Citizenfour

...and given the constraints they were operating under, maybe that much could not be revealed.

The first 20 minutes or so are of Ed, who isn't even known to the world yet, talking to a couple of journalists he has invited to his Hong Kong hotel room where he is hiding out from a system that doesn't even know he is missing yet. In a way, I'm surprised they came because about ten minutes into the conversation one says "What is your name again?", so maybe they had no idea what they were getting into, maybe at first they thought they were dealing with a crackpot, etc.

Some people have said it is boring, and I don't know why. Although you never get any real specifics about what Snowden did have on the NSA, you get an idea from him just sitting on his bed in his tee shirt talking to these journalists that he has seen stuff that has made him hyper vigilant. He puts a red hood over him when he types in a password to his laptop in case there is visual surveillance, he unplugs the phone because it contains ICs that can be used as a "hot mike", and he is highly suspicious when the fire alarms go off just as he is talking about what he knows. His fear is real.

I think this preliminary footage may have just been a way to show a human side of Ed. I mean, a lot of the documentary (on top of revealing more details of the secrets he leaked) is meant to show to the world that he's not crazy bob in his trailer in Nevada. He's a young, very smart, very articulate, very normal individual. Showing him simply struggling with his hair (something I'm sure most of us have dealt with at one point or another) demonstrates to us that he's not a mysterious conspiracy theorist to be dismissed; he's just like you and I. And the human quality makes us trust what he has to say a lot more. It's easy to ignore someone you think is crazy. It's not so easy to ignore someone in whom you see a little bit of yourself.

As for Glenn Greenwald of UK's The Guardian, he's shown as an articulate spokesman and advocate. He goes to Brazil and explains to them that all of this surveillance is just not about fighting terrorism. He brings his case home to them by saying if they were bidding on a contract in the US, then all of the details of their negotiations and plans to get that contract are now in the hands of the US government, and could be put in the hands of any American competitor.

The negatives? There is a part at the end that is not clearly explained. It is a conversation between Greenwald and Snowden about there being another contact in Germany that is ready to talk about what he knows about NSA surveillance. Some extremely unclear pictures are drawn and Snowden looks somewhat horrified saying stuff like "This is very risky. Does this guy know what he is doing, etc." He is really scared for the new contact, but it is never clear what is going on. The only other negative I have is, did the print explaining the transition between scenes HAVE to be so small? I had to pause the DVD and get up close to the screen to see what was being said.

I'd highly recommend this documentary just based on the fact that it pulls together some of the information that has now been scrubbed from public sources, shows Snowden as a human being, shows the bravery of both himself and Glenn Greenwald, and brings up that pesky question - is giving up such privacy - which as the documentary mentions is pretty much a synonym for liberty - worth it for increased security. Benjamin Franklin seemed to think that was not so. Watch it with an open mind.

I thought Citizenfour was quite powerful as a humanizing portrayal of Snowden. I didn't learn anything new particularly about NSA programs, since I've been reading each story I come across, but the film quite effectively transported me into Snowden's hotel room in Hong Kong and into conversations with Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras and MacAskill. Snowden comes off as a completely responsible, quite sincere, thoughtful young man. He very clearly and explicitly says that he does not want to be the story, and one believes him. Whereas Assange can impress people as narcissistic and Bradley/Chelsea Manning's sexual confusion was only one of a number of facets which distracted from Cablegate, Snowden sounds like a young Ellsberg – very intelligent and well-spoken.

Poitras's style was interesting, I thought. The camera a number of times holds for lengthy periods on fairly static shots of architecture, which served to impress the viewer with the monolithic, pervasive nature of the NSA's networks. There's a long disorienting shot out the window of a train at night or going through a tunnel, which draws you into the dark network Snowden's revealing.

The film successfully touches on a number of different aspects of the surveillance state, bringing in the idea that when we talk about "privacy" we're talking about security, about our constitutional right to freedom from unlawful search and seizure. I think this is a hard sell for too many viewers. I don't fault the film here. I saw it with a friend who was a few minutes late because she was watching the Giants' game. In discussing the movie afterward she questioned just how important some of the issues raised were. Greenwald and others speak passionately about the dangers of the surveillance state, but my date pointed out that she can't feel much fear that the NSA is going to be breaking down her door because of anything she's said on the phone or in e-mail. My own experience is that friends and colleagues on the one hand self-censor and don't mention politics, drugs, Bittorrent use, etc. in e-mail or social media for fear of the all-knowing eye, or on the other hand seem oblivious to any danger – why worry about Google programmatically reading every single e-mail sent or received, if it means free e-mail and potentially more accurate search results when shopping? Snowden at one point convincingly says he doesn't think it is possible for anyone no matter how brilliant and educated to individually fight all the electronic surveillance systems in existence. We're told of the multitude of methods of surveillance and repeatedly shown NSA officials blatantly lying to Congress about their existence. The lack of accountability for this last has been personally troubling to me – I remember Watergate and Iran-Contra – how is it that the heads of the NSA can with impunity flat out lie to Congress about spying on American citizens? What will viewers come away with when walking out of the theater after Citizenfour? I'm wondering how many will see it as a call to action, and how many as a well-executed depiction of Edward Snowden's experience, which may not be seen as intersecting our own.

