I do not know the law, but also in politics I don’t have much interest. Besides, there are enough controversies surrounding the infringement of citizens’ privacy by those in power in the name of maintaining stability. I just want to talk about this film from the perspective of the film itself.
First of all, it must be clear that the film is not a typical documentary that exposes social issues or takes science as its mission in the traditional sense. These films are often full of figures, facts, and chattering interviews. Even if they cover multiple viewpoints, they are basically biased. Citizenfour belongs to the category of experimental documentaries that have emerged in recent years. It is the same as Leviathan and The Act of Killing in 2013. They focus on presenting a full-scale immersive viewer experience. Monitoring the storm is a major social event with continued media enthusiasm, and it can hardly be downplayed. The director chose a first-person perspective, following the style of cinéma vérité, affirming that the camera and her own intervention as one of the parties is a wise, bold and natural choice. (Actually, the first two parts of her "Post 9/11" trilogy are both traditional styles of exposing social issues), but this means that she has to sacrifice the balance of discourse and political guidance to achieve an impromptu experience of the ongoing history. . This is her reconciliation of aesthetics and news value, and it is this reconciliation that completes the motion, horror and power of the whole film.
At the beginning, the Hong Kong tunnel with light and shadow flowing outside the car window led to the director's identity as an eyewitness, and also showed her desperate inner state. Since then, most of the shots have been static observations, peeling away the peace of the surface in constant attention, revealing the surging inner tide of Snowden and other characters. The leaker and the reporter, from unfamiliar, questioning to going hand in hand, started a dialogue around the report plan, secrecy measures and the content of the secret document, gestures in the air, silence, the line of sight outside the window, and the telephone at the front desk and the fire alarm intermittently interrupt the conversation. Inject the color of a closed space suspense drama into the passages of Hong Kong hotel rooms. Mathilde Bonnefoy, the editor of "Lola Run", also contributed to the arrangement and reorganization of these static images into a thriller movie. It was common for Poitras to be searched and questioned at an American airport, but the filming of this film made her realize that she could no longer return to the United States, so she temporarily decided to stay in Berlin to handle the later stage of the film. Bonnefoy not only joined at this time, but also helped Poitras who had returned from Hong Kong together with her husband.
Although the title is Snowden's pseudonym, and the poster shows his beautiful image, the film does not idolize him, and the "biopic" is even more nonsense. After watching the film, our understanding of Snowden is still limited to his words and deeds in the storm. Apart from some basic information, we still don’t know anything about his character and growth trajectory (these are in Glenn Greenwald There is a detailed description in the book), all I can be sure of is his wisdom, courage and sophisticated thinking, and in the last shot outside the Moscow house, I lamented that he and his girlfriend Lindsay are a beautiful couple. Snowden said that he handed over all the documents to reporters in order to prevent his identity and prejudice from affecting the development of the event ("remove my bias from the equation"), but it is undeniable that he is the key to this equation. Items, but nothing more. He is the main character, but by no means the protagonist of the biography.
Some people say that the film's views are unbalanced. I want to ask, what is the point of view? In a 110-minute film, there are few paragraphs that directly accuse the United States of wiretapping. The selection of relevant quotations (including Snowden himself) is also very limited, and Obama’s "heart-felt" words are still seen on TV. And the remarks of the guests sent by the government. I suspect that those viewers who feel that their views are not balanced are also because they have mastered a lot of facts and have preconceived impressions under the bombardment of the Snowden incident in the past two years. Besides, the U.S. government will not be so stupid as to openly and openly eavesdrop on the ins and outs of the plan, trying to exchange transparency in exchange for public sympathy. Poitras also said in the interview that it was not deliberately not wanting to include the voice of the National Security Bureau. It would be best if they could someone stand up and speak for this film, but this did not happen. This confrontation between individuals and institutions is destined to be due to imbalanced information and unbalanced views. If you want a balanced view, then read the text reports of the major media. As a journalist, I know that balance of views is a career. The importance of standards, but at the level of human nature, it is self-deception. I think this may be one of the reasons why more filmmakers evade the bridge of rumors and choose natural presentation.
In fact, this film is about the experience of several people trying to expose a major news event. It is straightforward and simple. If the film really has a point, it is: confronting the government is dangerous and irritating for individuals.
But having said that, there is certainly no right or wrong to judge a movie. If others can't regard Citizenfour as an experiential movie and insist on using traditional documentary standards to demand it, then I fully understand their negative comments. In fact, it depends on where you stand and from which direction you look. And I don’t shy away from talking about my love for Leviathan and The Act of Killing-some people criticize these two films for nothing, and even question the professionalism and sense of responsibility of the filmmakers. Everyone's short-sightedness and one-sided thinking are only the difference between fifty steps and one hundred steps.
Back to the film. Poitras won the Pulitzer Prize for Snowden Reporting, but still puts the absolute focus of his career on the shooting and production of documentary films, fighting fast-food and fragmented media trends, and striving to find news events with universal value. "Human experiences". When media and audiences who are eager for quick success and quick gains join forces to break in-depth reports into the cold, more and more filmmakers shoulder the dual responsibility of pursuing aesthetics and restoring the truth. They are willing to sacrifice a little more safety in exchange for a little more creative freedom, trying to make reality have a deeper and broader tension through visual experience, which is commendable. In this sense, Citizenfour is a declaration. As suggested by the end of the film, higher-level revealers stepped up under the leadership of Snowden, and I believe Poitras' works will also lead more people to explore reality with deep eyes. And Snowden, my peers, are always humiliating/inspiring me, pointing out how much wisdom and courage a 30-year-old can have in this chaotic and peaceful era.
View more about Citizenfour reviews
