Bryan Fogel on why streaming platforms were scared of releasing The Dissident

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/the-dissident-saudi-arabia-netflix-bryan-fogel-icarus-1234886662/

by mkl95 • 5 years ago

213 134 5 years ago

variety.com

4gotunameagain• 5 years ago

Facebook blatantly allowing the manipulation of politics.

Twitter / youtube deciding what the people can talk about.

Now netflix refusing content exposing a brazen crime with global implications.

For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our lives?

falcor84• 5 years ago

For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our lives?

What does that even mean? Who is it who's allowing or not allowing a media company to control people's lives?

cbozeman9• 5 years ago

It means people are scared enough of "Big Tech" to actually defend Donald Trump, which is what Angela Merkel did.

When he was banned from Twitter and YouTube and Facebook, they all perked up... because they realized, "That could be me..." If these companies can ban the most powerful human on the planet, they know they could be next, the moment they end up in the crosshairs.

qeternity3• 5 years ago

For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our lives?

...you say, freely commenting on a site, that is freely discussing another site that is openly reporting on the fact that Netflix are doing this.

The mere fact that you know that this documentary exists and that Netflix is passing on it due to geopolitical influence I think is proof that Netflix is not controlling our lives?

newsclues2• 5 years ago

My mom doesn’t read hacker news.

She didn’t see this film on the streaming services she pays for. She didn’t see it on the tv news or hear about it on the radio.

Is my mother’s life controlled and I’ve hacked my way to freedom?

zarkov992• 5 years ago

Oh yes, everything is fine, because HN is not censoring some anonymous reader. Come on. Control over information might be the defining issue of this century. The danger is real and existencial and as a society we are completely unprepared to meet it.

caymanjim• 5 years ago

What's your solution? Forcing Netflix to purchase and distribute content they don't want? Do we just force Netflix, or do we force every media company to host it? Who makes that decision?

Want to vote? Stop using Facebook, stop using Twitter, stop using Netflix. The film is available for streaming elsewhere. Go watch it.

cbozeman9• 5 years ago

A documentary about a journalist being murdered because he criticized a truly legitimately shit regime.

A documentary that almost everyone who watched it says is borderline child pornography.

Guess which one was on Netflix and which one wasn't.

marcinzm• 5 years ago

Want a solution? Have the government fund public broadcasting and communication sites like in various other countries. Wait, you don't want the government to see and control all your information and communication? But you also don't want private companies to do so?

edit: As for de-centralized approaches, imho those don't work great when you want creators to make money rather than simply having everyone pirate the movie.

racl101• 5 years ago

I know one way to not support a company.

tootie2• 5 years ago

This is not at all equivalent though. Netflix isn't refusing to allow this on their platform, they just weren't willing to pay for it. Fogle could post his video on youtube and it wouldn't be a problem. He wants to be paid millions of dollars to get a big distribution deal. That's squarely a privilege and not a right.

Bakary2• 5 years ago

If you are not wealthy enough to no longer have to work, your employer already controls more than a third of your life, and exerts all sorts of peripheral control through all the pressures necessary to maintain a specific job (location, social trail, etc.). Comparatively, what you describe seems like a non-issue

purephase3• 5 years ago

It's sadly not the first time that Netflix has avoided controversy with MBS:

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/netflix-cou...

It's sad, but in a way, this type of censorship tends to increase interest in the content, so hopefully this happens here. The Khashoggi murder is one of the most blatently horrible incidents in the last few years that should be discussed at length and those responsible actually held responsible.

I'd never heard of the film, but now I am definitely going to check it out.

sandworm1012• 5 years ago

> one of the most blatently horrible incidents

For all the horror, this was still only one person, one victim, killed. There are a great many other incidents in which large numbers of people have been deliberately killed yet we seem to just take such things as normal. The specifics of Khashoggi's murder were shocking, but the murder or disappearance of such persons is far from unusual on the world stage.

Fyi, a similar Saudi kill team was recently intercepted at a Canadian airport. Such attempts at murder barely make news, only coming to light via lawsuits months later.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55232926

"The court filing says the group - which included a man from the same department as the man accused of dismembering Khashoggi - were carrying two bags of forensic tools. However, Canadian border agents "quickly became suspicious" of the group and refused them entry after interviewing them, it says."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/saudi-hit-squad-aljab...

