- 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[ Reply ]
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.
|>>|| No. 18627
Well that was bleak as fuck. Still rather enjoyed it, kind of liked the more sparse style in regards to his narration. Some of the footage and juxtapositions made me actually gasp or say "fuckin hell!" out loud the little girl who'd been severely injured by some sort of blast and her dad followed by the soldier playing with the bird stands out. Which I guess is good.
I don't really watch Curtis docs (hard to even consider that a traditional documentary) for any sort of coherent narrative, I guess that's sort of the point though. That in a world of ever increasing complexity there really are no simple coherent narratives, and I think it managed to reflect that rather well. It did leave me feeling slightly more depressed about how generally fucked up everything is but that is par for the course with Mr Curtis.
|>>|| No. 18628
My internet has gone to absolute shit, it's at 1998 levels right now. At least it's stable I guess.
Get away from my wifi GCHQlad! It wasn't me who pranked your boss.
|>>|| No. 18629
What the hell am I watching? I'm at about 55 minutes and it's been about 10 minutes of content and 45 minutes of fluff.
|>>|| No. 18630
I have to agree. I couldn't make it through the whole thing since it felt like being subjected to a particularly brutal holiday showreel.
|>>|| No. 18635
So, are there going to be two more? Or is this it?
|>>|| No. 18642
Think that's it. Will have to make do with the occasional blog post for a couple of years
|>>|| No. 18643
I enjoyed it, as i do every curtis documentary. But
>the americans are in bed with the saudis
>saudi arabia is the factory floor of fundamental Islam
>afghanistan is a quagmire of tribal rivalry
>politicians like to simplify conflicts in order to sell them to the public
It's hardly ground breaking stuff. It is nice to see it all collated into one piece of film though.
|>>|| No. 18645
That's because you're reading it wrong. It's not fluff, it's there for a reason. There's a trend in contemporary documentary makers ("proper" ones not Ancient Aliens or any of that other rubbish) to more and more simply present footage without narrating it. To present noumenal* film and allow you to make sense of it yourself, so they're not dictating to you their interpretation. It's an attempt to be more honest, to show you as much of the whole picture as possible without introducing bias. Admittedly that has problems of its own but it's the way things have been going.
*Am I using this word correctly? I'm trying to learn it.
|>>|| No. 18646
I think Curtis is, to quote Doug Stanhope, outta shit. He's just repeating himself and filling the space with stock footage. The film wasn't exactly bad, but as the other lad said it was about 5 minutes of interesting content followed by about half an hour of shaky cam recordings of people running about screaming and Carry On clips. He could have made the same points with just as much impact in 45 minutes instead of 2 hours.
|>>|| No. 18647
>so they're not dictating to you their interpretation.
They're communicating it more subtly. There is still the conscious choice to include that footage, and also more importantly to not include other footage. As is so often the case, you may find biases more in what isn't shown than what is.
|>>|| No. 18648
Now I know why any of those footages were never shown anywhere in the media. People like >>18646 and >>18629 will never like it, so that's why we have these simple narratives of good and bad.
|>>|| No. 18649
Christ, lad, Curtis isn't Jesus and parroting what he says just makes you look like the kid at school who thought he knew everything about the US government because he watched Zeitgeist.
There's a difference of being shown these videos in the context of a news report where you expect to see them and having them bombarded at you for two hours and seventeen minutes when you expect someone to tell you a story of why things happened.
|>>|| No. 18650
The videos explained why things happened. But of-course, those brought up on Big Brother and 24 News-for-dummies will have problems viewing them.
|>>|| No. 18651
I nominally agree with what you're saying, but being a twat isn't going to convince him.
|>>|| No. 18652
> The videos explained why things happened.
