As far as biopics go, “Snowden” is solid! It’s structured well, with the infamous documentary interview with Edward Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) acting as the wraparound to his inner workings with the military, CIA, NSA, and various other governmental units. His personal life, such as his relationship with Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley), plays opposite his professional one, at times feeling shrouded in secrecy as he kept it. Everything is building towards the moment in which he blows the whistle on the government, cleverly made intense by cutting back to that interview when severity strikes (i.e. location being founded out, news publications not playing ball, etc.). Overall, the film is an intimate portrait of the life of Edward Snowden, wisely only focusing on the important details (no mopey origin story, thankfully).
As far as political thrillers go, “Snowden” is only serviceable. The explanations of technological power feels lifted out of a low-rent sci-fi novel, even when the facts being divulged are factual. The government is made out to be cartoon villains, spying on civilians while twirling their imaginary mustaches. Those looking for gripping & searing thrills and political allegory ala George Orwell’s “1984” will be disappointed. Technophobes will be shocked, but everyone else may very well find the revelations to be elementary. The law of familiarity could be the cause of this, though I personally found the surprisingly dense dialogue to be the main factor. For such a complex and important scenario, I expect better dialogue than “I thought things would get better with Obama. It didn’t.”
The complexity of the scenario is what helps the film stay afloat. Even when it’s faltering, it’s never without interest. Oliver Stone is so invested in Edward Snowden the person, as opposed to the cult of personality, that the film flourishes amidst the weaker elements of the script (credited to Stone & Kieran Fitzgerald). Considering seventy-five percent of the film is a dramatic recreation of Snowden’s life, it avoids the pratfalls of the technological thriller, focusing more on the humanity. This is as much a character study as it is a political statement.
Even those opposed to Snowden’s actions can find fascination in his story, the same way a person is intrigued by true life crime documentaries. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance is strong enough to engage the most ardent of detractors, breathing humanity into what many see as nothing more than a hacker persona. He is presented as a flawed person, withholding information from the public for years on end to satisfy his desire for a normal life (just as most would do). The deeper he gets involved, the more straining it is on him emotionally. He is more depressed, lashing out at his overly supportive girlfriend. We realize his frustrations with her are only brought upon by his knowledge of governmental tapping, and she suspects this as well. Both she and the audience struggle with the bigger picture, determining if Snowden’s personal well-being trumps that of the government.
All of the relationships in the film are handled by Stone loosely, viewing them as archetypes. Corbin O’Brian (Rhys Ifans) is the secretly corrupt mentor of Snowden, acting benevolent at first, then malevolent when it’s convenient for the script. Hank Forrester (Nicolas Cage) is basically the Snowden prototype, a near whistleblower tucked away by the government in a cushy engineering instructor position. Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo) is the warm documentarian, while Glenn Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) & Ewen MacAskill (Tom Wilkinson) are the determined journalists cracking the case. It’s a testament to the actors in elevating the material above the archetypes and presenting them as fleshed-out individuals driven by ethics and emotions.
Take for example Levitt’s handing of Snowden’s Rubik’s Cube obsession. Its only purpose in the film is to conceal the flash drive containing top secret information. Stone only highlights it to build to that moment and to cheaply showcase Edward’s intelligence. In the hands of Levitt, it is seen as a stress reliever. He treats it like a tic, needing something to keep his hands busy. I myself do the same as a response to my Tourette’s, even playing with a Rubik’s Cube constantly. Mind you, I’m not as smart as Edward and could never figure it out, so it never moved past as a necessary distraction for me. At least with Snowden, I can tell it’s both a mental and stress reliever, a nice touch by Levitt.
Another person deserving of credit is Anthony Dod Mantle, the cinematographer. While he supplies the film with the typical technical imagery (such as zipping through hardware via digital readings), he implements personal touches beneath the surface. He captures Snowden’s technophobia by framing shots in which his pained reflection shines in the lens, disappearing once he grows more comfortable. The world slowly grows blurry once the pressure gets to Edward, commencing in a haze when his epilepsy is triggered. Mantle brought just as much humanity to the proceedings as the actors did!
I won’t deny that “Snowden” could’ve been better. It lacks the raw passion and aggression needed to fuel the political angle. “The Big Short,” this is not. Where it lacks in the thriller department, it more than makes up for in the dramatics. This is a well-crafted and emotionally investing character study bolstered by its cult of personality, but never submitting to it. It wasn’t what I expected, but I was pleased with what I got.
Final Rating: B