Snowden (2016) – A strong resistance

“Snowden” is not really a documentary, because the script is a completely different view of a supposedly “American traitor” character, although the director still respects the real details. Even Oliver Stone had had real-life meetings with Edward “Snowden” in Moscow before the film was filmed, he found out what happened to him after publishing the series, and From there it has its own perspective on this guy. For me, Oliver Stone has taken advantage of the way in which a character’s life is reflected, to reflect a national landmark. According to his narrative, “Snowden” is not a criminal, nor a hero, he is a historical figure. He shows that World War 3, a war that the US government has been trying to prevent from happening overnight, a nuclear war that threatens to destroy the world order … is in fact playing out. Out on the information front. Oliver Stone may have been on the side of “Snowden”, precisely supporting the reason “Snowden” made the decision to reveal the secret. Possessing information is like having a weapon in your hand; you can hurt someone, or rescue the person depending on his ethical view, and the society is being operated as such. Former CIA secretary “Snowden” has affirmed his righteous actions to put “supposedly improper” jobs out of the light. He provides people with information, but how to treat their rights. But clearly, any citizen has the right to doubt his government when they have more information.

When watching “Snowden”, once again, audiences may face contradictions that exist in the political system: national security or personal freedom should be given priority? However, there is a catchphrase that this film mentions, but by simply showing Oliver Stone insist on controlling the information on the web of each individual, as David Fincher did in the film. The Social Network (2010). Both main characters are computer geniuses, but the way they go is different, and of course they get different favors. However, in my opinion, “Snowden” brings a stronger message, if a transcendental brain chooses a dangerous path, against the will of the government, for whatever purpose. , The more they will be judged and lonely. But on the other hand, assuming that “Snowden” ‘s mind is still under the control of the government, it is a threat to the whole world. A terrible “machine”, serving a political power ambitious, what is more dangerous? Wherever there is abuse of power, there is no exception to the power that tends to alienate people. War can take place. No one can say anything. The above details are also intended to highlight the cruel side of life, the level of human emotion. Spies like Snowden and his colleagues can touch the whole world with just a few mouse clicks, gliding through each other’s facebook with ease, watching their images. But the more you look at the screen, the risk of feeling the reality will be higher, typically reflected through the relationship between “Snowden” and Lindsay’s girlfriend. At work, their mouse clicks will also trigger a bomb in the Middle East, there will be many innocent people sacrificing nearby, but those who are working for the NSA are still sitting in front of the screen. To do his job.

This film is also a cold water shaker that Oliver Stone has thrown into the United States, a powerhouse with the top priority of human rights, when he did not hesitate to incorporate real human documentaries in a context. Make a decision, docudrama documens. Last scene, when people finally landed on the “Snowden” mask, a glimpse of Anonymous’s mask in V for Vendentta (2005), and this is Hong Kong, but the head of the United States remains stubborn. “Snowden” is still an American criminal. When watching the ending, I thought to myself, “Wow this movie star was released in the US?” – Actually, I forgot that the United States is still a country with very clear opponents, expressing views About government and breach of national information security laws are two different things. Therefore, “Snowden” is still a movie that needs to be screened for audiences to see and consult, and how they think the government can not intervene.

Besides the details of the battle with this character’s information, one interesting thing I found in this movie: What role does journalism play in such sensitive cases? The information they have to find, can not just be on announcements, or even Wikileaks, but from the main character. And how do they have to approach people like “Snowden”?

In addition, with a film that is filled with data, what kind of political and technological talk does it bring? I admit yes. The familiar cliche-like angles are not a big deal for my “Snowden” experience, as Oliver Stone provided a story. With “Snowden”, the truth with this person, sometimes a danger to others. Over time, the information may be old, people will forget “Snowden” and his trade off. The information weapon will be weakened, until then what else if not his ideal?

The truth will not be strong enough to save others from ignorance, without the heart still beating, as the nickname “heartbeat” of “Snowden” at the NSA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *