Dear Colleague, You have implied that you enjoy Cumberbatch's performance as an accomplished and applauseworthy portrayal of Julian

Assange that is entirely innocent of the ideological twist and propaganda purpose of the film it occurs in. Am I correct? hy am I ta!ing more of my valuable time than I can afford to debate this issue? "erhaps I am motivated by the hope of ma!ing you see through the fog of fandom that the actor you adore has delivered a one#dimensional comic#boo! villain$ a carricatured version of Assange in the frame of an overt piece of propaganda and that he is complicit in hurting the image and discrediting the cause of a living and breathing human being who is struggling for credibility for himself and a movement$ which is arguably of immense value and deserves a fair portrayal. Assange is subject to the most intense negative spin launched on a single person in the last %& years. And 'enedict Cumberbatch has just delivered the center piece on a propaganda shit#ca!e. 'ut maybe my prime reason is that I believed you realised that it is our job to teach students the virtue and s!ill of deconstructing the overt or subliminal ideological implications of wor!s of art to teach them how to phenomenologically dismantle their own inherited or ac(uired proclivities and patterns of taste and choice and that in order to do so one must$ as a teacher$ first of all be able and willing to confront one's own. )owever$ you displayed beyond doubt your willingness to defend Cumberbatch's performance of Assange and to advocate its enjoyment$ and claimed repeatedly that it is possible to do so while ac!nowledging the film's general lousy (uality and harmful intent and character. I tried to argue$ that Cumberbatch's performance can not be salvaged li!e a jewel from a dog pile but that it is a central motor of the film's vile propaganda. I must do so more professionally$ I realise$ and the following observations are meant to just structure some more direct observations which can hopefully at the same point convince you that I did watch the same film. e are scholars and critics in a world in which entertainment media are an integral tool to the ways in which states project their ideological agendas to global audiences$ star performances and lead acts included. )owever$ you seem to be able and willing to e*cempt 'enedict Cumberbatch$ ignoring % hours of the worst reductionism and in fact carricaturing of a person imaginable and I find this (uite fran!ly alarming. Cumberbatch's performance is not a particularly noteworthy artistic achievement but an overdrawn caricature furthering in every way the propaganda purpose of the film. )is portrayal of Assange fully endulges and not contradicts the film's ideological direction it wor!s on the basis of an incredibly ludicrous script$ which is not improved by the way Cumberbatch interprets it.

Cumberbatch adds neither subte*t nor depth to the negative portrayal of Assange and the further the film proceeds$ the less would any audience be willing to believe a word the actual Assange might say. hich is the film's point$ of course. At best$ Cumberbatch is a simple person who really doesn't !now that he is politicaly implemented in a smear campaign$ but I hesitate to believe that. I thin! he !nows full well what he is doing and that$ withall due reflect$ does not reflect too well on his character. +o far what you have pointed towards as achievements of realistic protrayal , lip smac!s$ chin tuc!s $side ways glance$ twitches and well$ white hair are painfully overemphasised details that add nothing to the portrayal of a nuanced$ multi#layered or believable character. -hey are just supposed to recreate the iconic common denominator , li!e +anta's beard or .iana's lowered chin. It is li!e saying that the portrayal of Jews in thirties' films are ade(uately rendered because they really did have these curly loc!s$ wide#lipped grins$ prominent noses$ spea! with a weird accent and loo! around them in an an*ious and shrewd way and sometimes they roc! to and fro with a weird bo* tied to their foreheads. )ow would you reflect on someone in the /&'s coming out of the cinema saying 0gosh he really got that Jew down to a -$ what an adorable performance1? "hysical doesn't say that the efigy Cumberbatch creates isn't enacting a dangerous fiction$ a version fo Assange that is harmful. Cumberbatch's performance deliberately prevents any form of positive assoociation between the audience and the figure of Assange. -he performance enacts platitudes and rumours$ fabrications delivered by the boo! and then adds an emotional dimension all of its own that is harmful and false. Catering to the basest needs of entertainment. 0AAAAh loo!$ a clown2 )e has big shoes1 3veryone recognises who it is we are tal!ing about while at the same time any depth is missing and idiosynchrasies are overemphasised and become derided as flaws # and this is e*actly what happens to Assange in -he 4ifth 3state. 'r5hl is introduced as the li!eable identification figure$ the cutesey boy# ne*t#cubicle$ handing devotely a file to his boss$ proving that he is trusty$ hard wor!ing and capable in the opening scene. )is characterisation starts with a close up shot of him loo!ing considerately and warily at a screen on which we just saw an entirely Americanised and patroni6ing jog through moment's of achievement in man!ind's media history. featuring the invention of the printing press on the same level as 7899 and the moon landing$ and :bama dancing with ;ichelle .. <ow$ enter Assange= sha!y hand held camera following him through a convention$ moments later through a run down $ anarchic loo!ing version of 'erlin's -acheles$ as he inconsiderately pushes e*tras out of his way to get wherever it is he wants to get. As he pulls down a little board

