Movie Review: The Fifth Estate
Short version: go see it; if nothing else, it’s thoughtful and informative and needs your support. And is an absolute must for Cumberbatch fans.
Longer version:
When a revolution occurs, it is important to differentiate between the ideals of the revolutionary group and the cult of personality that inevitably surrounds its leader. The Fifth Estate makes a case that the founder and leader of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, finds it difficult to separate these two ideas, having intrinsically fused the WikiLeaks ideals with his own life. This makes the movie’s message complicated and ambiguous, as it tentatively embraces the ideals of WikiLeaks (i.e. freedom of information) while painting Assange himself in a slightly more negative light as a paranoid and ego-driven loner with a great website. That said, the movie does try to resist having a firm opinion on either Assange or WikiLeaks, and Benedict’s performance makes him an enigma: simultaneously a creepy, socially awkward meglomaniac cult leader and a misunderstood loner who was a brave martyr for the cause of justice.
I worry that people may dismiss this movie without watching it (as appears to be happening judging from the U.S. box office numbers) because it’s about a seedy-looking accused rapist who is, in Benedict’s words, “incarcerated in the converted bathroom behind Harrod’s” in the Equadorian embassy in London. And believe me, I am not in the business of defending accused rapists. However, I think it’s incredibly important to consider Assange’s organization and its ideals, particularly in light of the recent Snowdon revelations in this time of staggering incompetence by Republican Congressmen, private companies increasingly steamrolling public interests, frankly insane NSA surveillence on private citizens, and startling censorship of free speech, all unfortunately coupled with the disintegration of traditional journalism. While you weren’t paying attention, your government has been systematically undermining democracy, and this movie is about a freelance journalist in an organization that sought to provide hard proof of that governmental corruption when he found that actual journalists couldn’t, or perhaps wouldn’t. Did he go too far? The film rather admirably leaves it up to viewers.
Admittedly, it does have problems. The movie would unquestionably have benefited from a tighter script focus-fewer extraneous Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci-as-American-officials scenes, fewer Daniel-and-bland-girlfriend-Anke scenes, more Cumberbatch (funny, sounds like my critique for Star Trek Into Darkness, hmm). More importantly, it needed something like the vision of the cinematographers from Sherlock (well, to be fair, almost anything would benefit from that). The film works best when the cinematography calms down and lets its actors breathe without distracting cutaways or text scrolling onscreen or flashing lights. It gave me the same slightly nauseous feeling as the Bourne movies. In The Fifth Estate, the effect is to frequently make viewers feel like they’re jostling for a better view in the middle of a crowd, which is irritating at best and frustratingly counterproductive at worst.
I understand what director Bill Condon was doing with the fast editing: attempting to capture the frenetic pace of the triumphs and ultimate downfall of the site. However, some of his other directorial choices come off as rather cheesy, as well: the scene where the text of IMs is read aloud by the actors when the characters are sitting silently in a room across from each other (fortunately this is only done once), some of the bells and whistles of the text onscreen (like the location names in TV static got to be a bit much after a while), the kind of obvious metaphor of the internet represented by a huge anonymous office room with desks and name placards (though the last scene where Assange is standing in its charred ruins and then connects that betrayal with his childhood trauma, oh man, that was tragic beyond compare). I actually thought Condon used music much more effectively than visuals. There was some awesome techno in that movie. Special mention goes out to the incredible bassline in Tame Impala’s song “Elephant” as Assange and Daniel were globetrotting. Badass.
The script treats Assange’s background similarly to the way The Dark Knight’s treated the Joker: shady hints here and there, three disturbing almost-jokes about his appearance (with the Joker it was about his facial scars, with Assange it’s his hair), and one possible truth. Either way, the analysis is not very deep, and I’m wondering if it might have been more effective to omit it altogether and pull a Sherlock with regard to backstory. Almost everyone’s headcanon is that Sherlock’s background has at least one problematic element of childhood trauma or distant parents or bullying or drug addiction, and little hints here and there in the show leave John (and thus viewers) guessing, intrigued, but unwilling to question Sherlock about it.
Regarding Assange’s current state of affairs, I think to say that the movie ignores the charges of sexual misconduct (i.e. rape and not using condoms when asked and poking holes in condoms and all sorts of nasty stuff) is not entirely accurate. Every time Assange is in a scene with a woman, he’s acting like a total perv, even checking out Daniel’s girlfriend’s ass as she leaves the room in a huff. There were certainly enough trippy club scenes after which these kinds of disgusting assaults could have taken place. But then there’s something else to consider here, in that literally every corrupt government out there has a vested interest in destroying Assange’s reputation by publicly discrediting him in order to save their own skins, and pinning charges on him would not be a difficult thing for, say, the U.S. government to orchestrate.
And as for the acting: I saw Daniel Brühl recently in Rush (with Chris Hemsworth), and he was quite good in that as Formula One racecar driver Niki Lauda, but much more impressive in his role here as bored German IT worker Daniel Domscheit-Berg who decides to help Assange with WikiLeaks. Endearingly naïve and starstruck (at first) but also a little wickedly subversive. He reminded me a little of John Watson. Everyone else (namely David Thewlis, Anthony Mackie, Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci, Peter Capaldi) was solid but distracting from the focus.
