Alex Gibney is one of my favorite documentarians so naturally I prioritized seeing his latest documentary, Citizen K, in theaters. Gibney makes documentaries about topics that I am not interested in or that I know very little about then succeeds at capturing and keeping my attention then walking away knowing more than I started without feeling as if I just ate my unseasoned vegetables. Gibney’s documentaries also transcend the generational gap. My mom enjoys watching his documentaries so on more than one occasion, his films have been the focal point of many family nights: Zero Days (my favorite), The Armstrong Lie, Casino Jack and the United States of Money, Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine, We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks. I have seen a couple solo because I thought that she may find the content disturbing: Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer and Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God.
Citizen K tells the story of one oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who suddenly got empathy after he became rich and felt responsible for the people whose livelihoods depended on his business’ success. His conscience only grew with time, which made him clash wills with the man that he helped bring to power, Vladimir Putin. The documentary is also a broader story of how Russia’s economy and government responded to the fall of Communism and developed into the nation that it is today, i.e. the nation that has the most influence on the US whether or not we admit it. Russia may be our top ally/boss since the nation controls our elections, Presidon’t and other Republican’ts. Like it or not, Russia’s story is ours. It was another reason that I was looking forward to seeing this film. Gibney has a way of proving that a topic is actually germane to daily life even though it initially feels far removed, and I was hoping that he was able to blow my mind as he did in Zero Days.
Gibney makes Citizen K feel like an extended chapter in a thriller television series with graphics that turn from Cyrillic letters to English and constantly orients us regarding the names and titles of those being interviewed. I actually liked it because it helped me follow the story since I am a visual thinker and pick up more information if I can see it written down as opposed to hearing it. Without these graphics, I probably would have been more confused since I know very little Russian history.
Unlike Zero Days, I am not sure if Citizen K held its protagonist too close and perhaps bought his story as objective truth too quickly. Let me be clear. I do not believe Putin. He kills journalists and is partly responsible for Presidon’t, but I do not necessarily believe that Khodorkovsky’s story is flawless. I felt as if Gibney relied on Khodorkovsky’s version of events too much, and even if Gibney’s approach was objective, I think that he can be swayed to a side too easily as he discovered in The Armstrong Lie without doing enough to insure that he gets information to fact check his subject. Khodorkovsky was wrong before, and he can be sincere and wrong again. Maybe it is an endemic Russian (human) historic problem to not have leaders governed strictly by pure interests. Also maybe I am just gun shy because Americans tend to act like a bull in a china shop when they try to grasp anything foreign. We oversimplify and choose a side without thinking of the worst possible consequence that further exacerbates the situation. I would have preferred to hear the story without feeling as if hearing his story was equated with unequivocally backing him.
Either Gibney subtly or unwittingly made some implicit parallels to our nation when as narrator, he calls certain scenes “protest theater” or “election theater,” especially considering the timing of Citizen K’s release, soon after the complete failure of the Iowa primary after all that campaigning-it did not matter. We just move on, and people declare themselves victor before results exist. Gibney succeeds at showing how Putin’s rise was a backlash by the people against their 1% in response to Putin’s promise to return to the destruction of private property and nationalization. It provided some helpful context for a political and economic context that is completely alien to Americans.
So here is what I do not understand. Since I was a child, I have been taught to fear communism. People speak out against socialism because they confuse it with communism. Putin misses the glory days of the Soviet Union. How do Repulican’t’s reconcile their love of the almighty dollar with their ally’s proven record to turn against any private interest that he cannot control and seize assets for the government? Given the opportunity, he will betray his financially flush allies and take their stuff, which is the main lesson of the original oligarchs and Khodorkovsky’s life. He drinks your milkshake. So why would you even bring your milkshake within straw reaching distance? The only answer that I can conclude is one that is frustratingly absent in Citizen K—Putin has been styled as the last white hope, the last European standing against the hordes of swarthy others, and I am curious if he consciously cultivated this image or if others projected it on him. A lot of people will happily destroy their finances for race otherwise how else to explain Jim Crow prohibiting black people from giving you money. Is it a reductive argument? Sure, but it explains a little.
I also thought that it was an intriguing note in Citizen K that to prove that another Putin enemy was a good guy, which I am neither affirming nor denying, Gibney cited that the man carried Senator McCain’s casket. It made me wonder about Gibney’s political leanings and what he automatically thinks is a badge of honor. McCain deserves many compliments, but he often voted in lock step with the people who prefer Putin to patriotism. Is it Gibney’s way of being persuasive to the most viewers or sincerely held beliefs. Does Gibney still buy the easily consumed standards promulgated without interrogating them with substance when it comes to certain symbols?
I enjoyed Citizen K. I applaud Khodorkovsky for being an anomaly, a man who is willing to put himself on the line for what he believes in and seemingly becoming a better human being after he became wealthy. I just wish that it felt as if Gibney had a better, more independent view of Russia apart from Khodorkovsky’s lens. Unlike his other films, I felt as if Gibney needed to devote more time developing the film before releasing it and would not be surprised if he has to make a sequel that corrects his earlier assessment. I sympathize with why Gibney feels a sense of urgency to put out his film out now. It is fiercely relevant to the US, but before we draw lessons from another country’s mistakes, we need to fully understand their story, and you do not do that by taking sides.