The Fifth Estate (2013)

Year: 2013

Running Time: 128 minutes

Director: Bill Condon

Writers: Daniel Domscheit-Berg (book), David Leigh and Luke Harding (book), Josh Singer (adaptation)

Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Daniel Bruhl, David Thewlis, Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci, Alicia Vikander

 

The Fifth Estate is now showing in Australia, the USA and the UK.

 



Julian Assange is without a doubt one of the most intriguing figures of the twenty-first century. He may not be everyone's favourite person, but everyone wants to know what he has done, what he is doing and what he is saying. Assange is perceived as being a one of a kind dangerous man, as he has no weapons to fight with besides the truth and the ways he can obtain it.

So it definitely comes as a surprise that The Fifth Estate doesn't provide a solid platform for this enigmatic figure. One may toy with the idea that it may still be a bit too soon to have a feature film about the Wikileaks founder, but it is more to do with the fact that the film has no sense of suspense or tension and is void of any emotion. It is such a shame that an interesting case such as Wikileaks should be presented in such a tedious manner and is unable to grasp the emotion and seriousness of the situation. Yet, the representation of Julian Assange by Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't disappoint.

The Fifth Estate chronicles the rise of Wikileaks from it's very beginnings as seen largely through the eyes of Daniel Berg (Daniel Bruhl). Berg worked closely with the infamous and enigmatic Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) during the quest to uncover the truth that some of the world's largest organisations are withholding from the public. This was the quest that led Assange to having access to the collection of the most incriminating documents in American history. Whilst The Fifth Estate covers in great detail the events that led up to this controversy, it also looks at the relationship between Berg and Assange and gives insight into the real Julian Assange.

The biggest problem with The Fifth Estate is that it is completely void of tension and emotion. In a film such as this in which a recent and culturally significant event is being represented, it is vital that it have the ability to create an emotional impact. There is no emotion felt throughout the whole film, not even when dealing with the revelations of Bradley Manning, which is such an emotional topic anyway. The film coasts along without any urgency and adds at least another ten minutes on at the end which doesn't need to be there. This ten minutes is obviously there for the reason that director, Bull Condon is trying to help the film finish on a spectacular and meaningful note, but it does quite the opposite. The drawn out ending has viewers leaving the film remembering that they just felt bored and this is the memory they take with them about The Fifth Estate.

However, the cinematography is actually really wonderful and equally intriguing. The virtual workspace of Wikileaks is represented brilliantly and is genius, as it represents the deception virtual workplaces can hold. The beginning montage is also very good and the subtitles giving the sense of coming straight of a computer is a nice touch. The soundtrack is most fitting as well.

The actual character of Julian Assange in the film leads us to think that maybe The Fifth Estate has been made a little too early. Anybody who has followed Assange's movements over the past few years and seen footage of him or has seen this year's documentary, We Steal Secrets: The Story Of Wikileaks will recognise many of the scenes are actual recreations of Assange. There are several scenes which mirror Assange's conferences and also one which is a recreation of footage of Assange dancing in his unique style. However, Assange being the person he is is not a personality which transfers well to screen. From what we have seen and heard of him, he is a very complex human being and has a very distinctive air about him. To those who are not familiar with the man (although it is unlikely there are too many who aren't), some of the dialogue used by Benedict Cumberbatch's Assange may seem a little too unusual and his dancing scene especially will seem ridiculous. At this point in time, it is probably a little too soon to be seeing a take on Assange on the screen. His character isn't likable at all on screen, but many may argue that he is not likable in real life as well if Daniel Berg's experiences are anything to go by. One thing is for sure, he is still an interesting and complex character, but he may not be the character current movie goers are interested in seeing. In a few years time when Assange is categorized as an historical figure, he may be even more interesting on screen when audiences are interested in knowing what he was really like. At this point in time, it doesn't feel as though we are finding out anything about Julian Assange that we don't already know, especially if you had already seen We Steal Secrets this year.

Yet this is no fault of Benedict Cumberbatch's. It is evident that Cumberbatch has studied Assange's behaviour, dialogue and body language in great depth for the film and it has paid off, as he does very well and is better than the film he is in. The Englishman's Australian accent is very convincing, just like his portrayal of Assange. Daniel Bruhl is good, but it doesn't feel as though the screenplay gives him enough opportunity to really show emotion or take his performance further. The same can be said for Alicia Vikander who plays Berg's girlfriend, Anke Domscheit. She really does not have enough to work with and all we see are sparks of potential.

It is a shame that we don't see enough of Laura Linney in The Fifth Estate because she is wonderful in this film as Sarah Shaw. She is such a strong female character and shines in her role. Stanley Tucci is in the same boat as James Boswell, as he really does not have enough screen time.

With more emotion and suspense, The Fifth Estate would have worked better in a few years time when people feel the need to find out more about what really happened with Wikileaks. Just a little too soon and a little too weak.

