我们窃取秘密维基解密的故事

我们让渡自己的一部分权利，组成政府，给予了它公权，可是它却并不是完全按照我们所想地发展。政府也是自私的，在自身利益，在社会极少部分精英的控制下，它牺牲我们的利益，欺瞒我们，为了保障自身的地位，放弃人权、正义，违背我们的初衷，违背人类社会的道德的底线。每个政府都有自己不可告人的秘密，但当这样的秘密是和人类社会的伦理道德相抵触的时候，这时这样的秘密是否就需要公开？还是仅为保障政府而继续保密下去。我们在面对这些秘密的时候，是选择支持政府，还是为了人类？哪样才是真正的爱国，其中的冲突如何解决？我们是否有权保护这些抵触了人类利益的秘密？
政府的秘密是为了控制。但人类的社会难道就是为了那20%的精英所存在的？又或是只有牺牲那部分愚昧的人的利益，才能有进步？
我们应该站在一个什么样的立场去看待这个问题？
或许维基解密只是对人权的私力救济，对公权滥用的一种对抗。
但是，如何去界定秘密的底线呢？
如何去审判？
或许，永远不可能界定秘密的底线！

看完纪录片，我心情很复杂，记得第一次知道维基解密所做的事，知道维基解密的存在之后，我也跟那些大街上游行的人们一样激动，我感觉到终于有一个人站出来了，他站出来告诉我们一些事情，这些事情我们一直在猜测，但从来没有被证实，也没有依据，但它们就是存在的。但是，兼听则明，听到越来越多的声音之后，我不确定我是否坚信阿桑奇是对的。也许我们不愿意承认，但事实就是这个世界大部分情况下都被一群更强大心思更复杂的人们控制着，很多东西不是表面那么容易理解，不是一份资料被拿出来，就可以立马判断正误，我们不能因为最表面的现象就去轻易的指责一群人，指责一些政府，我们能做的，应该是像马丁路德金一样，寻求更加平和的方式让这个世界更美好，而不是以最简单的方式告诉民众所有的事情，这样的极端透明会让社会上出现更多不安分因素。总之，我希望世界更美好，但是，应该是以最平和的方式......

We Steal Secrets: the Story of Wikileaks

Pitch:
   This is the story about two people and their secrets stealing journey: Julian Assange, builder of Wikileaks, considered by some as free-speech hero and by others as traitors and terrorists. Bradley Manning, young soldier who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents to Wikileaks.
Access and Editing
Alex said: "the biggest challenge was how to tell the story, and particularly how to tell the story when the two main characters either can't or won't talk to you” (Digital Spy). I think he solved both problems well. He used footage from Mark Davis. This is inspirational. Many people film the same subject and not all of them will be able to come up with a film. Using their interviews and footages is wonderful. The animation of Manning’s chat with Lama is fantastic. I think I learned enough of Manning from his words. According to Alex, Assuage believes that “a documentary about him and WikiLeaks cannot be truthful if he does not participate (The Monthly). He is wrong. Of course the documentary can be truthful without him.
I like the way he started with Assange’s background. Alex said: " I was pretty conscious that I wanted people to feel enormous sympathy and affection for Assange, for maybe a good half of the film, and then it changes.” This is a character study. Showing all aspects of Assange makes him human. Alex said: “it is about human beings, and how flawed human beings can do incredible things. …To pretend that people are supermen is an illusion, and ultimately is a trap” (Businessweek).

Subtext
   More than just a character study, this is a story about the Internet era. Like Alex said: “It’s all about the contradictions of the internet in terms of privacy, secrecy, transparency, and also truth and lies”(Collider). I think one of the things that the film says is almighty Internet need human stand behind it, making decisions. Wikileaks was a leaking machine in Assange’s hands. Information and transparency is not everything. The desire to reveal information shouldn’t overcome the people who might be affected by these information (Flavor Wire).
Again, this is a story about truth and lie and “noble cause corruption”. The idea that because you do something good, it entitles you to be a little bit bad is not acceptable. The ends cannot justify the means.

Gift:
Play about Two Rights is Drama
Alex’s father is a journalist. I think that might influential on his subject choosing style. “Enron”, “Lance Armstrong”, “Wikileaks”, “Park Avenue” are all sensational topics and at the same time all have some timeless elements.
Alex’s way of telling a story fits my ideal form of documentary. Alex said: “ when it comes to a story like this, follow the story, and I hope it rattles around in people’s heads after they watch it because the story itself is so compelling and interesting, but it doesn’t provide any simple answers.” Alex’s films are manipulative in terms of manipulating people to think and to question.
Is he manipulative in terms of what answer would people come up with? Yes. He quoted his documentary hero, Marcel Ophuls, saying: “I always have a point of view but the trick is showing the people how hard it was to come to that point of view.” And then he continued with his theory: “I think the film has an angle and the film has a point of view but at the same time... the story is not told through experts.... It’s really told by the protagonists and that’s what I think makes it interesting.” The person he chose to interview and facts he choose to include are very much intentional. Later on, he quoted George Bernard Shaw, who said a play about a right and a wrong is melodrama. A play about two rights is drama. (Flavor Wire).