Greetings again from the darkness. Edward Snowden. You know the name and you know the story. Hero of the People or Enemy of the State? Ultimate Patriot or a double-spy for the Russians? Protected as a Whistle-Blower or Guilty of Treason? Chances are you long ago made up your mind on how you view Ed (his stated name preference).

In January 2013, Snowden contacted documentarian Laura Poitras via an anonymous email name "Citizenfour". By June, the two were meeting in a Hong Kong hotel along with journalist Glenn Greenwald. What follows is a mesmerizing look at the actual footage shot of Greenwald interviewing Snowden. This is Ed Snowden before the media storm. This is Ed Snowden continually proclaiming that he is not the story, and he is trusting Greenwald to determine what documents are fit for public release. He voices concern about jeopardizing national security, while at the same time being adamant about exposing the immense and widespread governmental tracking of digital movements by millions of people … most with no known ties to terrorism.

The timeline is public record, so the core of the film is really an intimate look at the man who, acutely aware of the coming fallout, proceeded with pulling the curtain back on NSA actions that he deemed inappropriate. Ms. Poitras structures the film as a thriller, and it will certainly cause tension in every viewer. We can't help but put ourselves in Snowden's shoes. Would we feel the need to go public with proof? Who would we tell? How would we tell them? Would we be willing to release our name, knowing it could put everyone we love in danger? Would we be prepared to watch our President publicly call us out as unpatriotic and a danger to the nation? These questions are impossible for us to answer, but add weight to the scenes of Snowden answering Greenwald's questions while Ms. Poitras works the camera.

One of the more interesting points made in the movie is that what we once termed individual freedom and liberties, is now couched as privacy. We have come to expect our privacy, and certainly don't appreciate our government digging through our emails, search history, texts and phone calls. But how to balance the individual "right" to privacy with the government's need to collect intelligence in the name of national security? That's the key question, and one with no clear answer.

Regardless of your opinion on Snowden and his actions, the film presents him as an idealist believing he is doing the right thing. Most of this occurs before the media firestorm, but we do see the anticipated fallout. Once Snowden goes into hiding, we witness Greenwald becoming the face and voice of the cause. He is a talented journalist and exceptional speaker, and doesn't back down from the reaction of those who stand accused.

The film allows us to take notice of the personal attacks on Snowden as an attempt discredit his documentation. Making Snowden the story distracted the media and the general public from the real issue. It's a fascinating film that will surely make you uncomfortable and cause re-evaluation of the chain of events. You may not change your mind, but you will most certainly have a better understanding of the human side.

As I write this, a few days after the film's release, so far only three users have posted reviews about it on IMDb. Given that the film ends with the revelation that 1,200,000 people are on the US government's watchlist of people under surveillance, if you're contemplating adding a positive review, the first question that you have to ask yourself is: will this make me number 1,200,001? I've followed the media stories detailing the contents of the documents Snowden leaked, so that part of the film wasn't new to me, and in fact I felt some of Snowden's more serious disclosures were underexplored in the film, maybe because of their somewhat technical nature. If you're looking for a documentary that lays out in detail all the ins and outs of what the NSA is up to, this isn't it. The main strength of the film lies in its portrait of Snowden as a person. The filmmaker and other journalists basically meet Snowden in person for the first time with cameras running, and it's fascinating to watch them getting to know one another in such a highly charged, high stakes situation. Snowden is very articulate and precise, and obviously motivated by a very moral sense of right and wrong, in much the same way as Daniel Ellsberg. Whether or not you agree with Snowden, the film definitely undercuts criticism of him as being unpatriotic or mercenary. The documentary works well as an introduction to the Snowden story for those only casually aware of it, and also as a tense real world political thriller, sort of like Three Days Of The Condor come to life, but without the gunmen and Faye Dunaway. All in all, a very important film that everyone should see.

You could call it me sleeping under a rock or something, but yeah, I didn't really know anything about this NSA scandal or Edward Snowden. Actually, his name seemed familiar so I'm sure I had heard some passing comments, but I didn't know the real and full story. The documentary's take on him, and on what is happening as it is being shot, gives it a real tension that so many docs just aren't able to have. I haven't seen 2 of the 5 nominees for the Oscar, but from the other two I have, this is better and would make a deserving winner. In many ways it functions as a thriller even if it's very low-key and very quiet in its execution. It's a great film, one that's sure to be ingrained in many people's minds.