Official Secrets is a biographical drama about the events surrounding a violation of the titular act in a failed attempt to stop the Iraq War. It stars Kiera Knightley as Katherine Gun, the leaker, Matt Smith, the reporter, and Ralph Fiennes, her lawyer. Gavin Hood directed it, and Hood is best known for directing Ender’s Game, which I enjoyed, and X-Men: Origins: Wolverine, which is an abomination and one of the truly worse members of the X-Men franchise along with The Wolverine, which may only beat Origins because of potentially racist tropes.
I haven’t seen the widely acclaimed Tsotsi, but Hood also directed it. I bring it up so that you can understand that before seeing the film, there is no way to predict whether or not his latest movie will be good. It is a strong cast. I’m a fan of Stoker’s Matthew Goode, who is almost unrecognizable in Official Secrets, Game of Thrones’ Conleth Hill (Varys) and Indira Varma (lead Sand Snake), and Notting Hill’s Rhys Ifans, but Smith was a red flag, not because of his acting, but I have yet to see him in a solid film so his options appear to be limited at the moment.
On the other hand, I love movies about real life stories, especially with women protagonists in careers normally associated with men so Official Secrets at least grabbed my attention though I was skeptical of Knightley’s ability to pull it off in spite of liking her. Still I have a rule to not pay to see a movie about events that I lived through, and the Iraq War feels like yesterday…or is it today? I’m not sure if it is really over. During its first week, I dismissed the idea of seeing it in theaters and didn’t even put it in my queue. During its second week, I changed my mind because it was playing at a closer theater at a lower price. I bit.
Official Secrets is the kind of film that you want to show people completely unfamiliar with the Iraq War like high school students, but for older folks such as myself, it feels a bit old-fashioned and lifeless as if the characters solely exist to spout exposition against the Iraq War. Do you know which section of the Official Secrets Act was violated? Section 1(1), and I know that, not because I’m a lawyer, but it is repeated so many times that I was like, “I get it!” The film also uses a lot of archival footage as if it is ongoing news coverage that the characters were watching in real time. One creepy woman behind me would probably beg to differ since she treated it like Purim and any image or mention of people involved in the Iraq War like Tony Blair, W, Colin Powell, etc. would elicit hisses, curses and heckling. Whispering “Dude, you’re not home” did not help. I pride myself on despising Presidon’t, but even I lack the fervor that this random viewer had while watching this film.
Official Secrets takes great pains to emphasize what an ordinary woman Gun is in spite of her unusual job or her high-profile way of disagreeing with her boss, the Government Communications Headquarters. On one hand, I respect that the filmmakers are trying to inspire its viewers to relate to Gun (dear government agencies, the whistleblowers are always the people with the names that sound fictional) so they can feel empowered to do the right thing even if it isn’t effective and the personal stakes are high for the sake of the greater good. On the other hand, I was not thrilled at how central beds were for this character. After seeing her in the dock, we see her in her marital bed having sex with her husband. We see her on the couch cozy and screaming at the television. When she is being punished, the contrast is a stark, inhospitable bare room and an uninviting, narrow bed. She is visually defined more by her moments of inaction than her actions. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m having a hard time thinking of whistleblower movies based on real life stories with male protagonists because I see too many movies to remember every detail clearly, but do they get this domestic treatment?
When Official Secrets does show her at work, she is the office friend that will share her cinnamon bun with everyone. The movie emphasizes her niceness and ordinariness while casually throwing in her linguistic expertise in the context of being a good friend as opposed to contextualizing her professional experience and how this moment starkly contrasted with her ordinary duties, which seemed like an important aspect to depict. I didn’t need her to be a bad ass, and I think that deglamorizing the cinematic image of a spy to an office drudge in a cubicle is essential albeit classifying Gun’s work as espionage may be an exaggeration, but the course correction was too much and too gendered. Her work was such a small part of her life when it should have dominated the movie a little more. I am also curious if the storyline regarding her husband’s immigration status is accurate or if it was dramatized to add some tension.
Official Secrets’ depiction of Gun as a whole person with an emphasis on her personal life is in stark contrast with the male main characters. The reporters solely exist in the professional realm and even one only shown in his Manhattan apartment is only depicted as working or sleeping. They have no life outside of work, which may be (sadly) accurate, but still feels strange considering Gun’s depiction. The lawyer is shown to have a domestic life, but his personal life felt like the equivalent of an executive unwinding on the golf course with unofficial signifiers of power, such as water front property, a spouse not depicted as working, and power broking by unofficially talking about work while engaging in normative masculine activities like grilling and fishing. Also considering that the source of the United Kingdom’s power is rooted in maritime prowess in comparison to other world powers, the idea of water seems like more of a subtle national symbol.
Official Secrets made a big mistake by inserting footage of the real-life Gun then concluding with a scene using the actors instead of showing Gun just before the credits rolled. Gun seems polished, professional and savvy whereas wardrobe put Knightley in some khaki colored MC Hammer like pants for the trial as if she was some kind of clown. Gun visually reminded me more of a younger version of the real-life Valerie Plame, whom Naomi Watts played, than Knightley. Usually casting is flattering, but this casting is apples and oranges. Knightley isn’t threatening or serious. No offense to her acting prowess and bravo for Knightley deliberately trying to steer away from commercially successful roles into biopics of notable women, but casting clearly wanted to associate Gun with a rom com figure, the girl next door, than a professional woman who could be viewed as threatening or with an agenda. It bothered me, and I found it a cynical choice and vaguely insulting.
While I applaud Official Secrets for earnestly trying to instill principles in their entertainment, I have to take away artistic points for clunky dialogue and for its gendered approach to get the audience to root for the whistleblower. Maybe they’re right not to have confidence that viewers will sympathize with someone who could be seen as breaking the law or committing treason, but I also don’t think that people easily swayed by rhetoric over facts (illegal war) would watch this movie. Skip it unless you want your kids to learn some valuable lessons about right and wrong.