- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1483 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
109 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 16797
>Out There, At the Mountains of Madness and Dream Baby Dream
>Curtis will make three iPlayer-only films exploring themes of hypocrisy, deception and corruption in contemporary Britain – Out There, At the Mountains of Madness and Dream Baby Dream – available from July.
PSYCHED! HYPED! Err, piped?
It's been 3 years since the last Adam Curtis film and in some ways a butt load (yes that much) of things have changed so I'm super duper excited about these films.
|>>|| No. 16798
Not strictly true. He did a thing with Massive Attack, of all things, last summer at the Manchester International Festival.
|>>|| No. 16799
I hope he doesn't make me loath the Moon soundtrack again...
|>>|| No. 16800
Is there any more information? I'm curious how At the Mountains of Madness has anything to do with those themes.
With that in mind, I just rewatched the "A Bicyclops Built for Two" episode of Futurama and one of the other races Alkazar is trying to marry appears to be Yith. Did anyone else see that?
|>>|| No. 16803
Yeah cheers, looking forward to this. Curious as to why it's iPlayer only though?
|>>|| No. 16805
Loads of stuff with niche appeal is going iPlayer-only. They have been doing comedy pilots like that for a while, which has worked really well. BBC research shows that when something becomes a word-of-mouth cult hit, it does so via iPlayer rather than via broadcast repeats. The BBC is starting to consciously split their output, based on the two distinct audiences of "passive" versus "active" viewers - the sort of people who sit down for an evening of telly and watch whatever is on, versus people who want to watch specific things and prefer to do so via streaming when it suits them.
The long-term plan is to abolish broadcast altogether and move to an online-only service. The BBC intends to become an institution that creates and archives media content, rather than a broadcaster. BBC Three will be the first to make that switch next year, because the young audience for that channel is very comfortable with technology.
|>>|| No. 16808
Cheers for the thorough answer. I was aware the beeb were moving a lot of stuff online but didn't realise the plan was to eventually go fully online. I guess it makes sense although I kind of like them being a "broadcaster" as well. Probably just my own sentimentalism.
I would fucking love it if they ever decided to actually put up their archive of stuff. The amount of amazing programmes and footage etc they must have is staggering. I guess that's often what makes Curtis docs so good though as well, in that he has access to all that old archive footage and knows how to use it to great effect.
BB3 can get to fuck for all I care though.
|>>|| No. 16809
The BBC already have the technology in place to make the full archive available on iPlayer. The archive and iPlayer are part of the same unified media platform, so it would just be a case of clicking a couple of buttons. Some of that content is sporadically released as part of a BBC Four Collection, as you can see at the moment on iPlayer with the Horizon collection.
The sticking point is the BBC Trust, the independent governing body of the BBC. Their rules stipulate that the BBC cannot unfairly compete with commercial companies, and it is the opinion of the Trust that a full release of the archive would unfairly undermine commercial sales of DVDs of back-catalogue programmes by other broadcasters. iPlayer has been handicapped in all sorts of ways because of this principle - there's no technical or legal reason why BBC-commissioned programmes couldn't stay on iPlayer forever once uploaded, but the Trust won't allow it. The BBC Four Collections are only permitted because of a special exemption in BBC Four's service license. I think it's fucking bullshit, but there you go.
|>>|| No. 16810
That sort of thing is a big problem for the Trust - that and thematic channels (e.g. the perennial request to hive off all sport to a dedicated channel). They don't want to do anything which might put the BBC at risk when it comes to their Charter or Ofcom. It may be worth remembering the circumstances of recent years:
* The Tories are in power. It's not entirely impossible that they'll be back in power next May. The BBC don't particularly like the Tories, and that feeling is mutual.
* They are already facing a tough financial settlement. The licence fee has been frozen. The FCO no longer funds the World Service. They are faced with the prospect of having to fund S4C's operations.
* Leveson. Mostly the fact that they weren't guilty and are already subject to controls, and everyone else is jealous that they "got off lightly".
* One word: Savile.
We've been here before. In the 90s, the BBC reprofiled its radio offering. There was a feeling R1 was inappropriately competing with ILR, and should go in a different direction. The R2 audience was quite literally dying out - the average age was into the sixties. They were criticised over their use of the spectrum, and had already had the R1 MW frequencies taken off them and handed to a commercial licensee.
|>>|| No. 16811
>The long-term plan is to abolish broadcast altogether and move to an online-only service. The BBC intends to become an institution that creates and archives media content, rather than a broadcaster
What makes you say this, if you don't mind me asking? It seems somewhat self-destructive, seeing as the license fee is only necessary for access to live broadcasts.
|>>|| No. 16812
I don't like the idea of public institutions except where necessary, bit I do think the BBC does a reasonably good job. That said, I don't think it's worthy of the size and esteem it has at the minute. I don't know. A combined climbdown as well as making public their back catalogue would be an acceptable tradeoff for me.
|>>|| No. 16813
The Director General has said so himself during the BBC Three brouhaha. The BBC recognise that broadcast is slowly becoming obsolete, as viewers switch to on-demand services in increasing numbers. The transition might take many years, but it's inevitable.