presentation another character had painfully built just to prove his rhetoric point. +ubliminally agressive$ impatient$ condescending$ boystorous male genius ma!es snide remar!s to whoever happens to as! him a caring (uestion$ flirts with attractive female in passing while being mean to concerned male >0nobody cares about your secrets....yours however1? subtly confirming his image as a se*ual predator$ using lame puns. )e is pointing at people or holding up a hand as if aiming at their nose with a dart arrow when giving them instructions or while telling them off. )e seems to be generally unable to respond to people's concerns and (uestions other than in superior$ snide and cynical side remar!s. At one stage$ his head is slightly twisted to one side$ as the camera unsteadily swivels around to get a focus on him. -his is repeated throughout the film whenever his >over?#reactions to others' concerns and suggestions are to be shown. -here are these jer!y head movements and what appears to be a slight speech#inhibition at the onset of consonants contributing to the image of someone who is repressed and slightly incapacitated. e are informed by Assange himself that during his childhood in the sect he was forced to ta!e regular doses of psychotropic drugs. e watch him deliver the first version of how he got his white hair as part of an attempt to manipulate 'r5hl's character into li!ing him. -hrough moronically large superimposition of te*t on screen$ we are told that Assange is now in @enya$ now in 'erlin now in Aondon$ busy to script the destiny of the world. +tunning visuals of spiderli!e threads spreading and connecting to convince the audience that we live in a globally connected place$ controlled by Assange's motions his spreading influence. A shot reverse shot se(uence between him and 'r5hl ends in Assange wal!ing out of a phone call and into direct presence gracing poor innocent and scared .' with a malicious smile$ channeling the cunning of the jo!er. In a wonderful tric! se(uence we learn that wi!ilea!s has no real supporters but Assange is really hiding behind every fa!e identity$ fooling his nearest and dearest because he is a paranoid allmighty hac!er who trusts noone. -his is not only implied$ this is part of the dialogue. In the 0Assange is wi!ilea!s1 se(uence$ which introduces the office of 0All the presidents' men1 painting it gloomy blac! and removing the ceiling and walls to say$ in symbolic terms$ that the machinations of his influence are endless$ Assange is displaying an evil grin >slightly lowered forehead lifted corners of mouth that do not lift chee!s and eyes? Auciferic appearance at the center of an awed low#angle circling shot. hen tal!ing to his informants friends and disciples we see him patronisingly pad the shoulder of basically anyone he tal!s to. Biving instructions$ (uoting ilde and +olcheni6in$ the incarnation of a dangerously intelligent renegade. )owever when it comes to matters of his childhood or adolescence$ he

