Cidadãoquatro

As I write this, a few days after the film's release, so far only three users have posted reviews about it on IMDb. Given that the film ends with the revelation that 1,200,000 people are on the US government's watchlist of people under surveillance, if you're contemplating adding a positive review, the first question that you have to ask yourself is: will this make me number 1,200,001? I've followed the media stories detailing the contents of the documents Snowden leaked, so that part of the film wasn't new to me, and in fact I felt some of Snowden's more serious disclosures were underexplored in the film, maybe because of their somewhat technical nature. If you're looking for a documentary that lays out in detail all the ins and outs of what the NSA is up to, this isn't it. The main strength of the film lies in its portrait of Snowden as a person. The filmmaker and other journalists basically meet Snowden in person for the first time with cameras running, and it's fascinating to watch them getting to know one another in such a highly charged, high stakes situation. Snowden is very articulate and precise, and obviously motivated by a very moral sense of right and wrong, in much the same way as Daniel Ellsberg. Whether or not you agree with Snowden, the film definitely undercuts criticism of him as being unpatriotic or mercenary. The documentary works well as an introduction to the Snowden story for those only casually aware of it, and also as a tense real world political thriller, sort of like Three Days Of The Condor come to life, but without the gunmen and Faye Dunaway. All in all, a very important film that everyone should see.

Citizenfour Scores a 10

If you never want to see a bad film in the theater again, I suggest you limit your viewing to documentaries. They are far better on average than fictional fare. Case in point: "Citizenfour."

"Citizenfour" tells the story of Edward Snowden's leak of NSA documents. Those documents reveal how our government, with the cooperation of major telecom and internet companies, has been surveilling our electronic communications. Moreover, our government has been spying on electronic communications around the world. You might ask, "Haven't they been doing this for years?" Yes, they have, but that was mainly (not exclusively, unfortunately) when there was probably cause, a warrant, or a history of criminal activity of the target. They have now been looking at everyone's communications without cause, and this can have a chilling effect on private communications and thought, journalism and our right to petition the government.

"Citizenfour" hits all the marks of a good documentary: it is topical, relevant, well organized and thought provoking. It is quietly dramatic and not overblown. In fact, the director could have manufactured more drama out of the subject through editing and dramatic music if desired. The restraint serves the film well.

Filmmaker Laura Poitras interviews Edward Snowden from the time he leaves his job at Booz Allen as an NSA analyst to leak the famous NSA documents that reports the spying programs up to the time his identity as the NSA whistle-blower is revealed. I thought I knew enough about this case, that there was no need to see this movie. I was wrong. Throughout the film, we see Snowden explain his decision making process, and what we see is revelatory. If people thought that Snowden was in it for fame or attention, watching this film will change that perception. Snowden was dismayed at the government surveillance of ordinary citizens and made a choice to leak that information. He did not name names and as far as he is concerned, did not reveal any information vital to U.S. security.

Heads of the NSA and other security agencies are shown in the film denying the existence of the surveillance program to Congress and on news programs. Other whistle-blowers or people investigating the program are interviewed or shown testifying such as former NSA intelligence agent William Binney. As the movie unfolds, so do the revelations of the extent of the spying program as it did in the London Guardian and other media outlets. First, U.S. domestic spying was revealed, then international spying, then spying on officials in other countries, even German Chancellor Merkel. Suffice to say, I knew some about the program but not the extent and the manner in which it unfolded.

What the film did was allow Snowden and Greenwald to take control of their own narrative, wrest it away from the mainstream media and government propaganda machine. Some of the shots in the movie start out of focus because Poitras started filming when something important was being said and to cut the takes for focus issues would have been unnecessary. Besides, the focusing was metaphorical of the main characters', Snowden and Greenwald, attempt to get a focus on the issues. We are brought along in this process. More effects and camera tricks could have been used to enhance the drama in the film, but the director wisely made a choice to focus on the content and characters. "Citizenfour", unlike all the overly dramatic movies from Hollywood, is a case of substance over style.

