Snowden walks the fine line of neutrality

What does it take for one to be able to call themselves a patriot? According to dictionary.com, a patriot is someone who "loves, supports and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion".

"I'm a patriot," said the titular character of Snowden, the latest feature film from veteran filmmaker Oliver Stone, which chronicled the years leading up to Edward Snowden's decision to release classified information regarding US global mass surveillance in 2013. Branded a champion of free press and privacy by some, and a traitor by others, the story of Edward Snowden is rife material for Stone's usual style of commentary on American politics.

While certainly not as decisive in its message nor as daring in its execution compared to the director's former features, with a script that plays it relatively safe, Snowden isn't exactly the stuff of Spotlight (2015), the Academy Award-winning film that is similarly based on a highly controversial real-world event, but a strong performance from the lead character and a chillingly relatable message make it a film that is worth watching, one that left me asking myself "what does it actually take for someone to be a true patriot?".

For Edward Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), this initially meant joining the army, perhaps the most "direct" way for him to serve his country, of which he is a firm supporter and believer, even vocally disagreeing with his liberal, free-spirited girlfriend Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley) defending such things as the Iraq war. Driven to serve his country in a different manner after a potentially debilitating injury, Snowden joins the CIA as a computer specialist, where he is slowly introduced to the dark underbelly of America's mass surveillance and cyber-warfare development programmes. This ultimately leads him to his fateful decision in 2013, when he gave classified documents detailing these programmes to journalists, before seeking asylum from the US government's attempts at prosecuting him as a traitor in Russia, where he currently resides today.

At first, I was put off by Gordon-Levitt's awkward, almost robotic portrayal of Snowden, which gave off the impression that the actor was trying too hard to imitate the actual Ed Snowden's mannerisms. Droning voice aside, the performance managed to win me over in the end, as the earnest, well-meaning computer expert and his pro-government beliefs slowly gets worn down by the questionable things going on around him. Gordon-Levitt deserves praise in his portrayal of an increasingly troubled and paranoid Snowden, and by time the character ultimately decides to pull an idealistic one-eighty and potentially betray his government, it felt like an organic end to the character's story, despite the marked transformation from the way he was initially introduced.

The rest of the supporting cast does a decent job at portraying who their character is supposed to be, though the film's insistence on presenting the story in as neutral a tone as possible makes it difficult to tell sometimes where a character stands on the issue of mass surveillance. Sure, the only logical conclusion one can come to at the end of the film is that Snowden's actions were necessary, even if they ultimately cost his country untold damage in tangible resources by exposing them to the world. By remaining true to his country's ideals to provide its citizens with freedom of choice and independence from government oversight, Snowden did something that was devastating to the tangible, immediate interests of his country. As is true with Snowden's intentions to let the people decide the righteousness of his actions, whether that makes him a "patriot" is something the film leaves up to you to decide.