"Public Safety Minister Bill Blair would not comment on the specific allegations in the lawsuit but said the government was aware of incidents in which foreign actors have tried to monitor, intimidate or threaten Canadians and people in Canada."

purephase3• 5 years ago

I'm not saying that there aren't other good examples. But, to target a US journalist like this, at a foreign embassy where there are recordings, logs of people entering and leaving (with visitor logs) where you could conceivably find those responsible and run it up the chain for accountabiliity is the rare element here that could and should be used.

If we actually start to make an example here, that this is not acceptable in our society, then perhaps others will feel less emboldened to do the same.

JeremyNT• 5 years ago

For all the horror, this was still only one person, one victim, killed. There are a great many other incidents in which large numbers of people have been deliberately killed yet we seem to just take such things as normal. The specifics of Khashoggi's murder were shocking, but the murder or disappearance of such persons is far from unusual on the world stage.

This is hugely important context to always keep in mind. The fact that MBS had managed to bamboozle the western media into fawning over his token "reforms" prior to the Saudis brazenly murdering Kashoggi was a disgrace.

It's telling that the media only really started caring about Saudi governmental corruption and criminality after one of their own - a fellow pundit who traveled in elite western circles - was grotesquely killed. MBS presumably had good reason to believe he could get away with murder, with Kashoggi being the exception that proves the rule.

rebuilder2• 5 years ago

The shocking part isn't so much the murder as it is the brazenness, i.e., ineptitude of the whole thing. The Saudis seemed to act like it was their right to kill Khashoggi, else they would have planned better to avoid getting caught.

This is even more evident in reactions to the Russian governments assassinations, attempted and successful. It's not that we don't think they'd try to kill people, but the way they don't really even bother to cover it up is what is really shocking. It's a slap in the face of the idea of law and order - murderers are at least supposed to do their best to hide their actions.

pradn3• 5 years ago

I don't understand how the crisis in Yemen, greatly exacerbated by MBS and supported by the US government, a crisis in which 200k+ Yemenis have been killed (including 80k+ children dead who starved to death), 3 million+ displaced, with the deadliest cholera outbreak in modern history - isn't on the front page news every day. Every little tidbit of court minutae at the venal Trump White House was covered (which press secretary was leaving, who was getting pardons), but not this enormous crisis that the US has direct control over.

It was disgusting how easily MBS was fawned over (see this absurd feature on MBS by Thomas Friedman [1]), how the Western media only cared about one of their own (Khashoggi was a WaPo journalist), and how quickly companies are coming back to back MBS's fantastical investment schemes like the Jetsons city-from-scratch NEOM, after stepping back for just a year.

The US doesn't even import all that much oil from Saudi Arabia! It's only use is as a lever to press other countries that rely on Saudi oil to come under the US fold.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-...

hintymad• 5 years ago

I wouldn't call it censorship, as Netflix does not have any obligation to distribute a film, especially when such film may conflict with the company's financial interest (I assume what the article says is true).

slumdev5• 5 years ago

Netflix, the streaming service that mainstreamed child sexual exploitation, is now shy of controversy.

From IMDB's content advisory on "Cuties": "Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent, but brief."

mschuster91• 5 years ago

There's "controversy that is mostly a Twitter/arts critique outrage" that won't cost you much business, and there's "controversy that can lead entire countries from blocking you out".

Most people will never hear about, much less react upon, the "Cuties" issue, so the business risk was relatively low.

slumdev5• 5 years ago

What unmitigated cowardice! If a company chooses to offend only when there's little risk to the bottom line, they're not a brave cultural vanguard. They're the establishment hiding under an "edgy" patina.

ceejayoz4• 5 years ago

You could put a similar content warning on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Miss_Sunshine, but it'd entirely miss the point of the film.

speed_spread• 5 years ago

I've seen "Cuties" without prior knowledge of the controversy. It is a good movie that actually denounces indoctrination (moral/religious or consumerist/sexual) of young girls. It is also a very French movie, which codes may not be familiar to American public. Some scenes are ambiguous, reflecting both superficial joy and ethical uneasiness. As part of the whole story they balance out but taken out of context these images will look plain wrong; Netflix mistake was to use those scenes as part the movie's trailer.

slumdev5• 5 years ago

The actresses in Mignonnes aren't young-looking adults. They're actually children.

