'Citizenfour': Director Laura Poitras shares the rage of her subject Edward Snowden

( Unrated ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

The movie doesn't delve into the legalities of Snowden's actions or address the irony of Snowden being given political asylum in Moscow, but the film ably expresses that it is all too easy for democracies to cross lines when gathering information.

Courtesy of Radius-TWC
Edward Snowden (pictured) approached prize-winning journalist and documentarian Laura Poitras to help tell his story.

If you’ve only read about Edward Snowden, the former private contractor for the National Security Agency and CIA senior analyst who exposed secret US government surveillance files, you may be in for a shock when you see “Citizenfour.” Instead of an aging, shadowy operative, we have instead a scrawny 29-year-old who resembles nothing so much as a computer science grad student. He spills a whole load of beans on camera yet seems eerily normal and composed – the anti-Julian Assange.

Snowden approached prize-winning journalist and documentarian Laura Poitras about making the movie, which begins in early June 2013 as Poitras and her collaborator, journalist Glenn Greenwald, along with The Guardian’s intelligence correspondent Ewen MacAskill, hunker down with Snowden for nine days in a Hong Kong hotel room. (The movie’s title refers to the code name Snowden used in contacting Poitras.) As we watch the T-shirted Snowden, sitting on his messy hotel bed with his little laptop, set the stage for what is to come, the vast disjunction between these mundane surroundings and his imminent, world-shattering revelations is almost comical.

But there is nothing comical about Snowden’s motivations. Reacting to the unprecedented covert US government programs dedicated to monitoring electronic communications, he says, “As I saw the promise of the Obama administration betrayed, and walked away from, it really hardened me to action.” For all his outward calm, Snowden comes across as a spurned idealist. He understands the personal consequences of his actions: “If I get arrested, I get arrested.” (The film hints, at the very end, that there is a second whistle-blower, much higher up than Snowden. Stay tuned.)

Poitras clearly shares Snowden’s animus, and she interlaces the film with extensive corroborating footage, including interviews with retired NSA technical director William Binney, who discusses with devastating forthrightness the dangers of unchecked government access to all manner of personal communications. She includes hearings in which government officials appear to be lying about their noncomplicity. The film takes aim at President Obama, indicting him for his stepped-up drone strikes, for his expansion of the George W. Bush era of covert surveillance, and for his administration’s attempt to indict Snowden for espionage.

It’s not surprising, given this film’s sympathies, that Poitras doesn’t delve into the legalities of Snowden’s actions or the efficacy of big-time surveillance as an anti-terrorist tool. (Perhaps she believed, wrongly I think, that to do so would detract from Snowden’s cause.) She also seems tone-deaf to the irony of Snowden currently being given political asylum in Moscow by that great champion of human rights, Vladimir Putin. If this is a movie about freedom, as its makers attest, then the freedoms being championed are selectively displayed.

The larger point in “Citizenfour” is that dictatorships have always relied on the massive gathering of information in order to control their populations. In this brave new cyber world, it is all too easy for democracies to cross the line, too. Grade: A- (This film is not rated.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.