Snowden

(warning: contains spoilers for Snowden)

I'm baffled by the Edward Snowden story, if I'm honest.  Here we have a guy who leaked classified information from the government, thus exposing that there's illegal mass surveillance going on without our permission.  The government, with the most tenuous of reasons, can then access our phones, webcams, emails, etc - both historically and in real time - to see what we're up to.  Snowden is now one of the most wanted men in the world.  And...we all seem ok about this?  Maybe a bit disgruntled, but I don't see anyone decrying technology and going to live off the grid.  Here I am blogging about a film about it.

And how do we feel about Snowden anyways?  He's exposed a major governmental and international surveillance scheme (well, that's good right?).  And now he's sought refuge in Russia, and Putin has granted him asylum (wait, aren't Russia the bad guys?).  Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Barack Obama have spoken out against Snowden's actions (those guys don't really agree on anything, do they?).

That said, the government have acknowledged that they want to avoid another major terrorist event like 9/11 and so it's important to be able to quickly access any information on any person for any related reason, no matter how tenuous that reason...

If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then what does any of this mean?

Ponder...

 Let's just look at the film...

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the lead role in this Oliver Stone film, based on The Snowden Files and Time of the Octopus.  The film provides some biographical background into Snowden, and how injury meant he left the army, came to work for the NSA, and discovered the illegal mass surveillance operations being performed without the knowledge of the public, post 9-11.  This interweaves with "present day" Snowden feeding this information secretly to journalists Glenn Greenwald (Tom Wilkinson) and Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo) so the information can be made public.

The cast is impressive, and it feels like these actors (including Nicholas Cage, Rhys Ifans, Shailene Woodley, and Zachary Quinto) are all making a tacit acknowledgement that they stand with Snowden in protest of the governments overarching surveillance programme.  That it is an Oliver Stone film feels like it should be a more bombastic affair, screaming about injustice and controversy, but this film feels like it's come and gone as quietly as the story of Snowden itself.  Why is this not grabbing more attention?

In some ways, it's a bit like I, Daniel Blake, inasmuch as it's a film with a message to convey, rather than a story to tell.  And bits of that story become clunky in trying to get the message across.  An early conversation between Snowden and his girlfriend Lindsey Mills seems like a series of straw man arguments about privacy in order to make a point.  The film quietly nudges us to remember all the ways in which we are surveyed in our day to day lives - from webcams and texts, to the websites we access, to CCTV and GPS.  For me, there was a more interesting story in what was happening to Snowden personally as he tried to come to terms with all he was discovering - his relationships suffer, his physical health suffers, his mental health suffers, and he becomes increasingly paranoid that he is being watched (although, arguably, is it paranoia if someone really is watching you?)  A chilling moment comes near the end of the film, when Snowden admits to his NSA mentor Corbin O'Brian (Rhys Ifans) that he is worried that his girlfriend is cheating on him - O'Brian tells him not to worry about it - he's already checked Lindsey's social media, texts and emails.  He can guarantee she's not.

I feel I should be leaving this film incensed.  But I'm not.  This is an important story, and it hasn't been well told.  In fact, I'm advised that Citizenfour is the one to watch to get a better factual understanding of this story as a whole.  So let's look that one out instead.

But I did leave the film feeling paranoid.  I can be traced to the cinema, from the CCTV that was there when I walked in.  I can be traced to the film from the details accessed on my cinema card.  Even the food I ate can be traced by the details on my receipt and bank card.  And as soon as the credits started, all the cinema screens in the cinema went off unexpectedly...

Legitimate wear for the 21st century?

True story.

I, Daniel Blake

(Warning: contains spoilers for I, Daniel Blake)

2016 isn't cheery.  There's celeb deaths aplenty, Brexit confusion, worldwide discord, and a Wotsit with weird hair is soon to be in charge of America.  To add to the gloom, Ken Loach decided to make a film about the benefits system in 2016.  Thanks Ken (then).


