Skip to content
Naked Security Naked Security

Film review: ‘Risk’ shines uncompromising spotlight on Julian Assange and Wikileaks

A new film about Wikileaks should please those who believe in its importance - but doesn't please the activist group's founder

Risk is an unsparing portrait documenting the life of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange. Like Citizenfour, director Laura Poitras’ Oscar-winning documentary about whistleblower Edward Snowden, Risk is a similarly intimate portrayal of Assange. Filming in secretive spaces behind the scenes, we get to witness the workings of of international activists seeking to expose secrets, and in doing so we gain insight into the paranoia – and also arrogance – that defines both Assange’s and Wikileaks’ work.

Poitras first approached Wikileaks in 2010, after they published the Apache helicopter video documenting US soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists, which was leaked by former soldier Chelsea Manning.

Poitras began filming in 2011 after the Arab Spring had begun, and the US government had launched a multi-agency investigation into Assange and Wikileaks. Back then, they were the champions of hacktivists and freedom-of-the-press advocates, and the fact that governments seemed to be threatened by them made the group even more appealing to those who believe all censorship is bad.

It’s clear that in 2011, when Wikileaks’ prominence was at its height, there was a certain smugness and conceit. We see Assange getting his associate, Sarah Harrison, to phone Hillary Clinton to inform her that passwords had been leaked and that he needed to speak directly with her. Harrison is told by a member of Clinton’s staff that Assange doesn’t have a high enough security level to talk to Clinton, and Assange is clearly irritated. It’s breathtaking (and hilarious) to see such self-importance and egotism, and highlights the swagger with which Assange runs Wikileaks.

However, there are many moments in the film where even the most security-conscious person might sympathise. One particular scene with Jacob Applebaum from the Tor project (who worked with Wikileaks) where he publicly attacks the CEOs of the Egyptian telecoms companies for blocking Twitter during the Arab Spring uprising and severely limiting the freedom of the general public, gets the viewer on side and positions Wikileaks as information freedom fighters. In this context, it’s hard to oppose security leaks and hacks when you can see how repressive restrictions online, and in telecoms, have a troubling impact on democracy.

But democracy comes with responsibility, and Risk explores the possibility that Assange has had a role in the victory of Donald Trump winning the USA presidential election last year. American intelligence officials have accused Assange of publishing material stolen from computers of Democratic groups by Russian operatives, and that this tipped the 2016 election in Trump’s favour; for this, they have declared Assange a “hostile intelligence service”.

Poitras has said she accepts that “it was a Russian hack and that they used a cutout or an intermediary to submit it”. She admits that she believes Assange had a role to play. “Julian says his source is not a state actor. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.”

Risk is a revealing portrait of Assange, and not a particularly complimentary one. When he’s not sounding arrogant he comes across as sexist and frequently misogynist; his views on women paint him in an ugly light.

Though Wikileaks is viewed through a mostly positive lens, which will certainly please information activists and freedom-of-the-press advocates, its association with Assange is tainted; it seems clear that Wikileaks’ principles and progressive digital activism have become weakened with Assange continuing to lead the organisation and that it can no longer claim to be non-partisan.

Poitras seems to conclude that Wikileaks itself is fundamentally important to speak truth to power, but that to truly be independent, and for Wikileaks’ release of information to be trusted, Assange needs to disassociate himself with it. But as is clear from Risk, and from Assange himself, that that is unlikely to ever happen.



This article “reads like” it was written as a personal agenda against Assange. I have no doubt he is the arrogant type. Much like a lead singer, if it wasn’t the their arrogant attitude they wouldn’t be up on stage. I don’t see anyone else stepping up to do the things he has, so I will forgive him his personality flaws. At least he’s not sitting on his ass just whining, he’s doing things that make the world a better place.


Do you think so? I don’t know the author or what her personal opinion of J. Assange is, but I read this piece as an opinion of how he (and Wikileaks) were portrayed *in the film*, and what conclusions the author thought the film was inviting you to reach about the man and his posse.

The only thing that I found tricky this article was typographic – I would have found it much easier to read if the word Risk were set in italic everywhere it appeared, so it stands out as meaning “as the film portrays”.

Other than that, I think the review has neatly saved me the time it would take to watch the entire film, because I have formed the opinion that the article is a sufficient proxy for the entire thing :-) But that’s just me.


Well, it’s how “I” read it. Depending on individual political views/experiences and such, people see different things.
Just like showing 10 people a photo, then asking them what they saw. (leading to the side joke of – shoes?)


So long as the authorities try to sweep incidents like the helicopter bombing in Iraq under the carpet, we should welcome whistle blowers like Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange. The government should plug its leaks of truth rather than falsely hound people like Manning and Assange. They belong to the Fourth Estate of a nation, not its Fifth Column.


1 – Who cares if he is arrogant, or what he is like personally? He has exposed crimes committed by governments and their agencies.

2 – Are we not forgetting that American operatives have interfered in many elections around the world for decades, while we still have not seen any proof that Russians were behind the hacked DNC computers.

3 – Nobody tipped the election in favour of Trump more than Clinton and the DNC.


If the DNC had nominated Sanders & not Hillary trump would still be on the Apprenticeship Show, me thinks.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to get the latest updates in your inbox.
Which categories are you interested in?
You’re now subscribed!