WikiLeaks Leaks 'Fifth Estate' Screenplay

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/22/us/ap-us-film-wikileaks-drama.html?ref=us&_r=0

by danso • 13 years ago

140 124 13 years ago

ihuman• 13 years ago

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.

johnbm• 13 years ago

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.

knowaveragejoe• 13 years ago

If that's true, it should be well documented somewhere for reference. Please share a source if you get a chance.

dllthomas• 13 years ago

That is vaguely what I recall from my loose following of things, and wikipedia seems to more or less agree. The relevant citation is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables...

acqq• 13 years ago

http://unspecified.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-passwo...

A journalist leaked the password given to him by Wikileaks by publishing it in his book. At that moment the encrypted file was already all over the internet.

pessimizer2• 13 years ago

http://nigelparry.com/news/guardian-david-leigh-cablegate.sh...

This is the full account.

eli2• 13 years ago

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."

pessimizer2• 13 years ago

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a movie about Wikileaks to be any more accurate than, say, a movie about Facebook.

That's why I have a problem with movies like The Social Network and Zero Dark Thirty. It's fine to composite, or eliminate less significant details, or even play some details up for their metaphorical significance. My problem is with movies containing counterfactual plot points that change the entire moral calculus of the events being depicted, often in favor of the status quo.

It's as of you made a movie about the Iraq War, and based a key scene around how they find a bunch of WMD in the desert. Or depict Martin Luther King on the phone to his handlers in the USSR, or delivering "I Have a Dream" at a rally against racial quotas in hiring.

These movies become history.

stefantalpalaru• 13 years ago

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

I think he got the file from bittorrent so he knew it was public. Not making an ecrypted archive just for him with a new password was Assange's mistake, no doubt about it, but publishing that password in a book takes it to a whole new level.

makomk• 13 years ago

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.

tzs• 13 years ago

Assange is not blameless in the leak of the unredacted cables. The procedure he picked for handing a copy of the data to Leigh was terrible. Proper use of public key cryptography could have made it much safer.

eliasmacpherson3• 13 years ago

Given cables were leaked, assuming it was totally Assange's fault, and sources were revealed. Were any revealed sources harmed? If so, would it not have come out at the Manning trial?

It's the same Disney who made racist propoganda during WW2, it's surprisingly blatant if it comes out like WikiLeaks reading of the script signals it will.

clicks2• 13 years ago

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://original.antiwar.com/sean-a-mcelwee/2013/04/28/propag...

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.

adamors• 13 years ago

There was a documentary about Apolcalypse Now and I think it was Coppola who said that they had to remove footage which showed US soldiers desecrating vietnamese corpses (even though these shots were based on actual photographs/eye witness accounts) because otherwise the US government refused to give them helicopters and whatnot.

cleverjake• 13 years ago

hearts of darkness?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4

mike-cardwell• 13 years ago

Hopefully as computer graphics improve and get cheaper and easier to make, film makers can bypass this whole issue and just do it on a computer.

dublinben• 13 years ago

Coppola didn't use American helicopters though, he borrowed them from the Philippine army. That's what Hearts of Darkness (the documentary you probably saw) revealed, at least.

codex3• 13 years ago

I don't believe Apolcalypse Now was made with any cooperation from the U.S. Department of Defense. It was too soon after Vietnam.

mcantelon• 13 years ago

The effectiveness of Western propaganda comes from the high production values and the degree to which the propaganda agenda is concealed. Modern propaganda techniques have evolved over nearly a century[1]. Employers at media companies covertly liason with the CIA, deals are made with the US military exchanging access to military props for script approval, controlled opposition is used to create a sense of objectivity, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays#Propaganda

objclxt• 13 years ago

I think people here are making this out to be a considerably bigger deal than it actually is.

Studios that make war films like having DoD support. It is a useful benefit. However, it's not required. Indeed, if you're shooting your film in Canada or Australia (which is fairly common) you're not going to really be able to make much use of the platoon of extras the US army is willing to lend you.

Similarly, the DoD doesn't have to spend money 'buying' the support of movie studios because the American public already want pro-US military films. Studios want to make films that will bring in buckets of money. Audiences in the US are far more willing to go and watch patriotic films than those that question the actions of the military or government.

You'd have lots of pro-US war/military films with or without DoD support. What's interesting is that we're starting to see films being edited - and entirely new scenes being added - for non US markets that are not quite so American-centric. A good example of this would be Iron Man 3, which had several minutes of additional footage added in for the Chinese market.

marshray• 13 years ago

Just about anything relating to Vietnam. But yeah, that's been a while.

But what we have today is absolutely nothing compared to films produced right after WWII. I think one factor in that is there was a massive amount of combat footage just lying around waiting to be spliced together, as well as a whole bunch of surplus equipment just waiting to be blown up.