Rating: Pay Full Price, see it twice

There is little to complain about in the film other than I wanted more. The cinematography is not award winning, but it's exactly what the film needed. The timing in the film and editing were excellent. The director's choices were precisely what this story required.

Peace, Tex Shelters

I really appreciate what Snowden did and this film only raises my level of gratitude because it shows the man as well as the information he disclosed. Given this and the risk a filmmaker takes when recording a sensitive subject like this, I do think that the makers of Citizenfour should be praised.

However, once you start watching it you realize that it is made from the same mold that other revelatory, controversial or conspiracist documentaries are made from. The Oscar is not for the quality of the film as it is for the subject. And, assuming that you are informed about the case - I still get the shivers when I see that most people I meet don't even know who Snowden is, you might find it difficult to understand why this movie is better than others, cinematically speaking.

Also, I feel that the film was way too focused on the journalistic process and too little on the actual meaning of the information or the aftermath of the disclosures. It is, actually, a human angle story more than a documentary about the biggest intelligence reveal of the last century. While not a bad thing, it is ironically what Snowden repeatedly said he does not want: to be the center of the story.

One gets to feel the alienation and pervasive angst that Snowden felt, even if this is sometimes done through cheap soundtrack tricks. One sees a smiling 29 year old become burdened more and more as time goes by. Less smiling, more dark patches under the eyes, more bewildered looks. And this while staying in hotels and having communication with people that relay his information and while being protected by a nation state. It is unimaginable what a normal person, without this safety net, would feel.

Bottom line: certainly worth watching, not so sure about the Oscar thing, but as long as that raises awareness of the subject matter, it is also worthy.

...and given the constraints they were operating under, maybe that much could not be revealed.

The first 20 minutes or so are of Ed, who isn't even known to the world yet, talking to a couple of journalists he has invited to his Hong Kong hotel room where he is hiding out from a system that doesn't even know he is missing yet. In a way, I'm surprised they came because about ten minutes into the conversation one says "What is your name again?", so maybe they had no idea what they were getting into, maybe at first they thought they were dealing with a crackpot, etc.

Some people have said it is boring, and I don't know why. Although you never get any real specifics about what Snowden did have on the NSA, you get an idea from him just sitting on his bed in his tee shirt talking to these journalists that he has seen stuff that has made him hyper vigilant. He puts a red hood over him when he types in a password to his laptop in case there is visual surveillance, he unplugs the phone because it contains ICs that can be used as a "hot mike", and he is highly suspicious when the fire alarms go off just as he is talking about what he knows. His fear is real.

I think this preliminary footage may have just been a way to show a human side of Ed. I mean, a lot of the documentary (on top of revealing more details of the secrets he leaked) is meant to show to the world that he's not crazy bob in his trailer in Nevada. He's a young, very smart, very articulate, very normal individual. Showing him simply struggling with his hair (something I'm sure most of us have dealt with at one point or another) demonstrates to us that he's not a mysterious conspiracy theorist to be dismissed; he's just like you and I. And the human quality makes us trust what he has to say a lot more. It's easy to ignore someone you think is crazy. It's not so easy to ignore someone in whom you see a little bit of yourself.

As for Glenn Greenwald of UK's The Guardian, he's shown as an articulate spokesman and advocate. He goes to Brazil and explains to them that all of this surveillance is just not about fighting terrorism. He brings his case home to them by saying if they were bidding on a contract in the US, then all of the details of their negotiations and plans to get that contract are now in the hands of the US government, and could be put in the hands of any American competitor.

The negatives? There is a part at the end that is not clearly explained. It is a conversation between Greenwald and Snowden about there being another contact in Germany that is ready to talk about what he knows about NSA surveillance. Some extremely unclear pictures are drawn and Snowden looks somewhat horrified saying stuff like "This is very risky. Does this guy know what he is doing, etc." He is really scared for the new contact, but it is never clear what is going on. The only other negative I have is, did the print explaining the transition between scenes HAVE to be so small? I had to pause the DVD and get up close to the screen to see what was being said.

