Julia Viskari
When the documentary no longer pursues the truth, but shows his target as he works and speaks, there is not much room for interpretation, writes Julia Viskari, editor of Iltalehti.
The documentary series on Alexander Kivimäki’s crimes has been a criticism even before its release. Elle Laitila
HBO Max’s documentary series Most Wanted: Julius Kivimäki has sparked a widespread debate on why a convicted criminal gets the opportunity to speak in the documentary.
The series deals with crimes committed by hacker Alexander Kivimäki (formerly Julius Kivimäki), known for his Vastaamo data break. There has also been a concern whether it gives a picture of Kivimäki and his crimes a romanticizing picture.
However, watching the series shows that the documentary’s grip is not romanticizing, but reveals: it brings out a person whose own words and gestures tell more than any outside review of him.
The presence of Kivimäki in the documentary, in particular, was concerned about the fact that his crime would get more attention or that he even appears in a sympathetic light. In practice, however, the documentary does the opposite.
The occurrence of Kivimäki in front of the camera is cold and stupid. He belittles the victims’ experiences and his own crimes and does not feel remorse for his actions. From a prison, he gives himself an arrogant and self -centered picture. In some interviews, he even laughs at his crimes.
Such comments from the author’s mouth do not give room for the viewer’s compassion, but underline a selfish and indifferent attitude.
However, the documentary is not just about the performance of Kivimäki. His story is complemented by FBI researchers and security experts who shed light on the extent and consequences of his actions.
The victims are also loud. The documentary succeeds in handling crimes, emphasizing the experiences of the victims while revealing the pitfalls of security legislation.
One of the experts in the series is the FBI agent Nathan Burrows. HBO MAX
The combination of these expert speeches and Kivimäki’s own appearance makes the document convincing. If the document had been aimed at criminal romance, it could have focused on the excitement or media visibility of Kivimäki’s escape. Now it focuses on the overall picture of the extent of the crime and the author’s cold indifference.
Of course, it is possible to claim that the documentary’s cutting choices affect what kind of image will eventually be created. Both expert analyzes and Kivimäki’s own words paint a similar entity, it is difficult to see the interpretation completely unfair.
It is true that the documentary brings visibility to Kivimäki, but its significance is even greater than the factor: it increases general awareness of cyber crimes and their consequences. The documentary manages to open up the phenomenon and make it understandable to the viewer.
Most Wanted: Julius Kivimäki It may not be a neutral story for the viewer, but it is clear. It does not build a criminal glamor, but reveals the author’s crude and irresponsible attitude.
One of the key issues in the series is who Kivimäki really is. The end result is not an iconic character in the crime movie, but a description of a cyber criminal who is a prisoner of his own ego in addition to the concrete walls of the prison.