“The Fifth Estate” may be just as polarizing to audiences as the man upon which the film is based: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Starring British actor Benedict Cumberbatch as the titular figure, “The Fifth Estate” has not been too well received as of late.
In addition to a dismal opening weekend box office performance of approximately $1.7 million, the film has been at the center of scrutiny from Assange himself.
“I believe that [“The Fifth Estate”] is going to be overwhelmingly negative for me and the people I care about,” Assange wrote in an open letter to Cumberbatch on WikiLeaks. “It is based on a deceitful book by someone who has a vendetta against me and my organization.”
While some of Assange’s criticisms may be valid, it is clear that the film’s mission is not to portray Assange in a negative light.
Instead, the film merely asks an age-old question that should prompt fierce debate within the U.S.
Rather than deliberately sway the opinions of audience members, “The Fifth Estate” serves as a brief backdrop to WikiLeaks’ meteoric rise to international notoriety.
Those who want a more detailed description of WikiLeaks should research the topic more.
In order to understand many of the criticisms leveled against “The Fifth Estate,” one must know the books upon which the film was based.
A book written by former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg and journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding of The Guardian provides much of the backdrop for “The Fifth Estate.”
Understandably, Assange was upset that film executives did not directly contact him and ask for his personal views on the subject matter.
The problem with Assange’s hurt feelings is that the film is neither a smear campaign against him nor the definitive account of WikiLeaks’ rise to fame.
Yes, “The Fifth Estate” casts Assange and Domscheit-Berg as two figures who become fed up with one another.
It is not the film’s intent, however, to portray both characters in a neutral manner.
Instead, “The Fifth Estate” tries to highlight the conflict between the more conservative Domscheit-Berg and the liberal Assange.
“The Fifth Estate” is a political thriller banking on audience members who are interested in learning more about one of the most controversial figures in the 21st century.
Yes, Assange is justified in some of his criticisms leveled against the film.
If those marketing “The Fifth Estate” call it the definitive account of WikiLeaks’ rise, then they are wrong.
Film marketers have not called “The Fifth Estate” the definitive account of Assange’s life, though, thus nullifying some of Assange’s criticisms.
Already a polarizing figure, Assange’s reputation cannot be further tarnished by Cumberbatch’s portrayal of him.
“The Fifth Estate” is a dramatization. To treat it as anything but a dramatization is foolish.
Shane Newell is a junior journalism major and the opinions editor at the Daily 49er.