08 ISSUE IX
NOVEMBER 2025
NOVEMBER 2025
The scale of surveillance
Even years later, Laura Poitras’ film, “Citizenfour,” still gets people talking about encryption, privacy, and what tech companies and governments should or shouldn’t do.
By Khatia Tortladze
Laura Poitras’s 2014 film “Citizenfour” was not just a standard documentary — it is a powerful story about courage, truth, and difficult choices in a world where we are constantly being watched. It follows Edward Snowden, an NSA (National Security Agency) intelligence officer and whistleblower, who, in June 2013, leaked classified US government documents. As he meets with two journalists and Poitras in a Hong Kong hotel room, they decide where and how to make the information public, and he reveals his identity. The film conveys the significant risks and sacrifices that are involved in speaking out. At the same time, it prompts us to consider some significant questions: how much privacy we truly have, who holds power accountable, and where the line lies between security and freedom. By sharing Snowden’s journey, Poitras offers a close look at both the political drama and the human side of it, as well as how one person and independent reporting can awaken the whole world.
Image from the Guardian, Screenshot by CNET.
The film opens with Poitras discussing how the U.S. government monitored her due to her earlier reporting on the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and U.S. surveillance programs. Beginning the film this way really matters. It becomes immediately clear that government surveillance is not some distant, theoretical concept — it affects real people, including journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens.
“Citizenfour” is the identity Snowden used when he sent Poitras an encrypted message about the files, which is why they’re meeting in Hong Kong. Poitras joins a transnational media team – American freelance reporter Glenn Greenwald and British Guardian journalist Ewan MacAskill – that works to expose the actions of one of the globe's most powerful intelligence networks. The media are positioned here as a political actor with the potential to challenge state narratives and hold governments accountable. As media scholar Zainub Abdul-Nabi has argued, independent journalism can serve as an autonomous political force with the potential to shape global discourse.
Snowden sits down with Greenwald and MacAskill to explain the NSA’s massive surveillance systems. He discusses programs like PRISM and XKeyscore, as well as the vast amount of phone data the agency collects. Poitras’s camera quietly captures everything — the way Snowden speaks so carefully, his calm but serious face, and the tension in the room as everyone starts to grasp the scale of what he is revealing. What could have felt like a dry, technical briefing turns into something deeply personal. Snowden is not just a whistleblower on a screen — he comes across as a real person facing one of the hardest choices of his life.
The part of the film where Snowden explains how intelligence agencies collect personal information leads viewers to consider how something as ordinary as a phone call or an email can be transformed into a means of controlling people. Though there is a big difference between surveillance and soft power, the latter, the attempt by governments to influence foreign publics through persuasion, reminded me of Joseph Nye’s idea of “soft power.” Sometimes soft power works quietly, through influence and control over information. By shaping what people see or how they communicate, governments can influence behavior without ever resorting to overt threats. That is why independent media plays a crucial role. It can bring these hidden pressures into the open and give people a chance to question those in power.
One of the film’s main strengths is its focus on morality and boldness. The leaking of records puts Snowden at risk on a deeply personal level—he faces criminal charges, banishment, and an uncertain future. (He ends up in Russia with minimal prospect of returning to the US.) Nevertheless, he explains doing so as a way of defending civil liberties and privacy. Poitras emphasizes the harshness of this decision by documenting the tension in each interview, the hesitation, and Snowden’s nervousness.
One thing the documentary did really well was make complex topics about surveillance easy to understand. Programs like metadata collection and the NSA’s systems could be really confusing, but Poitras shows them in a way that actually makes sense. She uses close-ups and slow pacing, showing Snowden’s expressions so you can feel the seriousness of everything. Instead of just hearing technical explanations, you see how it affects real people. It turns these abstract ideas into something you can relate to and think about morally.
“Citizenfour” demonstrates Poitras's mastery of film technique, creating tension and proximity. The film is highly observational in form, rather than relying on voice-over or dramatization, so the viewer feels as though it is happening right there in front of them. Close framing, close shots, and shallow depth of field enhance the emotional commitment of Snowden’s decisions and the journalists’ moral struggles. Lighting is low-keyed, natural in most cases, and creates an atmosphere of isolation in the environment. Sound design emphasizes the subtle, telling noises—the keyboard typing, paper shuffling, and soft-spoken lines—and maintains maximum tension without using score or effects. The editing choices linger over silences, allowing audiences ample time to realize the seriousness of the decisions being made. These cinematic conventions help achieve the documentary's realism and position technical and political facts as an engaging human narrative. With a focus on visual and audio experience, Poitras elevates the documentary to a level that provokes intellectual and emotional reactions from viewers.
The film also emphasized the character of today’s global journalism. Their work impacts people all over the world. When the story breaks, it reaches audiences everywhere and sparks conversations in parliaments, courts, and living rooms. This supports Dani Madrid-Morales’s point that media now crosses state borders, providing people with access to political information and influence.
By laying bare the scale of surveillance, “Citizenfour” compels people to consider the boundaries of state authority, the responsibility of citizens, and the crucial function of journalists in holding governments accountable. It examines matters integral to modern governance: How do societies strike the right balance between security and civil rights? What is the moral duty of witnesses to abuses of power? How does transnational reporting facilitate informed global debate? These questions highlight the usefulness of the documentary not merely as a historical record but as an evaluative critique of existing democratic practice.
Seeing Snowden take such significant risks, alongside journalists who are so cautious about legal and moral issues, makes you think about your own role online, how much governments are watching, and what accountability even means. Even years later, the movie still gets people talking about encryption, privacy, and what tech companies should or shouldn’t do. Long after its initial release, the film continued to influence public discussions on surveillance, privacy, and transparency, becoming a valuable teaching tool in security and media studies. By pairing Snowden’s story with ethical questions, it highlights documentary filmmaking as activism and encourages reflection on rights in the digital age.
Khatia Tortladze is a second-year Master of International Affairs student concentrating in Conflict and Security, with interests in global security and migration security.