either gets emotionally unstable barely able to hold bac! tears$ and get a handle on his nervous intensity$ hence the jer!ing of chin and head$ or he completely flips$ li!e when he loo!s for the newspaper scrap describing the hac!er trial in which he was e*posed as menda*....he violently empties his bac!pac! on the table$ without any credible reason$ scaring poor .' out of his mind. In these moments he is portrayed as a pubescent sociopath$ compulsively biting or lic!ing his lips$ curling his chin$ jer!ing shoulders and head so the audience understands this man hasn't got an emotional grip on himself and is a hair's breadth from harming himself and his environment. -he bac!#pac! scene is not established in any way that would encourage emotional pro*imity$ it comes out of the blue of a factual conversation and alienates the audience into siding with the gob#smac!ed dumbfounded .' having to deal with this unrec!onable maniac. +ame goes for the tantrum on the plane. Assange loses it # violently so # and we have a shot reverse shot situation with a little boy loo!ing scared and having his hands folded as if in prayer. There is in general a constant pent up aggression in Cumberbatch's performance which makes Assange seem imposing, scary and ready to flip at any stage. Whenever people try to communicate their honest concerns, he is seen snorting, rolling his eyes, twitching or turning abruptly puffing out breath . In the moments on which he is portrayed as being on camera this effect is lessened. -he viewer thus gets the impression that there is a bigotted sduplicity behind Assange presenting himself credible on camera while really losing it and abusing every one behind the scenes <one of the actual Assange's media performances suggest that he is a despotic sociopath$ his energy and tension is rela*ed$ his speech is calm and he e*plains things carefully$ now of course this is to be mistrusted$ or so Cumberbatch's performance implies. I have never seen the actual Assange bite his lips in anger or press them or (uiver with suppressed rage li!e a three year old$ even if his interview partners did their utmost to provo!e him$ but now I am encouraged to believe that this is what he does when the world is not loo!ing. 'ut bac! to the unfolding story. After .''s caring girlfriend has an empathetic crisis over the poor '<" members having their addresses e*posed$ comparing wi!ilea!s to :rwell's 97CD$ Assange storms into the appartment cynically and snidely as!ing if he just interrupted something$ giving visibly no damn about his friends' feelings. -a!ing advantage of their hospitality and resources$ he further manipulates .' emotionally by blac!mailing him into ma!ing sacrifices$ claiming that he has not seen his son in ages$ whose name is .aniel$ too.....thus far all consistent with the boo!'s fabrications. ained grimacing! wide grins dropped the ne"t second suggesting that they are not honest signs of amusement but calculated reactions

to throw off a conversant, to mock him or to manipulate an audience are splattered across the entire film. -hen there is the dance. 'enedict Cumberbatch obviously finds it funny to suggest that Julian Assange dances li!e a moron$ has no sense of rhythm tossing his arms around as if he had a cerebral fit$ showing off to everyone in such an aw!ward way that his friends are visibly ashamed on his behalf$ yet that he does so to attract females and astoundingly suceeds in it >again$ li!e the Jews in <a6i propaganda films were portrayed as loathsome creatures who were still cunningly$ shrewdly seductively able to get whatever they wanted from whomever they wanted?E Cumberbatch's is a meanspirited carricature of a dance video someone snapped of Assange , and even though these F& seconds of him alone on the dance floor letting loose unaware of being filmed$ are easy bait for caricature$ they are no way near as painful to watch as what Cumberbatch ma!es of it$ in his attempt to ridicule. Yet apparently the audience is still in need of commentary. -hus$ Cumberbatch's Assange says= 0You need space for your ego to flow1 E And one starry eyed female admirer$ the Islandic supporter 'rigitta JGnsdGttir is saying #$ook at him, doesn't he look like an octopus...his hands are everywhere%& ith Cumberbatch's subse(uent painfully accentuated waving and sna!ing of arms and in connection with the spreading tentacles of global networ! lines in /&H of the film's visual attempts to e*plain global influence$ this performance could not be perceived as innocent by even the most simple of movie goers. :r must I remind you of precendents?

Cumberbatch's Assange is a bundle of pent up subliminal as well as overt agression$ he communicates in dismissive head jer!s$ snorts$ sharply in# drawn breaths. )e tries to steady himself a few times$ barely able to hold bac! his aggression$ eyelids a#flutter$ and anger barely under control$ at the reasonable things his well#meaning friends suggest or do. )e gives them grimaces instead of replies to indicate their inferiority and stupidity and his own pathological detachment. )e bosses$ bitches$ ignores$ flips on a plane while a poor child is seen scared and flolding his hands at this

