Official Secrets (2019)

Official Secrets is a docudrama which premiered in 2019. It is a spy thriller based on a true story. The main character is a young woman (Katharine Gun) who works for British intelligence (GCHQ).

In January 2003, shortly before the beginning of the Iraq War, she receives a secret memo from US intelligence (NSA) which has a surprising suggestion: the US wants Britain to help collecting compromising information about the temporary members of the UN Security Council which can be used to blackmail these members to support an invasion of Iraq.

Katharine is shocked. She believes the US is preparing a war that is wrong and illegal. And she can see that the US wants the UK to support this project. This is too much. She cannot remain passive. She decides to break the official secrets act and leak the secret memo to the press. This movie shows what happened next.

Here is some basic information about it:

** Director: Gavin Hood
** Writers: Gregory and Sara Bernstein and Gavin Hood
** Based on the book The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War by Marcia and Thomas Mitchell (2008)
** Run time: 112 minutes

The cast includes the following:

** Keira Knightley as Katharine Gun – analyst and translator at GCHQ
** Matt Smith as Martin Bright – reporter
** Matthew Goode as Peter Beaumont – reporter
** Rhys Ifans as Ed Vulliamy - reporter

** Conleth Hill as Roger Alton – editor (the Observer)
** Ralph Fiennes as Ben Emmerson – lawyer (works for the human rights organisation Liberty)
** Indira Varma as Shami Chakrabarti – Labour politician (works for Liberty)
** Tamsin Greig as Elizabeth Wilmshurst – Deputy Legal Advisor at the Foreign Office (UK)

** Peter Guinness as Tin Tin – police officer (Scotland Yard)
** Kenneth Cranham as Judge Hyam
** Jeremy Northam as Ken MacDonald – Crown Prosecution Service
** Adam Bakri as Yasar Gun – Katharine’s husband

Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore I could mention many of them in this review, but I will not do that.

While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here. But the basic story is true. As far as I know, historical accuracy is relatively high.

The drama begins in 2004. Katharine has been charged with a serious crime, violating the official secrets act, and she is entering the courtroom. Her trial is about to begin.

But before anything happens, the story flips ca one year back to the beginning of 2003. We see Katharine and her husband Yasar at home. We see Katharine at work. And we see her in the fateful moment when she opens and reads the secret memo from NSA.

From this point in time the story moves slowly forward until we reach 2004; the point where the movie began. And this time we get to see what happens in the courtroom.

What do reviewers say about this drama? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

64 per cent = Meta
72 per cent = IMDb
82 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
89 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

As you can see, the ratings are mixed. The lowest (Meta) is close to three stars on Amazon, while the highest (the audience of Rotten Tomatoes) is close to five stars.

If you ask me, the first two ratings (Meta and IMDb) are too low, while the ratings on Rotten Tomatoes (the critics and the audience) are much more appropriate. Why?

The script is well-written and the actors play their roles well. The story is captivating, dramatic, and often highly emotional. In addition, it is based on a true story.

I want to go all the way to the top with this drama. I think it deserves a rating of five stars.

PS # 1. If you do not remember the case, do not use Google to find out more before watching the movie. You do not want Google to spoil it all for you. But even if you do remember the case, I still think the drama will catch your attention because of the fascinating discussions about what is right and wrong; about what is legal and illegal.

PS # 2. Sam Husseini (from FAIR in New York) made the following statement about the movie: 

“Having followed this story from the start, I find this film to be, by Hollywood standards, a remarkably accurate account of what has happened to date – to date, because the wider story still isn’t over.”

PS # 3. The following article is available online: Jon Schwarz, “The Best Movie Ever Made about the Truth behind the Iraq War is Official Secrets,” The Intercept, 31 August 2019.

PS # 4. Martin Bright interviewed Katharine Gun ten years after she leaked the secret memo to the press: “Katharine Gun ten years on,” The Guardian, 3 March 2013.

PS # 5. The Mitchell book about the case was published in 2008. In 2016, there were some plans to make a movie based on the book starring Harrison Ford, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Dormer, and Gillian Anderson. But nothing came of these plans. When the movie was made in 2018, it was with a different director and a different cast.

PS # 6. When you see a picture of the real Katharine, you will notice that Keira Knightley does not look like Katharine at all, but apart from this fact I have to say that she plays the role very well. In fact, this movie is much better than the historical movies which made her famous: The Duchess (2008), Colette (2018) and The Aftermath (2019).

