Risk

source: Risk

I was expecting to gain some insight from RISK, which is said to have been filmed over six years. Instead, I came away wondering what the point of the film was supposed to be. If Laura Poitras had not directed CitizenFour, I would probably conclude on the basis of this work that she is a mediocre filmmaker. The only thing I really learned is that Julian Assange appears to have been physically involved with Susan Harrison but did not seem (at least from the film clips) to like her very much. The relationship ended after she helped Snowden when it was no longer safe for her to travel back to London, given the real risk of being arrested. The most interesting part of the film is the presentation of Susan Harrison, which raises the questions of why and how she became involved in the cases of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. The directorial voice-over "production notes" are ridiculous and should not be in this work at all. Who cares? What is this film really supposed to be about? Just another symptom of these narcissistic times... As regards Assange himself, Risk strikes me as something of a nothing burger.

It documents a few snippets that are not already known, seen or reported about. For a few snippets it is very long and very boring. The filmmaker stays as elusive as Julian Assange. I wonder about her choices of material mashed together confusingly. I find it hard to find meaningful content. I 'think' it's about her 'role' as a woman, the metoo movement happening, her former lover actually being worse than what Julian Assange stood to be potentially accused of (ripping a condom/unprotected sex), Hilary Clinton just because she's a woman - I don't know, What is the film about? NOT Julian Assange, that's for sure. The risk then was hers in putting out this private film. Citizenfour was well made and had a star. It told a time-limited story. That one worked, this one didn't.

Sometimes timing is everything - so while this seems an apt time to watch a documentary about Assange (with him being arrested and all), the movie itself suffers from that. Now I hear you saying, they are not at fault, which is true. You should not "punish" the filmmakers for this weird twist of events. But you cannot let this just slide and not even mention it. Also it is tough to get a grasp of the whole situation. The documentary struggles with Assange and him not being something the viewer can really understand. Which is evident when you realize that even Assange isn't "happy" with the outcome. Now that alone would be a badge of honor for other documentaries, but it would have been nice to know more, to get more feedback from Assange himself. Towards the end there is almost something there in an interview ... but the viewer is left again to think it through and make up their own mind. Not a bad documentary by a long shot and some will love this more than others, but there is so much more here and we only scratched the surface - kudos to an amazing beginning by the way, which sucks you all the way in - unfortunately this doesn't hold up for the whole thing

Like him or loathe him, RISK is an engaging little documentary following the tribulations of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during the most tumultuous moments of his life. The film provides a first-hand account of what it's like to be caught up in an international hacking scandal with far-reaching consequences for those involved. Anyone interested in the modern world and in particular politics, security, and the Internet can't fail to be entranced by this material, and I think the most interesting part of it is that Assange himself isn't a sympathetic figure at all, although the documentary is very good.

Such an important story, what an utter shame and travesty the director decided to make it all about herself. Her voice over about her feelings on the events she was granted front row seats to, the creepy music she opted to score the film with, the shots she chose to use from obviously hours of possible footage, the way she decided to frame the shots (low, under, close up, creepy), how it absolutely REEKS of pretentious New York indie film maker. I'm sure she doesn't even realise how inappropriate her take on this story is, but it is so much a par for the course with most of the current crop of film makers. all about the lighting, camera angle and colour grade, the honesty of the actual real story is secondary, let's put in another jump scare etc. What a wasted and lost opportunity to know what really makes Assange tick. This is just 'tabloid click bait headline' stuff that shows no indication that Poitras understood the importance of the story and material and people involved in this, and probably didn't with Citizen 4. She was the wrong person in the right place, what a waste. If you squint your eyes really hard you can sort of get a look past the showy pretense of Poitras' American shock drama framing to the real people behind it all, but only just and only glimpses. Assange is a man driven to seek honesty and justice in the world and he says as much, buried under Poitras terrible film making. Well a least Poitras had fun, that's the main thing, right. Hopefully she'll jump off her cash cow tangent, (Assange, Snowden, Manning) and let these people get on with putting their lives at risk for a worthy cause with out this clown jeapordising theirs (and our) freedom.

This film tells the first hand story of Julian Assange, and his life after launching the leaks website. It is very interesting to see what goes on around Assange up close, as there is probably very little opportunity to do so. The opening of the film is strong, as the characters try to get in touch with senior government officials. However, the film goes downhill quickly, mostly because there is little narrative to what is shown on the screen. For example, there is a scene where Julian puts a device on the window sill, and I have no idea what is going on. The scene where he gets a haircut, and doing boxing can be enhanced by a narration that he could not leave the embassy. To me, the documentary is so personal to the filmmakers, that they forgot that viewers are not in the middle of it. Viewers can't follow the scenes as they could.

