我们窃取秘密维基解密的故事

看完纪录片，我心情很复杂，记得第一次知道维基解密所做的事，知道维基解密的存在之后，我也跟那些大街上游行的人们一样激动，我感觉到终于有一个人站出来了，他站出来告诉我们一些事情，这些事情我们一直在猜测，但从来没有被证实，也没有依据，但它们就是存在的。但是，兼听则明，听到越来越多的声音之后，我不确定我是否坚信阿桑奇是对的。也许我们不愿意承认，但事实就是这个世界大部分情况下都被一群更强大心思更复杂的人们控制着，很多东西不是表面那么容易理解，不是一份资料被拿出来，就可以立马判断正误，我们不能因为最表面的现象就去轻易的指责一群人，指责一些政府，我们能做的，应该是像马丁路德金一样，寻求更加平和的方式让这个世界更美好，而不是以最简单的方式告诉民众所有的事情，这样的极端透明会让社会上出现更多不安分因素。总之，我希望世界更美好，但是，应该是以最平和的方式......

这不是一部全然公正的纪录片，但是也能看出很多震撼人心的事实。

我的感想：

第一：要想做一个能够影响世界的人，首先你自己要足够强大。阿桑奇二十岁之前就能侵入美国五角大楼计算机核心系统，没有这样的能力后面所有的故事都不可能。

第二：想要做一个能够影响世界又坚持正义的人，你必须要有一个强大的内心。阿桑奇的计算机水平足够能让他在硅谷如鱼得水，创建自己的公司，甚至有可能成为乔布斯或者比尔盖茨那样的人物。但是他没有去走那条路，因为他有更伟大的理想，他要与世界上邪恶的政治力量做斗争，他要直面地球上的苦难。盖茨在哈佛大学的毕业典礼上致辞时，要求哈佛的学生关注学术和事业以外的事情，并以他自己做慈善为例子。但是有很多国家和地区政治太腐败，无论你捐多少钱都到不了穷人的手中。而阿桑奇做的就是利用信息与这些恶势力做斗争。盖茨把自己的所有资产全捐出去了，不过几年他还是世界第一富豪。但是阿桑奇的战斗一开始就注定了逃亡，孤独和无法预知的危险。所以一个人坚持正义需要巨大的勇气，献身精神和强大的内心。

第三：这个世界仍然有太多的苦难和丑恶。任何人面对美国无人机滥杀平民的画面，都不会不愤怒和悲伤。“维基解密”也是因为解密了美国军方40万份文件才产生了如此大的国际影响。美国军方在伊拉克和阿富汗的有些所作所为确实令人发指，但是美国的这些事情绝不是这个地球上政治恶势力犯下的最丑恶的罪行。身为瓷国的公民，我们应该知道这一点。

我们让渡自己的一部分权利，组成政府，给予了它公权，可是它却并不是完全按照我们所想地发展。政府也是自私的，在自身利益，在社会极少部分精英的控制下，它牺牲我们的利益，欺瞒我们，为了保障自身的地位，放弃人权、正义，违背我们的初衷，违背人类社会的道德的底线。每个政府都有自己不可告人的秘密，但当这样的秘密是和人类社会的伦理道德相抵触的时候，这时这样的秘密是否就需要公开？还是仅为保障政府而继续保密下去。我们在面对这些秘密的时候，是选择支持政府，还是为了人类？哪样才是真正的爱国，其中的冲突如何解决？我们是否有权保护这些抵触了人类利益的秘密？
政府的秘密是为了控制。但人类的社会难道就是为了那20%的精英所存在的？又或是只有牺牲那部分愚昧的人的利益，才能有进步？
我们应该站在一个什么样的立场去看待这个问题？
或许维基解密只是对人权的私力救济，对公权滥用的一种对抗。
但是，如何去界定秘密的底线呢？
如何去审判？
或许，永远不可能界定秘密的底线！

We Steal Secrets: the Story of Wikileaks

Pitch:
   This is the story about two people and their secrets stealing journey: Julian Assange, builder of Wikileaks, considered by some as free-speech hero and by others as traitors and terrorists. Bradley Manning, young soldier who leaked hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents to Wikileaks.
Access and Editing
Alex said: "the biggest challenge was how to tell the story, and particularly how to tell the story when the two main characters either can't or won't talk to you” (Digital Spy). I think he solved both problems well. He used footage from Mark Davis. This is inspirational. Many people film the same subject and not all of them will be able to come up with a film. Using their interviews and footages is wonderful. The animation of Manning’s chat with Lama is fantastic. I think I learned enough of Manning from his words. According to Alex, Assuage believes that “a documentary about him and WikiLeaks cannot be truthful if he does not participate (The Monthly). He is wrong. Of course the documentary can be truthful without him.
I like the way he started with Assange’s background. Alex said: " I was pretty conscious that I wanted people to feel enormous sympathy and affection for Assange, for maybe a good half of the film, and then it changes.” This is a character study. Showing all aspects of Assange makes him human. Alex said: “it is about human beings, and how flawed human beings can do incredible things. …To pretend that people are supermen is an illusion, and ultimately is a trap” (Businessweek).

