MovieChat Forums > We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks (2013) Discussion > So, basically it boils down to....

So, basically it boils down to....

posted 10 years ago by doodleboy
4 replies | jump to latest

...an emotionally troubled young soldier, freaking out over the real-world horrors of war, decides to expose what he can. He gets away with it because no one's watching the cookie jar. His accomplice on the back end of the operation is an unlikeable eurotrash muckraker, who may or may not have his heart in the right "Information Should be Free" place. Do the ends justify the means? Was anything worthwhile exposed, or was it just a dangerous breach that didn't actually make a dent?

Will we ever know? (bum-bum-bum!!!)

good doc, though. I love Gibney's style, but i could've done without half the stuff about Manning - i mean, sure, he's troubled/unlucky in his body chemistry (or whatever), but do we really need to hear about his emotional breakdowns and read his sappy emails? Just get to the facts, buddy!

[–] persistenceofvision 10 years ago

One of the points the film is trying to make is that there's more to the Wikileaks project than just Julian Assange, and his supposedly dysfunctional personality, and his sex life, and his hair dye, etc. So maybe focussing on another individual as well was a way of ensuring that. Plus the Manning stuff was all news to me, so I didn't mind that

P.S. Can you still be Eurotrash if you're Australian?

[–] doodleboy 10 years ago

P.S. Can you still be Eurotrash if you're Australian?

HELL YES, you can. Did you see that clip of him dancing alone in the nightclub? In *THAT* haircut?

EUROTRASH

[–] eddiehellstrom 10 years ago

Plus the Manning stuff was all news to me, so I didn't mind that

I have always wanted to know, what is it like to live under a stone? Comfortable?

[–] persistenceofvision 10 years ago

There was media coverage here in the UK about what Manning did and what the consequences would be, but I didn't read very much about what had led up to it. Maybe it was different in the States, or maybe I just hadn't read enough, like you say. I think there was a lot more coverage of Julian Assange, and later Edward Snowden (The Guardian are very fond of promoting their part in this story), but I could be wrong