While my political perspective is much different from Laura Poitras, the director, I was able to appreciate "Citizenfour" and could see why it received such acclaim. Not so with this one. Just a sloppy, haphazard effort. Supposedly this was filmed over a 6 year period, but it would have been nice if there were some markers along the way telling us which year that which things were happening. If it's difficult to judge the years now, imagine 10- 20 years from now, when this is less of a "hot topic" issue. Although Poitras is clearly on the side of what Wikileaks does, she still makes Assange come off as a real sexist jerk. And his #1 assistant, Sarah Harrison, comes off as a Stepford Wife that has apparently drunk gallons and gallons of Kool-Aid. Obviously, it is hard to ignore the politics of a film like this when reviewing it. If you agree with the politics, you'll probably be more supportive of this film. If you don't agree with what Wikileaks is doing, you'll view Assange and company as smug, self-important hypocrites. After I saw the film, I was reading up about how this film was re-cut after being shown at Cannes, where Poitras had a change of heart on how she had previously shown Assange, and decided to now show his more sexist side. Similar to the change in perspective of Jacob Applebaum, whom Poitras was apparently sleeping with during a portion of this six year period, and then he was later accused of sexual misconduct. A film about all of that would probably have been a more interesting story than what we saw in the film.

Preferring to find a movie on what the theme is and liking more imported foreign films and documentaries than those made in prolific USA, here the main person and the well-known 'Wikileaks' was an instant  click,  so had to go and see & learn more than mass media informs us about Julian Assange.  And this writer was totally fascinated and involved throughout entire film. While Poitras' personal inserted comments came in  - but voiced more quietly,volume down-  we  had to attended  more to hear and absorb these inserts.  We needed to hear these  added, helpful information bits to the scenes portrayed. Assange was mostly seen in close-ups, so his every impartially-held facial expression could still not be easily read.  But some  good glimpses of his attitude were revealed anyhow. He hid some when filmed, even while talking lots, and he sometimes droned on ....so  when his words were mumbled / hummed Assange was  heard less. So while he was carefully conveying some info in his not-subtle ways, at times he left this writer confused, as when he refused to give direct answers to clear questions asked in film. His female associates were not identified if in  what kind of 'relationship'  to Julian, or what their expertise was.... other than being always there, supportive, helping him groom or  make escapes. That women were always in the " rescuer" roles left the impression that they may be  & still are attracted to Julian as "hero", and  thus to do the usual 'woman's work' only.  As  only assistants ? Their other values, whatever they are, were not clarified nor appreciated either. Julian's mother, also included in such roles,  was seen as only-adjunct helper. Can this be so ? But other scenes showed Julian more actually responding to his circumstances -which is mostly well known & displayed in ordinary TV news clips. His complaints - while living well - and while limited to living in only 1 fancy embassy- bldg seemed petulant and childish, as he refused to admit  responsibility to eliciting the  'unexpected unwanted consequences' to his work .  His own actions  affected many political people, who still want to censor and punish any 'whistle-blowers', including but not just Assange. Wikileaks has emerged as a very influential media platform source and  as a threat to those who prefer their secrets kept away from the many people the actions do affect, kill, and distort . Many lives may have been/ are still changed from their exposures, as noted even in the most recent / now current events. To  learn more about the main man, tho not the only 1, who still holds dominance on the organization is very relevant and important to us all = the viewers and citizens of these media-blitzed and news-censored worlds. Tho film was a bit long, but still held the viewers' full attention,no one walked out. This is a must-see film to those who want to better understand the man who  helps  still now reveal" what is happening " behind many locked 'confidential' doors/ documents &emails.  Those are, perhaps, more real than what is exposed  as governments' workings elsewhere.  " Risk" is not a risk but a must-also-see-this-film.... for anyone watching daily propagandized & commercialized  & censored news anywhere.

The ability of whistle-blowers to leak sensitive, and even secret, information is an essential check on the potential abuse of power by government. But Julain Assange, founder of Wikileaks, a website established to assist such whistle-blowers, is a deeply problematic figure: an egoist who falls out with his own collaborators with amazing frequency; a man who seemed hardly to take accusations of rape seriously; an instinctive anarchist who sometimes seems to be fighting not government tyranny everywhere, but exclusively in America. This documentary was conceived as a friendly venture (in fact, the film-maker quietly reveals she is not exactly a neutral party in the story), but the essential vanity of Assange is clearly on display. Ultimately, it's hard to avoid concluding that whatever good Wikileaks might have done has been fatally compromised by the man at its core.