is Drama
Alex’s father is a journalist. I think that might influential on his subject choosing style. “Enron”, “Lance Armstrong”, “Wikileaks”, “Park Avenue” are all sensational topics and at the same time all have some timeless elements.
Alex’s way of telling a story fits my ideal form of documentary. Alex said: “ when it comes to a story like this, follow the story, and I hope it rattles around in people’s heads after they watch it because the story itself is so compelling and interesting, but it doesn’t provide any simple answers.” Alex’s films are manipulative in terms of manipulating people to think and to question.
Is he manipulative in terms of what answer would people come up with? Yes. He quoted his documentary hero, Marcel Ophuls, saying: “I always have a point of view but the trick is showing the people how hard it was to come to that point of view.” And then he continued with his theory: “I think the film has an angle and the film has a point of view but at the same time... the story is not told through experts.... It’s really told by the protagonists and that’s what I think makes it interesting.” The person he chose to interview and facts he choose to include are very much intentional. Later on, he quoted George Bernard Shaw, who said a play about a right and a wrong is melodrama. A play about two rights is drama. (Flavor Wire).

這是一部在內(nèi)容上我無(wú)法評(píng)價(jià)的影片，因?yàn)槲覍?shí)在不知道該站在誰(shuí)的立場(chǎng)上去。
真相很重要，但有些時(shí)候隱瞞真相也很重要。這就像是《黑暗騎士》的結(jié)尾蝙蝠俠說(shuō)的那樣：有時(shí)候真相不夠好，人們的信念需要得到回報(bào)。
試想如果讓人們知道了哈維·丹特的真相，人們的信仰勢(shì)必崩塌，好不容易建起的秩序又會(huì)被再度摧毀。
朱利安·阿桑奇是個(gè)典型的理想主義者，他想的是一個(gè)完美的世界。但在我看來(lái)，這個(gè)世界上是不存在完美的事物的，所以完美的世界就更加不可能了。
《一代宗師》里有一句話說(shuō)的好：正所謂大成若缺，有缺憾才能有進(jìn)步。
如果這個(gè)世界真完美了，我想那離世界末日也不遠(yuǎn)了。
但我并不會(huì)否定他的作為，相反我很佩服他。而且我相信如果沒(méi)有他，也會(huì)有其他人來(lái)做這種事。
不管他們做的對(duì)與錯(cuò)，一個(gè)文明的社會(huì)是不能缺少這些人的，因?yàn)樗麄兪巧鐣?huì)進(jìn)步的催化劑。
而正是由于這些人做的一些在我們看來(lái)不可思議的事，我們的社會(huì)才會(huì)得以進(jìn)步。

PS:不知道有沒(méi)有人和我一樣覺(jué)得朱利安長(zhǎng)的很像約翰-庫(kù)薩克，而且他的眼神比庫(kù)薩克還要迷人。
PS2:還有那個(gè)美國(guó)的一個(gè)女發(fā)言人什么的，長(zhǎng)的神似松島楓。

看這部電影的時(shí)候，腦中反復(fù)出現(xiàn)的是米蘭·昆德拉《不朽》中歌德和海明威的一段對(duì)話。


“你知道，約翰。”海明威說(shuō)，“他們[也]不斷向我發(fā)難。他們不去讀我的書(shū)，卻撰寫(xiě)什么關(guān)于我的書(shū)。他們說(shuō)我不愛(ài)我的幾個(gè)妻子，說(shuō)我不關(guān)心我的兒子，說(shuō)我一拳把某個(gè)批評(píng)家的鼻子打歪了，說(shuō)我說(shuō)謊，說(shuō)我言不由衷，說(shuō)我自負(fù)，說(shuō)我陽(yáng)亢，說(shuō)我自稱在戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上負(fù)了二百三十處傷，而實(shí)際上只有二百十一處，說(shuō)我手淫，說(shuō)我不聽(tīng)我母親的話?！?br>
“這就是不朽。”歌德說(shuō)：“不朽即永恒的審判。”

“若是永恒的審判，那也應(yīng)該有個(gè)像樣的法官才是，不該是心胸狹隘的教員，手里還攥著一根苔鞭?！?br>
“手執(zhí)苔鞭、心胸狹隘的教員，永恒的審判就是這么回事。你還想要什么，厄內(nèi)斯特？”

“我什么也不想要。我曾指望死后平安無(wú)事?！?br>
“但你卻千方百計(jì)想成為不朽。”

“胡說(shuō)。我只是寫(xiě)書(shū)，僅此而已。”

[......] “我不反對(duì)我的書(shū)成為不朽。我寫(xiě)書(shū)時(shí)，一個(gè)字也不許刪除。要頂住任何逆境。而我本人，作為一個(gè)人，作為厄內(nèi)斯特·海明威，我對(duì)不朽毫不在意！”

