I loved Alex Gibney's documentary on Scientology.
His documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos was on shakier ground but still very compelling because of the sheer mountain of documentation and interviews detailing the funny business.
This "expose" on Russia's influence on the 2016 US elections is a huge comedown.
First, the positives. Information on Vladimir Putin's hold on power, is thorough. The network of Russian operatives successfully planting misinformation on world events is given some time, mostly well spent.
The "tell" - the turd in the punchbowl - comes 45 minutes into the first episode: Gibney, in his own voice, pushes the theory Putin put into play interfering in the US Presidential election because Hillary Clinton would be too tough on Putin and Russia, based on Gibney's perception of Hillary's supposed toughness as Secretary of State.
The next few minutes has Gibney talking about Trump using the very early perceptions from the Pundit Class in 2015. Five years from then through today, with perspective, fails to change his tone.
It falls apart from here.
The biggest "name" interviewed is John Podesta, one of the senior members of the Clinton campaign. That's fine; a mature viewer can clean something from Podesta.
The rest of the "experts" interviewed are ex-ambassadors, career low level bureaucrats, and tech folks who, while in government, were clueless as to Russian doings, if true, but often sounding like papering over their resumes and spinning tall tales for future work. THESE folks sound today like they knew all these alleged doings all along.
How can Russian operatives be so sloppy and yet so brilliant at the same time? For the last 3 1/4 hours, Gibney never asks, and no one has the answers.
Discussions on this may fill time on the twitterverse and on Cable talk shows, but it's empty talk.
Gibney lowered his standards to weave a story that is only somewhat true in a limited way It fails to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
His documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos was on shakier ground but still very compelling because of the sheer mountain of documentation and interviews detailing the funny business.
This "expose" on Russia's influence on the 2016 US elections is a huge comedown.
First, the positives. Information on Vladimir Putin's hold on power, is thorough. The network of Russian operatives successfully planting misinformation on world events is given some time, mostly well spent.
The "tell" - the turd in the punchbowl - comes 45 minutes into the first episode: Gibney, in his own voice, pushes the theory Putin put into play interfering in the US Presidential election because Hillary Clinton would be too tough on Putin and Russia, based on Gibney's perception of Hillary's supposed toughness as Secretary of State.
The next few minutes has Gibney talking about Trump using the very early perceptions from the Pundit Class in 2015. Five years from then through today, with perspective, fails to change his tone.
It falls apart from here.
The biggest "name" interviewed is John Podesta, one of the senior members of the Clinton campaign. That's fine; a mature viewer can clean something from Podesta.
The rest of the "experts" interviewed are ex-ambassadors, career low level bureaucrats, and tech folks who, while in government, were clueless as to Russian doings, if true, but often sounding like papering over their resumes and spinning tall tales for future work. THESE folks sound today like they knew all these alleged doings all along.
How can Russian operatives be so sloppy and yet so brilliant at the same time? For the last 3 1/4 hours, Gibney never asks, and no one has the answers.
Discussions on this may fill time on the twitterverse and on Cable talk shows, but it's empty talk.
Gibney lowered his standards to weave a story that is only somewhat true in a limited way It fails to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.