The BBC has a deep strategic awareness of the importance of pre-empting and driving new technology rather than simply reacting to it. They completely missed the boat in the early days of the internet, hence the "beeb.com" domain name that they used for many years - nobody had thought to buy "bbc.com". They learned from that lesson and developed one of the most popular websites on earth and the world's best video on demand platform.
The BBC are painfully aware of the fragility of their existence given the current political climate, which is why they're refocussing on content rather than broadcast. As more and more young people abandon broadcast TV (and so become exempt from the license fee) the BBC want to be able to argue for their funding on the basis of the content they create, regardless of how that content is consumed. The model for this is Germany, where every household must pay the license fee, regardless of whether they own a television.
|>>|| No. 16814
>The BBC already have the technology in place to make the full archive available on iPlayer.
The means, but not the will.
"What about all those delicious boxset sales!" - Everyone at the BBC
|>>|| No. 16815
>where every household must pay the license fee, regardless of whether they own a television.
It would be the end of civilisation as we know it. Barbarians at the gates, philistines in the castles!
|>>|| No. 16816
The overwhelming majority of archive content isn't available on DVD. The BBC really do want to make the archive available, and anyway DVD sales aren't really their concern (that's done by BBC Worldwide, a completely independent company). As I said, the problem is the Trust.
|>>|| No. 16860
> It's not entirely impossible that [The Tories will] be back in power next May
Yes it is!
|>>|| No. 16861
Unless you're planning, or are aware of persons planning, vote fraud on a massive scale, I don't believe you're in a position to call it impossible, especially when all available data appears to contradict you.
|>>|| No. 16864
I was going to make a post similar to yours but then I thought he's making a very clever joke about the conservatives not actually being in power now so they can't get 'back' in or something.
|>>|| No. 16865
If the Tories aren't back in opposition by this time next year I will come to your house dressed as the ghost of Margaret Thatcher, pull down your trousers and suck your cock until such a time as you ejaculate in my mouth. I will then put the video up on youtube and send the link to my parents and my nan.
I would bet my life savings on it. I would gamble my soul. There is more chance of Kevin Webster's daughters begging me for a threesome than of David Cameron still being prime minister in 12 months time.
|>>|| No. 16866
Are you going to explain why you don't think they have a chance when, again, all available data appears to contradict you?
|>>|| No. 16868
What's that meant to mean? UKIP won't take any seats, and Cam isn't far behind in the polls at all, even with UKIP taking 10-18% in them. Consider the fact that maybe half of those will go back to the Tories come the general election, especially so in the contested seats.
I'll repeat I think we'll end up with the Tories winning a majority. A hung parliament is unlikely thanks to the Lib Dem implosion. I think we'll see UKIP winning two or three seats, and replacing the Tories in the north as the 'main opposition' to Labour.
I also think it's feasible that we'll see the Tories with the most votes (I'm almost certain they'll get the most votes, seats are another matter) but with Labour getting the most seats, which will be a very interesting situation from a constitutional point of view.
|>>|| No. 16869
Do you mind keeping it in the giant bloody /pol/ threads already?
|>>|| No. 16872
... So uhm... Adam Curtis, eh?
I was reading his blogs a bit, and he seems like just my sort of chap. An equal dose of rational realism and tinfoil-hatter paranoia.
Can anyone fill me in on his older films, and where I can find them?
|>>|| No. 16892
So how seriously can I take this bloke?
I watched a couple of his films, including "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", and whilst I found a good portion of it resonated very strongly with my worldview, it did feel a bit like listening to that bloke at the pub who reckons he was in the secret service and doesn't use any form of modern technology.
He says things you want to believe, but how do we know his information is reliable? It's just presented as fact. Or is it meant to be some sort of satirical semi-fiction? Or is it something way more artistic and avant garde than that, even, where it doesn't matter about the truth behind it but simply that it makes you think?
I might be out of my depth here.
|>>|| No. 16893
Curtis studied politics as an academic, but I think he deliberately creates his films so that they can be meaningful to a mass audience. The arguments are sincere, but the way in which he chooses to make those arguments is very deliberately designed to elicit an emotional reaction. A lot of his work is about opposing systems that are wrongly viewed as inherently objective, and if you read his blog he has been somewhat critical of documentaries that attempt to be completely objective. What he creates in his work is an alternative narrative of history, with emphasis on the narrative.
