Secrecy, a documentary about the benefits and detriments of government secrets, is the most powerful film I've seen at the fest so far. Directors Peter Galison and Robb Moss artfully lay out both sides of the argument. On the one hand, leaking a tapped network, like the one tapped after the 1983 bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut, can result in terrorists abandoning that network, which in that case prevented foreknowledge of the far deadlier barracks bombing in the city later that year by the same terrorists.

On the other hand, when information is made public, it can actually help crack a case. For 12 years the FBI tried to find the Unabomber to no avail, but when his letters were finally published in newspapers, his brother picked one up and identified the ramblings right away. And excessive secrecy can actually aid terrorist activity. In reference to Zacarias Moussaoui's August 2001 immigration violation arrest (and subsequent discovery of weapons and shit), the 9/11 Commission asserted, "Publicity about Moussaoui's arrest and a possible hijacking threat might have derailed the plot." What if secrecy, rather than helping security, actually hinders it?

But the scariest aspect of secrecy run amok is the idea that it can enable absolute power. If I told you that from now on, nothing you did would ever be discovered by another living soul, what would you do? The only limit would be your own morality, and even that might break down after a while. If you have a situation where anybody asking "What are you doing?" or "Why did you do that?" can get the answer, "I can't tell you because it's a secret," and have that be a valid legal claim, the person who can say that can do anything to anybody and never have to say why or even what they did.

But there's an even more fundamental logic problem that comes into play if you want to put a check on secrecy without eliminating it.

Secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.

Any other weapon in my arsenal can have oversight. Guns, planes, whatever. They can have oversight because you know what they are and what I'm doing with them. If I can't tell you what I'm doing, you can't tell me if it's wrong.

These are the maddening and sometimes devastating issues with which the film grapples, hearing from numerous disagreeing voices.

It would be enough if the film managed to simply bring up these points, but it does so with a distinct voice, incorporating hand-drawn animation and art installations to embody concepts. It also displays narrative verve, keeping its own secrets as it teases out the story of the seminal United States v. Reynolds Supreme Court case throughout the film. A simple narrative trick, but one that docs rarely avail themselves of.

While many of the docs I've seen at the fest explore their chosen topics efficiently and are compelling on that basis alone, this is the first one I've seen here that seems truly crafted.

Next: Enough with the political docs already!