Yeah that video of an army chap trying to secure the loan of a photocopier changed my worldview.
|>>|| No. 18653
If that's all you got from it, then maybe you should go back to watching My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.
|>>|| No. 18654
Are you deliberately being a cunt? Get off your high horse. Again, stop acting like you're fucking enlightened after watching what is one man's opinion. It doesn't make you better than anyone else for perceiving meaning where others saw none.
|>>|| No. 18655
I'm not being a cunt. I'm trying to explain to our ladmate here that politicians try to come up with simple narratives because the general public is like him. Fickle and dumb.
|>>|| No. 18656
Things would be much better if they were pretentious elitists like you. I was half asleep when I watched, but I don't remember getting much deep understanding from the video used, would you mind pointing out a couple of pieces you got something out of?
|>>|| No. 18657
People have been writing simple narratives often called "stories", sometimes cunningly disguised as so-called "novels", "plays" and more recently "films" and "television programs" for thousands of years. Wow, this evil political simple narrative conspiracy is far worse than I thought.
|>>|| No. 18660
Is that an "I can't", lad? Why are you taking disagreement over an Adam Curtis documentary so seriously?
|>>|| No. 18661
Let me guess. He's just pretending to be a total fucking idiot.
|>>|| No. 18665
Yes, exactly. I almost said as much but thought I covered it with
>Admittedly that has problems of its own but it's the way things have been going.
Judging by the way this thread has gone some people probably will benefit from your spelling it out.
|>>|| No. 18669
Did you watch that new Adam Curtis documentary? It was so fucking deep yeah. It like totally made me think about Arabia and stuff. I think some plebs didn't get it because there like wasn't enough talking, but I totally got what he was doing. I mean, why like try and make your point in a brief and concise manner when you can make an epic 2 hour masterpiece.
|>>|| No. 18672
Like I said, stick to My Big Fat wedding. It's very concise and everyone gets married in less than 30 minutes.
|>>|| No. 18673
I'm now convinced cuntlad is a troll. He's not actually responding to anyone, just insulting them.
|>>|| No. 18675
Why are you overlooking their insults? You soppy twat, did you skip through the documentary because of "wots all these pictures mate, I need a voice over?"
|>>|| No. 18676
It was still a pretty simple narrative of good and bad though. It was a narrative of "look at all the nasty things that happen because the rich powerful people toyed around in business that wasn't theirs, look they are people just like you, feel empathy for them. Here's a ten minute video of people going about their daily lives amidst some rubble just in case you don't feel enough empathy already."
|>>|| No. 18679
No it wasn't. It was trying to convince us to pick a side based on other reasons, rather than childish good vs evil bullshit people in the west love so much. Hate Islamists even though they stop corruption? Support the corrupt bastards oppressing everyone. Hate the commies? Support the Islamists. Obviously asking people to make choices based on these kinds of things would be a bit too much. Just look at the comments on this thread. "Oh m8 it was too long, there were videos I didn't like, why didn't he narrate for the whole 2 hours..."
|>>|| No. 18682
I'm going to ignore the cunt off. I can understand why people didn't enjoy it, there were parts where I felt my mind wandering a bit. It was perhaps a bit long, and I get that it's just not some people's cup of tea. I personally still really enjoyed it and thought some of the footage was fantastic in and of itself.
I might be way off here but I don't think Curtis was trying to put across an easy digestible message of the big bad West fucking everything up, although it could certainly be read that way. I thought that the conscious decision to not have much narration but lots of sometimes seemingly unrelated clips and footage was an attempt to get across the impossibility of imposing such narrow and binary perspectives on things. Especially things as complicated as a country like Afghanistan.
Some of the footage was fucking brutal and some was genuinely touching and affecting. For me it seemed like Curtis was attempting to give a more sensorial experience than a normal documentary. An attempt to get you to feel more than analyse.
And in spite of that I still felt like a learned a few things I didn't know before, admittedly due to my own ignorance, but I didn't really know about the deal between Roosevelt and the Saudi King, or how the dams being built years ago made poppies such a viable and valuable crop or just how much the Russians invested into the country and the fallout from that. Even stuff like the British troops in Helmand Province on which I've seen and read stuff, I wasn't aware of quite how entirely fucked up that situation was, again maybe just my own ignorance.
