我们窃取秘密维基解密的故事

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).

when you are locked up and can't speak for yourself, how about your enemy taking the chance to make a documentary about you to the world. use We in the title while the founder himself never get a chance to speak for himself directly to the camera of the documentary. what a convenient sex offense charge right after the biggest disclosure and vivid way to depict a deranged, transexual, emotionally unstable whiserblower and dehumanilised, neurotic, condem﹣poking white hair Aussie. indeed all publicity is good publicity, America is the master of public relation.

The reason for me to believe it is not a documentary is that, though Julian is listed as the ACTOR, this movie is never about him. the whole point the doc trying to make is that how wikileak went down and how insane and risky to be a whiserblower again.

All interviewees coming from Julian's side are all former employees of wikileaks, not currently spokesmen who can say anything in defense of wikileaks. therefore despite what's really going on with wikileak, the documentary can just arbitrarily announce the death of wikileak.

I am in no interest of propaganda, wikileaks or Julian himself. But I do believe a good doc should be objective, which in this case, is in no way to guarantee. THis 2-hour doc is at its best, the one-sided hollywood-style narration. this is not the deal, case is not closed.

看这部电影的时候，脑中反复出现的是米兰·昆德拉《不朽》中歌德和海明威的一段对话。


“你知道，约翰。”海明威说，“他们[也]不断向我发难。他们不去读我的书，却撰写什么关于我的书。他们说我不爱我的几个妻子，说我不关心我的儿子，说我一拳把某个批评家的鼻子打歪了，说我说谎，说我言不由衷，说我自负，说我阳亢，说我自称在战场上负了二百三十处伤，而实际上只有二百十一处，说我手淫，说我不听我母亲的话。”

“这就是不朽。”歌德说：“不朽即永恒的审判。”

“若是永恒的审判，那也应该有个像样的法官才是，不该是心胸狭隘的教员，手里还攥着一根苔鞭。”

“手执苔鞭、心胸狭隘的教员，永恒的审判就是这么回事。你还想要什么，厄内斯特？”

“我什么也不想要。我曾指望死后平安无事。”

“但你却千方百计想成为不朽。”

“胡说。我只是写书，仅此而已。”

[......] “我不反对我的书成为不朽。我写书时，一个字也不许删除。要顶住任何逆境。而我本人，作为一个人，作为厄内斯特·海明威，我对不朽毫不在意！”

“我非常理解，厄内斯特。可是你活着应该更加当心才是，现在已经太晚了。”

“更加当心？你是说我爱说大话？我承认年轻时候的确爱唱高调。喜欢在人前卖弄。听到那些关于我的轶事，心里美滋滋的。但是请相信，我并不是为了不朽才这么干的。当我意识到这个问题的时候，我的确感到不寒而栗。此后我已上千次地告诉大家让我独自好好呆着。可是我越求事情越遭。我为避人耳目去了古巴。我得了诺贝尔奖，但我拒绝去斯德哥尔摩。相信我，我对是否不朽毫不在意。现在，我告诉你另一件事：那天我意识到自己已被不朽控制以后，怕得要死。人能够把握自己的生命，他却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，即使你开枪自杀，你死后还得呆在甲板上，这太可怕了，约翰，太可怕了。我死后躺在甲板上，只见我的四个妻子蹲在四周，写她们所知道的一切，她们身后是我的儿子，也在那里书写，还有那位老太太葛特路德·斯坦因，也在那里不断地写，还有我所有的朋友，他们都在披露过去听说的我的不检点的往事或对我的诋毁诽谤；在他们身后，上百个手持麦克风的新闻记者在那里你推我搡，还有全美国的大学教授们，忙着分类啊，分析啊，并把点滴所得塞进他们的文章和专著。”


阿桑奇是否想要不朽我们不得而知。但WikiLeaks早已如重磅炸弹，在世界各地掀起轩然大波。大家哄哄闹闹地一扑而上，“终于有了详细记录的阴谋论！看看现世与乔治·奥威尔的《1984》有何区别？！”是的，老大哥始终在看着你，这始终是一个弱肉强食的不平衡世界，西方列强始终打着人道主义的旗帜侵略他国。好像我们从来不知道？还是Demoncracy早已给西方国家创造了一个巨大的泡泡，生活在其中的人屈尊俯就，看世界就好像透过了被美化的过滤器。

在信息披露和透明的方面，与其说WikiLeaks和阿桑奇是英雄，莫不如说两者更像是枭雄。

然而在橱窗外观望的观众，你我他，我们不满足于WikiLeaks泄露的资料，我们带着好奇的眼光把关注点转到了阿桑奇本人身上。米兰昆德拉笔下的海明威说他死前能控制着自己的生命，但当代社会的媒体让人死前就无法控制自己。阿桑奇的私人一切被放大了在镜头下一一检视。我们对他的作品已经失去了原有的兴趣。取而代之，开始人肉他个人：他是什么样的人？为什么他要创造WikiLeaks？他是不是跟伍迪艾伦似的，是个性侵犯者？他为什么和那两个瑞典女性发生性关系时不带安全套？

