Thanks for the comments.
Screenshots most welcome. cryptome[at]earthlink.net or pointers.
Greenwald's mercenary greed is why only 97% of Snowden docs
have been released. His and cohorts criminal behavior puts citizens
in harms way to protect the natsec apparatus including natsec
media.
At 02:58 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote:
Saw this last night - an obvious
must-watch for all CPunks. I think it was probably the most important
documentary film of all time. As Roger Ebert said, "it’s as if
Daniel Ellsberg had a friend with a movie camera who filmed his
disclosure of the Pentagon Papers every step of the way. Or if the
Watergate burglars had taken along a filmmaker who shot their crimes and
the cover-up that followed. Except that the issues “Citizenfour”
deals with are, arguably, a thousand times more potent than Vietnam or
Watergate." Truly, this is the Snowden story we have been waiting
for since 2013.
The main revelation of the film, however, is what an incredible boob
Glenn Greenwald is. I had some idea of this after seeing him give an
extremely disappointing talk earlier this year, but I don't think I quite
understood how useless this guy really is. He's constantly asking the
wrong questions, displays a technical ineptness (to the point of
deliberate ignorance) that obviously hampers the journalism, and at very
step shows a very clear desire to keep the document cache to himself for
careerist purposes. At one point Ewen MacAskill brings up the idea of
there being a Wikileaks-esque document explorer, and Ed says that this
would be the best outcome for the documents, and Greenwald quickly
dismisses the idea to talk about his publishing schedule. I still have
immense respect for him, but I found it very frustrating and quite
cringey to watch him treat the whole event in news-cycle terms, while
everybody around him is obviously thinking in historical context. For
instance, there is a moment when they are prepping for Ed's first
on-camera interview and he asks the reporters how much background he
should give about himself, and they give different answers. Poitras asks
for as much detail as possible, and Greenwald basically says that isn't
important, just be short so we get a good soundbite.
More importantly, I think the film also misses an opportunity to talk
about power. This is something Edward himself has addressed, but
it isn't really covered in Greenwald's reporting or books, and the only
time it's mentioned in the film is when Jacob Appelbaum, while speaking
before a European council of some sort, quite astutely comments that
surveillance and control are one and the same. I think the film should
probably have spent another hour or so investigating, naming and
confronting those who profit from that control. Other than a few choice
C-SPAN snippets, the enemy is completely faceless, which plays well for
the pervading sense paranoia which envelops the film, but also leaves
many questions unasked. Perhaps that's left as an exercise for the
viewer, but I think the general take-away message from both the reporting
and to a slightly lesser extent the film is that any "solution"
will be token reform of policy and not dismantlement of power
structures.
Also, very nice of the Russian government to let Ed have his girlfriend
back. I didn't know that had happened, and it gives a rather unexpected
happy ending to a film which otherwise made me want to cry desperately.
Anyway, I'd be very interested to hear what you lot thought of it. (JY,
you should throw a torrent up ASAP! I'm sure people will be
screenshotting and analyzing all of the new document shots the film
contains.)
R