4.5/10



You may have also seen Benedict Cumberbatch in......
Star Trek Into Darkness as Khan

You may have also seen Daniel Bruhl in.....
Rush as Niki Lauda

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Roger Michell

Cast: Bill Murray, Laura Linney, Samuel West, Olivia Colman, Olivia Williams

Before I begin my review…..

  “THIS SEASON’S THE KING’S SPEECH” Hyde Park on Hudson’s promotional poster declares.

 Honestly, this is probably the worst quote they could have chosen to put on their poster. Of course it is a compliment of the greatest kind because The King’s Speech is one of the best films of recent times so there is no better way to promote your film. Yet what it means is that once you get your people into the film, they are just going to be comparing it to The King’s Speech. And that’s a problem when your film clearly isn’t this season’s The King’s Speech.

The obvious similarity between the two is that King George VI and Queen Elizabeth are in both of the films so some of the topics addressed are in both films. This is the third film in as many years to feature these two historical figures. The second film being Madonna’s W.E., which was again by some camps likened to The King’s Speech as it was about King Edward VIII’s abdication to be with Wallis Simpson and King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were featured in it.

 Neither of the latter films contains the power which The King’s Speech had. Not many do considering the film won Best Picture at the Oscars. None of the performances are bad by any of the actors who played Bertie (King George’s nickname to his family) and Elizabeth, but Colin Forth set the bar for future performances of the character.

What a performance to try and live up to. It is quite like thinking about Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance as Lincoln in the film of the same name and imagining someone trying to give the same sort of performance. It’s a hard task as it’s a historical figure they are playing so they can’t put their own spin on what the character is like as there is factual information about how they are. All three actors are striving to be the same person.

 So I do feel sorry in a way for Samuel West. He does give a good performance, but it is hard to look at him and believe he is Bertie as you know that is who Colin Firth perfected. It’s a tough gig.

Review

Hyde Park on Hudson is a good little historical recreation of a weekend which meant so much to both England and the Unites States.

It serves its purpose of informing as well as entertaining, but it is only light entertainment. Hyde Park on Hudson is not a powerful film in any way, shape or form. It would seem there would have been some strange decisions made in the writing of the screenplay and in pre-production that have resulted in this film falling short of its potential.

Daisy (Laura Linney) is a fifth cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Bill Murray) and although she lives not far from his family home of Hyde Park on Hudson, her life is far from the privileged life of the Roosevelts. Her life is turned upside down when FDR’s mother (Elizabeth Wilson) calls upon Daisy to visit her cousin to relax him and two become close friends and then lovers. Daisy is in attendance at Hyde Park on Hudson when King George VI (Samuel West) and Queen Elizabeth (Olivia Colman) come to stay for the weekend, which is a historical occasion as a British king had never before visited the United States. It is also a very important visit for the British royals as Europe was on the verge of war and they wanted the United States as their allies. The visit provides a Saturday night in which nobody gets any sleep and nobody involved will ever forget.

 This film is a treat for anybody who loves their modern history films. It contains four of the most prolific historical figures of the twentieth century as seen from a personal point of view rather than a political point of view. The film makers wanted to show who these characters were as people and show that they are still just like us when they are out of the spotlight.

Director Roger Michell definitely does this, but it is actually quite discouraging in part as by the end of the film, all the characters flaws have been bought to the forefront of the film so much that it is what you most take away from the film. With historical figures such as these who people have and still do love and admire, it’s not really a bad perception of them that you want to walk away with. For example, Queen Elizabeth just comes away looking like a bully to her husband and that notion isn’t really made up for at the end of the film. History tells us that she was a strong willed woman, but also extremely supportive of her husband. It is understood that Michell wanted his characters to be seen as real people with flaws just like the rest of us, but surely he didn’t want to actually put them in a bad light to be remembered.

The films really is very light, there is not a great deal of emotion to be felt about anything in it really. You don’t feel particularly drawn to any of the characters or feel any type of severity for their situations. The way screenwriter, Richard Nelson chose to write the relationship between Daisy and FDR and the way Michell chose to film it is so ridiculously lack lustre. Daisy talks about how much she cares for and misses FDR, but you can’t understand why. Besides being summoned whenever he is in town, their time together doesn’t really seem all that sentimental and there just seems like there is not chemistry between the two at all.

However, the acting is still very good. Bill Murray completely personifies FDR and Samuel West and Olivia Colman are both also very good. Laura Linney hasn’t been given much to work with and she does well from what she is given, but Daisy is not a very interesting character and Linney has certainly had better roles.

Visually, Hyde Park on Hudson is quite impressive with some beautiful location shots and wonderful cinematography. The musical score is also very good and very appropriate to the 1930’s.

This film had so much potential and would have benefitted from changes in the screenplay and production that would have allowed it to have more of an impact on an emotional level. It is an easy watch and a good little historical lesson, but not much more than that.

6/10