All That Lifeless Jazz of HBO’s Agents of Chaos
The documentary unspools like an uneasy timeline reel, laden with promises of payoffs it couldn’t achieve.
Photo Courtesy of HBO
The title sequence of HBO’s Agents of Chaos opens with the warbling clarinet glissando of Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue.” With the title cards reintroducing the overworn images of the 2016 campaign, overlaid with iconography from Soviet propaganda, the rhapsody rockets into a patriotic tune. A ham-fisted wink from the documentarians, the audience’s expectations are set—our marching orders are to understand Russian interference with the election. But as the chaos in the title suggests, mirroring the way the Gershwin splinters off into a shredded guitar solo within the last few bars of introductory sequence, this subject resists straight lines.
In a political economy that feasts on conspiracy theories, directors Alex Gibney and Javier Alberto attempt to harness the pull of conspiracy while working in the business of verifying or dispelling them. One aspect of their 4-part documentary succeeds in this light, as Agents of Chaos Part 1 nobly tries to thread the needle for the audience on the topic of Russian trolls on social media: how they work, who runs them, the substance of their operations. Focusing on this facet of the Russian assistance for Trump’s victory feels more manageable—a simple breadcrumb operation for the viewer to slowly walk from point to point. Swinging from the topic of trolls to larger Internet sabotage, the film then begins to explain away the hacks for non-digital natives. The usual graphics follow for cyber tutorials. While mildly charmed by the typical neon-green-dots-against-a-black-screen and beep boop sounds à la Grimes song, I started to wonder where the disclosures promised in the promotion would materialize. This would be a question I would, unfortunately, keep asking myself.
For a documentary that insinuates in its themes, symbols, and tone a march towards a major political revelation, the film often felt like a drunken amble or recollection of events after a blackout. The usual suspects were of course involved, but the order, timing, and exact influence of each player couldn’t firmly be accounted for within the larger narrative. There is no doubt to me that Russian interference either by cyberattack and/or through coordinated social media trolling impacted American public opinion and subsequent election results. The President’s personal business deals and his entourage’s suspicious foreign contacts fall into the same category: disappointing but not surprising. Because of this, one of the documentary’s key failures was its inability to demonstrate the extent to which each covered topic shifted Trump’s political fortunes. With the weight of each skullduggerous act unclear, the documentary unspooled like an uneasy timeline reel, laden with promises of payoffs it couldn’t achieve.