PS # 7. Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You by Norman Solomon and Reese Erlich was released in January 2003. Katharine bought this book in January 2003 and read it a few days before the fateful NSA memo appeared in her mail box. This book made a deep impression on her. It convinced her that the US plan to start a war against Iraq was wrong and illegal. But this book is not mentioned in the movie.

PS # 8. According to one reviewer, a movie should have three different levels in order to be a great movie: (a) a personal story; (b) journalism; the role of the media; and (c) legality; the role of the law.

If this definition is correct, we can see that Official Secrets passes the test with flying colours: it is a great movie!

*****

*****

 

Katherine Gun (born 1974)

*****

We Are Many (2014)

We Are Many is a documentary film which premiered in 2014. The topic is a demonstration (the world’s first global demonstration) which took place on 15 February 2003. The purpose of the demonstration was to stop the war against Iraq. Here is some basic information about this film:

** Writer and director: Amir Amirani

** Available via Amazon Prime Video since 2015

** Released on DVD in 2016

** Run time: 110 minutes

Many persons from all over the world are interviewed in the film. I will not mention the names here, because the list is far too long.

Most of the persons who are interviewed are demonstrators from many different countries. Obviously, they are very positive when they talk about this event. But there are also interviews with some persons from “the other side,” from the establishment. It is very interesting to hear what they have to say about this event. Some of their statements may surprise you.

Archive footage is used between the talking heads. Archive footage is used to illustrate historical events and to show us old clips and old interviews with public figures.

The demonstration was a big success and a total failure. Why?

** It was a big success, because millions of people from more than 600 cities in more than 60 countries marched to express their view and their voice. To be heard and seen. It was an impressive manifestation.

** It was a total failure, because the leaders of the US and the UK (President Bush and Prime Minister Blair) ignored the global demonstration and started the war against Iraq anyway.

The demonstration which took place on 15 February 2003 is not the only topic that is covered in this film:

There is a long and detailed section about the time before the demonstration: two years from 2001 to 2003.

There is a long and detailed section about the time after the demonstration: ten years from 2003 to 2013.

What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

68 per cent = IMDb

70 per cent = Meta

77 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

65 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

On Amazon UK there are at the moment 20 reviews of this product. The average rating is 4.9 stars.

The first three ratings are good, but not great. The rating on Amazon UK is higher than what we have on IMDb, Meta and Rotten Tomatoes. In this case I have to go with the rating on Amazon UK.

We Are Many is a fascinating film about an important event which is placed in a historical and political context. I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five starts.

PS # 1. Towards the end of the film, some Egyptians claim that there is a direct line from the global demonstration of February 2003 to the large demonstration in Cairo which forced President Mubarak to retire in 2011. I think they are stretching the evidence too far, but they really seem to believe in this interpretation.

PS # 2. Here are some similar items:

** Why We Fight (2005)

** The Ground Truth (2006)

** Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006)

** No End in Sight (2007)

** Imminent Threat (2015)

** Official Secrets (2019)

*****

*****

No End in Sight (2007)

No End in Sight is a documentary film which premiered in 2007. It is about the US war in Iraq which began in 2003. Here is some basic information about this film:

** Writer, producer, and director: Charles Ferguson

** Executive producer: Alex Gibney

** Narrator: Campbell Scott

** Released on DVD: 2008

** Run time: 102 minutes

More than thirty persons are interviewed in the film. I will not mention all names, because the complete list is too long. Here are some of the names (in alphabetical order):

** Chris Allbritton – reporter, TIME Magazine

** Richard Armitage – former deputy secretary of the US State Department

** Barbara Bodine – US ambassador to Iraq from April to May 2003

** James Fallows – national editor of the Atlantic, author of Blind into Baghdad: America’s War in Iraq (2006)

** Marc Garlasco – senior Iraq analyst, US Defense Intelligence Agency 1997-2003

** Jay Garner – US general

** Paul Hughes – US colonel, worked for ORHA and later for CPA

** Robert Hutchings – former chairman of the US National Intelligence Council

** George Packer – reporter, author of The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq (2005)

** Samantha Power – war reporter, author, US ambassador to the UN 2013-2017 (under President Obama)

** Lawrence Wilkerson – chief of staff for US Secretary of State Colin Powell

Archive footage is used between the talking heads. Archive footage is used to illustrate historical events and to show us old clips and old interviews with public figures.

In the beginning of this film we are told that the official reason for going to war against Iraq was not true. US President Bush claimed Iraq was a sanctuary for international terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. A claim which was never supported by any US intelligence. Once this fact has been mentioned, it is largely forgotten. The main part of the film is devoted to a detailed analysis of the US occupation of Iraq.

