Is Julian Assange Really the Villain We Thought? Shocking Revelations from Cannes!

by

For more than ten years, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has been a focal point in worldwide discussions about press freedom, transparency, and American influence. From publishing the infamous “Collateral Murder” video to his lengthy asylum within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Assange has been praised as a champion for journalistic rights and condemned as a security risk. In the film “The Six Billion Dollar Man“, director Eugene Jarecki (known for “Why We Fight” and “The House I Live In“) sheds light on what he terms “the most significant political prisoner of our era”, offering a powerful critique that reveals the enormous price the U.S. was prepared to pay to muzzle him.

Jarecki’s newest documentary delves into the intricate world of Assange, combining elements of an investigative drama, a courtroom drama, and a character study. It delves into the complex web of forces working against Assange. In this film, human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson, former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa, and exclusive footage from Assange’s time within the embassy are among those interviewed. The documentary chronicles the transformation of Assange from a radical online publisher to a political martyr. At its heart lies a sensational claim that could be straight out of a spy novel: It’s alleged that the Trump administration offered an IMF loan worth $6.5 billion as a means to coerce Ecuador into handing over Assange, essentially placing a modern bounty on a dissident voice.

The movie titled “The Six Billion Dollar Man” had its debut screening in Cannes on Wednesday evening, with Assange present among the spectators. It has already accumulated numerous accolades, being granted the inaugural Golden Globe Award for the best documentary on Monday, and, by Friday, securing the special jury prize of the L’Oeil d’or, or Golden Eye, awards, which are the prestigious documentary film honors at Cannes.

Jarecki, who’s been exposing misuses of U.S. power for some time, doesn’t sugarcoat things. He labels this case as “devastating,” offering a lens to scrutinize how democracies might stray from their core values. In an interview at the American Pavilion in Cannes, Eugene Jarecki shared his thoughts with The Hollywood Reporter about propaganda used as a weapon, the dangers of truth-telling in the digital era, and how a figure once viewed as a U.S. government’s “Dr. Evil” now graces the red carpet.

What first drew you to the story of Julian Assange?

I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Assange on the red carpet. This moment might be the most significant accomplishment of my career, as it’s crucial that an individual like Julian Assange, who has been the subject of intense and corrupt propaganda, is now being recognized differently.

Initially, he was imprisoned at Belmarsh Prison, often referred to as Britain’s version of Guantanamo Bay. It seemed utterly implausible that this detainee would be here in Cannes, enjoying freedom. We questioned: Why is this man behind bars? Given his designation as a journalist by prestigious outlets such as The New York Times, the Nobel committee, and journalism platforms worldwide, it appeared incongruous for him to be incarcerated alongside terrorists and dangerous criminals.

It’s possible we uncovered some serious wrongdoing. The rumors could be accurate. Our task was to delve deeper into the matter. As the investigation progressed, the situation grew increasingly alarming, and the evidence more damning. What it suggests about those in power is particularly concerning – they were prepared to spend a staggering $6 billion as a reward for capturing one man.

How do you think Julian Assange has been misrepresented in the mainstream narrative?

The United States carried out a wide-reaching defamation campaign against Julian Assange, which included cooperation from countries such as the U.K. and Sweden. He was granted asylum by Ecuador during President Rafael Correa’s term. However, under a subsequent president, Ecuador received a payment of approximately $6 billion to take actions against Mr. Assange.

Initially, it appeared as though companies such as PayPal and Visa were in favor of transactions involving WikiLeaks, given their potential profits from such activities. However, unexpectedly, these capitalistic principles seem to have been discarded.

Rumors circulated suggesting he faced charges for a sexual offense in Sweden. Upon investigation, we found no evidence of such a case. An inquiry was initiated but later dismissed. However, the stigma surrounding such accusations can persist indefinitely. Once “sexual misconduct” or similar phrases are attached to someone’s name, it can haunt them for years to come.

The United States tarnished Assange’s reputation through propaganda until he either faded into obscurity or was shrouded in controversy. A sketch on Saturday Night Live, featuring Bill Hader portraying Assange as Dr. Evil, encapsulates this treatment the U.S. gave him.

I’m a documentarian, not a novelist. In the making of my films, I didn’t encounter Julian Assange personally because he was behind bars. However, during the editing phase, he appeared on my screen as a public persona. Rest assured, I won’t portray him as an innocent saint, but I don’t expect him to be a villain either in the final cut of my work.

In my gaming world, compared to how Laura Poitras portrayed Julian Assange in her 2017 documentary ‘Risk’, my movie paints a more optimistic picture of him.

From a fan’s perspective, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the innovative resources and opportunities we now have were not accessible to filmmakers of earlier times. In my unique situation, his incarceration prevented us from directly collaborating, and vice versa. This spatial separation ensured that our personal feelings didn’t interfere with our professional relationship.

For over a decade, I’ve had covertly recorded videos from the embassy, amounting to hundreds of hours. The majority of what I observed didn’t align with the public perception of Assange. His actions truly reflect who he is. Despite facing 15 years of detention, this reveals a remarkable individual, regardless of any shortcomings in pet care or social interactions.

