SolarSystem wrote:

Mattlocked wrote:

Which reminds me of: What about that "hair" thing? In the film Julian talked twice about why his hair is white and I started thinking: "Oh my, what is so interesting about his hair colour!? Why do they mention it all the time?" Until at the end there was this explanation that he's dyeing it because of the organisation he lived in as a child. Truth or fiction?

And: thank you, Solar!!

My pleasure!

As for the "hair thing": I don't know about truth or fiction, I only know that each time it was mentioned in the film I felt kind of uncomfortable. Or to put it another way: I felt as if those moments were the weaker ones of the film, because it felt a bit like bad writing. To me it came across a bit clumsy, as if they'd wanted to include it in the film but didn't quite find a more subtle way to do it. So they let Assange say something like "That's why my hair is white" twice, and each time I just wanted to hole up in my seat because it just felt... wrong. Don't know how to explain it any better...

Probably the reason it sounds so...wrong....is because it is wrong! Julian doesn't dye his hair and was never part of a cult. WikiLeaks have denied this many times and even if you don't believe them, you can't not believe his own mother:

http://www.news.com.au/national/julian-assanges-mother-tells-of-health-fears-for-wikileaks-founder/story-fncynjr2-1226743379302

(Scroll down to the part where she's talking about the movie)

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

SolarSystem wrote:

Mattlocked wrote:

Which reminds me of: What about that "hair" thing? In the film Julian talked twice about why his hair is white and I started thinking: "Oh my, what is so interesting about his hair colour!? Why do they mention it all the time?" Until at the end there was this explanation that he's dyeing it because of the organisation he lived in as a child. Truth or fiction?

And: thank you, Solar!!

My pleasure!

As for the "hair thing": I don't know about truth or fiction, I only know that each time it was mentioned in the film I felt kind of uncomfortable. Or to put it another way: I felt as if those moments were the weaker ones of the film, because it felt a bit like bad writing. To me it came across a bit clumsy, as if they'd wanted to include it in the film but didn't quite find a more subtle way to do it. So they let Assange say something like "That's why my hair is white" twice, and each time I just wanted to hole up in my seat because it just felt... wrong. Don't know how to explain it any better...

Probably the reason it sounds so...wrong....is because it is wrong! Julian doesn't dye his hair and was never part of a cult. WikiLeaks have denied this many times and even if you don't believe them, you can't not believe his own mother:

http://www.news.com.au/national/julian-assanges-mother-tells-of-health-fears-for-wikileaks-founder/story-fncynjr2-1226743379302

(Scroll down to the part where she's talking about the movie)

But even if it is indeed wrong and they wanted to include it for the sake of... whatever, there certainly would have been a way to do this more subtly, casually. Then I just would have registered it without being so... distracted by it.
For me this is the difference between good and bad writing. And if the writing is good,
it's really not that important to me whether or not it's real or ficticious. Of course it always has to make sense in the context of the movie, but that again is a question of good or bad writing.

SusiGo wrote:

Thanks for the interesting article. But is it true that he and his mother were on the run from his father for several years or was this made up as well?

Sort of! It was his step father, his second step father to be precise. He didn't meet his biological father until he was 22.

His first step dad and his mum split up but it was an amicable split.

His second step dad...they had another kid together - Julian's half brother - and then, when they split up there was a big falling out over custody and a legal battle, during which Julian's mother took the kids and moved, keeping no further contact with her ex-husband who pursued them across the country trying to track them down. This particular guy was quite abusive and violent towards her which was the main reason why she fled him and took the kids...He was actually part of a small cult too, so that part is true, but they only found that out later - he didn't make the kids dye their hair or anything, that's the bit that's been sort of expanded on and I suppose vamped up a bit for the film to make it more dramatic or intriguing, perhaps.

Last edited by Sherlock Holmes (November 5, 2013 3:52 pm)

miriel68 wrote:

I've read Domscheit's book and while it is obviously biased and one-sided, there are probably some elements of truth in it, as well. To be honest, nobody who knows Assange personally has ever described him as a "nice" guy. On the other hand, one of the Polish critics really nailed the question, IMO, by observing that "nice guys do not start revolutions". Still, the movie itself comes out really as a tribute to the idea of Wikileaks and BC did a phenomenal job, by showing that we should thing about what Assange did rather than focus on his personal problems. And I loved the scene between him and Daniel and then the moment he discovers the site has been erased. We are supposed to think that he kind of "lost it" and "brought it on him himself" and may be he did, we will never know. However, there is the intense emotion of hurt and sufference hidden in his eyes, which conveyes perfectly his damaged personality and loneliness. At this moment it's not really important wheter Daniel is "traitor" or "hero": we feel that Assange's shock and pain are genuine and very deep. 

I know, that was the part where I almost cried!!

stoertebeker wrote:

There are some (small) things, IMO, that could have been done better. The first half of the movie was a bit slow, it took some time until the tension of the movie build up. The computer congress at the beginning seems a bit clichéd and stereotyped to me (the location could have been a scene from Big Bang Theory ). Also, many of the scenes that took place in Berlin looked like a high polish city-advertisements ("Look how cool this city is!").

I absolutely agree with that. And, in addition, all the scenes in Tacheles, that warehouse ruin, in which a lot of concerts, alternative congresses, club events or theatre performances have taken place especially in the 90s and 2000s, were unbelievably unbelievable The scenes looked posed, ostentatious and ridiculous, and as somebody who has been at that place several times in the past I can easily say: It never looked like that. The persons weren´t authentic at all, the parties neither. The scene on the Berlin Dome - Jesus, what was that!
The rest was better than I have expected it to be, especially the acting was extremely well (although I don´t know whether it´s close to the real persons or not), but as a résumé I wouldn´t say though it´s a good movie. Too many clichés, too less creative input. What could this film have been with a real innovative director - this was nothing (or at least not much), neither in content nor form.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (November 11, 2013 12:53 pm)

I intend to watch this very soon.
It's such a shame it wasn't a hit; the opinion of the critics seemed to be that Benedict was great in the role, but that the film tried to hard to be balanced and ended up lacking any punch.

I just finished watching this film last night. I didn't much care for it. Benedict did a great job. I agree with Mirie that I simply forgot who Benedict was in the movie, he really became Assange.  But the film was not what I expected. It was based on the recollections of Daniel Berg, and is not a film about Assange per se, or from Assange's point of view.  I didn't find Berg to be a compelling character, as Mirie pointed out. I would have prefered a movie about who Assange is, frankly.   I also found the entire structure of the film to be strange, it just didn't work for me. I can't watch it again.  It was like when I watched "American Hustle". I didn't care for the movie at all - it also had some pacing issues, with certain scenes going on too long, etc. I found myself fast-forwarding through the movie to get to the parts with Jennifer Lawrence (who was phenominal in it). That's probably what I would recommend with TFE - just fast-forward to Benedict's parts!