Dear Oliver Stone,

The other night I attended a screening of your new movie Snowden at the Harvard Film Archive. The screening was preceded by a live simulcast of a conversation between yourself and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind. Over the course of the one hour talk, one moment stood out to me in particular.

You: “You learn from experience. Because if you have an ideological idea in your head — as I did — the world challenges that.”

Ron Suskind: “You consider yourself non-ideological now?”

You: “I try to be. Yes.”

That you — a blatantly political artist —  think you are beyond ideology and have a worldview defined entirely by non-biased, objective experiences seems to be… a stretch.

(“Turn off your cell phones!”)

Bringing in the word ideology is a tricky thing. (So many opinions!) Yet I — like a good, lazy millennial — shall just spout out the Google dictionary definition, which describes ideology as “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” This is a functional description of ideology at its most basic — and by these standards it would seem no one is non-ideological.

The real truth here is that your whole life has shaped you ideologically. You even talked about how your time in Vietnam altered your worldview. To make a point, Mr. Stone, here are several of my lived experiences — relating to the topic at hand — and how they shaped my ideology. 

1. As a child my home-phone was, apparently, bugged. I won’t get into the details.
2. In May of 2013, I spent most of my time working at a supermarket. Around this time the Edward Snowden story hit. I watched this play out on the small tube television in the break-room. Some of my workers shook their head at the news. Whispering under their breath ‘traitor,’ much as they had the summer before when Chelsea Manning exposed the extent of the war-crimes our own soldiers committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
3. In 2014, Laura Poitras released her documentary Citizenfour, chronicling the initial meeting between herself, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Snowden, as they discussed how to reveal the leaked information to the public. I once helped facilitate a public discussion on Citizenfour at a cinema I worked at. I became embroiled in an emotional debate with a woman in the back-row who claimed she would have no problem if government agents routinely went to her house and riffled through her mail. I have nothing to hide. 

All of these instances shaped my ideology relating to the culture of mass surveillance and the power of the state. Hell, Mr. Stone, your own movie shaped my ideology. How could it not? As Ron Suskind said during your conversation, “Culture eats everything for breakfast… These movies, for better or for worse, shape people’s perceptions of reality.”

I mean, what is this movie if not a highly political one? By putting your film out there, you are going to shape the political conversation in some way. You are entering an ideological battleground — a battleground you staged quite vividly in Snowden itself! Perhaps you think your viewpoint is special and somehow beyond metrics of ideology.

At one point in Snowden you quote Ayn Rand.

“One man can stop the motor of the world,” the smokey voiced CIA director (?) says.

“Yes, sir,” our whistleblower replies. “I believe that.”

It’s unclear what exactly you intend through this. Ultimately, Edward Snowden proves the quote correct in your movie. However the words are voiced sinisterly through your CIA substitute. This is all not to mention that in reality Ayn Rand is a prominent voice within right wing ideology — libertarians especially. Although you did argue that Snowden could be viewed as much as a libertarian movie as it could a liberal/left one. Whatever the reasoning, using Ayn Rand here is clunky. Invoking such contested ideology.

(Muddled message!)

But don’t get me wrong, I’m not here to tear your flick to shreds. On the contrary, I found it quite valuable despite what I perceived as flaws. If I were a reviewer of some renown I would tell RottenTomatoes to put a plump red tomato next to my byline. Alas, unfortunately, for me and you, I am not.

Here’s what I think is most important about your movie: It will undoubtedly spread the information Edward Snowden leaked, in a much more consumable way, to a larger audience. Perhaps this will help sway Americans who saw him only as a traitor, perhaps it will illuminate others on the true extent of Obama’s shattered promises and the NSA’s desecration of our civil liberties. (One might even say, it could change the shape of the public’s ideology).

Plenty still don’t know why they should care. Edward Snowden revealed himself so people would. Laura Poitras made her film so people would. Glenn Greenwald wrote his book, No Place to Hide, so people would… But still not everyone does!

You: “[Snowden’s] message is clear but people don’t pay attention. They want a personality. That’s why movies exist. And that’s why they focused on him. But he’s the opposite of the celebrity type.” And also: “He’s not a guy I’d hang out with in a bar.”

Your point, it seems to me, is that people don’t care if it’s not portrayed in a Hollywood style movie. To some extent, I understand what you’re getting at here.

And so, to be honest, I find it admirable what you’ve done. Slapping Joseph Gordon-Levitt onto the role, making boring technical things seem exciting, integrating an emotional narrative for audiences to attach to. These are great ways to spread this information further. However, it didn’t cohere into making a good picture — merely a good piece of propaganda. (And I mean no disrespect in calling it that).

Ron Suskind: “[By] embracing dramatic license… This movie will probably go far beyond the documentary film or the book and be replaced as reality.”

You: “[For example] Milk was a great documentary, it was a also a great feature. I find it to be complementary, not contradictory… It’s all a continuation of an exploration. A story can be told many ways.”

This is true. A story can be told in many ways, and I think your picture will be helpful in this exploration. I think the verve with which you direct scenes of abstract information goes beyond what Citizenfour could do. 

However, it just also seems you applied zero care or energy into your love story of Edward Snowden and his longtime girlfriend Lindsay Mills. Blandly characterized as some, I dunno, Liberal-Pixie Dream Girl – and definitely sexualized by your director’s eye in some strange ways – the Mills character largely seems to exist as a catalyst for Snowden’s ideological change.

Beyond that, it just is not engaging. There’s not enough time for the film to both disseminate information and tell a good love story and be a spy thriller. It’s a shame — but also an impossible task. Your need to shape the ideology surrounding the Snowden controversy takes away from this movie being a good piece of filmic art.

But Snowden is, nonetheless, important. I believe that.  ?

I hold no illusions that you will read this, but if you do, I hope you are well and happy.

Sincerely,

W. Logan Freeman

Snowden
2016
dir. Oliver Stone
140 mins

Screening attended 9/12 @ Harvard Film Archive, with live Q&A between Oliver Stone and Ron Suskind