ChikkaChiChi• 13 years ago

When you take into consideration that propaganda films have "disappeared" it seems like common-sense that the message is still getting out there.

You can just look at Jerry Bruckheimer's career and make mental notes how every movie since Top Gun has seemingly garnered him more and more access to military assets for his films.

dingaling• 13 years ago

Interestingly the US military involvement in Top Gun was a reaction to their contribution to Final Countdown.

A US Navy Commander was dismissed for having authorized the use of US Navy assets for the latter film without appropriate 'controls' ( and technically he wasn't of appropriate rank to have signed it off ) . That's not a mistake they made with Top Gun.

dobbsbob3• 13 years ago

Anybody who remembers Iron Eagle I-III and Red Dawn knows Hollywood is full of propaganda. Goebbels found that it was difficult to change the movie viewers’ beliefs, but easy to reinforce their prejudices. He preferred entertainment that propped up these preconceptions instead of blatant political messages. Assange has been advocating for nobody to watch this flim after he read the Iranian prejudice in the script and dismissed this as Goebbellian manipulation.

andreyf• 13 years ago

What is the Iranian prejudice?

codex3• 13 years ago

The last film to mock the U.S. military was Dr. Strangelove, after which there was no military-sanctioned Hollywood film until Top Gun, 30 years later.

danso3• 13 years ago

The last film to mock the U.S. military was Dr. Strangelove? You're kidding, right? Even if you only count Kubrick movies, there's Full Metal Jacket.

coldcode• 13 years ago

Wag the Dog.

codex3• 13 years ago

Sorry: I meant "to mock the U.S. military with active cooperation from the U.S. military."

sudomal• 13 years ago

It's known as soft power. Another example is the BBC World Service, which is currently funded by the British government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

temphn• 13 years ago

Avatar was quite negative. Syriana, Rendition, and Jarhead were as well. Your general point definitely stands, post 9/11 at least, but those are notable exceptions.

tylerkahn2• 13 years ago

Both of those sites that you cited are terrible, filled with conspiracy theories and shrill rhetoric. Unfortunately more and more people on HN seem to be citing them.

Anyway:

Do you recall any big American movie in the last decade (or even more) that painted America's military in a non-positive light?

The Bourne series. Though that was about the CIA.

Safe House, also CIA.

Avatar, as someone else mentioned, analogously painted the US military in a bad light.

Full Metal Jacket certainly shows some of the more brutish and shameful sides of the US military.

I do remember The Hurt Locker, and a whole list of other movies, Iron Man and Captain America

So are you upset that these movies didn't pause to lecture the audience about the horrors of American imperialism? Are you upset that they don't serve your particular political agenda?

To me, truly the most amazing thing about this is that pretty much no-one knows about this!

The people who don't know don't care. This information is readily available. And even some of the people who do know don't care (like me).

tptacek9• 13 years ago

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.

tsotha2• 13 years ago

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.

Yeah, the problem with anti-military movies is nobody wants to watch them. It certainly hasn't been a lack of effort on the part of film producers.

beedogs• 13 years ago

That's a bit difficult to defend in light of the fact that this film and Zero Dark Thirty were demonstrably influenced by the DoD.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

Seriously, you omit Apocalypse Now? :-)

jules3• 13 years ago

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.

Of course it's not impossible. There is a scale from possible to impossible, and the truth is somewhere in between. Contrary to what you suggest: (1) clearly the DoD doesn't think that this propaganda strategy doesn't have a substantial effect, otherwise they wouldn't be spending their funding on it (2) clearly Hollywood's script writers think that their audience would prefer the original less pro-DoD script. It's not impossible to go with the original script, but the original script without aircraft carrier would be a less competitive movie than the modified script with aircraft carrier (according to Hollywood decision makers).

cam_l4• 13 years ago

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?

dobbsbob3• 13 years ago

Three Kings actually paints the military in a good light as benevolent, and ultimately having the best interests of the Iraqi people: http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/theatrefilm/projector/page91...

digitalengineer• 13 years ago

"Anybody's son will do" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0222730/ This documentary explains in great detail the nature of military basic training and its psychological component. It's on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShDaJXK5qo

malandrew• 13 years ago

I haven't seen all those movies, but I have seen many of them and the thing that IIRC all of them have in common is that they all use props that Hollywood can get their hands on without the cooperation of the US Army, Navy or Air Force. For example, if you wanted a military helicopter in your movie, you can probably get your hands on one, but if you wanted an aircraft carrier, then you are going to have to cooperate.

The bright side is that CG is now good enough that you can recreate most of those props entirely digitally without relying on cooperation from the military. On top of that, it is probably now also cheaper to do so in CG than seeking any cooperation in the first place. Where cooperation is still needed is consulting work to keep things realistic, but even that can be had by employing private citizens that served previously.

X42• 13 years ago

You're right.

