Why can’t Hollywood seem to make sense of… | Little White Lies

Why can’t Hol­ly­wood seem to make sense of surveillance?

28 Apr 2016

Words by Fred Wagner

Soldiers in camouflage uniforms and helmets, one soldier wearing glasses stands in the centre.
Soldiers in camouflage uniforms and helmets, one soldier wearing glasses stands in the centre.
Oliv­er Stone’s Snow­den will look to real­is­ti­cal­ly show the actions of the NSA and oth­er gov­ern­ment agencies.

The upcom­ing biog­ra­phy of Edward Snow­den will be one of the first fea­ture films to address gov­ern­men­tal sur­veil­lance since the tor­rent of leaks that began in 2013. Direc­tor Oliv­er Stone has expressed sym­pa­thy for the man behind them (what else would you expect from the guy who made W. and Wall Street?), but aside from the heat­ed pol­i­tics at play there’s also a seri­ous tech­ni­cal issue to address here. The mod­ern meth­ods of sur­veil­lance that have now been exposed to the world are inher­ent­ly dif­fi­cult to por­tray on film, pos­ing a chal­lenge to film­mak­ers look­ing to root their work in fact.

Pro­fes­sor of cin­e­ma at USC, Steve Ander­son, makes the claim in his doc­u­men­tary Screen­ing Sur­veil­lance that Hol­ly­wood has always strug­gled to por­tray com­put­er soft­ware but in par­tic­u­lar, its recent depic­tion of sur­veil­lance hasn’t caught up with today’s real­i­ty. Instead of show­ing the tech­niques real­ly used by the NSA these days, movies have tend­ed to fall back on the famil­iar trope of a total­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ment bug­ging cit­i­zens’ phones. In the mod­ern world, oper­a­tives col­lect and analyse all kinds of data – scooped up in enor­mous nets from the depths of the inter­net – but they aren’t lis­ten­ing in to our actu­al con­ver­sa­tions, except in very rare instances.

Back in 1998, Will Smith vehi­cle Ene­my of the State could be for­giv­en for show­ing every inch of a fugitive’s flat bugged by the feds, but after Snowden’s rev­e­la­tions a film like Jack Ryan: Shad­ow Recruit, from 2014, shouldn’t be mak­ing the same mis­take. On the small screen The Good Wife showed blokes from the NSA tap­ping Ale­sha Florick’s phone calls. Cumu­la­tive­ly, these mis­lead­ing por­tray­als have an impact. We might know all the ins and outs of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance pro­grammes (although polls show that most peo­ple don’t) but in our mind’s eye we still can’t help see­ing beige bureau­crats peep­ing on hap­less civilians.

Hol­ly­wood has depict­ed oth­er big issues of the day with com­par­a­tive clar­i­ty. Take the 2008 finan­cial cri­sis: while The Wolf of Street focused on the hedo­nism that went hand-in-hand with those dia­bol­i­cal­ly risky invest­ments, The Big Short shed light on dodgy deriv­a­tives by liken­ing them to unwant­ed ingre­di­ents at a restau­rant, lumped togeth­er in a stew in order to be passed off as a fresh dish.

So why is Hol­ly­wood seem­ing­ly unable to real­is­ti­cal­ly por­tray sur­veil­lance tech­nolo­gies? Unlike the finan­cial crash, data col­lec­tion is pret­ty abstract. Tril­lions of dol­lars get­ting flushed down the toi­let (or more accu­rate­ly, turn­ing out nev­er to have exist­ed) is eas­i­er to get your head around than the com­plex soft­ware used to keep tabs on our com­mu­ni­ca­tions. Sure­ly though, these pro­grammes can’t be impos­si­ble to represent?

The come­di­an and polit­i­cal com­men­ta­tor John Oliv­er came up with one method in a skit for his TV show. The angle? The gov­ern­ment can see your dick-picks!’. For an inter­view with Snow­den his team did a pop quiz ask­ing peo­ple whether they thought the gov­ern­ment could access this sort of mate­r­i­al (most of them thought it was wild­ly unre­al­is­tic, how­ev­er, Snow­den clar­i­fied that the gov­ern­ment can actu­al­ly access your dick picks). While it came in the guise of a school­boy joke, Oliver’s point was that there is a need to put the issue in terms most of us are not only able to under­stand but also like­ly to remember.

Per­haps Hollywood’s strug­gle to accu­rate­ly depict sur­veil­lance comes down to plain old iner­tia. Just as the War on Ter­ror’ seemed to replace the Cold War as the rai­son d’etre for Amer­i­can mil­i­tary pow­er, so phone tap­ping was cut and past­ed from movies about the Sovi­et Union to those con­cern­ing ter­ror­ism. In some ways this is unsur­pris­ing: the idea of a cor­rupt gov­ern­ment spy­ing on its cit­i­zens makes great dra­ma. In The Lives of Oth­ers, about East Germany’s net­work of state spy­ing, an offi­cer grad­u­al­ly comes to empathise with the play­wright he is sup­posed to be lis­ten­ing in on, unable to stop him­self feel­ing a con­nec­tion to this per­son he has come to know so inti­mate­ly. In Ene­my of the State, Jack Black’s char­ac­ter has a sim­i­lar moral awak­en­ing while on the job. This kind of per­son­al con­tact doesn’t exist in the abstract realm of com­put­er soft­ware, where data is mined but inti­mate secrets aren’t heard.

Films do make a dif­fer­ence to the way we con­cep­tu­alise issues and some­times they can affect our behav­iour quite dra­mat­i­cal­ly. For a recent exam­ple, look at how The Big Short sup­pos­ed­ly brought down the val­ue of Mor­gan Stanley’s sub-prime bonds. For a film­mak­er like Oliv­er Stone, who rou­tine­ly sends out clear polit­i­cal mes­sages, show­ing the real­i­ty of mass sur­veil­lance should sure­ly be a priority.

You might like