It's a consistent and worthwhile viewpoint, but I'm not sure whether you'd class that as art, commentary, history, journalism, or whatever else.
|>>|| No. 17034
So was there any more news on this? July is here and I haven't seen or heard anything about these films.
|>>|| No. 17035
They do indeed, and it's quite an exciting idea that they would stop filling up airspace with endless repeats of old shows and just stick them online for old people to peacefully vegetate infront of.
I had (maybe still have?) access to BBC Redux through an employee and it was fucking amazing - so much old/random shit and no 7 day lifespan to stress you out or make it ethereal.
|>>|| No. 17036
Well you would be a complete mug to ever trust a tv documentary as objective fact. He has some interesting views, certainly some that I concur with, but it's really just a fairly intellectual and thoughtful man trying to explain his world view. The causal links, motivations and relationships of things he tries to connect are absolutely not there in a quantifiable way, but his points seem to make general sense and are at least thought provoking. You will always be able to take away some new and interesting information, and be entertained and challenged.
For me I watch it for the incredible archive footage. It's absolutely astounding how many clips are in each hour of tv - and they are edited expertly to give a really visceral and emotional effect. It doesn't matter who or what is being focussed on, they will source every available clip or soundbite. The soundtrack too is utterly brilliant. Theres a bit in 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace' where he plays Kraftwerk - Radioactive which is just sublime.
|>>|| No. 17096
Pretty sure you will be able to bet your life savings on it down at the bookies. Go on then.
|>>|| No. 17097
I've only watched The Century of The Self, and I couldn't really follow the logic of his argument. He started by going on about how Freud's theories were used to sell cigarettes to people and then jumps to claim that psychoanalysis is used by elites to control society but doesn't explain how or give any solid evidence of it. Well he doesn't really 'claim' it so much as present it as fact.
And from what I remember he re-used a lot of archive footage multiple times. He was especially lazy with the soundtrack, re-using the same cliched Arvo Part piece throughout, which is also featured in just about every documentary.
|>>|| No. 17177
Anyone know when its coming out, heard july, still no sign?
|>>|| No. 17183
Cutting it a bit fine, aren't they?
At least there was a new blog post from him on Friday about Boolean logic and other interesting stuff. Just in case you didn't know.
|>>|| No. 17184
Those lying Guardian bastards! I can't believe I made this thread, I'm such a fool ;_;
|>>|| No. 17185
I'm reading Curtis' most recent blog post and have just discovered that the 'Social Exclusion Unit' is actually a fucking real life thing. There's such a bitter irony in the name that it goes beyond any kind of satire or fiction. I'm bouncing off the walls, here.
|>>|| No. 17186
>There's such a bitter irony in the name that it goes beyond any kind of satire or fiction.
I know, right? How ironic that a task force set up to combat social exclusion would be called the "social exclusion task force", right? Whatever next, eh? Before you know it, we'll end up with a service tasked with fighting fires and rescuing people called a "fire and rescue service", or, God forbid, shops situated on street corners called "corner shops". Oh, the irony of it all!
|>>|| No. 17187
I think you missed what I was trying to say. The reason I find that name ironic is because a part of what the Social Exclusion Unit does is identify problem areas, neighbourhoods and try to predict future problems. That in itself socially excludes people.
|>>|| No. 17188
>That in itself socially excludes people.
Erm, no, but thanks for playing.
|>>|| No. 17192
I'm not clear on your point, but I'm reading it as: cancer is identified more in the present, and this is reflected statistically, but that doesn't necessarily mean cancer was any less prevalent before cancer screening, right? If I'm right in this, your opinion is that 'social exclusion' was equally as prevalent before the invention of the Social Exclusion Unit, then?
I'd say that what it means to be socially included is far more subjective than whether you have cancer or not. Having a section of government that considers you to a task for the Social Exclusion Unit will instill that you are somehow 'outside' from a very early age.
I'll openly admit that whether you agree with what I'm saying hinges on whether you think that being treated differently is likely to make you behave differently.
|>>|| No. 17193
>Having a section of government that considers you to a task for the Social Exclusion Unit will instill that you are somehow 'outside' from a very early age.
|>>|| No. 17199
To be honest I'm more curious as to the evident lack of self-awareness in writing an article with no reference to Paedogeddon with the title "NOW THEN".
|>>|| No. 17213
Its the 31st wheres my Adam Curtis film you promised me.
|>>|| No. 17215
Not everyone was raised with an error activated electrobuttplug up their arse.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 17245
Is it a lack of self-awareness?
