As a whole, 2016 has been a primarily emotional year for
cinema, more so than any of the last few. From the heavy fan reactions to
Ghostbusters and the DC cinematic canon, to the emphasis on pathos in some of
the higher-profile releases of the year, filmmakers have been aiming mostly at
the heart all year. Hell, just look at my current list of the year’s films that
I’ve seen: The top is populated with films that focus intently on traits associated with the best of humanity like family, courage and community (albeit rather sexual community), while the bottom is populated by trash
that exhibits the worst of humanity like sexism, racism and ableism. It is this
need for more emotionally potent, yet relevant, cinema that is pretty much my
only rationalisation for why this film exists at this point in time.
After last year’s as-close-as-we’ll-ever-get-to-the-subject documentary Citizenfour, I thought that details concerning the most infamous whistle-blower in recent memory would have been tapped out already. Then again, we’re in Oscar season and these sorts of stories are prime material for that brand of filmmaking, so it isn’t all too surprising that this exists, especially considering who made it. So, on top of delivering as a film in its own right, this biopic now has to prove its right to exist alongside a fairly in-depth feature that’s not even two years old.
After last year’s as-close-as-we’ll-ever-get-to-the-subject documentary Citizenfour, I thought that details concerning the most infamous whistle-blower in recent memory would have been tapped out already. Then again, we’re in Oscar season and these sorts of stories are prime material for that brand of filmmaking, so it isn’t all too surprising that this exists, especially considering who made it. So, on top of delivering as a film in its own right, this biopic now has to prove its right to exist alongside a fairly in-depth feature that’s not even two years old.