“我非常理解，厄內(nèi)斯特。可是你活著應(yīng)該更加當(dāng)心才是，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)太晚了?！?br>
“更加當(dāng)心？你是說(shuō)我愛(ài)說(shuō)大話？我承認(rèn)年輕時(shí)候的確愛(ài)唱高調(diào)。喜歡在人前賣(mài)弄。聽(tīng)到那些關(guān)于我的軼事，心里美滋滋的。但是請(qǐng)相信，我并不是為了不朽才這么干的。當(dāng)我意識(shí)到這個(gè)問(wèn)題的時(shí)候，我的確感到不寒而栗。此后我已上千次地告訴大家讓我獨(dú)自好好呆著?？墒俏以角笫虑樵皆?。我為避人耳目去了古巴。我得了諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)，但我拒絕去斯德哥爾摩。相信我，我對(duì)是否不朽毫不在意。現(xiàn)在，我告訴你另一件事：那天我意識(shí)到自己已被不朽控制以后，怕得要死。人能夠把握自己的生命，他卻不能掌握自己身后的不朽。你一旦被不朽拖上船，就甭想下去了，即使你開(kāi)槍自殺，你死后還得呆在甲板上，這太可怕了，約翰，太可怕了。我死后躺在甲板上，只見(jiàn)我的四個(gè)妻子蹲在四周，寫(xiě)她們所知道的一切，她們身后是我的兒子，也在那里書(shū)寫(xiě)，還有那位老太太葛特路德·斯坦因，也在那里不斷地寫(xiě)，還有我所有的朋友，他們都在披露過(guò)去聽(tīng)說(shuō)的我的不檢點(diǎn)的往事或?qū)ξ业脑g毀誹謗；在他們身后，上百個(gè)手持麥克風(fēng)的新聞?dòng)浾咴谀抢锬阃莆肄?，還有全美國(guó)的大學(xué)教授們，忙著分類啊，分析啊，并把點(diǎn)滴所得塞進(jìn)他們的文章和專著?！?br>

阿桑奇是否想要不朽我們不得而知。但WikiLeaks早已如重磅炸彈，在世界各地掀起軒然大波。大家哄哄鬧鬧地一撲而上，“終于有了詳細(xì)記錄的陰謀論！看看現(xiàn)世與喬治·奧威爾的《1984》有何區(qū)別？！”是的，老大哥始終在看著你，這始終是一個(gè)弱肉強(qiáng)食的不平衡世界，西方列強(qiáng)始終打著人道主義的旗幟侵略他國(guó)。好像我們從來(lái)不知道？還是Demoncracy早已給西方國(guó)家創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)巨大的泡泡，生活在其中的人屈尊俯就，看世界就好像透過(guò)了被美化的過(guò)濾器。

在信息披露和透明的方面，與其說(shuō)WikiLeaks和阿桑奇是英雄，莫不如說(shuō)兩者更像是梟雄。

然而在櫥窗外觀望的觀眾，你我他，我們不滿足于WikiLeaks泄露的資料，我們帶著好奇的眼光把關(guān)注點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)到了阿桑奇本人身上。米蘭昆德拉筆下的海明威說(shuō)他死前能控制著自己的生命，但當(dāng)代社會(huì)的媒體讓人死前就無(wú)法控制自己。阿桑奇的私人一切被放大了在鏡頭下一一檢視。我們對(duì)他的作品已經(jīng)失去了原有的興趣。取而代之，開(kāi)始人肉他個(gè)人：他是什么樣的人？為什么他要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造WikiLeaks？他是不是跟伍迪艾倫似的，是個(gè)性侵犯者？他為什么和那兩個(gè)瑞典女性發(fā)生性關(guān)系時(shí)不帶安全套？

誰(shuí)說(shuō)老大哥是政府？老大哥分明是你們這些手執(zhí)話筒和記錄相機(jī)的媒體。

新聞?dòng)浾唛_(kāi)始轉(zhuǎn)移風(fēng)向。拿著話筒到處質(zhì)問(wèn)，他們有“逼迫別人回答”的權(quán)力，義正言辭，鐵面無(wú)私。今日還和阿桑奇一同抖摟政府秘密，明日就開(kāi)始抖露他的秘密。墻頭草搖啊搖。

于是阿桑奇也搖身一變：既然你們用我的私人問(wèn)題質(zhì)疑我，那我用這個(gè)私人問(wèn)題質(zhì)疑你們！什么性丑聞？！這無(wú)疑就是你美國(guó)政府玩得一套陰謀論，用此來(lái)攻擊我本人！

羅生門(mén)的大戲再一次地被搬上了歷史舞臺(tái)。你來(lái)我往，咿咿呀呀，大家唱得不亦樂(lè)乎。而我們?cè)跈淮巴饪吹貌灰鄻?lè)乎。

泄露的關(guān)于美國(guó)政府的Collateral Murder在一片鬧哄哄老媽子似的吵架聲里，黯然落幕。
誰(shuí)在為無(wú)端死去的人抹淚？

老大哥在看著你。
老大哥從來(lái)都是你我他，在櫥窗外幸災(zāi)樂(lè)禍張望的我們。