Or is it a dig at the beeb?
The documentaries are late.
|>>|| No. 18085
Anyone else get the feeling his films turned into blog posts somewhere in production?
Always happy to see his output, but still a touch sad about it.
|>>|| No. 18086
That really warrants a heads up though, surely?
I'm worried you could be right though, as I can't see another time two blog posts came within a month of each other since 2012.
|>>|| No. 18351
Bitter Lake, Jan 18th.
This time they mean it!
|>>|| No. 18397
>It is also liberating - both because things can be any length, and also because it allows the audience to watch the films in different ways.
>The film is called Bitter Lake. It is a bit of an epic - it’s two hours twenty minutes long.
I am genuinely excited about this, it sounds like a brilliant concept. I've been craving something substantial very badly.
|>>|| No. 18398
I know right!
You know all those videos of absolute scum pretending to be really happy about the new Star Wars film, well I was actually like that when I saw the length of the new Curtis film.
|>>|| No. 18470
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST IT'S BEEN PUSHED BACK AGAIN!
It's going up on the 25th now. I look forward to the second film, sometime in 2017.
|>>|| No. 18474
Achilles and the Tortoise. FFS.
Might the reason be last-minute editing or some degree of editorial censorship? I don't see Curtis wanting to self-censor, but someone else might have had other ideas.
|>>|| No. 18527
Adam Curtis has ruined natural history documentaries for me. There's a post on his blog about how conservative and regressive the suggested world view within them is, and now I'm watching Frozen Planet and I feel like I'm in They Live. Well, maybe I do, I've never seen They Live, not even since the last time I said I felt like I was in They Live.
|>>|| No. 18529
You should stop watching Frozen Planet and watch They Live. It's a classic.
|>>|| No. 18532
It takes more from richer periods with more interesting stuff than from poorer periods with less interesting stuff.
|>>|| No. 18535
Perhaps there isn't one, but I watched a thing with Gordon Buchanan where he spent a two months watching wolves. He keeps comparing the wolves to sort of an ideal family arrangement, and talking about how they're just like us. But 15 minutes later he realises that another pack has killed the runt of the group he's been watching.
|>>|| No. 18537
I never thought to respond to this at the time. However, it's unlikely to be any sort of censorship given this first film is about Afghanistan. It doesn't seem like a topic that has much left to censor.
|>>|| No. 18538
There was a handover ceremony out there recently. I imagine it might be to give everyone time to get the hell out of Dodge first.
|>>|| No. 18589
I've often thought Curtis documentaries are much like 9/11 truth films. They're so cunningly edited that when you really scrutinise the material in retrospect you realise that it's all a bit much, but could easily be taken if off-guard.
|>>|| No. 18590
They're polemics rather than documentaries. Curtis isn't trying to impartially inform the viewer of a set of facts, but to advance a particular ideological perspective. I have no problem with that - indeed, I think that our culture is bereft of ideology - but it has to be borne in mind that his work is rhetoric, not reportage.
|>>|| No. 18591
"Oh, I'm a great big post modern wanker and anyone with an opinion is fool and ought to have their legs kicked bloody from out under them."
I'm just going to have to assume that the video is dripping with irony and he's actually a fan of Curtis. Still too post modern.
How come people are always assuming documentaries are supposed to be impartial?
|>>|| No. 18592
I see him as quite socialistically minded myself, I don't have a problem with that, even though mine and his perceived politics may cross over. He put forward the idea of politics both Eastern and Western trying to rationalise the irrational, that will stick with me. Theories of economics have just proved to be that - we are in a theoryless age, Curtis can't help that, nor can Gideon (soon to be Balls).
Enjoy the Chopin lads, in his favourite key C# min
|>>|| No. 18618
>2 hours, 17 minutes
I've not done this in a long time, really anticipated something. This should be interesting.
|>>|| No. 18619
Just realised as I was posting that this is the length of the film, rather than the time until it's available to watch.
I suppose I'll be F5ing a lot today.
|>>|| No. 18621
I've got Google alerts running on Adam Curtis. One picked up a time of 9pm, announced on a Twitter feed (@cubicgarden). Can't really verify, but apparently the bloke is a BBC employee or associate.
|>>|| No. 18623
It's up. Enjoy lads, I'm going to sit this one out until I'm a bit more clear-headed, probably tomorrow evening.
|>>|| No. 18626
I love how scenes are mixed and stitched together. Like the scene of the art student talking about a toilet in a museum in France, and how it is such a big deal, show right after a scene detailing how America and her allies tortured to death Afghans. That captured how I see most things.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]