Edward Snowden is in Moscow, a hero to some and traitor to others, and in the United States discusses what should be done with him, forgive him or continue waiting for the moment that can punish him. This context must not be forgotten before the movie of Oliver Stone, because Snowden is a product of it, from the context, it is more an instrument of political pressure, than a reflection or questioning of the case of Snowden and its implications, is more of a way to display the a light immaculately positive in an attempt to answer the question, "who is, in fact, Edward Snowden"?
Stone has no doubts, and at the moment that discusses whether it is a saint or a villain, the basic assumption of Snowden is that it is a holy and a saint is depicted. Nor is it necessary to be more close to the position of the Stone than of the contrary position to suspect that "the life of a saint," as holy as this. The pecha greater of Snowden is to protect so well your protagonist that neither the temptation of the diabolical appears in full. Explicamo us: if Snowden is displayed, from the beginning, as an avowed conservative (but not especially bigoted or entrenched, and sufficiently reasonable to be able to have a girlfriend "liberal") and genuinely believing in the goodness of the actions of spy electronics that develops for the CIA, NSA, etc., only will slowly going down to the "other side" (we see it twist through the election of Obama in 2008), even in a process that pampers the confessed track politician’s own Oliver Stone the moment of epiphany is completely failed. That moment, that could be the best scene of the film, in which his colleague introduces him to the amazing power of the PRISM, the surveillance system that virtually allows you to know everything about all the citizens of the entire world ever to have left some kind of trail to e-mail.
the Human would be if one saw, in the face of Snowden, the shadow of a temptation, a half-second of hesitation before the fascination and the power that similar machinery offer. But if Snowden feels some kind of temptation or attraction (say, to simplify, by Evil), no matter quaão elusive, it does not see. Such as a Stone, its position is established and defined at the outset. The film wins there it is-a holy, but loses a character.
And then it is a subject quite eeyore, divided between the mock biographical (echoes, at the beginning, Born on the 4th of July) given in the vignettes without depth, and a reenactment of the moment of 2013 that Snowden met in a Hong Kong hotel, with a group of journalists in the west (where the pontifical Laura Poitras, who then turned the record of the meeting in a movie, Citizenfour, much more interesting than the Stone). Between the vague "suspense" of these scenes and the shallowness of the biography the movie is lost in a succession of dialogues exemplary, very campo/contracampo and a lot of "talking head", in a style (if the word "style" makes sense when applied to the cinema of Oliver Stone) so neutral and uninteresting as that of a vulgar telefilme, before you close the game there is including, in the end, the plans of the real Snowden with music and lighting to tend to the tribute, and for the "elegy". It is finally the goal of Stone, to reach a long-term "spot" to promote the image of Snowden, but the honesty with which your intention is contained by the film does not come to save Snowden to be just what it is. It is to mourn what is not: a reflection on the era of post-privacy, on the "thousand eyes of Dr. Mabuse" Fritz Lang imagined in the beginning of the 1960s (in his last film), and that only now the world really came through. And, in its abstraction, "prospective", the film of Lang still explains to us more about the world in which we live than the poverty, descriptive, virtuous, and hagiográfica of Snowden.
No comments:
Post a Comment