'Snowden' is a fawning piece of work

'Snowden' stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Snowden and depicts what led Snowden to expose the U.S. government’s secret, warrent-less surveillance of its citizens in 2013 after he served as a computer analyst in the CIA and National Security Agency as a self-described patriot.

Open Road Films/AP
'Snowden' stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Oliver Stone’s “Snowden” has his usual directorial gusto going for it – visually, if not in almost every other way, it’s not boring – but it’s a fawning piece of work. It’s about Edward Snowden and what led him to expose the U.S. government’s secret, warrent-less surveillance of its citizens in 2013 after he served as a computer analyst in the CIA and National Security Agency as a self-described patriot. In unloosing these secrets and exposing covert operations, Snowden still believes he is being a patriot, but Stone is too smitten to offer up any counterarguments. Had Stone done so, he would have strengthened his own argument; the way he’s done it, the entire enterprise seems rigged. The aura of sainthood thickens the atmosphere.

As Snowden, Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a straightforward performance that is almost semi-documentary in its matter-of-factness. There’s not much dimensionality to him because Stone and his co-screenwriter, Kieran Fitzgerald, haven’t conceived of him as a fully dimensional human being. They make a big deal about his long-term relationship with his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley), as if this would humanize him for us, but he remains blandly opaque throughout.

Laura Poitras’s Oscar-winning 2014 Snowden documentary “Citizenfour” is, almost inevitably, a stronger experience. That, too, was a species of political thriller but, unlike Stone’s film, it’s actually thrilling. Grade: C+ (Rated R for language and some sexuality/nudity.)

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.