Regardless I'm glad we have someone like him making interesting pieces of film. There's so much entirely vapid shite relentlessly shoved in your face in our culture that when something like this comes along it feels like a breath of fresh air.
I'm probably talking shite.
|>>|| No. 18683
> I'm glad we have someone like him making interesting pieces of film. There's so much entirely vapid shite relentlessly shoved in your face in our culture that when something like this comes along it feels like a breath of fresh air.
I agree. I enjoyed it a lot. Thought provoking, intense and provocative film making.
|>>|| No. 18687
I adore this film. I don't take it as absolute fact, this is very much Adam Curtis' interpretation. Looking at how the world is typically presented, though, we could certainly do worse than to believe his narrative.
I am watching it for a third time. I think it's easier to understand his sense of pacing on repeated viewings, and also why he leaves certain videos run long.
|>>|| No. 18688
I watched it last night with 4 pints down me at around 1am.
The stuff about the history of Afghanistan was interesting but for the most part it was pretty underwhelming.
|>>|| No. 18689
It's only now I've noticed the parallel between the interviews with women who believed external influences would lead to greater gender equality.
|>>|| No. 18819
>But Interflora declared that everyone should commit armed insurrection.
>10 years ago, in the White House, John Major had a tryst with the Chuckle Brothers.
I'm liking this.
|>>|| No. 21164
>Acclaimed filmmaker, Adam Curtis brings his new epic film, HyperNormalisation to BBC iPlayer this October. The film will premiere at 9pm on Sunday 16 October.
>HyperNormalisation tells the extraordinary story of how we got to this strange time of great uncertainty and confusion - where those who are supposed to be in power are paralysed - and have no idea what to do. And, where events keep happening that seem inexplicable and out of control - from Donald Trump to Brexit, the War in Syria, the endless migrant crisis, and random bomb attacks. It explains not only why these chaotic events are happening - but also why we, and our politicians, cannot understand them.
It's interesting now to look back on Adam Curtis documentaries. As my own views on politics have developed slightly (hopefully in the sense that they've become more informed), I'm wondering how I'll react on seeing Curtis' highly pop-culture focussed, artsy take on global events again. His films have been quite important to me, and were certainly one of the stepping stones leading to my current understanding of the world.
Though they seem to set out to make people doubt and feel uneasy, I remember his films actually comforted me at a time when I was around a very rigid environment and it seemed impossible stuff like this could get made anywhere. I don't really know of any other filmmaker that can make films about abstract ideas and their effect on the world, and present them in such an aesthetically compelling way.
What I'm saying is, I'm piped.
|>>|| No. 21166
Weird that, I was just thinking the other day "I wonder when there will be another Adam Curtis film..."
I didn't really like Bitter Lake. It was a bit up its own arse, too arty and distant. I hope this one is a bit more grounded and insightful.
|>>|| No. 21170
Why do Disney characters have large heads compared to the rest of their bodies?
|>>|| No. 21172
There is a great deal of psychology hidden in the character design, whole books have been written on the subject.
The big head/big eyes thing is mimicking the proportion of a baby or infant, to make the audience identify the character as "cute".
Notice how the villains usually have smaller heads, and male heroes are closer to life-like proportions. For an ideal Disney character, a (non-autistic) viewer should be able to instantly tell the role of that character from their silhouette alone.
|>>|| No. 21173
A person with some form of autism can't tell the role of characters from their silhouettes? Could be possible that these child like characters, who are really meant to be grown-ups, have been indoctrinating people to fancy children? Basically become a paedophile?
|>>|| No. 21175
If you think that's the worst Disney have been indoctrinating our kids with you're in for a shock m8.
|>>|| No. 21178
Things get properly fucking bonkers around the one hour mark. Or rather, real life events do... Qaddafi talking to the US Nation of Islam? Why the fuck not?
|>>|| No. 21179
>We live in a strange time. Extraordinary events keep happening that undermine the stability of our world. Suicide bombs, waves of refugees, Donald Trump...
|>>|| No. 21181
The disaster film montage is just fucking magic. Laughing and haunted at the same time.
|>>|| No. 21182
Good to know that there is no big man behind the curtains and everything is just more or less happening randomly. I can sleep better tonight.
|>>|| No. 21183
The juxtaposition of the middle class lady crying about how Brexit made her feel against the 'artist' slashing a Z into the air in her film was on the nose, but it got a belly laugh out of me.
