Agents of Chaos

This doc spreads the blame to everyone for 2016, where it should be. Don't care what anyone says or tells you. It points out the role that Trump (realistically) played, the role Hilary played (her team really let her down), the role the DNC played, the role Obama's administration played, and the role Russia (well the small group) played. Also talks about the role of media, not just mainstream, but independent as well and the events that happened before 2016. Anyone with a real bias eye, this is what you want, someone to point out the faults of all parties involved. It breaks down the social engineering taking place by BOTH, yes, BOTH parties. Look, I would tell anyone to watch The Social Dilemma, Frontline 20/20-Trump vs Biden (they breakdown both tactics very well) and this, you won't be disappointed with the knowledge.

Sad story about where we are heading. Polarisation of the world just so the narrative will suit a few.

"Agents of Chaos" (2020 release; 2 parts of 115 min, each) is a documentary about what Russia's been up to relative to the US elections in 2016. As Part 1 opens, we hear from the Editor-In-Chief of Russia Today, the state-run TV channel that is the master of disinformation. "That is how democracy is supposed to work", she smirks. In a voice -over, director Alex Gibney ponders: "if there is one clear conclusion from Special Counsel Mueller's report, it's that Russia interfered. But how did that work exactly?", and with that, we dive into the first of two topics that Gibey looks at in Part 1. First we get "Trolls", where Gibney examines in excruciating detail the humble origins of the infamous troll factory IRA in St. Petersburg, focusing on massively spreading disinformation into Ukraine in late 2013/early 2014, and eventually directing its attention to the US. One of the Russian talking heads interviewed for this calls it the "carousel of lies". The second topic is "Hack", where Gibney looks at how Russia relentlessly hacks into computer systems and data banks, including of course the DNC...

Couple of comments: this is the latest documentary from director Alex Gibney ("The Armstrong Lie", "Going Clear: Scientology and the prison of Belief"). He is without a doubt one of the more prominent documentary filmmakers of this generation, nothing short of the gold standard. Here he directs his attention to what Russia has been up to relative to spreading disinformation and hacking data banks. It is frankly utterly depressing to see how easily it all has been done. Interestingly, in this Part 1 pf the documentary, Trump is barely mentioned (the Trump campaign's interactions with Russia will be assessed in Part 2 of the documentary). "Was the IRA troll factory pro-Trump?", asks Gibney to one of the US experts interviewed for this. "It was anti-America", is the devastating response. And Gibney doesn't let off the Obama administration easily, calling into question why not more of what it knew in 2016 about the Russian tolling and the hacking was revealed to the American public." To anyone who is drinking the Trump Kool-Aid by the gallons, this documentary will of course be deemed "fake" and a "hoax", but the nuanced details with which Gibney and his team reveal what is going on show differently. That is why this documentary is utterly depressing yet must-see.

Part 1 of "Agents of Chaos" premiered earlier this week on HBO earlier this week, and is now available on HBO On Demand and other streaming services. Part 2 will follow very shortly. If you have any interest in understanding how Russia is meddling with our democracy, without any fear of retribution, I'd readily encourage you to check it out, and draw your own conclusion.

BECAUSE IT'S VERY DRY AND QUITE EXPANSIVE.

Now buckle in because that's the only light-hearted bit you're getting. Gibney's sprawling account of Russian ties to the 2016 US election is a massive achievement and rather meticulous - and like any piece of investigative journalism it doesn't really answer any questions or provide many simple truths. It's pleasingly intricate and despite being deeply American doesn't opt for many of the hyperbole that mires US documentary work.

In terms of the subject matter there's rather a lack of American investigative journalists - you've got a Yahoo! News journo but most of the US talking heads are sincere but biased big-hitters like former deputy director of the FBI or National Security Council member Celeste Wallander. This is a choice of course, and hearing from some of the central players in the narrative is quite compelling, although it means that you only get the merest tantalizing glimpse of the larger social context for a lot of what it all means beyond fairly high tier political figures, however odd they may be.

As other reviewers have hinted, as enormous as this documentary is, there is likely an even larger story at play here and these elements that Gibney has laboriously pieced together is only the view from the present. What revelations are to come are going to be all the more fascinating - and hopefully will be communicated in a slightly more succinct fashion.

I loved Alex Gibney's documentary on Scientology.

His documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos was on shakier ground but still very compelling because of the sheer mountain of documentation and interviews detailing the funny business.

This "expose" on Russia's influence on the 2016 US elections is a huge comedown.

First, the positives. Information on Vladimir Putin's hold on power, is thorough. The network of Russian operatives successfully planting misinformation on world events is given some time, mostly well spent.

The "tell" - the turd in the punchbowl - comes 45 minutes into the first episode: Gibney, in his own voice, pushes the theory Putin put into play interfering in the US Presidential election because Hillary Clinton would be too tough on Putin and Russia, based on Gibney's perception of Hillary's supposed toughness as Secretary of State.

The next few minutes has Gibney talking about Trump using the very early perceptions from the Pundit Class in 2015. Five years from then through today, with perspective, fails to change his tone.

It falls apart from here.

The biggest "name" interviewed is John Podesta, one of the senior members of the Clinton campaign. That's fine; a mature viewer can clean something from Podesta.

The rest of the "experts" interviewed are ex-ambassadors, career low level bureaucrats, and tech folks who, while in government, were clueless as to Russian doings, if true, but often sounding like papering over their resumes and spinning tall tales for future work. THESE folks sound today like they knew all these alleged doings all along.

How can Russian operatives be so sloppy and yet so brilliant at the same time? For the last 3 1/4 hours, Gibney never asks, and no one has the answers.

Discussions on this may fill time on the twitterverse and on Cable talk shows, but it's empty talk.

Gibney lowered his standards to weave a story that is only somewhat true in a limited way It fails to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.