I, Daniel Blake is the story of the eponymous Daniel Blake (Dave Johns) who, after working as a joiner for all of his adult life has a heart attack when he's 59, and is advised not to work for a time by his GP, surgeon and physiotherapist.  Unfortunately, this leaves him at the mercy of the benefits system which deems him fit to work because he can still walk 50m unaided, raise his arms, and isn't incontinent (therefore not eligible for Employment and Support Allowance).  Bemused, but undeterred, he applies for Job Seekers Allowance, but the odds are stacked against him given that he has one set of skills from the one type of job he can do (but isn't allowed to do), all assistance is online (and he's computer illiterate), and even if he gets past all that and is offered a job he won't be able to take it because he's not medically fit enough.

Expect to see this spray painted on JobCentre walls near you soon...

 Along the way, he meets Katie (Hayley Squires) who is a single mother who has been moved to Newcastle from a homeless hostel in London because of a lack of affordable housing in the capital.  Away from familiar surroundings and her own support network, she struggles with two small children, the financial implications of relocation, and lack of suitable employment.

The film is a series of small defeats that strip the characters of a little more dignity, a little more humanity, and reduces them to ciphers that don't quite fit into the prescribed Governmental boxes.  For example, Daniel spends his days on foot taking his CV to various worksites.  However, he cannot prove to the JobCentre that he did this, so is put forward for sanction.  Katie gets caught shoplifting sanitary pads because the local foodbank cannot supply them as essential items (a small but pointed protest about the so called "Pink Tax" - https://www.listenmoneymatters.com/the-pink-tax/).

The Foodbank Scene.  Too sad to caption.

If I were to be critical about this film, it would be to say that the "victims" of the benefits system are too saintly.  They do absolutely everything they're "supposed" to.  There's not a trace of drug or alcohol use in this film.  But that "saintliness" is deliberate: it leaves us in no doubt that it is not the people who are the issue - it is the system that is broken, and it's facilitated by the people who do not question the ineffectiveness of it all.  For example - the "healthcare professionals" who perform Daniel's Fitness to Work tests (who have no medical training or qualifications, and cannot record that he has a heart condition because there is no box on the assessment form for that), the Jobcentre staff who have no time to listen to people's stories or rationale and get frustrated that their clients don't/can't follow their demands to the letter and penalise them as such.  The manager who reprimands the one "helpful" JobCentre person for offering to help Daniel navigate the assessment forms.  At a mandatory CV training course, the teacher notes that Costas in Nottingham received 1700 applications for 8 jobs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21521125). 
"What does this tell us?" 
"...that there's not enough jobs to go round?" asks Daniel
"No," the teacher chirps, instantly pegging Daniel as a 'disruptive influence'. "It means your CV really has to instantly stand out to a potential employer."

Probably not acceptable under DWP standards

It's not entirely grim.  There are uplifting notes throughout - arguably, this is also a film about how small communities of people help each other out when things get tough (Blake's neighbours, the Foodbank).  How the same internet age that stymies Daniel is also the one that allows his neighbours to thrive as they Skype about selling knock-off branded trainers.


One thing is clear - the welfare system has been so finely honed to deter people who may be considering a life of idleness that it has forgotten the reason why it was set up in the first place: to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need.  Yes, there are people who manipulate the system.  Of course there are.  But in trying to deal with them, there are people who actually need those benefits, (need that food, need that cash) who wind up suffering instead.


I leave you with these thoughts.
1.  It is a sad affair when society needs to be reminded of the human element of austerity via film.  But here we are in 2016, needing that reminder.
2.  There is a reticence for this film to be seen.  Why is Doctor Strange screened across all cinemas at all times of the day, but I have struggled to see this film once in the entire county?
3.  Here is a much more articulate, real life example of why this film is important:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/22/i-am-daniel-blake-millions-like-me-jack-monroe-ken-loach
4.  If you were under any doubt that this film was accurate, look to the small, sober note on the credits: "thanks to dozens of JobCentre staff who told us of their experiences and chose to remain anonymous" [paraphrased]
5.  You are Daniel Blake.  I am Daniel Blake.