Snowden

My favorite movie from director Oliver Stone is "World Trade Center" because it is honest in its depiction of the true story. The only other films of his I have seen are "JFK" and "W." Both of those movies concern controversial topics and are not very objective ("JFK" is far from objective). "Snowden" is also not objective and considering that the events of this film are still quite recent, we must be careful not to accept the representation of this story as fact. I was hoping this movie was going to be a little exciting like "Enemy of the State". Even "JFK" was compelling but despite the acting in "Snowden", it didn't entertain all that much and the swearing & partial nudity were a distraction. I will do my best to not focus on my opinion on Snowden but instead on the movie itself.

The real life Edward Snowden revealed things we already suspected about the government. The drama of this true-life story did not come from what was revealed but how the whistleblower evaded prosecution (thus far). As a result, this movie falls short of being dramatic because more time is spent on depicting Snowden's career pre-2013. A lot of people love a Robin Hood-type character and I am sure that is what Stone was hoping would draw audiences in to see this picture. I personally believe in obeying the law but this film raises a good question about what to do when the law is no longer just. The US itself was created out of revolution after all. Only time will tell whether Snowden did the right thing and it is too soon to make any judgment. Stone, like a lot of people however, are already prepared to pardon him and this film clearly depicts him in a good light. At the start of the film, we see Snowden in Special Forces training. The end credits depict how Snowden's actions created change. It should be understood though that the plot is not completely historically accurate and this is the case with many films based on true stories. In real life, Snowden began thinking about leaking information as early as Geneva. He also didn't steal everything in one instance as shown in the film. Speaking of that, the trailer spoils the way that Snowden steals the NSA files. This resulted in an unsatisfying climax. There is a way to create suspense even if the audience already knows the ending of the story. Finally, "Snowden" seems to suggest that the title character was finally compelled to do what he did because of his love for his girlfriend. This alteration, more than any other, sure makes Edward more into a hero if he acted out of love. The point I am trying to make is that Stone is sticking less to the facts and more to his opinion of the man. He is entitled to do so as a filmmaker but I just don't want this movie to be cited as reality like "JFK" was. At the very end of the movie, Snowden is being interviewed via the Internet and there is a switch from Joseph Gordon-Levitt to the real Edward Snowden. I feel this was a bad choice for more than one reason. It is true that a lot of movies show the real individuals they are portraying at the end of the movie but it is always done either through cameo, archival footage or a recent interview on the occasion of the production. To have the real man suddenly show up to conclude performing the final scene in place of the actor portraying him doesn't create realism but rather takes away the fashioned sense of reality that any movie must establish at its beginning. This isn't a postmodern-style of film like "Annie Hall" so this choice feels out of place. Also, switching to the real Edward Snowden is another way for Stone to persuade his audience to accept his opinion. If filmmakers want to make a point on an issue, they should conclude their "argument" by giving us the freedom to make up our own minds. In the case of both "JFK" and "Snowden", Stone ironically doesn't give us that option. By using the real Edward Snowden, Stone is symbolically saying, "There is no alternative viewpoint."

I found no major problems with the acting in this show. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance was pretty good but in some scenes, his real voice would come across more so than in other scenes. He did a better job in "The Walk" in staying in character. By the way, Gordon-Levitt likened Snowden to Philippe Petit but I don't think it is a good comparison. Petit surrendered himself to authority after achieving his dream. Besides, Snowden is no dreamer or artist. Furthermore, enough time has passed and certain events have happened to allow us to better judge Petit's actions while Snowden is still a very controversial figure. There are some other familiar actors in "Snowden". I knew I had seen the actor playing Glenn Greenwald before for example. Without the Vulcan ears and hair, Zachary Quinto it appears isn't subject to being typecast so that is good. It may not come as a surprise to find out that this movie had to be filmed mostly in Germany and European companies financed it because no companies affiliated with the US wanted to back the project. There were even fears about the NSA meddling during production. I was surprised to find out that Stone missed his own mother's funeral because of time and budget constrains on the film. I don't know if I could do that.

The reason I went to this movie was because I was hoping for a psychological thriller of some kind, especially during the climax. I didn't get that. "Snowden" was not dramatic enough and not engaging enough for my tastes. I knew that going in that Oliver Stone's viewpoint would clash from my own. As a religious person, I believe in an omniscient God. If I am always watching my thoughts, words and actions because of an all-knowing Father, why should I be more afraid of Big Brother? Because Stone is such a talented filmmaker though, I am a little concerned that others might accept this film without looking more into the subject. As with "JFK", Stone has changed parts of the story to make the main character seem more heroic. I may be too worried because there doesn't appear to be any buzz surrounding this film now that it has been released.

3 Stars