I am a bit speechless. Same way I felt after Bitter Lake, actually. This long form stuff definitely suits Curtis, the entire feel is a lot more sophisticated than his old films, structured in a way more appropriate to telling the story.
|>>|| No. 21184
Is there a track listing I'll be able to get my hands on?
|>>|| No. 21185
Specifically the music that plays as Gaddafi's 3rd Universal Way is described, and ending when Curtis talks about how Gaddafi ended up isolated and friendless.
|>>|| No. 21186
This one was much better than Bitter Lake I thought; much more well paced and digestible as a piece of ambient film-making, as well as a thought provoking documentary.
Weird thing is that in the years since getting into Adam Curtis' films, my world view seems to have arrived at a point where I'd kind of already thought about most of the points he made on my own. This film felt like a "beginner's guide" to that cynical, slightly-/boo/-but-not-too-much, media sceptic rationalisation of the world.
|>>|| No. 21187
Nothing wrong with a beginner's guide. For anyone struggling to make sense of the news (I think many people do) Adam Curtis is a great introduction to alternative ways of thinking about the world. The fact his audience eventual outgrow his films is a good sign, if anything.
That said, I think Bitter Lake was the more ambitious film. Hypernormalisation is almost like a recap and expansion upon his body of work thus far, but Bitter Lake is a sign of things to come, I think. Curtis seems to have a growing interest in just letting clips run and "speak for themselves".
|>>|| No. 21188
>This long form stuff definitely suits Curtis, the entire feel is a lot more sophisticated than his old films, structured in a way more appropriate to telling the story
I'd say the opposite. His earlier stuff was well crafted and argued (whatever you may think of the arguments), but the looser structure of the past few things has made him much less coherent. HyperNormalisation in particular sprawled out so much and tried so hard to tie all the threads into, well, everything, that it just ended up being nothing. Which is a shame, the Trump/Assad/Qaddafi parallels and interplay were very interesting.
|>>|| No. 21190
Allow me to be that guy:
>This film felt like a "beginner's guide"
Well it is very simplistic. In fact it made me a bit cross at multiple points such as when he followed the mistranslation of Putin praising Trump when actually he was described as what we would call a 'colourful' character which in Russian is put as radiant/bright. Lets get to my central argument though otherwise I could be here all day:
He focuses upon western relationships involuntarily creating his own distorted vision of the world* -suicide bombing for example is discussed in a relationship to attacks on the west or its interests. In doing so he also misses crucial points of Gaddafi and the development of the AU and R2P. This is surprising because there is a great irony in Gaddafi getting deposed on a justification of protecting civilians when he himself had argued for such a possibility, something you think he would be all over.
Things like R2P are however awfully inconvenient for his argument (I will also add, rooted in the ideas of third worlders such as Kofi Annan and Francis Deng whilst also enacted with almost unanimous international approval in the 2005 World Summit) because it is fundamentally an idealism within the international community and a vision for the future. Something that he, like other contemporaries like John Gray, can only attack which is ironic considering he himself is mostly about describing a loss of idealism. Perhaps its time we had an Adam Curtis documentary on Adam Curtis.
I concede that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with ripping into the world we live in, I myself am a cynical bastard as you may tell. The problem is Adam Curtis has never come to suggest answers so we're left with a career that is increasingly looking like the musings of a depressed teenager. I know he does have a vision of the world and occasionally it starts to bubble to the surface but I think its a vision that once revealed would be his own undoing.
