Director Oliver Stone likes to tell stories of larger-than-life characters. Or not just characters, but real people caught up in the swirl of American history, which is sometimes to say world history: John F. Kennedy in JFK (1991); Jim Morrison in The Doors (1991); Richard Nixon in Nixon (1995); Fidel Castro in Commandante (2003); Alexander the Great in Alexander (2005); and George W Bush in W (2008). The fuzzy line between glory and shame of American policy is also his favourite subject, such as in the Vietnam War-set Platoon (1986), Wall Street (1987), Born On The Fourth Of July (1989) and World Trade Center (2006).
In short, it seems natural that the left-leaning Stone is the director of Snowden. The film, which opens this week, stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the former CIA employee Edward Snowden, who cemented his position in modern history after leaking numerous classified documents to the press regarding covert global surveillance programmes undertaken by the US government in 2013. Starting with Snowden holed up in Hong Kong, the film looks back at key moments in his life and how it leads him to make the big decision to "betray" his own government.
Hero or traitor, whistle-blower or spy, patriot or betrayer? Stone was in Bangkok earlier this week to promote Snowden, and he discussed various aspects about his new film, as well as cyberwar, Trump vs Clinton and Thailand's involvement in the Vietnam War. Here's an edited version of the interview.
Of all the stories you could have told, why Snowden's?
Because Mr Snowden brought out to the world crucial information, and I think the world doesn't recognise what this information is really about, and I think making a movie humanising him and also showing what he went through helps enormously to relay this material to other people. [The information in the film] is quite advanced, and is not necessarily easy to come by. I remind you that not many people have talked about the inner workings of the NSA [National Security Agency], and [Mr Snowden] is the first whistle-blower with a lot of evidence. The first one.
What are your views on patriotism? Does it mean being loyal to the ideals of your country, or the reality of your country's interests?
The word 'patriot' is actually very rarely used. It's really a fascist word, to [ask someone], 'Are you a patriot?'. Only an oppressive state would use that terminology. In fact [Snowden's] boss, played by Rhys Ifans, says 'you don't have to be a patriot to disagree with your politicians', talking about the Iraq war. But this is the same man that talks about how America has provided prosperity to the world for the last 80 years since World War II, and how there hasn't been a World War III, acting like they're the saviour of the world. This is far from the truth, and what Mr Snowden finds out over the course of the movie is that this man and his agency is drag-netting the entire world.
Creating a global surveillance infrastructure without telling people, without democratic consent. This is what Mr Snowden brought to the people for free -- he didn't take any money, he gave it away to journalists to decide 'what is in the public interest'. I think he was hoping the public would respond, but the public, one, doesn't understand the material, and number two, there's a natural apathy in America. In my country, if you say 'oh, he gave away secrets' or 'he wasn't loyal to the military or the NSA', that's an easy way to blacken his name and reputation. I hope that this movie can help reinforce his message, and spread it out to the rest of the world. It's a very serious message, which isn't just about mass surveillance, but also about drone warfare, and cyber warfare.
In your interpretation, is Edward Snowden a traitor, or a hero?
You must see the movie and make your own mind up. I think it's clear from the movie that what he did was for the benefit of the public interest. No one was hurt, there's no blood on anyone's hands, meanwhile the NSA has still refused to provide any evidence. I think this is a hopeless [situation]. You can always accuse someone of something, but why would he be a traitor? A traitor sells his information, and would not admit publicly to what he did.
What are the differences between the documentary Citizen Four, which is about Snowden, and this film?
The documentary is a fine film, but it only looks through five days. It's just a slice of what he did. They don't show you how the [surveillance programmes] work, or why he released the documents. It was very much in present tense, whereas this is a dramatisation of nine years of his life, from 2004-2013. So I think it is humanising him, telling you who he is and why he did it.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden.
How has meeting with the actual Edward Snowden influenced your perspective or the plot of the film?
It is his story, his version of events. That was where we got all our information from, backed up by the books that we brought. The Guardian had done a biography, but I want to point out there were several errors in it. Of the journalists' accounts of that time, many were inaccurate. That's the way the news is, trying to shape itself when something's unclear. He tried to make it crystal clear when he went on TV himself, where he spoke directly with the worldwide public, though it is often still confused.
The NSA has told us their story, which is official denial. [They said Snowden] fabricated this, that he was a low-level employee with a narcissistic complex, and wanted to be famous. That's been their story throughout.
It seems in the film that you try to take a neutral, more journalistic approach to Mr Snowden and let the viewers decide for themselves..
I tried to do it that way. I didn't put my views on there, and I didn't really go into the argument the NSA gives, but you do hear it briefly in the movie from Corbin O'Brien [Rhys Ifan's character], who talks about how America has prevented World War III, and how we need a centralised intelligence process to keep ahead of the enemy. Who is the enemy? It's not terrorism, he says, it's Iran, Russia and China, who will inject malware into our system. Who injected malware into which system first, you have to ask. It's a new form of warfare. [The US] never announced it, they officially deny [injecting malware to other countries]. It is essentially equivalent to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. That's what it is. But the argument is that the US somehow has the right to do everything it wants to do, and everyone else has to play along.
How much truth do you think is in the adage 'people want security, not freedom?'
I think that's the American point of view. I think that's how the political candidates present it. Mr Trump wants more and more security. He even announced publicly he'd be in favour of the execution of Edward Snowden. Ms Clinton has always been a pronounced 'Cold Warrior', taking us back to the 1950s. There hasn't been a war yet she hasn't liked. So it's no choice in the US, and part of that is due to the creation of the fear of terrorism. On a global scale, terrorism has claimed a very small number of victims, but it has claimed a huge space in the media as a gigantic threat to the country. In reality, as Snowden says, it's an excuse to justify a global surveillance system that permits social and economic control over many countries.
They want to control elections, regime change, so on and so forth. This is going on everywhere in the world, and it is all political warfare. Even in Thailand, we all know the US has been all over Thailand for a long time. Thailand was supposedly, years ago, a neutral country, but you ended up joining the US effort in Vietnam. You've established airbases everywhere, many of which are still there today. You have no choice in this matter, this secret world, with the US acting as the global policeman.