But, ohhhh, Cumberbatch fans, you are in for a treat with this one. Benedict has been working hard, and my God, does it show. However, again, I fear you may not grasp the extent of exactly how good he is as Assange unless you are somewhat familiar with Assange from interviews and the like. It’s uncanny, but I didn’t exactly realize how uncanny until the last scene in the movie (the fake interview, which is so, so very different than the actual press interviews Benedict has been giving about this movie). Benedict seems to have absorbed Assange, and again I almost instantly forgot that I was watching an actor and became engrossed in the performance, which is so rare for me when watching movies.
As the stringy-haired, technically homeless hactivist, Benedict’s body language and vocal tone are wildly different than any other role I’ve seen him play. Australian (obviously), flat-pitched, and noticeably slower in speech than other characters Benedict has played, Assange sounds measured and almost lazily drunk at times, which is at odds with his sharp eyes and constant suspicion of anyone taking credit for his achievements. Self-important and mistrustful to the point of social anxiety and paranoia-but then, I think it’s forgivable to be self-important when you are genuinely important and to be paranoid when scary government lackeys are actually out to get you. But he’s portrayed as a vulnerable and ultimately tragic figure. Everything he fears does eventually happen to him. Trusting others leads to what he perceives as betrayal.
There are many, many similarities to Sherlock, and I think vidders should have fun with repeated scenes of Assange being followed in airports and staring out Byronically at the ocean. There’s also the eye-fucking, ahem, bromance between the two leads, which leads to the cockblocking of Daniel/John and their girlfriends; the speculation about Assange/Sherlock being on the autistic spectrum; their purported friendlessness; Daniel/John’s aimlessness prior to meeting their respective geniuses and their sudden sense of purpose after; Assange/Sherlock’s extreme awkwardness at parties (I was having flashbacks to A Scandal in Belgravia)...and that sense of “Alone is what I have. Alone protects me.” And they’re right-having friends is a major risk, one that Sherlock is better for taking and that Assange just can’t seem to get himself to completely do.
I desperately hope more people go to see this movie, not just for the acting or to understand Assange but to understand WikiLeaks, whose purpose, if not execution, was at least originally noble: exposing wrongdoing in an unbiased way while protecting whistleblowers. Love or condemn Assange himself, I agree with his main theme: we need more brave people willing to put themselves at risk to combat those who wish to hide information from the world.
(More reviews of Benedict’s work can be found at my masterlist here.)
Longer version:
When a revolution occurs, it is important to differentiate between the ideals of the revolutionary group and the cult of personality that inevitably surrounds its leader. The Fifth Estate makes a case that the founder and leader of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, finds it difficult to separate these two ideas, having intrinsically fused the WikiLeaks ideals with his own life. This makes the movie’s message complicated and ambiguous, as it tentatively embraces the ideals of WikiLeaks (i.e. freedom of information) while painting Assange himself in a slightly more negative light as a paranoid and ego-driven loner with a great website. That said, the movie does try to resist having a firm opinion on either Assange or WikiLeaks, and Benedict’s performance makes him an enigma: simultaneously a creepy, socially awkward meglomaniac cult leader and a misunderstood loner who was a brave martyr for the cause of justice.
I worry that people may dismiss this movie without watching it (as appears to be happening judging from the U.S. box office numbers) because it’s about a seedy-looking accused rapist who is, in Benedict’s words, “incarcerated in the converted bathroom behind Harrod’s” in the Equadorian embassy in London. And believe me, I am not in the business of defending accused rapists. However, I think it’s incredibly important to consider Assange’s organization and its ideals, particularly in light of the recent Snowdon revelations in this time of staggering incompetence by Republican Congressmen, private companies increasingly steamrolling public interests, frankly insane NSA surveillence on private citizens, and startling censorship of free speech, all unfortunately coupled with the disintegration of traditional journalism. While you weren’t paying attention, your government has been systematically undermining democracy, and this movie is about a freelance journalist in an organization that sought to provide hard proof of that governmental corruption when he found that actual journalists couldn’t, or perhaps wouldn’t. Did he go too far? The film rather admirably leaves it up to viewers.
Admittedly, it does have problems. The movie would unquestionably have benefited from a tighter script focus-fewer extraneous Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci-as-American-officials scenes, fewer Daniel-and-bland-girlfriend-Anke scenes, more Cumberbatch (funny, sounds like my critique for Star Trek Into Darkness, hmm). More importantly, it needed something like the vision of the cinematographers from Sherlock (well, to be fair, almost anything would benefit from that). The film works best when the cinematography calms down and lets its actors breathe without distracting cutaways or text scrolling onscreen or flashing lights. It gave me the same slightly nauseous feeling as the Bourne movies. In The Fifth Estate, the effect is to frequently make viewers feel like they’re jostling for a better view in the middle of a crowd, which is irritating at best and frustratingly counterproductive at worst.