According to the film, the US government had a simple 3-step plan for the war in Iraq:

# 1. Invade Iraq and overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein

# 2. Occupy Iraq and establish a new pro-US government in Iraq

# 3. Pack up and go home

The plan was expected to be completed in less than one year. But the plan was based on wishful thinking. It was totally unrealistic. In 2007, four years after the invasion, when this film was released, Iraq was being torn apart by internal conflicts. US forces were still in Iraq, and as the title says, there was “no end in sight.”

According to the film, the occupation was badly planned and poorly implemented.

The US army did A, B, and C. This was not a good idea. They should not have done that. Examples:

(1) The US decided to dissolve the Iraqi army.

(2) The men in charge of the war had no military experience and refused to listen to men who had military experience.

(3) The men in charge of the war did not speak Arabic.

The US army failed to X, Y, and Z. This was a shame. They should have done that. Examples:

(1) The US did not establish a police force that could have prevented looting and destruction in Baghdad.

(2) The US army did not provide protection of public buildings in Baghdad, such as the National Museum of Iraq, which was looted and damaged.

These claims are supported by facts and by interviews with people who know what they are talking about. Not only outside observers, but also people who used to work for the US in different positions (high as well as low). They believed the US government had good intentions, but they were disillusioned when the US policy failed to produce good results.

What is the implication of this? The implication seems to be as follows: if only the planning had been better, if only the plan had been implemented in a better way, things would have been fine. But is this really true?

The word mentioned again and again is “mistake.” When the US army did A, B, and C, it was a mistake. When the US army failed to X, Y, and Z, it was a mistake. If only they had not made these mistakes, things would have been fine. But is this really true?

What is the meaning of the word “mistake”? It means you do something wrong by accident.

If you accidentally bump into someone on the sidewalk, it is a mistake. You apologize and the other person will probably forgive you, because you did not mean for this to happen.

Things are different, if you bump into someone on purpose. You know it is wrong, but you do not care. You do it anyway, because you only care about yourself. You think this other person is in your way, so you just push him aside. This is not a mistake. This is a crime.

Here is another example: a bank robbery that has gone wrong. The bank robbers are inside the bank. They have the money they came for, but the police are waiting outside. Now the bank robbers are asking themselves: how did we end up in this situation? What went wrong?

Perhaps the robbery was badly planned and poorly implemented. Perhaps we should have made a better plan. Perhaps we should have implemented the plan in a better way. What can we do now? Perhaps we can say it was all a mistake. We did not mean it. If we give back the money, can you forget about it and let us go home?

Do you think the police will accept this offer? No. The police will say: we do not care about your plan or how it was implemented. What is important here is the fact that you broke the law.

A bank robbery is not a mistake. It is a crime!

When the director of this film focuses almost exclusively on the occupation of Iraq – what was done and what was not done – he fails to see the bigger picture: why is the US army even there? How and why did it all begin?

As stated above, more than thirty persons are interviewed in the film, but it seems not one of them can say the following words: the war against Iraq is morally wrong and in violation of international law.

The leaders of the US Government have a goal. They want to control Iraq. The only question they have is this: how can we reach this goal? They never stop and ask themselves: what about our goal? Is it right or wrong? Is it in accordance with international law?

How many stars does this film deserve? The answer depends on what I am looking for.

If I want to see a film that offers a detailed analysis of the US occupation of Iraq, I must say this film is perfect. It deserves a rating of five stars for a job well done.

But if I want to see a film that covers the whole war, a film that places the war against Iraq in the context of US global policy, I must say I am very disappointed. In that case, this film cannot get more than two stars, because it focuses on tactics and strategy; because it explains the mess in Iraq by talking about poor planning, incompetence and mistakes.

PS # 1. What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 83 per cent = IMDb

** 89 per cent = Meta

** 94 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

** 96 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

On the US version of Amazon there are more than 160 reviews of this product. The average rating is 4.6 stars.

As you can guess, I think all these average ratings are too generous. I think this film is highly overrated.

PS # 2. Charles Ferguson is the director of the film “Inside Job” (which premiered in 2010). The topic is the global economic crisis and collapse of 2008.

PS # 4. Alex Gibney is the director of several documentary films, including:

** Enron (2005)

** Client 9 (2010)

** Park Avenue (2012)

** The Armstrong Lie (2015)

PS # 5. Here are some other films about the war in Iraq:

** Control Room (2004)

** Why We Fight (2005)

** The Ground Truth (2006)

** Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006)

** The Unknown Known (2013)

** We Are Many (2014)

** Imminent Threat (2015)

** Official Secrets (2019)

*****

*****