Novelty+ controversy+ attention-grabbing title sequence = approach to a successful movie
As conception of new ideas becomes more difficult, filmmakers run the risk of being called imitative and boring. As a result, filmmakers today have adopted a new strategy to ensure their movie’s success at the box office. Bill Condon’s “The Fifth Estate” about Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder is a quintessential example.
Julian Assange, an internationally recognized man, provides the basis of novelty and controversy in Condon’s new venture. As the leader of a controversial organization, Assange has been deemed, as the title of the article suggests, “both hero and villain, and irresistible”. According to David Carr, Assange’s recognition and “transnational” accent makes him a prime choice of filmmakers today. In fact, there were five movies vying to capture the story of WikiLeaks, but only one documentary (“We Steal Secrets”) and the upcoming movie (“The Fifth Estate”) went in production.
To promote his film, Condon has assigned Prologue (a digital design company) the responsibility to creatively advertise the movie. The two-minute long title sequence aims to “re-create the [17,000 year-old] history of the news media” and highlight the creation of an ultimate forum that has become subject to controversy around the world. In fact, the opening sequence traces history from “oral precedents” and shamans of developing civilizations to written language to printing press in Renaissance, all the way to digital devices we use today.
Although I find Condon’s approach very innovative and entrepreneurial, I am unsure of how the audiences will react to the plot in general. Benedict Cumberbatch, who will essay the role of Julian Assange, is known for his acting skills. (Honestly, it is surprisingly that his appearance bears so much resemblance to Assange’s.) The movie sounds promising and novel, but as Carr mentions, Assange’s character may strike a chord with the audience, and remind them of different heroes and villains in past movies and television shows. If it turns out that Assange’s character bears resemblance with popular characters of the past, (namely, Tom Cruise in “Minority Report,” Harrison Ford in “Blade Runner,” and Robert Redford in “3 Days of the Condor”), then the movie will lose its appeal. A novel idea should be exactly what it promises—new.
At the same time, however, the movie has two things going for it. One, the distinct prologue is bound to draw the audience’s attention and incite some curiosity within those who know little to nothing about WikiLeaks and its operations. Moreover, the movie comes off as a thriller, which gives the viewer more to work with and think about. Prologue’s title sequence leaves the viewer on edge by using visual techniques where “pulses of light…circle the globe, in some new digital order that appears not to have sorted itself just yet.” This uncertainty will perhaps be the primary momentum that drags people into movie theaters on October 18th.
Second, coincidentally or not, the movie is releasing in light of a government shutdown and political problems that have accelerated due to that. This may work to the movie’s benefit, especially compelling the skeptics and cynics to go to the theaters.
What I want to know is how the movie features Julian Assange. Contrary to expectations, Julian Assange has already condemned the movie for tailoring facts and wrongly depicting him for the purposes of filmmaking. The outlooks on his character will obviously vary form the perspectives of his supporters to Bill Condon to his opponents, but the question is: how will he really be portrayed—as a hero or as a villain?
Work Cited
Carr, David. “Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Founder, Has His Cinema Moment.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Oct. 2013. <www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/movies/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-has-his-cinema-moment.html?ref=arts&_r=0>.
Cieply, Michael. “Creating a Prologue for ‘Fifth Estate'” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 4 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/movies/creating-a-prologue-for-fifth-estate.html>.
I am one of those people that always compares one movie to every other I have seen in the past. In my opinion recent movies (over the past 2 or 3 years) have been using historic events for ideas in movies for lack of ingenuity. Argo. the story of American prisoners in Iran hidden under a mask of a movie crew to escape. Besides the fact that they filmed that movie incredibly the story is known as truth and even if you didn’t like the directors art you clapped at the end of that movie. You clapped because its scary that that could happen to free Americans and amazing that they came home alive from such a barbaric country.
Wiki-links is not as straight forward as Argo was. The concept of Argo was to go in to Iran and get those Americans back home, alive. Wiki-inks was highly classified information made pubic by the choice of this one man. Most people have very different opinions on Julian Assange. This movie will be the end all factor that gives everyone the last, permanent, opinion and remembrance of him. Villain or Hero? I have no idea what the creatives of this movie decided but I do know in truth Julian is both. He might have given away top secrets which AMerica prides itself on being secretive about. but on the other hand he publicized the faux manor of foreign officials without America being penalized.
