Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

We Steal Secrets: The Story Of WikiLeaks

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> We Steal Secrets: The Story Of WikiLeaks Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
We Steal Secrets: The Story Of WikiLeaks - 13/7/2013 10:44:02 AM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 29784
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
Not a credible documentary; a biased hit job - 13/7/2013 10:44:02 AM   
Arbed121

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 13/7/2013
In Empire's interview with Alex Gibney today, there's this:

Q: Do you think it's possible that they did something similar with Sweden and the extradiction of Julian Assange?
Alex Gibney: It's possible, [and] I looked into it. When I started the film I was convinced that it was a conspiracy, I just haven't found any evidence that it was. Nobody's been able to show me any evidence.

Well, he didn't look very hard. In fact, the evidence was staring him in the face two pages on from the photo of a torn condom he shows on screen twice. There really is no excuse for a documentary maker to interview a woman making allegations of sexual assault, juxtapose that interview with a photograph from the police forensic evidence file of the torn, "used" condom she handed to police, and then NOT tell his viewers that the forensic lab ALSO found that the condom in question didn't have any DNA on it - not even hers. Clearly, she's handed in fake evidence and, clearly, that must have been obvious to Alex Gibney when he read the police file during his research. Reputable filmmakers don't do that.

Gibney also says Wikileaks claimed to have hacked the transcript of the movie. They made no such claim. He says it does not contain any of the Bradley Manning chatlogs shown on screen. It contains them all. Bradley Manning's supporters are furious with this film. They say the arguments Alex Gibney makes in it are exactly the same as the US government prosecutors in his trial.

I recommend everyone read the annotated transcript Wikileaks released correcting all the 'errors' Gibney made before watching this film. Or instead of watching it.

Rating: No stars.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
Wilkie pedo - 14/7/2013 7:54:48 AM   
tokin5000

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 26/5/2010
Who really gives a fuck about this guy? Isn't he just a massive peado who had a couple of pst files. Give this a miss

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 3
A documentary likely to be mired in politics - 28/7/2013 5:40:15 PM   
Groovy Mule

 

Posts: 1098
Joined: 26/11/2005
I liked this documentary and think that it is a good example of the way that documentarians change their focus as they research and build the documentary. Gibney clearly has a sympathy for the cause of Wikileaks and, in particular, the plight of Bradley Manning and, I also believe, he expected to warm to the message of Julian Assange. However, it is clear that Gibney sees Assange as the classic example of the phenomeneon of "good cause corruption" whereby the good cause promoted by someone gets tarnished by the bad things they are alleged to have done (i.e. his failure to submit to a DNA test to defend the charge of sexual assault) until the two are indistinguishable.

There are a number of talking heads from the Wikileaks past including former Guardian journalists and Wikileakers who give a fascinating insight into the way in which the leaks were co-ordinated around the world on the web and in broadsheet newspapers. The documentary is at its strongest when dealing with Bradley Manning, a man whose fate has largely been overshadowed by the three-ring circus around Assange and his self-enforced exile in the Ecuadorian embassy. Who knew that that webchats in a film could be such compelling viewing.

This is a film likely to be mired in politics. Assange's supporters will reject this film out of hand as the initial poster has done without seeing the film because Assange has told them to. Without doubt, they are missing out predominantly because anyone familiar with Gibney's work knows that he is on the side of those who seek to uncover injustice and wrong-doing, particularly where those in power abuse it - a cursory glance at Taxi To The Dark Side and Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God would prove that. What I found interesting was that Gibney has managed to make a film which separates that which Gibney (and some of the contributors) find distateful - Assange, his corruption of the Wikileaks cause and his apparent lack of a duty of care towards Bradley Manning and the Wikileaks cause to expose US wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

8/10

_____________________________

Check out my movie blog - Box Office Challenge and reviews

http://londonmovieguy.wordpress.com/

(in reply to tokin5000)
Post #: 4
RE: Not a credible documentary; a biased hit job - 1/8/2013 6:20:30 PM   
ElephantBoy

 

Posts: 8620
Joined: 13/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arbed121

In Empire's interview with Alex Gibney today, there's this:

Q: Do you think it's possible that they did something similar with Sweden and the extradiction of Julian Assange?
Alex Gibney: It's possible, [and] I looked into it. When I started the film I was convinced that it was a conspiracy, I just haven't found any evidence that it was. Nobody's been able to show me any evidence.

Well, he didn't look very hard. In fact, the evidence was staring him in the face two pages on from the photo of a torn condom he shows on screen twice. There really is no excuse for a documentary maker to interview a woman making allegations of sexual assault, juxtapose that interview with a photograph from the police forensic evidence file of the torn, "used" condom she handed to police, and then NOT tell his viewers that the forensic lab ALSO found that the condom in question didn't have any DNA on it - not even hers. Clearly, she's handed in fake evidence and, clearly, that must have been obvious to Alex Gibney when he read the police file during his research. Reputable filmmakers don't do that.Gibney also says Wikileaks claimed to have hacked the transcript of the movie. They made no such claim. He says it does not contain any of the Bradley Manning chatlogs shown on screen. It contains them all. Bradley Manning's supporters are furious with this film. They say the arguments Alex Gibney makes in it are exactly the same as the US government prosecutors in his trial.

I recommend everyone read the annotated transcript Wikileaks released correcting all the 'errors' Gibney made before watching this film. Or instead of watching it.

Rating: No stars.


But where you getting this stuff about the woman, why should we take your word over the films? Also if there was none of her DNA like you claim then why would Assange still be under suspicion?

It seems to me that the film painted Manning as very much a victim in all of this so I don't get why his supporters would be upset.

Also you seem very pro-Wikileaks so I sense a bit of bias in your remarks.

Have already reviewed this in top ten films thread, but I think Gibney is one of the best at this type of documentary and to me it was a totally balanced film which gave all sides a fair go and for me is one of the best films of the year.

(in reply to Arbed121)
Post #: 5
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> We Steal Secrets: The Story Of WikiLeaks Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094