*I'm reminded allot of a paper by Sebastian Schmidt about how Western academia views the national sovereignty through its own distorted lens. Sadly behind a paywall: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00667.x/full[/sup]
I definitely agree that he has declined over time. I think it began with Oh Dearism which raised eyebrows even when it was released in two short films, having rewatched Mayfair Set recently his older work still holds up very well but he has gradually fallen into the trap of post-modernism.
|>>|| No. 21191
>The problem is Adam Curtis has never come to suggest answers so we're left with a career that is increasingly looking like the musings of a depressed teenager.
He's never been anything but to my mind.
|>>|| No. 21195
>Sadly behind a paywall
Then post a screenshot or a cache or something. What the hell am I supposed to do with a broken link? Have a word with yourself.
|>>|| No. 21197
It's okay, I don't care about it any more. You can shove it up your gaping arse.
|>>|| No. 21198
Its a url link to the abstract with a '[/sup]' accidentally put at the end. At 12 pages its too long to copy and paste while anyway we are not discussing Westphalian Sovereignty.
If you're really interested you can find the paper. I'm not going out of my way to post academic work for an autistic manchild on a site whose rules would likely object.
|>>|| No. 21200
I said I don't care. Why are you stil having a teary about this? Print all 12 pages or whatever, roll them up tightly and ram it up your hungry arse. You fucking twat.
|>>|| No. 21201
He couldn't have been sure you'd said that about the article because I deleted my unhelpful post and he's not me. Honestly I feel a bit bad about that, so I took the time to screenshot the entire article for you.
|>>|| No. 21204
I've heard of it, but unfortunately all I want to download is ASTM specifications which it doesn't work for.
|>>|| No. 21205
Sci-hub is for journal articles only. If you want books and other materials, try Libgen (http://golibgen.io) - they have about 1.5 million books and documents, including most of the ASTM publications.
If Libgen doesn't work, tweet a request with the hashtag "#icanhazpdf". Someone should provide you with a download link within a few minutes, at which point you should delete your tweet.
|>>|| No. 21206
I have to say that while I enjoyed Bitter Lake and HyperNormalisation, they put me mad trying to describe them to other people in comparison to his earlier work.
>The problem is Adam Curtis has never come to suggest answers
Is one of his threads not that "nobody has any answers" though? (Or at least, not good ones, not ones that inspire people and can actually change the world.)
If he had answers, that would kind of go through the floor.
|>>|| No. 21220
>Instead, Curtis repeats his by-now common refrain: that western leaders have no solutions to the world’s complex problems. So in Afghanistan and Iraq, George Bush and Tony Blair followed predecessors like Ronald Reagan in casting the world simplistically as a fight between good and evil. Their opponents were portrayed as demonic genuises.
>In this way, Curtis effectively lets Bush and Blair off the hook. They fell for an idea, a mistaken and lazy one. They wanted the best for us, to protect us from these evil masterminds, to rebuild a reassuring world for us. They may have been wrong, but their intentions were good.
>It is no surprise that Curtis only briefly deals with the US-UK attack on Iraq and even then does not mention oil as a factor, or the fact that Cheney and others made huge financial gains from the dissolution of the Iraqi state, or that the Iraq war generated a weapons sales bonanza for the military-industrial complex, or that there were geo-strategic interests for the US and Israel in weakening Arab nationalism. These issues are off Curtis’ radar, so well has his own perception of events been managed.
>Curtis is simply playing his part in managing our perceptions – and doing so in great style.
I thought this was interesting: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/adam-curtis-another-manager-of-perceptions/
|>>|| No. 21221
It's the same old shit pumped out by the time wasting left wing clickbait factories. Evil west out to get you, buy our t shirts and join da revolushun. I have been reading that sort of thing since 2003 and got bored of it by the time I was 20.
|>>|| No. 21223
Not as well honed as your reliance on tedious written clichés apparently.
|>>|| No. 21224
Perhaps you ought to rely a little more on cliché yourself, when you try to do your own thinking you end up with 'sentences' like that.
|>>|| No. 21225
>Is one of his threads not that "nobody has any answers" though?
