Julian Assange is not happy....

[Deleted]

http://wikileaks.org/First-Letter-fr...n-Assange.html

WikiLeaks publishes the first letter from Julian Assange to Benedict Cumberbatch regarding "The Fifth Estate", a Dreamworks movie about WikiLeaks set to open in the UK on Friday 11 Oct, and in the US on Friday 18 Oct. The press release about this letter is here. The letter was sent to Benedict Cumberbatch after he made overtures to contact Julian Assange in January this year, immediately before principal photography commenced.

It turns out that Assange is not too keen on freedom of information when it is about him.

[Kalis]

He's not Happy, he's Grumpy.

[Tradewind]

Nobody talks shit about Smaug, not even creepy albino Aussies.

[Xalzel]

Is it just me or is this letter kinda creepy O.o

[Deleted]

I never really liked Assange... he comes off as really pretentious to me.

[Prokne]

Actors usually have some license with their roles and how they portray them. It might have been good for Cumberbatch to meet with him to get some sympathy and if the film is biased against Wikileaks, some of their point of view. Humanizing a subject is usually not a bad thing.

[Deleted]

To be fair, "It turns out that Assange is not too keen on freedom of information when it is about him" makes him out to be a hypocrite for not meeting with this actor which really isn't the case.

This isn't about freedom of information, it's about a movie being made which is never going to be 100% true to life. Which is fine. No movie is totally true to life, you have to take make bits up to make it a more interesting movie. Which is fine. The issue is whether the bias of the filmmakers is towards or against him, since there is going to be a bias no matter what. Subjective portrayals of something that isn't 100% set in stone doesn't really come under the 'freedom of information' banner.

That's not even getting into the big old mess about whether it's okay to "report" on someones private life unless they've put it out there to the public. At the end of the day, he is a guy who runs a website that makes public leaked government / military documents, videos, pictures, transcripts, etc. This is all stuff to do with the way a country is being run, rather than the specific private life of any person running it, unless it's something that impacts on their running of that country. It's not a website about exposing the private life of everyday people who run websites. The only reason he's such a household name in the first place is becuase the US government is out for blood, which isn't really something he's chosen.

If you were thrust into the public arena for whatever reason, and then someone decided to make a movie about you that you couldn't prevent being made, but that you knew was going to trash your personality and make you look like a dickhead, you wouldn't want to meet with the person portraying you... It's not a freedom of information thing at all.

[gonterf]

It turns out that Assange is not too keen on freedom of information when it is about him.

As I understand it, the problem isn't that information is flowing freely - the problem is that the information that IS flowing freely is actually misleading and/or outright false. For example, several of the personalities that will be shown in the movie bear no resemblance to the real people they are supposedly imitating, and several plot points in the movie never actually happened in real life. Yay propaganda.

[Mayhem]

well, would you be happy if they make a movie about you based on books you don´t like? i have neither read one of the books and so i have no clue what´s in them, i´ve seen a documentary, where assange plays part, it´s a he said she said debate about who did what when and why and "you can´t trust anybody, but but no he´s insane, he never said that, no we did talk about this... blabla" i´m happy for what wikileaks made possible, but i don´t care much for assange

though a movie about assange, shouldn´t be solely based on books he never wrote, and without ever been contacted by the company filming

[lawow74]

I wish someone would make a mockbuster that's about him riding around on a flying platypus solving alimony-dodger cases. It might actually be entertaining.

[Tastyfish]

I wish someone would make a mockbuster that's about him riding around on a flying platypus solving alimony-dodger cases. It might actually be entertaining.

I would watch it. lol

[Deleted]

As I understand it, the problem isn't that information is flowing freely - the problem is that the information that IS flowing freely is actually misleading and/or outright false. For example, several of the personalities that will be shown in the movie bear no resemblance to the real people they are supposedly imitating, and several plot points in the movie never actually happened in real life. Yay propaganda.

Braveheart wasn't historically accurate... Does that make tn propaganda?

What about nearly every other film based on or around an event...?

It's a hot topic and it was only a matter of time before films emerged about it.

[Deleted]

Braveheart wasn't historically accurate... Does that make tn propaganda?

What about nearly every other film based on or around an event...?

It's a hot topic and it was only a matter of time before films emerged about it.

That's fine, and no one is saying they can't make the movie. But he's not happy about it, just as you wouldn't be. It doesn't make it a freedome of information issue, and he doesn't have to meet the actors and help them out.

[Tradewind]

That's fine, and no one is saying they can't make the movie. But he's not happy about it, just as you wouldn't be. It doesn't make it a freedome of information issue, and he doesn't have to meet the actors and help them out.

Then he shouldn't whinge about it after wards imo.

[Alsierus]

Braveheart wasn't historically accurate... Does that make tn propaganda?

What about nearly every other film based on or around an event...?

It's a hot topic and it was only a matter of time before films emerged about it.

Yeah, except the "event" as you put it is actually still an ongoing thing (the U.S. gov't still wants Assange, etc) and the film contains many untrue things which are, in essence, character assassination.

I don't particularly like Julian Assange, but I also feel that people like him play an important role in society. If you believe that showing the public (who are mostly fools when it comes to anything other than their day job) a fictional film about the Wikileaks story won't shape their perception of the ongoing events in reality, then you're a fool who trusts in the intelligence and critical analysis skills of others far too much.

[Deleted]

Then he shouldn't whinge about it after wards imo.

Why not? If he was a shining paragon of the best of humanities virtues, he might have just taken it on the chin and kept quiet. But he isn't, and really, who is? He has every right to whinge about it. It's not very attractive, but he's welcome to.

[Tradewind]

Why not? If he was a shining paragon of the best of humanities virtues, he might have just taken it on the chin and kept quiet. But he isn't, and really, who is? He has every right to whinge about it. It's not very attractive, but he's welcome to.

Because when an actor writes to you and says "hey, lets meet up so I can get a better idea of who you are." Then you tell him to get stuffed...you kind of lose the right to bitch imo.

[Kalis]

Braveheart wasn't historically accurate... Does that make tn propaganda?

Of all the tens of thousands of films made, you picked one that was anti-English propaganda.

[Deleted]

Because when an actor writes to you and says "hey, lets meet up so I can get a better idea of who you are." Then you tell him to get stuffed...you kind of lose the right to bitch imo.

Getting to know the actor won't change the script. It might help a little bit, it might allow him to get a more realistic idea of the kind of person he is, but as the letter says, to meet with him would give legitimacy to the entire movie. Even if the portrayal of him by the actor was slightly more realistic from having done it, if it's in a shitty movie he's going to look bad no matter what. He'd probably rather just stay away from the entire thing.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Does anyone still actually care what Julian Assange thinks at this point (aparet from Cumberbatch as he apparently does)?