Response to the Variety Review of “Age of Disclosure”
In addressing the Variety review of “Age of Disclosure” (https://variety.com/2025/film/reviews/the-age-of-disclosure-review-sxsw-1236332637/), I want to focus on the nuances of the author’s commentary. They raise valid points about the prevalence of cameras in today’s society, a topic that remains relevant, albeit with multiple interpretations. However, the critique also veers into a territory of disbelief that seems more about justifying skepticism than engaging with the film’s content.
The statement, “the real truth is that each era responds to the extraterrestrial ‘evidence’ that’s tailor-made for it,” is a bit ambiguous. It appears to suggest that people are drawn to narratives that align with contemporary cultural touchstones. While I agree with this observation, I question how it serves as a “real truth” or relates specifically to this film. Is the author implying that we should distrust government officials because their claims mirror themes found in shows like The X-Files? Or that stories of abductions are merely echoes of films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind?
He mentions a “skepticism” stemming from the power of suggestion—the phenomenon where stories become exaggerated and distorted as they’re retold. Absolutely! But how does this apply to the assertions made in the film? Some officials speak with first-hand knowledge. Should we really assume they lack credibility or are merely embellishing the “non-human” aspects of their experiences?
I commend anyone who approaches this topic with a critical eye, as it is rife with complexities and enigmas. That said, I would encourage the author to redirect their skepticism towards a different inquiry. It’s entirely reasonable to reserve belief in non-human intelligence until more concrete evidence emerges. In the meantime, let’s pose this pivotal question:
Why are these 34 senior members of the U.S. government, military, and intelligence communities—credible individuals who claim to have “direct knowledge” of UAPs—so certain in their statements?
Should we question their competence, integrity, or motives? Any skepticism directed at them seems warranted if we assume they wouldn’t risk their reputations with falsehoods unless there’s truth to their claims.
“Age of Disclosure” compels us to confront these critical questions head-on. Rather than making dismissive remarks about “UAPs” or vaguely connecting popular culture to “the truth,” a more insightful review would have delved into the motivations and implications of these officials’ assertions.
Your response raises some crucial points regarding the review of “Age of Disclosure.” I agree that while skepticism is an important part of examining claims about extraterrestrial life, it should also be accompanied by a critical analysis of the motivations and backgrounds of those making such claims. The review seems to focus heavily on broad cultural influences and individual skepticism without engaging with the substantive details that the film presents about credible testimonies from government and military personnel.
The assertion that “each era responds to the extraterrestrial ‘evidence’ that’s tailor-made for it” does feel vague and could leave readers questioning its validity in the context of the nuanced discussions around UAPs. It’s important to acknowledge that societal narratives shape how we interpret potential evidence of non-human intelligence, but the review could benefit from a more focused inquiry into the reliability and intent of those bringing forward these claims in the film.
Your call to explore why these credible figures are making such assertive statements is spot-on. We should be examining not just the evidence presented but also the psychological and sociopolitical contexts surrounding these testimonies. Are they motivated by a genuine concern for public safety, or could there be alternative motivations at play?
Ultimately, it’s not just about believing or disbelieving claims of non-human intelligence; it’s about unpacking the complexities of why those claims are surfacing at this particular moment and what that tells us about our society. By switching the lens from a purely skeptical stance to a more investigative one, we can engage more deeply with the discussion and perhaps uncover factors that might otherwise go unexamined. An analysis that incorporates these elements would elevate the conversation surrounding “Age of Disclosure” and its implications for our understanding of UAP phenomena.