Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” While the sentiment may be centuries old, its meaning is presently associated with the debate over government surveillance.
In fact, this very sentiment is referenced in “Snowden,” a biopic feature by Oliver Stone that details the background of whistleblower Edward Snowden and his actions that bring his case international fame and notoriety. As a whole, the film paints the notorious ex-CIA contractor as a martyr; a casualty of the classic fight between the people and an oppressive government.
Edward Snowden is currently a stateless public informant who famously leaked America’s vast internet and telecommunications surveillance network to the world. As a part of his line of work, Snowden aided the CIA and other American defense agencies in monitoring the internet activity, telephone calls, and recordings of citizens of many countries for suspected threats to the United States. All of this surveillance was done extra-judicially; simply put, the government had no warrant or justifiable cause for any of their actions. Disillusioned with the blatant invasion of privacy, Snowden worked to leak the covert surveillance operation to the public by publishing news articles written by him and a very small team of journalists. Thus, Snowden has been persecuted by the United States government and wanted for crimes of treason and espionage.
However entertaining it would be to see an Snowden deliver justice, in the end, one must always hold some measure of reservation about the protagonist’s actions in question — especially when those actions are so controversial.
To understand Edward Snowden’s story, “Snowden” must be compared to the documentary that brought attention to Snowden in the first place: “Citizenfour,” which told the story of how Snowden released the information that has become so controversial.
“Snowden” relies heavily on interviews, recordings, and material from the documentary so much so that certain scenes from “Citizenfour” are used shot for shot with just an added dramatic twist. In a sense, the two films are complements that help to understand Snowden himself. “Citizenfour” aims to depict Snowden in a positive light with facts and his own commentary, while “Snowden” attempts to humanize and simplify Snowden’s character for the public audience’s sympathy.
In the same way, the events portrayed in “Snowden” are true to everything documented in “Citizenfour” except with an added emphasis on drama and action. This is to maintain the public audience’s interest as well as to create a more vivid picture of Snowden for people to sympathize with.
“Snowden” explains the legal intricacies of the government surveillance system and Snowden’s actions in a way that is easy to understand. It achieves great focus and dedication to the exigency and sentiment behind Snowden’s fight. Multiple shots of security cameras, mirrors, and windows tightens the movie’s focus on government surveillance and one man’s quest to leak it to the world.
Often, it appears as if Oliver Stone, the director of “Snowden,” chooses to present Snowden in only one light, ignoring objectivity. This may not come at a surprise— having also directed “Platoon” and “JFK” in the past, Stone has been criticized for portraying narratives that are rather one-sided. While having a clear goal in mind to portray Snowden in a positive light allows Stone tell a focused, cohesive story with a clear objective, the one-sided narrative of “Snowden” also suffers from an incomplete story. For example, the audience is constantly shown that Snowden is a man of virtue, one that fights against injustice. When he sees that an informant could possibly be driving himself home drunk, he resists his superior’s command to just let the informant be.
Nevertheless, the storytelling is compelling and immersive. Small inserts and allusions in the film- for example, the scene of Snowden and the CIA director talking evokes the image of Big Brother of “1984” and contemplates the control that the government supposedly holds over the nation.
At the conclusion of “Snowden,” the real Snowden, not the actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, appears to comment on his new stateless life. Although he lived well as an employee for the CIA, he says, “I gave up my old life for a new one, and I’m happy.”
We’ve yet to see whether Snowden will even survive the next few years, months, or even weeks, and his true hope makes you think about one’s duty to their liberty and their country. “Snowden” did raise these questions for its viewing audience, but I doubt that this film will be a call to action in any shape or form. Sure, more Americans will fear their own government, but the whole nation must recognize this injustice and not stand idly by. In my opinion, the film “Snowden” was successfully able to martyrize Edward Snowden and reveal a crime committed by the American government, so this film could affect some greater political and social change. Perhaps, “Snowden” may only be the beginning of a movement for a spy-free America.
