Real life is stranger than fiction, two high-profile political assassination cases in recent years, one took place in an international airport, another inside a consulate. Although we all know who should be answerable for the murders, the culprits are still (and very likely will remain) scot-free. What should we process the message behind those odious acts? Obviously, no one is untouchable and assassination is no longer carried out in the dark alleys, you think you are safe among crowds, or inside a diplomatic edifice, think twice! To those who severely threats the two totalitarian regimes, your clock might be ticking and you might consider prepare your will well in advance.But where there is oppression, there is defiance. Let the story known to more people is the first step and these two USA documentaries make for compulsive viewing for those are not au courant with the sensational headline events, because their enormity and modality is so inconceivable and beggars belief.Ryan White’s ASSASSINS unfolds the meticulously orchestrated assassination of Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of Kim Jong-un, the current North Korea leader, he was attacked with death-dealing nerve agent at Kuala Lumpur International Airport by two females on 13th Feb. 2017, with everything is caught by the security cameras, and its aftermath. Meantime, Bryan Fogel’s THE DISSIDENT burrows into the lowdown of the equally insidious murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the renowned Saudi journalist for The Washington Post, blatantly dispatched at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, 2nd Oct, 2018.Both films make a good fist of presenting their story as a cogent, pellucid case, ASSASSINS relies on lawyers’ proofs, journalists’ notes to elucidate and earmarks most of its volume following the trial of the two female “assassins” (one Indonesian, one Vietnamese), which is at first designated as a show trial, with pencil sketches in lieu of actual court footage. While it is clear as day those two girls are duped, they were led to think they were merely performing a video prank, what sticks in one’s throat is that the Malaysian legislature is resolute to use these two innocent pawns as the whipping boy, which really stokes one’s indignation. Then turnabouts crop up, indignation subsides, but justice is far from prevailing, instead one can only wheeze out a dispiriting resignation when it is up to political pressure to exculpate the voiceless and downtrodden. Plus, one advise, girls, please smarten up, retaining some common sense in whatever gainful activity you are pursuing.As the deceased, Kim Jong-nam and his sorry fate scarcely muster any sympathy, belied by most of the interviewees hardly concealed frivolous tones (which seems pretty jarring when juxtaposed with people’s attitude to Jamal Khashoggi in THE DISSIDENT, who is deemed as a real hero, a messiah of the freedom of speech.). What may discredit Rice’s effort is that, without enough evidence, ASSASSINS alludes to Kim Jong-nam’s backdoor activity with CIA as the cause of his elimination ordered by his ruthless half-brother. Only this justification isn’t built on solid ground, ergo, the end result may reflect Rice’s own leaning, which is a major blunder for any documentarian.If Kim Jong-nam is partially doomed by his birthright, Khashoggi’s death is an outrageous assault on our collective faith of humanity as it reveals the worst kind of human vice, arbitrary homicide ordered and carried to set an example. Fogel and his team makes THE DISSIDENT a fervent outcry of atrocity (the existence of those audio tapes alone is enough to prosecute those bastards, if we are living in a perfect world), yet keeps the sentimental cues in check, for example, as Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz’s grief and fury is skated over, but by this apparent attempt to keep her sidelined (maybe it is in respect of her own request), in the aftermath, it only backfires on her, as commoners tend to think, it is all because of her that Jamal comes to Istanbul from his safety haven (the State), he went to the consulate (according to the film, the decision is also encouraged by Cengiz) in order to get an approval of remarriage. Naturally, it leads one wonder, is she a clandestine conspirer with the Saudis in the first place? If so, THE DISSIDENT: THE SEQUEL can be green-lit on the spot.Such postulation is groundless alright, but this is what THE DISSIDENT leads audience to feel by the formation of its selected contents. That’s is why, to my lights, complete objectivity is impossible to achieve by filmmakers (only surveillance cameras can), good documentarians can dial down such unnecessary innuendoes by coaxing his materials at hand, lesser ones may error on the side of inconsideration.Compared to ASSASSINS, THE DISSIDENT also boosts a more picturesque vista of its pillow shots and the CPG concoctions. The coverage of Jamal’s friend, fellow activist and video blogger Omar Abdulaziz is a mirroring story of Jamal’s own fate, combatting lonesomeness and mounting guilt (Omar’s brothers and friends are incarcerated in his fatherland because of his activism), he is smart enough not to be lured back and stays in Toronto out of harm’s way (or can he really?). Then his “The Flies versus the Bees” strategy relative to twitter trending is revelatory and the film’s big disclosure of malicious spyware that can steal information from any cellphone is a startling yellow flag, after which, no one ought to look at their dearest phone with the same affection before, it is your ultimate confidant who can betray you sub rosa. What can we do then? Any weaning-off therapy in the pipeline?referential entries: Laura Poitras’ CITIZEN FOUR (2014, 7.5/10); Malik Bendjelloul’s SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN (2012, 7.3/10).。

。