The Book (the real story)

The film wasn't meant to be an adaptation of Assange's book. I forget which one, but it was largely based upon one of the recent books about him. Of course if someone is going to make a film about Assange these days, it will be about his association with wikileaks, etc.

Here's an interesting article written by Assange's mother:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/christine-assange-on-undergr ound-the-film-about-son-julian/story-e6frf96f-1226489467079

She thinks they exaggerated her anti-US activism, her reaction to Electra's pregnancy, and the extent of their encounters with the Family cult, but otherwise she seems to accept the story as an accurate portrayal of her son and his experiences. We can now play the game of deciding to only accept what she says about what is inaccurate and inflate that, while dismissing what she suggests is accurate, or assume she accurately remembers what is inaccurate while not accurately remembering what IS accurate (like some have). Or we can take her at her word, note that she apparently TRIED to show some balance in her reaction to the film.

Does that undermine the film a bit? Sure. So does the fact that we probably don't get the police perspective (although that's making assumptions about the book the film is based upon -- the author probably DID interview some of the police involved). But it appears to me that the gist of it is correct. They DID flee his stepfather. The police DID do little to make that unnecessary for years. The press DID give little coverage about the Family. Assange's mother DID encourage him to think differently and search for the truth, even if it countered what the authorities told you to believe. He DID hack into US military computers and uncover information about civilian deaths in Iraq. Etc. (Note that Assange's own book was about hacking, not his personal philosophy or what shaped his motivations to create wikileaks). So, yes, all the important points are there and one can check Wikipedia or read various books, article, court records, etc, if they are so concerned.

Did the film have it's own slant? Sure. I know LaPaglia is supportive of Assange, and I think you can detect the director's sympathies as well, but that's something that will also colour any film. Rupert Murdoch's version would likely be quite different (not to mention far less accurate). But despite that I did not find the film to be the hagiography some critics (who tend to wear their OWN biases like a shining beacon) claim it to be. NO history film or biography will ever get the 100% unadulterated proof. Even if it doesn't resort to flourishes (like with the Family) to add to dramatic effect and commercial appeal, even if it tries to come off as a dry documentary, it will never be 100% accurate. The memory of any person involved will be coloured by time, misrecollection and bias. That goes for Assange or the police or his mother. The same goes for the person who conducts the research, the person who writes the script, etc, ad infinitum. Even camera angles will effect an audience's perception of events, so the cinematographer's choices will also add to the cumulative effect. No objective person claims to remember every event of their childhood or even just a couple years ago with complete accuracy. I recently read interviews about how the first graphic novel published by Eclipse (Sabre) came about, and all the parties involved have conflicting stories although none are lying or showing bias in their own favour. My wife and I will disagree about events of a couple minutes previous. And sometimes I doubt my own memory as much as I doubt hers. It is ultimately futile to expect everything in any account to be a perfect recreation of history. That's the whole point of some of Akira Kurosawa's films.

As for most of the demonstrable inaccuracies: I certainly wouldn't consider the fact that they filmed at a train station that has been somewhat rennovated since 1989 to be of any significance (you might as well cry over the fact that they didn't have an 18 year old Assange play himself since the actor hadn't been alive yet in 1989). Nor do I consider the fact that they got some of the technical details about phone systems of that time incorrect significantly detracting -- it isn't a documentary about modems and Commodore 64 commercials c 1989. I think only a complete and utter idiot would dismiss the film as completely inaccurate because it doesn't live up to his own biases or suggest that the filmmakers fell short by not turning invisible and traveling back in time to film the actual events as they occur, or got what Assange ate for lunch in June of 1989 incorrect. A reasonable person will try to cut through the crap no matter which way it will cause the material to slant, but it is ultimately futile to expect anything to be a perfect recreation of history.

And that's my long-winded response (things are a bit slow here at the moment) :)