这片挺长的我也不想重头找bug。说说我记住的。
结尾几个记者，前维基解密人员强调“阿桑奇不是领导者，比起他曼宁才是真正泄密者。”
exm???曼宁不是什么天才黑客只是恰巧接触到国家机密然后刻碟带出来泄露给维基解密好么？？然后自己嘴巴大轻信别人导致事情败露被捕ok??
还有一个巨大bug....一个德国的前维基解密员工之前说是阿桑奇解雇他最后又说自己离职？？神经病啊？？

这片倾向性太重了。根本就是在误导人。一个记者说阿桑奇在全世界跟四个女人生了四个孩子....阿桑奇全世界环游就算跟别人打炮也不可能一次就中吧？还中四次？？这种屁话还要放出来？？导演真是居心不良啊。
阿桑奇具体什么性格谁都不知道。因为他已经变成了一个符号人物。
我们唯一知道的是，作为一个黑客他敢于把自己当成活靶子，创建维基解密让真相被大众所知 。他是真正伟大的人！！
所以……不要被这个狗屎纪录片误导！！导演居心不良啊啊！

豆瓣总是给人惊喜，有时低分给的人莫名其妙，有时高分又慷慨的让人一头雾水。还是三言两语讲完。

内容上的批评豆瓣上的另一篇影评It is not a documentary.已经说得不错了。大抵是批评这电影挂羊头卖狗肉，说是公正的叙事，说是阿桑奇主演，结果被批评者都没有机会发言。这里补充几点叙事方法跟演员阵容上的吐槽。

首当其冲，挂着“纪录片”的名号，但拍出来的却是好莱坞大制作一般的故事片，奇峰迭起，峰回路转，不给观众思考的机会，只想一步步引导观众向指定的方向走去，活像那些智商跟实力都欠佳的反派们。

在阿桑奇问题上，前半段集中处理丰功伟绩，一片歌功颂德，却醉翁之意不在酒，主要目的是塑造起一大片活灵活现的“阿桑奇战友”形象。后半段柳暗花明，战友们集中反水，揭示影片主题：这白头佬就是个变态。而且大家伙反水的理由都是一面之词，并且说得有声有色，记得有一个是说“他太疑神疑鬼了，随时都好像有人在跟踪他似的！”（我去），听到有些理由我都很认真地笑喷出水。

在曼宁问题上，来得更为直白：这家伙从小就是个有孤僻症的基佬，可能还有癫痫或者别的什么。总之本身就不正常。真想跟导演说，这跟你那一块要讲的道德难题有屁的关系啊。

有一点随口吐槽掉，那个揭发曼宁的阿德里安，导演你就不能做一些处理吗？看看整个片子里出现的人物，除了这位大哥还有哪一位是微张着死鱼眼睛一眼看上去就像是磕了药的？这大哥第一天号召爆料然后第二天别人一爆料就内心动摇了，谁都不找直接跑去找当政府间谍的朋友（真牛逼，朋友是政府间谍）倾吐内心的纠结，接着就毅然决然举报了。尼玛从头到尾就演了一出钓鱼的好戏啊！

最后关于喜闻乐见的强奸案。根据影片的当事人采访跟各方叙述，我大略概括一下事实：一个男性业界明星出来演讲，一个小姑娘不畏流言邀请这个明星到自己家里过夜，大家顺理成章就发生那档子事了。过程中不知怎么的套子就破了（据小姑娘说是明星主动撕破的），事后小姑娘虽然没得艾滋，但是想想觉得有些后怕，于是图个心安让已经饱受关注的明星到医院去做个艾滋检查。明星誓死不从。于是也不知道多长时间之后，小姑娘跟另一位有相同经历的同志为了迫使明星去做检查（这理由很牛啊），前去报了警。除此之外，还有两个推测，一是明星有艾滋病，故意想传染给“无辜”的小姑娘们；二是明星一生漂泊，有留根心理，希望让对方怀孕。明星不置可否，观众多方猜测，战友们在此关键时刻又与小姑娘站在同一阵线，他这个强奸案虽然离奇，这几个推测虽然诡异，但是事关事实，本文没有证据，因此只表个人态度，不做评论。

总而言之，如果说这个所谓的纪录片希望做到中立，那么事实上它是假装了一副客观公正的立场，却用各种貌似有理的错误推理误导了观众；如果说它希望阐发自己的态度，那么事实上它又千方百计要伪装中立。说到底是想替xx立牌坊，但是手段低廉，只能寄希望于观众被猴戏骗过。骗不过时，就像在IMDB，拿个5.7分，惹一片骂声。骗得过时，也像在IMDB，让人写一篇Actually a pretty good, fair（公正的）, telling of a yet unresolved（尚未解决的） story的奇葩雄文。