I understand what director Bill Condon was doing with the fast editing: attempting to capture the frenetic pace of the triumphs and ultimate downfall of the site. However, some of his other directorial choices come off as rather cheesy, as well: the scene where the text of IMs is read aloud by the actors when the characters are sitting silently in a room across from each other (fortunately this is only done once), some of the bells and whistles of the text onscreen (like the location names in TV static got to be a bit much after a while), the kind of obvious metaphor of the internet represented by a huge anonymous office room with desks and name placards (though the last scene where Assange is standing in its charred ruins and then connects that betrayal with his childhood trauma, oh man, that was tragic beyond compare). I actually thought Condon used music much more effectively than visuals. There was some awesome techno in that movie. Special mention goes out to the incredible bassline in Tame Impala’s song “Elephant” as Assange and Daniel were globetrotting. Badass.
The script treats Assange’s background similarly to the way The Dark Knight’s treated the Joker: shady hints here and there, three disturbing almost-jokes about his appearance (with the Joker it was about his facial scars, with Assange it’s his hair), and one possible truth. Either way, the analysis is not very deep, and I’m wondering if it might have been more effective to omit it altogether and pull a Sherlock with regard to backstory. Almost everyone’s headcanon is that Sherlock’s background has at least one problematic element of childhood trauma or distant parents or bullying or drug addiction, and little hints here and there in the show leave John (and thus viewers) guessing, intrigued, but unwilling to question Sherlock about it.
Regarding Assange’s current state of affairs, I think to say that the movie ignores the charges of sexual misconduct (i.e. rape and not using condoms when asked and poking holes in condoms and all sorts of nasty stuff) is not entirely accurate. Every time Assange is in a scene with a woman, he’s acting like a total perv, even checking out Daniel’s girlfriend’s ass as she leaves the room in a huff. There were certainly enough trippy club scenes after which these kinds of disgusting assaults could have taken place. But then there’s something else to consider here, in that literally every corrupt government out there has a vested interest in destroying Assange’s reputation by publicly discrediting him in order to save their own skins, and pinning charges on him would not be a difficult thing for, say, the U.S. government to orchestrate.
And as for the acting: I saw Daniel Brühl recently in Rush (with Chris Hemsworth), and he was quite good in that as Formula One racecar driver Niki Lauda, but much more impressive in his role here as bored German IT worker Daniel Domscheit-Berg who decides to help Assange with WikiLeaks. Endearingly naïve and starstruck (at first) but also a little wickedly subversive. He reminded me a little of John Watson. Everyone else (namely David Thewlis, Anthony Mackie, Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci, Peter Capaldi) was solid but distracting from the focus.
But, ohhhh, Cumberbatch fans, you are in for a treat with this one. Benedict has been working hard, and my God, does it show. However, again, I fear you may not grasp the extent of exactly how good he is as Assange unless you are somewhat familiar with Assange from interviews and the like. It’s uncanny, but I didn’t exactly realize how uncanny until the last scene in the movie (the fake interview, which is so, so very different than the actual press interviews Benedict has been giving about this movie). Benedict seems to have absorbed Assange, and again I almost instantly forgot that I was watching an actor and became engrossed in the performance, which is so rare for me when watching movies.
As the stringy-haired, technically homeless hactivist, Benedict’s body language and vocal tone are wildly different than any other role I’ve seen him play. Australian (obviously), flat-pitched, and noticeably slower in speech than other characters Benedict has played, Assange sounds measured and almost lazily drunk at times, which is at odds with his sharp eyes and constant suspicion of anyone taking credit for his achievements. Self-important and mistrustful to the point of social anxiety and paranoia-but then, I think it’s forgivable to be self-important when you are genuinely important and to be paranoid when scary government lackeys are actually out to get you. But he’s portrayed as a vulnerable and ultimately tragic figure. Everything he fears does eventually happen to him. Trusting others leads to what he perceives as betrayal.
There are many, many similarities to Sherlock, and I think vidders should have fun with repeated scenes of Assange being followed in airports and staring out Byronically at the ocean. There’s also the eye-fucking, ahem, bromance between the two leads, which leads to the cockblocking of Daniel/John and their girlfriends; the speculation about Assange/Sherlock being on the autistic spectrum; their purported friendlessness; Daniel/John’s aimlessness prior to meeting their respective geniuses and their sudden sense of purpose after; Assange/Sherlock’s extreme awkwardness at parties (I was having flashbacks to A Scandal in Belgravia)...and that sense of “Alone is what I have. Alone protects me.” And they’re right-having friends is a major risk, one that Sherlock is better for taking and that Assange just can’t seem to get himself to completely do.
I desperately hope more people go to see this movie, not just for the acting or to understand Assange but to understand WikiLeaks, whose purpose, if not execution, was at least originally noble: exposing wrongdoing in an unbiased way while protecting whistleblowers. Love or condemn Assange himself, I agree with his main theme: we need more brave people willing to put themselves at risk to combat those who wish to hide information from the world.
(More reviews of Benedict’s work can be found at my masterlist here.)