The Panama Papers

I applaude the documentarians for this excellent depiction of the investigative reporting of the John Doe whistleblower. I only wish it had more of an impact on the American political system and wallstreet billionares. Instrumental in understanding the wealth gap and its causes and ramifications on society.

If you don't know much about the controversy, this is a decent movie. If you do, you won't learn much new. The film is usually shot well, although the intentional camera movement in confessionals was jarring. Very much a "puff piece" for journalists that gets a bit heavy-handed at times. There are some really great parts with in-depth information... then there will be another random journo bragging about something they did (or their amazing colleagues), and nothing detailed involving the papers themselves. There are limited interviews with actual political figures, prosecutors, or tax experts. I'd be more interested in the people who programmed the system used to analyze the leaked data, or an expose on Mossack's history and clientele.

Beware of the highly positive professional critic reviews on this one, as the angle of this film is particularly palatable to your average professional film critic who works for a journalistic publication.

The Panama Papers is an exposé of the financial underworld and named much like "The Pentagon Papers" exposé of 1971. It's a mostly interesting account of the lengths the super rich will go to hide their wealth - many times illegally acquired - from taxing authorities. And these are not your banana republic dictators but First World leaders, celebrities, and sports figures. However, the account dwells a lot on the investigative efforts of journalists worldwide and the risks to them, and though that's of some interest, it seems to be more the focus of the film. I wasn't quite satisfied with this approach, nor the way it concluded. Sure, many govt leaders were forced to resign but why not prosecuted/jailed? The film could've delved into that, too, but didn't.

I enjoyed "The Panama Papers," mainly for its focus on the investigative journalists worldwide who collaboratively, painstakingly researched the massive story. This documentary unravels the complex financial shenanigans secretly managed by a shadowy Panama law firm, but also explains to viewers why all this matters so much-in terms you can understand and put into context even if you know nothing about finance, tax laws or banking. I did sense the filmmakers' strong political agenda, but that didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the film. It's educational and diverting.

Saw this at IDFA 2018, the International Documentary Festival in Amsterdam. The movie makes abundantly clear that corruption in the broadest sense of the word, is not confined to countries far away. Politicians in Europe and USA, as well as "fellow" citizens with more money than they can spend in a life time, go at any length to hide their assets. They do that mainly for tax evasion purposes. That observation is extra painful, given that richness and poverty are very unevenly distributed. By refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, they also avoid contributing to the solution of these problems.

This movie presents a very relevant overview of the situation as it is nowadays. However, as a movie it has its problems, because it is a difficult story to find appropriate visuals with. Talking heads are inevitable around topics like this, but what can be shown in the background, next to what they tell us?? The subjects are relevant, so that is not the issue here. But showing documents in passing, thereby highlighting text fragments and signatures, totally out of context, does not work for me. This form of presentation is not attractive in any way.

There are relevant remarks about the risks for the journalists involved. Ditto for the whistle blowers who provide the ground work for the published articles. The movie mentions some earlier whistle blowers, Manning and Snowden, despite having played their role in a very different context. Their names are explicitly mentioned here, if only to emphasize that their lives drastically changed after they went public. We know what happened to these two, which might work as a deterrent for followers in their footsteps. And the one journalist involved in the Panama papers, who lately became the victim of a car bomb, is also a frightening perspective. Their adversaries are powerful, their pockets are deep enough to pay any straw man, or assembling an army of sollicitors, and thus can easily get away with it.

All in all, despite some minor limitations in presenting the dry subject at hand, due to a lack of appealing visuals, the underlying issues are relevant enough to accept the lack of vividness as a fact of life, given the nature of the material.