Small and Immense, Profound and Simple: 'The Fifth Estate'

Julian Assange's mind becomes a landscape: an office space expands forever, desks and monitors stretch into the distance, each occupied by many, many Julians.

The Fifth Estate

Director: Bill Condon
Cast: Benedict Cumberbatch, Daniel Bruehl, Anthony Mackie, David Thewlis, Alicia Vikander, Peter Capaldi, Moritz Bleibtreu, Carice van Houten, Dan Stevens, Stanley Tucci, Laura Linney
Rated: R
Studio: DreamWorks Pictures
Year: 2013
US date: 2013-10-18 (General release)
UK date: 2013-10-11 (General release)

"It doesn't matter how small you are, as long as you have faith and a plan of action." Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) asserts this admirable ethos to a rather stunned Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Brühl). Until this point, about a half hour into The Fifth Estate, Julian as suggested that he has squads of volunteers working for him, avid acolytes eager to help him to change the world. Now, Daniel realizes, it's just Julian and him.

Daniel is duly flabbergasted by the news, and even pauses for a moment to wonder whether he should go forward with their world-changing project, that is, WikLleaks, Julian's brainchild enhanced considerably by Daniel's efforts over a few months. When Julian presents the lies he's been telling as part of doing business, a means to an end of greater good, Daniel makes the decision to believe him, to have faith and to help to develop the plan of action, or at least to follow it as Julian lays it out, step by step.

These steps constitute the primary plot of The Fifth Estate, a fictionalized account of how Assange and his ever tiny band of cohorts made Wikileaks into an organization dedicated to exposing institutional secrets, that is, enacting "a whole new form of social justice." The initial concept is at once small and immense, profound and simple, and as WikiLeaks takes it to increasingly larger institutions -- corruptions in Kenya and the Swiss Bank Julius Baer -- its reputation expands. Indeed, the film recounts, when Julius Baer sues WikiLeaks, the resulting publicity is good for the organization (more financial donations, more international media attention) and also complicating for Assange. For, the film contends, Julian is at least as interested in his own reputation and stardom as he is in the exposure of information.

It's this last that becomes an issue for the film's Daniel (the script is based on his book, Inside WikiLeaks, as well as WikiLeaks by David Leigh and Duke Harding), for as Julian's celebrity increases, so it becomes apparent to Daniel that he's something of an egotistical sort, with a sense of himself that is in no way small. This characterization will not be news to most viewers of the film, as this has been the story surrounded the real-life Assange, promulgated by both his enemies and friends, not to mention himself. But for Daniel, in particular, the revelation is not only slow in coming but also something of a moral lesson.

The growing tensions between the men are structured in two ways, one entirely conventional and the other visually tedious. For the first, the film provides Daniel with a new lens thorough which to view his partner -- or, as Julian sees himself, his employer, though he pays his workers nothing -- in the form of a girlfriend. Anke (Alicia Vikander) is encouraging of the project at first, but soon sees that Julian is a needy, self-absorbed, utterly insensitive bully, a point made manifest when Julian shows up one night at Daniel's apartment, and takes no notice of Anke's state of undress or that he's interrupting the couple being a couple, essentially forcing Daniel to choose between them. When Daniel suggests that he must let Julian in because he has "nowhere else to go," Anke announces that she does, and stomps off into the night, receding from Daniel's view down a stairway that provides for echoing footsteps.

The question of just how extraordinary Julian's social competitiveness may be compounded when he meets Daniel's parents (Franziska Walser and Edgar), and against Daniel's first instinct, comes to their home and acts out like a preteen, expressing his own anger about his missing or rejected or otherwise inept parents, and making clear for everyone -- including Daniel -- that perhaps his lofty activist goals don't mean he must behave so cruelly toward others.

The film picks this up in the form or the US government's resentments against WikiLeaks and Assange. Laura Linney plays a State Department diplomat whose personal associate (Alexander Siddig) is endangered by the WikiLeaks release of gunsight footage from a 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike, implicating the US in war crimes; that her job is also at stake because of Julian's expanding "plan of action" allows the film to pose another set of questions, as to whether diplomatic careers can lead to "social justice" of any kind.

The Fifth Estate's second method of showing the mens' relationship is less explicitly narrative contrivances, but rather, a visual solution to a narrative dilemma. As so much of their work occurs online, the film faces the usual problem of how to make screens and keystrokes compelling viewing. To solve this puzzle, Julian's mind becomes something of a landscape for the film: as he works, the film shows an office-like space expanding forever, with a sandy floor and a blue sky as ceiling, desks and monitors stretching into the distance, occupied by many, many Julians.

Yes, h's an egomaniac. Yes, he has visions quite beyond those of ordinary folks' capacity. And yes, the movie is awfully corny in these too explanatory metaphorical efforts. The camera swoops and circles Julian at work, with close-ups of his face suggesting his consternation or pleasure. Simultaneously sensational and so banal, these images suggest the film's disappointing lack of imagination in showing the interrelated constraints and immensities of how minds can do their work.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.