One has to wonder, after seeing a documentary such as this, if the ideas in the film were more important than its quality. The thing is every movie is propaganda: if they were artistic expression of creative people they wouldn't all look the same. Most people are not actually paying for truth and they are not paying for art, instead they are only looking for validation of their own concepts and ideas.
That is why I find it difficult to comment on a film like Freedom Downtime. On one hand I totally believe Kevin Mitnick and a lot of hackers to have been mistreated and witch hunted by governments and the American one in particular. On the other hand it is hard to take seriously a documentary that is almost completely one-sided, like Michael Moore's stuff.
The entire premise of the film is that Kevin's friends talk freely to Emmanuel Goldstein, while corporations, government agencies and hostile witnesses and agitators in the Mitnick case refuse to cooperate. But I can't possibly buy that. They accidentally met two friendly lawyers during the making of the film; I am sure they could have made a whole lot more trying to tackle the problem legally and diplomatically. A high profile case like that should have attracted a lot of legal vultures. But instead the makers of the film went out of their way to show how unfair they were treated and thrown out from every place they were trying to get to. So did Moore, if you remember his movies, and they were of the same format: sticking it to people and then complaining they were not taken seriously, then showing only the producer's point of view.
I have read Mitnick's book, which is much more open and moderate, and it had a whole lot much of an effect on me. This film is two hours long and it very rarely actually discloses facts. Probably Wikipedia's page is more informative than this documentary. I had the impression it told more about Bernie S. than about Kevin Mitnick, so clearly something was off. There is an interview with Mitnick bundled with the film, but it is so badly made that I have to ask myself if Goldstein wanted to discredit Kevin. They feed him energizers and then let him blow off steam on record. The poor guy is so enraged and traumatized by his experience that he can barely express himself.
Anyway, to summarize: I really empathize with Mitnick's plight and the point of view of the authors of the film, but I don't think the film was very good. The purpose of such a production is to show a point of view in a way that brings more people to it, in a way that makes people believe the point. People that are in the field and have every reason to already believe what is in the film have no need to see it, while people who don't have very little chance to connect to anything Freedom Downtime has to offer. As such, it failed and was probably more of an ego trip for Goldstein and his crew.
I can't stop fearing, though, that I am having the same reaction the legal system in the US had about Mitnick: if the defense lawyer is not highly skilled and highly paid, probably Kevin is guilty; if the film is low budget and made by amateurs, then its message is probably not good.
That is why I find it difficult to comment on a film like Freedom Downtime. On one hand I totally believe Kevin Mitnick and a lot of hackers to have been mistreated and witch hunted by governments and the American one in particular. On the other hand it is hard to take seriously a documentary that is almost completely one-sided, like Michael Moore's stuff.
The entire premise of the film is that Kevin's friends talk freely to Emmanuel Goldstein, while corporations, government agencies and hostile witnesses and agitators in the Mitnick case refuse to cooperate. But I can't possibly buy that. They accidentally met two friendly lawyers during the making of the film; I am sure they could have made a whole lot more trying to tackle the problem legally and diplomatically. A high profile case like that should have attracted a lot of legal vultures. But instead the makers of the film went out of their way to show how unfair they were treated and thrown out from every place they were trying to get to. So did Moore, if you remember his movies, and they were of the same format: sticking it to people and then complaining they were not taken seriously, then showing only the producer's point of view.
I have read Mitnick's book, which is much more open and moderate, and it had a whole lot much of an effect on me. This film is two hours long and it very rarely actually discloses facts. Probably Wikipedia's page is more informative than this documentary. I had the impression it told more about Bernie S. than about Kevin Mitnick, so clearly something was off. There is an interview with Mitnick bundled with the film, but it is so badly made that I have to ask myself if Goldstein wanted to discredit Kevin. They feed him energizers and then let him blow off steam on record. The poor guy is so enraged and traumatized by his experience that he can barely express himself.
Anyway, to summarize: I really empathize with Mitnick's plight and the point of view of the authors of the film, but I don't think the film was very good. The purpose of such a production is to show a point of view in a way that brings more people to it, in a way that makes people believe the point. People that are in the field and have every reason to already believe what is in the film have no need to see it, while people who don't have very little chance to connect to anything Freedom Downtime has to offer. As such, it failed and was probably more of an ego trip for Goldstein and his crew.
I can't stop fearing, though, that I am having the same reaction the legal system in the US had about Mitnick: if the defense lawyer is not highly skilled and highly paid, probably Kevin is guilty; if the film is low budget and made by amateurs, then its message is probably not good.