I'd highly recommend this documentary just based on the fact that it pulls together some of the information that has now been scrubbed from public sources, shows Snowden as a human being, shows the bravery of both himself and Glenn Greenwald, and brings up that pesky question - is giving up such privacy - which as the documentary mentions is pretty much a synonym for liberty - worth it for increased security. Benjamin Franklin seemed to think that was not so. Watch it with an open mind.

We all know that, in today's world, telling the truth may set you free, but it can also make you an inmate or a corpse. Activist folk singer Joan Baez, however, reminds us that, "Courage has to do with being afraid and doing what you have to do anyway." It is a fitting description of whistleblower Edward Snowden, whose story is told by the Oscar-nominated American filmmaker Laura Poitras (My Country, My Country) in her intimate and intense documentary Citizenfour. Snowden, a 29-year-old former NSA contractor and intelligence analyst, aware of the serious personal and legal consequences, nevertheless exposed the fact that the government, in the name of fighting terrorism, was spying on all American citizens and those of other countries, in every area of their lives, whether they were suspected of wrongdoing or not.

According to Snowden, he was able to access anyone's records, bypassing codes, passwords and encryptions and said, "We are building the biggest weapon for oppression in the history of mankind." As the film begins, Poitras tells us in voice-over that, when she was working on a film about the dismantling of personal freedoms after the terrorist attack on 9/11, she began to receive encrypted e-mails with the codename of Citizenfour, revealing the desire to come forward with startling information about government surveillance.

One of the e-mails told her that "In the end, if you publish the source material, I will likely be immediately implicated. I ask only that you ensure that this information makes it home to the American public." The film almost exclusively relies on edited conversations, mainly between Snowden and author and journalist Glenn Greenwald interspersed with TV news reports, courtroom trials, and Senate hearings where officials are shown lying at hearings about the government's role in data collection. It does not pretend to be objective and there is no debate about any of the issues brought up in the film or the efficacy of Snowden's actions. It is his story, told from his point of view.

Interviewed by Poitras (who is unseen), Greenwald, at the time working for the Guardian, and reporter Ewen MacAskill in a room at the Mira Hotel in Hong Kong where Snowden remained in seclusion for eight days, the heretofore unknown whistleblower reveals his identity for the first time saying that he wants to come out publicly as the source of the information, to show the NSA "I'm not going to let you bully me into silence, like you have everyone else." Snowden says that he made the decision to come forward because he feels there's a great threat to the future of American free speech. "The elected and the electorate," he says, have become "the ruler and the ruled."

Though he says repeatedly that he is not the issue and his personality should not deflect attention from the material disclosed, the human angle nonetheless becomes an important part of the film and we have an opportunity to assess the personality and character of man who has already played an important role in history. Through all of the discussion of his methods and the nature of the material he revealed, Snowden presents his case in an eloquent manner, remaining calm and centered, saying that he anticipated the consequences and is prepared for them.

One of the few times he shows emotion is when talking about the government's interrogation of his girlfriend who, he says, knows nothing about his activities. The tension is palpable, however, and the film takes on aspects of a spy thriller when, after the information has gone public, everyone in the hotel room reacts with paranoia to the fire alarm testing going on in the hotel. Communication, however, eventually reverts to coded e-mails which Poitras shows on the screen when Snowden seeks asylum in Moscow. Though it reveals no new information that hasn't already been reported all over the world during the past eighteen months, Citizenfour is fascinating to observe as history unfolds before our eyes, offering the look and feel of immediacy, not that of a historical retrospective.

While it has taken several years, the warning message in Al Gore's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth on the potentially disastrous results of climate change seems at long last to be getting through, though even now, it may be too little, too late. When it comes to our right to privacy in today's wired world, however, the prospects are not as bright. Though perhaps preaching to the choir, the film is an important reminder that in the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter," or those of abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass who said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." This film begins to crystallize that demand.