Yes but its a valid problem with his work. For example what little there is of a conclusion is fondly reminiscing the 1950-60s when politicians could "change the world for the better". I believe this is just where he decides to start things off but it highlights the problems that come about from his perspective even in just asking where you start with the statement that shit's fucked.
Maybe its just a problem of the medium, I've read similar authors who put the fucking of shit down to our very nature which he hints at but those are books.
Rather than go through the problems of Cook's narrative I think its easier for all of us if I just point out that the Chilcot report was released quite recently and as a result its very reasonable for Curtis to have avoided discussing the Iraq War given his film (documentary?) was likely put together before its release.
I'm surprised Cook didn't realise this but then its an area of interest for him like R2P is for me. You can't make everyone happy, not least grumpy people on the internet.
|>>|| No. 21226
I don't think you understand the typical .gs user. This isn't about politics but rather how hipster they are with their opinions. As they are mostly jobbo student types, their social circles are left wing and they aim to rise above them by learning their opinions from facist imageboards. Adam Curtis being wrong or right doesn't matter, the important thing is how that poster could find factoids to support his projected personality type.
You should watch Century of the Self to understand what it is I'm on about.
|>>|| No. 21227
When I'm in the fallout shelter with my grandchildren, and one of them asks with two of her four mouths, "Granpa, just how the alt-right movement start anyway?". I'll turn to those lovable mutants and say, "well, y'see, before the the Event it was very important for some people to project an insufferable caricature of their invert selves online. It was very funny until they managed to elect this one guy..."
|>>|| No. 21229
That's it lad, keep deluding yourself that Hilary is the one less likely to start a nuclear war.
We live in a completely bonkers topsy turvy world my friend; George W. Bush Jr decommissioned 5,000 nuclear weapons compared to Barrack Obama's paltry 500. Strikes on civilian targets in the middle east have increased. But which one of these men do you see as a warmonger?
Donald Trump's claims of election rigging are true- He is the rig. You could get the people of the United States to democratically elect Adolf Hitler if you set him up to run against the earthly embodiment of Satan. In this way, the election of a maniac warhawk who poses a very real threat of ending civilisation itself will be legitimised as the right thing to do.
After all, a vote for Trump is a vote for a racist and a sexist. The red team is the only rational choice.
|>>|| No. 21230
>You should watch Century of the Self to understand what it is I'm on about.
|>>|| No. 21234
>which one of these men do you see as a warmonger?
The one who started the war.
|>>|| No. 21235
I don't even understand your point any more, fascistlad. I mean... Are you even a fascist?
|>>|| No. 21236
I don't think I'm whoever you think I am, but for clarity's sake, no I'm not a fascist.
|>>|| No. 21237
I wasn't discussing Curtis. I was talking about the counterpunch bilge.
Hilarious that you decry some invented fault of .gs posters when you can't even be fucking cunted to pay the slightest bit of attention to what's right under your nose.
|>>|| No. 21241
Pfft, it wasn't a war. It was an intervention against Saddam Hussein and an effort to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Have you been reading non-governmental sources, you pinko terrorist sympathizer?
|>>|| No. 21245
What can we do? We brought democracy to Iraq, and the people decided democratically that they just couldn't live together.
|>>|| No. 21251
Which was discussing Curtis. Are you okay? You sound a little hurt, don't worry about it, I'm sure everyone else thinks you're still special. Just not me.
|>>|| No. 21252
>Which was discussing Curtis.
>Adam Curtis being wrong or right doesn't matter
comments were objectively stupid, because I didn't make any comments on Adam Curtis's film. I only commented on the Counterpunch article, which is the usual anti-western 'Putin is no worse than Tony Blair' bullshit that pinko rags have been pumping out for years.
There's a really boring habit of the sort of arrogant cunt that thinks they're a march ahead on the rest of mankind because they read Counterpunch and watched Fight Club on DVD. They get caught out, and then conduct panicked rearguard actions during their retreat, just like you right now. Sad!
|>>|| No. 21254
I had no idea Donald Trump was capable of writing more than 140 characters in one go.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]