If there had been proof that he was involved in a sexual crime or mistreated civilians during conflict, it would have warranted some serious thought. However, I didn’t find such evidence. Instead, what I observed was an individual with a group of idealistic youngsters taking on a powerful nation.

I support transparency and freedom of information, regardless of political affiliations. My stance on Assange and WikiLeaks is rooted in these principles, not in any allegiance to a particular political party or individual. I believe that everyone should have access to truthful information, and the work done by WikiLeaks has often shed light on important issues that might otherwise remain hidden. My criticisms of the Democrats are based on their actions and policies, not because I am serving someone else’s interests. I encourage open dialogue, accountability, and a commitment to the values that underpin our democratic society.

Today’s discussion is divided into three segments. To begin with, yesterday marked the 100th birth anniversary of Malcolm X. Currently, we’re at a gathering showcasing a movie about an individual who was assassinated following the production of a politically charged film – Fatma Hassona, featured in Sepideh Farsi’s Cannes documentary titled “Put Your Soul on Your Hands and Walk“. These are individuals who stand firm against danger. One such person is Julian Assange. He persists even when many would choose to retreat in the face of adversity.

In a situation where he was already facing difficulties, one might expect him to try and win over Democrats. Given the widespread belief that Hillary Clinton would emerge victorious, if he aimed to play it safe, he wouldn’t have disclosed what transpired between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders – which was all they chose to reveal. Often, people conflate this with Benghazi or the private server issue, but that’s misinformation. They did not release information about those matters.

WikiLeaks shared information about the Democratic nominee’s questionable actions, revealing she had blood on her hands. The DNC unfairly disadvantaged Bernie Sanders during the competition, making it difficult for him to succeed. Can we imagine a different world if he hadn’t been sabotaged in this way?

Julian Assange refused to play the political game. Instead of shielding power, he exposed it. When the Democrats lost, they pointed fingers at Russia. Time and again, America finds someone else to blame – be it the Russians or Muslims – to divert attention from our own actions that undermine democracy worldwide.

WikiLeaks obtained the information instead of hacking anything. The New York Times considered their actions as newsworthy and appropriately timed. If they possessed Donald Trump’s tax returns, they would have made them public. WikiLeaks is more about opposing power structures rather than supporting Donald Trump.

We thoroughly examined every potential clue regarding Russian interference. However, each clue seemed to point back to the Democrats themselves. In my investigation, I discovered no substantial proof connecting WikiLeaks to Russia, other than Hillary Clinton referring to it as “Russian WikiLeaks” on television – a suggestion that perhaps someone else was responsible for my loss, not me. This hints at Dr. Evil and his Russian associate.

What did it take to get Julian Assange to Cannes, as a free man?

It was challenging for his defense lawyers to overcome the U.S. authorities, but they managed to secure a significant triumph in American jurisprudence, leading to him being a free man. This victory significantly reduced the original 17 charges against him, leaving only one charge remaining. Previously, he was facing a potential sentence of 175 years in prison.

As a gamer, I’d rephrase it like this: “The final offense I admitted to was labeled ‘journalism.’ Essentially, I pleaded guilty to performing journalistic duties under the First Amendment. However, there’s another law in the United States that contradicts the First Amendment – the Espionage Act. And that’s what they invoked.

In essence, America once portrayed itself as the beacon of contemporary democracy. However, today it’s imprisoning a journalist, who received a five-year sentence. This is why he finds himself in this situation, as the struggle to achieve this result was intense, and ultimately, he came out victorious.

It seems to me that Cannes is making something truly exceptional. The festival is increasingly incorporating politics into its coursework, which I find captivating. I feel honored to be a part of this movement. To my eyes, Thierry Frémaux and Christian Jeune are steering the festival in a commendable direction.

OR

I believe Cannes is doing something truly remarkable. The festival is increasingly integrating politics into its programming, which I find inspiring. I take great pride in being associated with this progressive step. In my opinion, Thierry Frémaux and Christian Jeune are skillfully guiding the festival towards a worthy goal.

Furthermore, our documentary secured a Golden Globe award – a first for any documentary. This victory is inspiring not just for our film, but for the entire documentary genre. It signifies a fresh perspective on Julian’s work.

What was the personal impact of this project on you as a filmmaker?

The prolonged experience had a significant impact on multiple aspects of my life – from personal aging to political views, as well as my interactions with others. Some of the methods I employed, particularly in team management, messaging, and ethical decision-making, have evolved deeper within me compared to when I was younger.

Julian instilled in me the importance of perseverance and long-term commitment, having invested 15 years himself. On my end, I’ve been committed for nearly five years now. I admire his unwavering dedication to standing firm for a cause. Remarkably, encountering him at this festival reveals a transformed individual compared to the one depicted in the old footage.

After everything, does the truth still matter?

Fuck yes!

Read More

2025-05-24 00:25