violation of peace in the airspace. e see him vaingloriously self# promoting and degrading his co#wor!ers. )e is getting moapy everytime he wanders off into a totally unmitigated recital of his traumatised past$ Cumberbatch portrays an emotionally unstable egomaniac who manipulates people into following him. -hen of course there is the verbal suggestion$ by CumberbatchIs Assange that he is a borderline autist who alienates people. And at that moment he does loo! li!e he has a psychological disorder$ fragile with glased eyes and shifty uneasy movements. )e drin!s compulsively in one scene to handle the presence of spies which again ma!es him loo! pathetic...a man too scarred and crac!ed for fi*ing >this latter tid bit is stated at least D or F times? .' is the only one who !eeps him under control. 0-he insane prophet who needs boundaries1 'C's Assange affronts !indly Berman parents$ is either aw!ward or looses it in private$ nothing less than a bully. +ure this is how the boo! wants him$ but this is also how the American studio industry wants him and this is the spectrum that Cumberbatch ultimately$ devotely delivers # so how am I wrong in seeing complicity and continuity and ideological commitment in Cumberbatches performance? )ow am I wrong in seeing complicity in Cumberbatch's decision to cooperate in the fabrication of the lie that Assange colours his hair white because he was crac!ed by a sect as a child who forced him to and now he can't get over it? hy did he not choose to portray Assange as a credible$ level headed mature person who is capable of honest concern and not jst melodramatic fits? Assange is repeatedly portrayed as giving no shit about the safety of informants$ rolling his eyes$ turning sideways impatiently and annoyed$ snorting$ everytime his caring counterparts as! 0but Julian$ there are lives at ris!1. Cumberbatch chooses to impersonate an Assange the movie ma!es out as a liar by depicting him in the act of contradiciting visual evidence delivered earlier on in the film. -hus$ we see Assange busy in contradicting .' on points that were established as shared reality. -hus underlining the repeatedly uttered lines= 0he can do whatever he wants1 . Assange is then villified and depersonalised further in sentences li!e 0)e is a rec!less$ irresponsible head of a huge media empire that's accountable to no one. And we put him there. 1 and various instances of Jthere is blood on his8our handsJ. e have seen Cumberbatch's Assange not giving a shit when confronted with the notion of people's lives at ris!$ and then we see him saying on camera a minute later that wi!ilea!s is eager to protect informants and civilians. -his is ma!ing sure$ that the media appearances of Assange loses credibility$ and Cumberbatch actively perpetrates this message.

hile we see interludes of honest sam and jim and sarah in the white house trying to !eep the world afloat. hile we follow that poor government informant and his family on their escape from certain death$ and watch a reliable female diplomat lose her job$ at the same time this blonde villainous$ narcicistic diva fools the world and runs it into its ruin. :f course !ind "rofessor Aupin from the Buardian ma!es sure the .omscheid 'ergs do not waver in their trust that truth freedom of speech and justice are values of the democratic west$ while at the same time the central character behind i!ilea!s is dismantled of any form of credibility with the help of 'enedict Cumberbatch's performance. e have been provided with K different !inds of indication that Assange does not give a shit about informants lives$ a selfish man who 0releases information to hide the secrets of his past1$ a man scarred psychologically to the point of being disfigured for life , a message Cumberbatch's acting has actively imbued on the audience. And you truly and honestly want to tell me that there is no moral indictment in enjoying Cumberbatche's performance of Assange if we do so in the frame of reading as a veracious adaptation of the shitty and falacious boo! it is based on? -hats not what it is that is what it would li!e to pretend to be$ while all the while being a piece of propaganda. As were many fiction films befor it. .o you seriously see no ignorance in calling Cumberbatch's performance a meritorious artistic act entirely innocent of the charges that can and must be put infront of -he 4ifth estate? -hen I fear we must do a film studies 9&9 on the different aesthetic layers of a film$ of which acting is one and which are all integral and not independent to what a film does. I beg you$ if nothing else convinced you so far$ watch again the closing moments in which we find the culmination of a new and entirely worrying twist of cinematic propaganda. <amely the brea!ing of the fourth wall and the hijac!ing of the actual Julian Assange's spea!ing from the embassy in Aondon. -he fictional Assange paraphrases the public statement of the real one= 0-he i!ilea!s movie? hich one. -hat one? It's based on the worst two boo!s. 4ull of lies and distortion$ li!e all bad propaganda.1 As we have seen the fictional Assange actively engage in flmic lies$ misleading the public and hurting his friends as well as disregarding the wellbeing of people$ why should anyone believe these words now? The credibility of the actual Julian Assange is diminished by Cumberbatch's breaking the fictional frame, addressing the audience directly,....saying in a mock-impression of care it is all about you and adding diabolically and a little bit about me! "hich is #ust painful and

deli$ered in combo "ith another painfully o$erdra"n grimace, "hcih i ha$e ne$er "itnessed on the actual Assange's face. it completes the image of the comic book $illain.

I understand that to a fangirl Cumberbatch is so 5bertalented that all of this is perfectly acceptable. 'ecause he could do no wrong..and loo! he has white hair and he can do the chin thing and the accent$ omg..he loo!s so much li!e Assange$ Lgape Ldrool2 'ut we are here to help our students overcome such unreflected reactions$ not strengthen them. -o admit publically to enjoying Cumberbatch's performance of Assange suggests that it is perfectly permissable to enjoy this performance without ac!nowledging that it is perpetrating a harmful ideological agenda.