Subtext
   More than just a character study, this is a story about the Internet era. Like Alex said: “It’s all about the contradictions of the internet in terms of privacy, secrecy, transparency, and also truth and lies”(Collider). I think one of the things that the film says is almighty Internet need human stand behind it, making decisions. Wikileaks was a leaking machine in Assange’s hands. Information and transparency is not everything. The desire to reveal information shouldn’t overcome the people who might be affected by these information (Flavor Wire).
Again, this is a story about truth and lie and “noble cause corruption”. The idea that because you do something good, it entitles you to be a little bit bad is not acceptable. The ends cannot justify the means.

Gift:
Play about Two Rights is Drama
Alex’s father is a journalist. I think that might influential on his subject choosing style. “Enron”, “Lance Armstrong”, “Wikileaks”, “Park Avenue” are all sensational topics and at the same time all have some timeless elements.
Alex’s way of telling a story fits my ideal form of documentary. Alex said: “ when it comes to a story like this, follow the story, and I hope it rattles around in people’s heads after they watch it because the story itself is so compelling and interesting, but it doesn’t provide any simple answers.” Alex’s films are manipulative in terms of manipulating people to think and to question.
Is he manipulative in terms of what answer would people come up with? Yes. He quoted his documentary hero, Marcel Ophuls, saying: “I always have a point of view but the trick is showing the people how hard it was to come to that point of view.” And then he continued with his theory: “I think the film has an angle and the film has a point of view but at the same time... the story is not told through experts.... It’s really told by the protagonists and that’s what I think makes it interesting.” The person he chose to interview and facts he choose to include are very much intentional. Later on, he quoted George Bernard Shaw, who said a play about a right and a wrong is melodrama. A play about two rights is drama. (Flavor Wire).

when you are locked up and can't speak for yourself, how about your enemy taking the chance to make a documentary about you to the world. use We in the title while the founder himself never get a chance to speak for himself directly to the camera of the documentary. what a convenient sex offense charge right after the biggest disclosure and vivid way to depict a deranged, transexual, emotionally unstable whiserblower and dehumanilised, neurotic, condem﹣poking white hair Aussie. indeed all publicity is good publicity, America is the master of public relation.

The reason for me to believe it is not a documentary is that, though Julian is listed as the ACTOR, this movie is never about him. the whole point the doc trying to make is that how wikileak went down and how insane and risky to be a whiserblower again.

All interviewees coming from Julian's side are all former employees of wikileaks, not currently spokesmen who can say anything in defense of wikileaks. therefore despite what's really going on with wikileak, the documentary can just arbitrarily announce the death of wikileak.

I am in no interest of propaganda, wikileaks or Julian himself. But I do believe a good doc should be objective, which in this case, is in no way to guarantee. THis 2-hour doc is at its best, the one-sided hollywood-style narration. this is not the deal, case is not closed.

维基解密与其说是一次个人对全球政界的挑战，不如说这是一个乌托邦的故事，很难想象，这世界上依然存在着朱利安·阿桑奇这样理想主义的人，用片中的话说：“他像约翰列侬一样，幻想着一个理想世界的实现。”他们认为：“如果我们要制造更文明的社会，更公平的社会，这社会就必须基于真相。”一意孤行的向平等世界迈进，这让维基解密迅速红遍全球，也迅速成了所有权力机关的众矢之的。对中国人民来说，我们可能完全不能理解维基解密在西方带来的影响，这个在我们看来跟八卦论坛有类似功效的高端洋气型爆料网站曝光的消息是西方各国的公民们从来没想到过的。换句话说，美国政府也是依靠欺骗民众来维持社会稳定，发达国家更擅长“统治者不流泪怎么能取信于民”这种招数，让他们的公民一直站在很高的道德层面上看世界，他们不相信他们的政府，或者是信誓旦旦的银行，会是让他们破产的始作俑者，因此当维基解密让真相大白时，连冰岛这种空灵小国的国家电视台都满腹怨气的在新闻里表示：“刚刚接到国家指令，要求我们不许在新闻节目中报道危机解密曝光倒闭的考普森银行的事，这是国家有史以来第一次对冰岛国家电视台的播放内容加以干预。”，在这种逆天形势下，最后连80多的老太太都拿着火把上街和警察打架了。
 
观看他们过激的反映，对我国民众来说有一种别样的滋味，一方面我们在内心偷偷嘲笑外国人的大惊小怪，一方面我们又会震惊于西方国家言论开放的尺度之大，而关于他们生气的原因，我们则根本听不懂，在这个国家里，只有搞金融的人才愿意去弄懂银行那点事，而影片的另一部分内容就是对伊拉克战场上发生的各种罪行的曝光，诸如美军扫射平民，虐待囚犯，打死孩子等等。在电影中，这种禽兽的行为令原本是美军情报分析员的士兵放弃自己的人生，立志要致力于撕掉政府假面的工作。但在我们看来，那个世界离我们更远，看起来甚至有点像美国大片。(文/宋小卡)

http://ent.163.com/13/0715/00/93PMA9IJ00034R78.html