
WikiLeaks Leaks 'Fifth Estate' Screenplay - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/22/us/ap-us-film-wikileaks-drama.html?ref=us&_r=0
======
clicks
I was made aware of how much propaganda there is in Western movies by a
comment here on HN:

"The major exception here is the Department of Defense, which has an ‘open’
but barely publicized relationship with Tinsel Town, whereby, in exchange for
advice, men and invaluable equipment, such as aircraft carriers and
helicopters, the Pentagon routinely demands flattering script alterations."

[http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-
the...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the-deep-
politics-of-hollywood/11921)

[http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-
mcelwee/2013/04/28/propag...](http://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-
mcelwee/2013/04/28/propaganda-and-censorship-the-hollywood-industrial-
complex/)

Do you recall any big American movie in the last decade (or even more) that
painted America's military in a non-positive light? I don't. I do remember
Zero Dark Thirty (if you watch carefully you'll see how they basically say
that torture works great in getting prisoners to hand over information), I do
remember The Hurt Locker, and a whole list of other movies, Iron Man and
Captain America being the latest examples (Iron Man originally used to be
about fighting communism, now it is about fighting terrorism).

Hollywood output is a very valuable export to the world in this way of framing
America's image in the world, and I'm betting America is becoming even more
aware of this and will put even more resources to this effort in coming time.

To me, truly the most amazing thing about this is that pretty much no-one
knows about this! Tell someone that there's a lot of American propaganda in
Western movies and they'll take you for a conspiracy nut.

~~~
tptacek
Full Metal Jacket.

• Three Kings.

• In The Valley of Elah.

Good Morning Vietnam.

A Few Good Men.

Platoon.

• Jarhead.

Casualties Of War.

• The Men Who Stare At Goats.

The Deer Hunter.

The Thin Red Line.

• Syriana.

• The Green Zone.

• Stop Loss.

Also, • HBO's "Generation Kill".

 _(• 'd relatively recent movies)_

I don't think "The Hurt Locker" was particularly critical of the military and
didn't count it. Also not counting documentaries like "Restrepo".

I hereby dispute the idea that the DOD has made it impossible for big-budget
Hollywood movies to criticize the US military, and suggest instead that the
bias Hollywood in favor of the military is responding to customer preferences
and not leading it. Given what I presume to be America's default position of
"supporting our troops", I'm struck by how many films Hollywood produce that
_challenge_ that default.

Remember also that Hollywood confronts at least two vectors of consumer
preference in marketing films: first, Americans (in the large) have a
(typical) diffuse nationalistic home-team support for our overseas adventures,
and, more importantly, there's a less-political less-issue-oriented reverence
expected for the sacrifices made by the young people we send into combat which
is especially intense during times when large numbers of people are serving in
combat zones. In other words, it's especially tricky to criticize the military
during active conflicts.

Also, Three Kings is a fantastic movie.

~~~
cam_l
A bunch of exceptional films in that list.. you have good taste.

So, you acknowledge that there is a _default_ , and that the films you mention
challenge that _default_. I think everyone can agree on this.

Why are films like 'the thin red line' or 'full metal jacket' so powerful. The
only pro-american-military film which I can remember having such a deep impact
on me was 'black hawk down', and I think we all know the story behind that
one.. I would argue that they tell a truth, and in the face of 60 years (give
or take) of holywood military propaganda. And what does it matter that a dozen
critical films come out over a thirty year period when, lets say 50 films a
year come out pro-military.

Breaking it down your essential argument is - there is no propaganda because
people like the propaganda. Question you should be asking is, who created that
_default_?

~~~
chrischen
The default is in the hearts and minds of the American public. The American
public usually are not anti-military, even if they are anti-war. They usually
oppose military policy set by the administration, and not the soldiers or the
military itself.

If Hollywood went against this mindset, they'd be going against the default,
and they would need good reason to do so.

~~~
cam_l
That is just such a lazy answer, and to a question i did not even ask.

I would point you back to my original comment (which you either did not read,
or did not understand) but for fear that it may create a recursive loop from
which there may be no escape.

~~~
chrischen
Did you edit your response after I posted mine?

Anyways, the world isn't a ball which is pushed once and moves with constant
velocity.

There are always forces tugging and pushing to modify the _default._ So unless
the military is actively changing the default, they aren't not manipulating
the default.

~~~
cam_l
No I did not, but thanks for the clarification.. which I quite like (though I
don't really understand the double negative).

I think along pretty similar lines, and the ball analogy is quite apt. It took
a lot of propaganda to get the ball moving in the first place, but only takes
a little bit to keep it going in the same direction. But make no mistake, it
is manipulation and it is forced, however gentle that force may be..

------
belorn
Its a film based on Daniel Domscheit-Berg book. Daniel, the person who covered
up potential war crimes out of spite in his falling out with Wikileaks. Beyond
the war crime video, he also indiscriminately destroyed leaked documents such
as US government's No Fly List, 5 GB of Bank of America leaks, insider
information from 20 right-wing organizations and proof of torture and
government abuse of a Latin American country.