The controversy exists (yes, even in France,) because it was unnecessary for Doucoure to sexualize children in order to decry the sexualization of children.

mna8333• 5 years ago

Not all 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' are equal. It matters foremost what is there to gain/lose. In this case its streaming services

eunos• 5 years ago

'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' are just tools to undermine Geopolitical competitors.

tartoran• 5 years ago

I hope this will pick up some Streisand effect and soon every American will have seen this documentary. I don’t blame Netflix a lot for not picking this up, they are probably to lose a lot of money if they do.

MikusR2• 5 years ago

It costs 20$. Are you going to sponsor it?

MikusR2• 5 years ago

Even Youtube, Vimeo and Peertube?

Besides a simple Google search brings a free one on Youtube made by Deutche Welle.

mkl95• 5 years ago

Many comments are mentioning Netflix. It's worth mentioning Amazon and Apple have rejected it too.

Edit: Apple and Amazon seem to have picked up the documentary since the time of the interview.

1wd• 5 years ago

Seems to be available on Amazon. (And worth watching!)

spaetzleesser• 5 years ago

I watched it on Apple TV.

Hoasi• 5 years ago

Bryan Fogel, the director, explains his disappointment that his documentary is not part of the regular subscription on (AppleTV, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) streaming services here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/15p3DpjZeaXCwcXyGTytMj?

cbozeman9• 5 years ago

I'll have to listen to this episode.

codetrotter• 5 years ago

I saw this movie recently and just wanted to say I highly recommend taking the time to watch it.

The official website has a list of paid services that you can watch it on

https://thedissident.com/

You will also be able to find it elsewhere

Rapzid2• 5 years ago

Site seems busted for me.

EDIT: It's available for rent on Amazon Prime Video for anyone interested.

tootie2• 5 years ago

I can believe it's a well-made production, but I'm curious if it has been verified for accuracy or it actually uncovered any new details.

olemaga• 5 years ago

Does not seem available in Europe?

boring_twenties2• 5 years ago

Wow. It's been more than one decade since I've seen a website so terrible.

Anyone know if it's possible to purchase this movie outside of the streaming services? For example, as a Bluray disc, or simply an unencumbered video file?

shadowprofile772• 5 years ago

cough.. torrent it... cough.

mountainb• 5 years ago

The bigger issue related to this is not the Khashoggi was tortured to death and dismembered, but that America's alliance with Saudi Arabia is both immoral and strategically stupid. However, Saudi Arabia's corrupt grip on our ruling class is so thorough that it is able to suppress speech like this that might make the Saudi government look even slightly bad.

We never get to the point to which the Saudi alliance is questioned at a fundamental level. The motte and bailey style 'debate' stays in the realm of whether or not the Khashoggi murder was bad, or on some other irrelevant side issue of the Saudi government's conduct. The problem, essentially, is our military alliance with Saudi Arabia. This is almost never debated. Only side issues such as Saudi women not being allowed to drive or Saudi use of the death penalty are ever allowed to be raised. It's considered 'unserious' to question the iron security guarantee that our republic provides to this royal family.

Saudi Arabia could turn 1 million Kahsoggis into meatballs and the American Op-Ed-Oligarchy would be unwilling to question the fundamental diplomatic issue of America's alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have already tested this commitment when a couple dozen Saudi nationals blew up the World Trade Center twice and the alliance with Saudi Arabia only strengthened as a response.

This would be like Gavrilo Princip killing Franz Ferdinand and the Habsburgs responding by increasing foreign and military aid to Serbia, encouraging Serbia to blow up more of its neighbors, then going to war on behalf of Serbia multiple times to increase its power and influence. 27D chess or corrupt-stupid-evil; you decide.

humbleMouse• 5 years ago

Can’t question the isreal alliance either, some things are just off topic.

vagrantJin• 5 years ago

Haha. It seems you have hit the nail on the head with exacting precision

cbozeman9• 5 years ago

That one is a lot stickier, because no one tried to systematically wipe out the Saudi people.

Hundreds of thousands of Saudis didn't immigrate here to escape certain death.