I personally feel movies about historical or current events are destined to fail mainly because history is not clear cut and intense like movies. I do not know how they will make this movie into a real thriller considering past thrillers. I do like the approach as you said, with doing something new and innovative. I feel that such an approach will help the movie being compared to other movies. The risk though is that it might not appeal to the average viewer so it becomes a balancing act. I think he will be portrayed as a hero because it seems more intuitive to make a movie about this global crusader who tells the people what they need to know as opposed to some information thief. The former is more endearing and engaging than the latter.
The biggest question I have for the production of this movie is, how did they capture Julian Assange’s actual story? Assange condemned the production of this movie and it is highly unlikely he assisted in its creation. The movie will not represent what really happened and instead will contain misleading facts based on the media. This movie and many others will determine how the public views Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Whether he is a villain or hero is not determined by the viewers, but by the producers of the movies. It is the responsibility of the producers to represent their subjects as accurate as possible because it will have an effect on the people involved.
The movie industry is a place for profit, but that is no excuse to inaccurately represent Wikileaks. If Julian Assange didn’t agree to the production of films associated with him, then producers should not have pursued it. If the movie industry really wanted to inform the public then it would respect both sides of the argument regarding Assange’s status as a villain or hero. Which might be impossible because those involved with Wikileaks might refuse to cooperate and provide information. In this case the movie industry should not pursue the topic of discussion because they will mostly do more harm than good to shape the public’s view.
It’s true that people make movies for the sake of profits. But I think for “The Fifth Estate,” Condon offers more than just an entertaining “movie.” Movies have the tendency to make us question our realities. Like in the “Back to the Future” trilogy, I wondered if the future held flying cars and hoverboards in 2015. In “Angels and Demons,” I wondered if antimatter or an obscure cult really existed. Movies get us thinking, and that is what I think Condon is trying to do for his movie.
There really is no way of telling what happened for sure. But by portraying the situation in a thrilling film that captivates and attracts audiences, the topic is given a huge spotlight so that more people will be exposed to the events behind Wikileaks and Julian Assange. If more people know about it, then they will be encouraged to talk about it, no matter how vague or questionable the circumstances are portrayed in the film. Condon is trying to stir curiosity in his audiences to that they will be roused to learn more information about Assange and his deeds.
I am hoping for Assange to be portrayed as exactly the opposite of what you warned he might be – I want to see a character that can both be viewed as evil and good, in a novel way. There are many perspectives on his controversial nature, and I think that having a film that reflects all those perspectives would be very beneficial for people to see.
When it comes to most films that depict recent history, people condemn them for being inaccurate, as Assange has done. I remember the same thing being done when Zero Dark Thirty was released. I hope that people don’t see Assange’s distaste for the film as a reason not to go see it – in fact, I think that this raises the controversial nature of the film and should encourage more people to see it.
For a movie based on actual events, I can see the premise of the movie either trying to defy what the news had typically portrayed to have happened or simply following the same perspective with a blockbuster exaggeration of events. With these movies, production companies are relying on the excitement and controversy WikiLeaks had posed in real life and hoping that its motion picture will stir the same response. Therefore, immediately the movie gains some revenue from those who had closely followed the Julian Assange scandal. The next challenge is to entice those whose interests do not fall in political and social genre. I think that’s where Benedict Cumberbatch can help the movie ratings. Having successfully done starred in several films, his notoriety will gain more viewers for the new movie. After that lies where advertising truly comes into play.
I think it’s very hard to make a good movie about current events, especially if released in blockbuster, because profit is the driving motivation. How truthful and accurate the movie is will come second. As how the movie will perform considering the current government shutdown, I think it’s an interesting factor to consider. The government shutdown certainly can’t take away from the ratings.
A multifaceted character would be an interesting portrayal of Julian Assange. Furthermore in all honesty, the concept of a movie “based on true events” has been overused to the point where the public is almost completely inured to the concept of a movie actually being based off true events. It can also be somewhat hard to describe what actually happens in history, as there are countless points of view to a single event. This is furthermore unlikely an accurate account of events, if the man the movie is going to be based on does not approve of the movie itself. History should be left to the documentaries rather than blockbuster movies, because historical instances should be informative and not made for entertainment. There should be experts referenced, and there should be
a sense of accuracy with the information presented.
Condon’s approach very innovative and entrepreneurial, but does it really matter if audiences are conflicted by Julian Assange’s character? I feel like this debate and unsettlement of Assange’s character is good for the public as it generates creative argument. I agree very much with Jeremy’s view that it shouldn’t and doesn’t matter that Assange himself is condemning the movie. This does bring forth the questions of how Assange wants the movie to portray him as, and it sparks interest in the motives of Assange.