It is rather sleazy that they tried to portray Assange as a self-obsessed, egomaniacal cult leader of some kind. Claiming he was in a cult and bleaches his hair, etc. Quite an ad hominem (even if the movie is not intended to be a documentary or a polemic). People are going to watch the movie, see that, and go "oh, what a nut job" even though it's completely fictional.<p>Really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Also the claims that Assange is responsible for the harm or death of Americans, or that they later leaked unredacted documents.<p>The Social Network's dramatization of Zuckerberg wasn't nearly that acrid, in comparison.
I found the memo quite insightful as it goes into specific details on why and how the movie depiction differs from their perspective. Some quotes from the memo:<p>"THE FIFTH ESTATE falsely implies that WikiLeaks harmed 2,000 US government informants. ... US Brig. Gen. Robert Carr – who was tasked to investigate this matter by the Pentagon – in fact stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever."<p>"Although THE FIFTH ESTATE purports to be about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the film was made without the involvement of WikiLeaks or any of its staff, including Julian Assange. ... The multi-million dollar production, produced by Dreamworks and distributed by Disney, has not financially contributed to WikiLeaks or any of its defence funds."
>> "stated under oath when examined by the defense counsel that there was no harm whatsoever"<p>First, I don't actually believe that the Wikileaks releases (Manning's) really caused that much damage, in fact we came out smelling like roses in most cases, our allies however frequently looked like asses (think Saudis wanting to tag gitmo inmates with bird trackers).<p>The thing here to consider is 1) by the Wikileaks statement above it would seem that the purpose was never to counter US interests [calling bullshit here, support or oppose Assange/WL != pro US gov], so it is disingenuous at best to us the lack of damaging information to suggest that WL was not an anti-USG group.<p>Is the Disney film less than fully accurate? I'd bet so, it's a commercial endeavor.<p>I'm more disappointed that Wikileaks chose to focus on the USG and GB than all of the upstanding states around the world like Syria, Russia, North Korea, and China. Sure, when the US fucks up, call us out on it, that's part of an informed democracy.<p>WL/Assange pretended to be the vanguard of transparency (and when they first announced such ambitions I actually was rooting for them). Instead of focusing on the most opaque and oppressive governments, they focused on finding the warts on governments that by and large are respective of human rights. Russia? Fuck it you get a pass because Assange doesn't have ricin-proof pants yet. NK? Do you know how hard it is to get documents from there?<p></rant><p>Seriously though, I am disappointed. When they stood up I thought they were going to actually go after folks who actively opposed free speech and human rights. Instead they went after the targets that were easiest to create media stories out of. I would like for Wikileaks to get the memos on the election rigging in Azerbaijan, I would like for them to get the UN memos between RF and Syria. To borrow the line from Rick, I don't mind a whistle blower, I just mind a cut rate one.
Very insightful for me the most interesting part was near the end where it outlines -<p>"The most significant journalists and whistleblowers in the world (that) are either political exiles, political prisoners, or the targets of criminal investigations by an overreaching security state."<p>Many of these I had heard of but many more I had not... It's a little chilling honestly.
This movie seems a lot more like character assassination than either fictionalized storytelling or documentary. It's not as though the Wikileaks story lacks drama, moral ambiguity, or a couple of clear villains when told accurately. This begs the question - why give a wildly inaccurate version of events if it isn't significantly enriching the film?
Couldn't they sue the film-makers for defamation / libel / slander (whichever one it is) for the "2,000 informants harmed" claim?<p>Be hard for the "Based on a true story" defense to work for that I would think.
Can ayone explain this statement that Wikileaks makes?<p><pre><code> Sarah Harrison, the WikiLeaks journalist who accompanied
Edward Snowden from Hong Kong and assisted his successful
asylum bid, is in effective exile in Russia.
</code></pre>
Why is she 'effectively in exile'? What would she be charged with if she returned to the UK?