谁说老大哥是政府？老大哥分明是你们这些手执话筒和记录相机的媒体。

新闻记者开始转移风向。拿着话筒到处质问，他们有“逼迫别人回答”的权力，义正言辞，铁面无私。今日还和阿桑奇一同抖搂政府秘密，明日就开始抖露他的秘密。墙头草摇啊摇。

于是阿桑奇也摇身一变：既然你们用我的私人问题质疑我，那我用这个私人问题质疑你们！什么性丑闻？！这无疑就是你美国政府玩得一套阴谋论，用此来攻击我本人！

罗生门的大戏再一次地被搬上了历史舞台。你来我往，咿咿呀呀，大家唱得不亦乐乎。而我们在橱窗外看得不亦乐乎。

泄露的关于美国政府的Collateral Murder在一片闹哄哄老妈子似的吵架声里，黯然落幕。
谁在为无端死去的人抹泪？

老大哥在看着你。
老大哥从来都是你我他，在橱窗外幸灾乐祸张望的我们。

豆瓣总是给人惊喜，有时低分给的人莫名其妙，有时高分又慷慨的让人一头雾水。还是三言两语讲完。

内容上的批评豆瓣上的另一篇影评It is not a documentary.已经说得不错了。大抵是批评这电影挂羊头卖狗肉，说是公正的叙事，说是阿桑奇主演，结果被批评者都没有机会发言。这里补充几点叙事方法跟演员阵容上的吐槽。

首当其冲，挂着“纪录片”的名号，但拍出来的却是好莱坞大制作一般的故事片，奇峰迭起，峰回路转，不给观众思考的机会，只想一步步引导观众向指定的方向走去，活像那些智商跟实力都欠佳的反派们。

在阿桑奇问题上，前半段集中处理丰功伟绩，一片歌功颂德，却醉翁之意不在酒，主要目的是塑造起一大片活灵活现的“阿桑奇战友”形象。后半段柳暗花明，战友们集中反水，揭示影片主题：这白头佬就是个变态。而且大家伙反水的理由都是一面之词，并且说得有声有色，记得有一个是说“他太疑神疑鬼了，随时都好像有人在跟踪他似的！”（我去），听到有些理由我都很认真地笑喷出水。

在曼宁问题上，来得更为直白：这家伙从小就是个有孤僻症的基佬，可能还有癫痫或者别的什么。总之本身就不正常。真想跟导演说，这跟你那一块要讲的道德难题有屁的关系啊。

有一点随口吐槽掉，那个揭发曼宁的阿德里安，导演你就不能做一些处理吗？看看整个片子里出现的人物，除了这位大哥还有哪一位是微张着死鱼眼睛一眼看上去就像是磕了药的？这大哥第一天号召爆料然后第二天别人一爆料就内心动摇了，谁都不找直接跑去找当政府间谍的朋友（真牛逼，朋友是政府间谍）倾吐内心的纠结，接着就毅然决然举报了。尼玛从头到尾就演了一出钓鱼的好戏啊！

最后关于喜闻乐见的强奸案。根据影片的当事人采访跟各方叙述，我大略概括一下事实：一个男性业界明星出来演讲，一个小姑娘不畏流言邀请这个明星到自己家里过夜，大家顺理成章就发生那档子事了。过程中不知怎么的套子就破了（据小姑娘说是明星主动撕破的），事后小姑娘虽然没得艾滋，但是想想觉得有些后怕，于是图个心安让已经饱受关注的明星到医院去做个艾滋检查。明星誓死不从。于是也不知道多长时间之后，小姑娘跟另一位有相同经历的同志为了迫使明星去做检查（这理由很牛啊），前去报了警。除此之外，还有两个推测，一是明星有艾滋病，故意想传染给“无辜”的小姑娘们；二是明星一生漂泊，有留根心理，希望让对方怀孕。明星不置可否，观众多方猜测，战友们在此关键时刻又与小姑娘站在同一阵线，他这个强奸案虽然离奇，这几个推测虽然诡异，但是事关事实，本文没有证据，因此只表个人态度，不做评论。

总而言之，如果说这个所谓的纪录片希望做到中立，那么事实上它是假装了一副客观公正的立场，却用各种貌似有理的错误推理误导了观众；如果说它希望阐发自己的态度，那么事实上它又千方百计要伪装中立。说到底是想替xx立牌坊，但是手段低廉，只能寄希望于观众被猴戏骗过。骗不过时，就像在IMDB，拿个5.7分，惹一片骂声。骗得过时，也像在IMDB，让人写一篇Actually a pretty good, fair（公正的）, telling of a yet unresolved（尚未解决的） story的奇葩雄文。

阿桑奇的支持者会认为，这部影片是阴谋集团的宣传攻势；官方的支持者则认为，它将前者塑造成了英雄。所以我能理解那些极化了的评论，但还是打算给它打高分。

影片中出现一个很重要的概念，“noble cause corruption”，我姑且把它翻译成“扭曲的正义”。这基本上是一种伦理例外主义，它假设某个行为是否符合道德，不仅取决于行为本身，也取决于行为者。也就是说，行事者认为自己是代表正义的一方，因而有资格采取非法手段对抗非正义。

如果这发生在自己身上，这是一种幻觉；如果是为了说服别人，它则是道德捆绑。理由很简单，那就是人的不完满性。

非常不幸的是，在这个案例中，对抗的双方都符合这种伦理例外的情况：美国官方认为其行动是维持全球秩序所必要的，因而不择手段（实际上曼宁揭发的只能算是正常的军事和情报活动的秘密，这里说的“不择手段”是指类似棱镜门之类情况）；维基解密则认为在数字时代有必要让对政府公信力的考量提升到更高标准，因而也不择手段。这种根本性的伦理困境需要在更广泛的范围内加以讨论，这种讨论绝对不是对我们有害的。本片如果没能充分展开这一讨论，至少是很好的启发。

当然，维基解密也是一种传媒，传媒总是免不了被利用的结果，但是旨在提升政府公信力的传媒，只要不侵犯到私人领域，仍然是值得鼓励的。