There's also the fact that America is still a very religious country - and takes it seriously - so many people support Israel because they really do believe they're protecting God's chosen people. No one should "wish" for war, but I've often wondered what would happen if Saudi Arabia decided to wage war against Israel. I'm very curious with whom America would ultimately side.

SpicyLemonZest2• 5 years ago

The Israel alliance is hard to question simply because, unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel is very popular in the US. If all you saw was the polling data - there’s a country A with 70% favorability overall, at least 50% within each political party, and their main rival B has 20% favorability - you wouldn’t be surprised to see a strong and hard to question alliance with A.

cbozeman9• 5 years ago

Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.

And what's worse, its over oil - a resource that, no matter what your stance on climate change is - from which we are rapidly transitioning away.

joejohnson2• 5 years ago

Absolutely. I am pro-climate change and I still think the US’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is strategically stupid.

chongli• 5 years ago

I don’t think it’s just over oil. Saudi Arabia is also considered strategically important as an outpost against Iran. I went to Google Iran and this was the top hit [1]. The timing of these two stories is very interesting.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-exploring-...

vmception• 5 years ago

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize“

Yeah, but why is the list growing?

thaumasiotes• 5 years ago

If you respond to a power grab by competing over who can surrender the fastest, what do you expect to happen?

noelsusman• 5 years ago

You can't question our alliance with Saudi Arabia without questioning our alliance with Israel. Well, you can, but the former flows from the latter. If we're going to be allies with Israel, then Iran is our enemy. If Iran is our enemy, then Saudi Arabia is our friend. We've come up with all sorts of other rationalizations over the years, but that is the core of it.

I've begun to see the faintest whiffs of questioning the Saudi alliance among the foreign policy establishment, but I suspect our deeply pro-Israel sentiments will prevent anything from changing for a long time.

chishaku4• 5 years ago

will prevent anything from changing

also petrodollars and preserving reserve currency status

Chris2048• 5 years ago

If Iran is our enemy, then Saudi Arabia is our friend

Why is this?

stretchcat• 5 years ago

JFK's attempts to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program ended when he got shot in the head. His successor, LBJ, dropped the issue.

HenryBemis• 5 years ago

I liked reading books since when I was 12. I would read anything challenging, even if I wouldn't understanding.

I was also reading books of lyrics. I remember reading lyrics of Metallica, Iron Maiden, Sex Pistols songs, way before I actually listen to their music. That gave me an appreciation of the words/meaning.

On the Sex Pistol's song "God Save The Queen" they sang:

"God save the queen 'Cause tourists are money And our figurehead Is not what she seems"

I am not discussing the political aspect on the governing systems (Kingdom vs Anarchy), but the phrase "cause tourists are money" has so much wisdom in it. In modern 'american' language we would say "money talks, BS walks".

Just like NBA shat up and rolled over (oh yes they did) for China, Netflix (and the likes) do for Saudi Arabia.

There was a discussion a couple of days ago regarding users migrating from WhatsApp to Signal/Telegram and how "a few friends" declined, forcing the "many" to either ostracize them, or stick to WhatsApp.

MBS/Saudi Arabia do the same. If you want us, shut up and keep the status quo (murder, rape, inequality, torture). They got trillions of $. Wegot two options. Shut up and roll over (Netflix, NBA), or isolate them and allow them to develop similar/close services. The third option that "slowly they will join us".. well.. how slowly is slowly? 1 year? 5? 100? never? I fear they (SA/MBS) will always be 100 years behind this 'democratic' curve.

cbozeman9• 5 years ago

Probably about 25-35 years. That's about how long we can subsist on current proven oil reserves given the amount and given the yearly consumption of oil and accounting for usage increase and fluctuations.

Which is another way of saying we have 25-35 years to get electric cars up and running and to really "solve" the alternative energy crisis. This is why we need to be pouring massive amounts of money into fusion power research, because if we can crack that nut, we're set.

Or hey, maybe never.