I only remember Stargate SG-1 that very early on dissed the NID (=NSA) and other agencies (but I rarely watch TV). They went so far to criticize agencies and senators and many other privately working corporations as control addicted, corrupt and inhuman moneybags. Senator Kinsey was exposed telling lies to the voters like: "We do the best a christian can for our God blessed America", just to get their votes. Even though he seemed to believe what he said, the actions he made were all but "christian". He willingly destroyed an entire solar system, just to test a bomb. The arrogant evil joy was truly revealing his real character. He was obviously an opportunist, who collaborated with evil aliens just to remain in power. And that last part sounds like our governments, who sell our data to other governments, when the price is right.

That's why I really admired how this was the only series (except star-trek) where most stuff, contrary to most beliefs (imho) was a pure mix of fiction and actual ancient history. Although it was clear that Colonel Jack O'Neill had strong prejudices against the Russian and communists in General (and russians always died first) he had deep respect to them as a Soldier. To me it looked like the authors tried to express some of their true thoughts, but were often forced to change or include parts into the script to reflect a more positive America, that really stood out. Unfortunately Star-Trek was very pro American, which is hard to believe, because a developed human in the future would most probably see all of us as greedy, barbarian, war-hungry hypocrites and not focus one just one continent.

krapp4• 13 years ago

To me it looked like the authors tried to express some of their true thoughts, but were often forced to change or include parts into the script to reflect a more positive America, that really stood out.

I'm not stating flat out you're wrong, but do you have any actual evidence of parts they were "often forced to change?" Isn't it possible they included pro-American material because they didn't necessarily have a completely negative point of view about the US and the military? Not every opinion that America is less than evil necessarily has to be propaganda.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

'Tptacek mentions a great list. What I'll add to that is that, contemporaneously, criticism of the military doesn't sell movie tickets. Nobody wants to watch a movie about how American soldiers might be put in harm's way for a bad reason, or might not behave honorably, at least not unless the event is historically removed enough that the audience can separate the message of the movie from their own family, friends, and kids on the front lines.

Moto7451• 13 years ago

Agreed. Additionally, it's thematically popular that when part of the US military becomes the bad guy, it's usually limited to "those guys" and not the entirety of the Military. Typically "those guys" comes in the form of a well meaning but rouge unit, a General with a vendetta against an opposing force (i.e. hasn't gotten over the end of the Cold war), a traitor of some kind, an indifferent chain of command, etc etc.

These are things audiences will rally around. Behind Enemy Lines is an example[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_Enemy_Lines_(2001_film)

drjesusphd• 13 years ago

The Pentagon even red-lighted Forrest Gump and refused support. They said:

"the generalised impression that the army of the 1960s was staffed by the guileless or by soldiers of limited intelligance" was unacceptable. "This impression is neither accurate nor beneficial to the army."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/29/media.filmnews

PhasmaFelis2• 13 years ago

"Iron Man originally used to be about fighting communism, now it is about fighting terrorism"

Uh? Let's look at the villains in the recent movies:

Iron Man 1: Terrorists, later revealed to be puppets of a corrupt American military contractor.

Iron Man 2: A Russian scientist with a personal grudge, later teams up with a corrupt American military contractor.

Iron Man 3: Terrorists, turn out to have been entirely made up by a corrupt American military contractor.

In every movie the real villain is a representative of the military-industrial complex. In two of the three, cutting-edge American military technology is publicly and embarrassingly subverted and used against American citizens. In the related Avengers movie, American military authorities order a nuclear attack on New York City.

There is a lot of American propoganda in American movies (oh God, Battleship), but Iron Man is a pretty poor example.

gcb1• 13 years ago

more like terrorists, which turn out to be terrorist trying to infiltrate and undermine the holy american militar complex posing as honest contractors.

rwmj• 13 years ago

Flat Earth News is the book to read on this topic. The largest press agency in the world is ... the CIA.

http://www.flatearthnews.net/

AsymetricCom• 13 years ago

I thought 300 was better

noname123• 13 years ago

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

mylorse• 13 years ago

For those looking for the source:

http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/wikileaks-dreamworks-memo.html

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

zerooneinfinity2• 13 years ago

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."

danso3• 13 years ago

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) 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.

zerooneinfinity2• 13 years ago

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?

danso3• 13 years ago

I just watched the trailer for the movie (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/) and of internal documents from the Kaupthing Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank).

jlgreco• 13 years ago

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.

argumentum2• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

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).

argumentum2• 13 years ago

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.

belorn• 13 years ago

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• 13 years ago

The establishment rewards those who aid the establishment.

Zigurd• 13 years ago

Daniel Domscheit-Berg's behavior is extremely suspicious. What kind of person would do what he did on principle or other personal motivation?

WikiLeaks Leaks 'Fifth Estate' Screenplay

Related Stories