Lets just ignore the sacrifice that people must have done to provide those
documents in the first place. DreamWorks and Disney going to glorify this
behavior and produce a film baed on Daniel book, and likely make him rich from
royalties? Meh.

~~~
trobertson
The establishment rewards those who aid the establishment.

------
danso
I just watched the trailer for the movie
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT1wb8_tcYU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT1wb8_tcYU))...without
knowing WikiLeaks' and Assange's distaste for the movie, it's hard to see the
trailer as anything but positive for Assange. No mention of the sexual assault
charges, but instead, a prominent focus on the early revelations that earned
Assange the sympathy of many: leaking the footage of the U.S. Apache attack
([http://www.collateralmurder.com/](http://www.collateralmurder.com/)) and of
internal documents from the Kaupthing Bank
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank)).

~~~
jlgreco
The purpose of a trailer isn't to convey the message of a movie. The purpose
of a trailer is to get you to watch a movie.

------
ihuman
Judging by the recaps of the film, I'm not surprised about what I see. The
film is based off of books that make WifiLeaks look bad, so its not surprising
that the movie does too. Also, Disney and Dreamworks gain nothing by making a
movie that makes WikiLeaks look good; they gain attention by creating a movie
that creates drama around it, like what is going on now.

------
mylorse
For those looking for the source:

[http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/wikileaks-dreamworks-
memo.html](http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/wikileaks-dreamworks-memo.html)

It might change, with all MiTM that occurs on the domain.

------
argumentum
What a brilliant (if unintended) publicity stunt for the movie ;) More
seriously, I think Assange is acting a bit like Zuckerberg vis a vis The
Social Network. All in all, Zuckerberg was the hero of the movie .. he was
portrayed as a brilliant hacker and visionary (if flawed) businessman. My
feeling is that Assange will be similarly portrayed (except of course
replacing "businessman" with "journalist").

If a movie were ever to be made about me, it would feel insulting to be
portrayed as flawless. There are no great characters without flaws.

~~~
kbenson
I think the point is that to some people, having an extremely flattering view
of them put forth is less important than having an _accurate_ view.

In part, that may be because people assume if their reasoning is exposed then
the public would be with them, so that's flattering enough. (Logically, it's
not possible the public would always agree, because otherwise we would never
have disagreements).

~~~
argumentum
I think the Social Network, for example, is quite accurate about the most
important things (the zeitgeist of how a startup _like_ Facebook comes about
.. the energy, the betrayals (both perceived and real), the craziness, the
attitude of great founders etc).

This is a _movie_ and not a documentary .. for my money I expect the Director
to put his creative efforts into making something enjoyable to watch. As long
as it's not a blatant fabrication, fact for fact historical accuracy isn't why
I'm going to watch this movie.

Aaron Sorkin viewed Zuck & co as a _vehicle_ to tell a larger (and more
important) story about modern culture .. if The Fifth Estate accomplishes the
same, it will be a great movie.

------
zerooneinfinity
It seems like any inaccurate portrayal of somebodies life would be slander.
How do people get around this? If I wanted to make a movie about Barrack Obama
and say he was apart of terrorists groups would that be legal? Isn't this the
reason movies have to say "Any characters in this movie were purely fictional
etc."

~~~
danso
No...in America, the standard to prove defamation against a public figure is
very high: the plaintiff has to prove actual malice
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice))
was used in publication. I imagine the standard for a movie, which besides
using the "based on real events" disclaimer, has the additional benefit of
artistic license on its side.

~~~
zerooneinfinity
Ah I see, so if a classified report/email was released that said, "Make this
movie, and make sure Assange look bad" then he would have grounds to sue?

------
johnbm
And big surprise, NYTimes makes it seem like the problem is with Assange not
being happy how he's portrayed, rather than it being based on discredited
sources, putting people in key roles that never happened, and ignoring that it
was a careless and clueless Guardian journalist (David Leigh) who leaked the
key to the unredacted Cablegate files in his book, not Wikileaks. Look around
and see if you can find that last little tidbit mentioned any time some
journalist writes Wikileaks put people in danger.

~~~
eli
I don't think it's reasonable to expect a movie about Wikileaks to be any more
accurate than, say, a movie about Facebook. Yeah, they took some liberties and
made a nice, tidy narrative. It's a movie.

And whose fault is it that the journalist apparently didn't know a password he
was given for files for his own use was being reused to secure a public
insurance file? It does not speak well to their stewardship of sensitive
documents that they were giving out that password to people who are "careless
and clueless."

~~~
makomk
Actually, it wasn't being reused to secure the public insurance file - we
still don't know know the password for that. The problem was that other people
managed to get their hands on the encryped file for the Guardian journalist
under dubious circumstances involving a prominent ex-Wikileaks member
sabotaging them.

~~~
eli
I stand corrected, but it still seems like there's plenty of blame to go
around there.

------
AsymetricCom
I thought 300 was better

------
noname123
So is it art imitates life which is imitated by life again?