Look at other Middle Eastern nations.

hnarn• 5 years ago

Presumably the only effect this will have is that ideologically inclined netizens will now start seeding it on your nearest public torrent tracker instead. While not ideal, I’m happy we still have a free enough internet that these types of rebellions are possible, regardless of what you may think of the legal implications thereof.

slg7• 5 years ago

I'm not sure I believe the claims that companies were afraid of this documentary for its content. For example you can rent or buy this movie on Amazon[1] or Apple[2]. If those companies were afraid of the content, that wouldn't have happened. The more likely excuse is that it is a niche documentary that didn't have enough financial upside to merit purchasing exclusive distribution rights and "Here is a documentary they don't want you to see" is great for marketing.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dissident-Jamal-Kashoggi/dp/B08QTQFNT...

[2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/the-dissident/id1544151386

Ericson23142• 5 years ago

I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective censorship + plausibile deniability.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawk..., they are quite open about censoring things.

slg7• 5 years ago

It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship" recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing excuse.

Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20 for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons. If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime is because the price tag would have been too high to justify purchasing exclusivity.

chishaku4• 5 years ago

a niche documentary

niche like Russian doping?

From the article:

The documentary about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi... was one of the hottest films at last year’s Sundance. It had glowing reviews, a ripped from the headlines subject, and a big-name director in Fogel, fresh off the Oscar-winning “Icarus,” a penetrating look at Russian doping that got the country banned from the Olympics.
And yet, Netflix, which had previously released “Icarus,” and other streaming services such as Apple and Amazon steered clear of “The Dissident.”

Wikipedia has a separate article for reactions to Jamal Kashoggi's killing from around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination...

Not sure you could call this a niche topic. Heck we're talking about it on HN.

slg7• 5 years ago

The financial viability of a documentary isn't necessarily tied to the importance of the underlying story. This one is about a bigger story than Russian doping, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as good of a documentary as the director's previous work. Icarus won an Oscar while The Dissident isn't among to top 10 or so favorites in its category.

When purchasing a documentary, a network would either want something that could potentially become a big hit or potential add prestige by competing in awards. It doesn't appear likely that this documentary would have done either.

vadansky• 5 years ago

I keep seeing this sentiment, but the fact is his other documentary Icarus was HUGE on Netflix, and if The Dissident pops up on millions of people's feed saying "From the creator of Icarus!!", millions of people would watch it.

Them not being interested is suspiciously leaving a huge pile of money on the table.

PoignardAzur2• 5 years ago

Wait, it is available on Amazon? That's not what I understood from the article at all.

slg7• 5 years ago

Exactly. They are spinning the story to the point of being misleading. They wanted an up front payment to purchase exclusive streaming rights. No one jumped at that. However these companies are still willing to host this movie on a revenue share model that comes with digital rentals/purchases. That is a big indicator the motivating factor was cost and not the danger of the content itself.

chokeartist• 5 years ago

I watched the movie. It highlighted to me how over the top the effort was, when I previously did not appreciate how exotic and ridiculous the killing actually was. No wonder the Saudis did not like this movie.

idownvoted• 5 years ago

Somewhere in Ankara, a not-so-slightly fascist is giggling hard.

To have the west's narrative-forming-class believe the fairy tale of Kashoggi as a fighter for free speech is quite an achievement, as the only reason Kashoggi got to be a politically critical journalist in Saudi-Arabia was that he was an upper class guy, heir to millions of USDs - and like many in this socio-economic group a big fan / member of the Muslim Brotherhood (as means to overthrow the only class that sits on top of them).

Yeah, just an ordinary freedom fighter who is best buddies with Erdogan. Right...

angst_ridden3• 5 years ago

Ah, so he believed something questionable. He clearly deserved to be cut up with bone saws.

noarchy• 5 years ago

So is this the narrative that is being pushed by pro-MBS astroturfers?

angst_ridden3• 5 years ago

I mean, look at how much Saudi venture capital - and MBS himself - is involved in Silicon Valley. https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/1/18511540/silicon-valley-...

antoniuschan99• 5 years ago

The dissident was a good movie!

I just watched A Thousand Cuts over the weekend. It’s about Dutertes war against the Press and Maria Ressa.

https://youtu.be/LixnwDIh2wU

jgalt212• 5 years ago

When one lowers existing barriers to global trade, new barriers become enacted.

The Law of Conservation of Barriers.

sunstone• 5 years ago

There's nothing to stop the Biden administration from buying this and putting it in the public domain. That would be poetic justice.

Bryan Fogel on why streaming platforms were scared of releasing The Dissident

Related Stories