# New Adam Curtis documentary, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace



## Divisive Cotton (May 7, 2011)

Coming on Monday May 23 at 9pm on BBC2

This one is about who the digital age was supposed to free us

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2011/may/06/documentary-internet-adam-curtis


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 7, 2011)

Looks great, everything this guy makes is a work of art.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 7, 2011)

p.s. I see that nazi heifer Myleen Klass is on the payroll of the fascist Dubai shithole now. What a repellent cunt she is.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 7, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Looks great, everything this guy makes is a work of art.



Wouldn't go that far.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 7, 2011)

I would.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 7, 2011)

You have my sympathy.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 7, 2011)

He says some interesting things but has a tendency to oversimplify his stories to the point of undermining any rigour the ideas might have had. Usually presented in an entertaining way though so I don't complain too much.


----------



## Stigmata (May 7, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> p.s. I see that nazi heifer Myleen Klass is on the payroll of the fascist Dubai shithole now. What a repellent cunt she is.


 
That's not Myleene Klass. Sorry, I can see you feel strongly about the issue.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 7, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> That's not Myleene Klass. Sorry, I can see you feel strongly about the issue.


 
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/expat/annabelkantaria/10139935/myleene-klass-the-new-“face-of-dubai”/


----------



## vogonity (May 8, 2011)

I'm a big fan of his work and blog. Really looking forward to this.


----------



## Gramsci (May 8, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/

Didnt know he had a blog.

Also links to some of his work on it as well.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (May 9, 2011)

If its the same formula as the power of nightmares - ie an initially interesting observation rehashed and repeated over and over to the strains of Eno's _Another Green World_ then I'm really not looking forward to this.


----------



## sim667 (May 9, 2011)

Ill probably give this a watch, it sounds right up my street.


----------



## Voley (May 22, 2011)

Will be watching this. Power Of Nightmares was ace.


----------



## Part 2 (May 22, 2011)

He's on with Jarvis on 6music now!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 22, 2011)

Was that a clip of Ayn Rand (in black and white) at about 1:45 talking about love as a contract or something?


----------



## Corax (May 22, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Was that a clip of Ayn Rand (in black and white) at about 1:45 talking about love as a contract or something?


 
I was wondering who that was.

Google image search says you're right.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 23, 2011)

Just working my way tho the mayfair set ATM...


----------



## ska invita (May 23, 2011)

Supposedly he lays into hippies as a bunch of individualist Ayn Rand-ian liberal right-wingers - should be fun


----------



## ska invita (May 23, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I would.


 
aye, its definitely art, even if you dont agree with the thesis


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Supposedly he lays into hippies as a bunch of individualist Ayn Rand-ian liberal right-wingers - should be fun


 
Groundbreaking.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> aye, its definitely art, even if you dont agree with the thesis


 
Aye, his latest films are not so much documentaries as pieces of visual poetry. And the sound tracks are fantastic too - any trailer that can encompass Roy Orbison, Nine Inch Nails and Burial gets my vote.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 23, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Was that a clip of Ayn Rand (in black and white) at about 1:45 talking about love as a contract or something?


 
You can see the whole interview on youtube:-




........ but I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## Maggot (May 23, 2011)

Looking forward to this. 



Jeff Robinson said:


> p.s. I see that nazi heifer Myleen Klass is on the payroll of the fascist Dubai shithole now. What a repellent cunt she is.


 
What a nasty off topic comment.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 23, 2011)

A good start, but nothing too outrageous yet.


----------



## alsoknownas (May 23, 2011)

Enjoyed that.  Particularly interesting to me how the economic exploitation of sub-prime America was compared to an assualt on a foreign nation (if I understood it properly).  
Funny that after watching a prog warning how tech commodifies your very being, the first thing I feel like doing is chatting about it on the internet .


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Supposedly he lays into hippies as a bunch of individualist Ayn Rand-ian liberal right-wingers - should be fun



He interestingly does not. Clinton is represented as a bumbling well meaning liberal rather than part of the problem. 

This article lays into the "Long Hairs" generation that came to political power with Clinton.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline

But despite its roots in organized labor, the New Left wasn't much interested in all this. As the Port Huron Statement, the founding document of Students for a Democratic Society, famously noted, the students who formed the nucleus of the movement had been "bred in at least modest comfort." They were animated not by workplace safety or the cost of living, but first by civil rights and antiwar sentiment, and later by feminism, the sexual revolution, and environmentalism. They wore their hair long, they used drugs, and they were loathed by the mandarins of organized labor

The article argues that the loss of power of organised labour has led in US to declining living standards for all workers.

So unlike Curtis its not all down to computer technology but to long term political trends.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

alsoknownas said:


> Enjoyed that.  Particularly interesting to me how the economic exploitation of sub-prime America was compared to an assualt on a foreign nation (if I understood it properly).
> Funny that after watching a prog warning how tech commodifies your very being, the first thing I feel like doing is chatting about it on the internet .


 
Good point and he does not raise the issue of how internet and mobile phones technology was used in Iran and now the Arab countries to oppose powerful elites. He is right to criticise the Californian utopianism. However he could have made the point that most of the worlds population is not connected to internet. Either because the infrastructure is not there or its to expensive.

Did he cover new ground in this doc? Im not sure. Stiglitz did his bit but anyone whose read him will already now this.

He disusses Ayn Rand at length but does not mention the Chicago economists. Dont quite understand that. Unless they come later in the series.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 23, 2011)

Ayn Rand came across as well creepy.

I want to play that group ping pong thing, though!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

this one i found very disjointed  he talks about lots of stuff  but  doesn't really link it

it kind of feels like three documentaries  turn into one.  the is a documentary  about rand   and documentary about economics and a documentary about computing  and  they arn't that well connected  and  frankly the one about computing isn't  very good.   the economics bit i found intresting  and  that link reasonably  with  the economics bit  but  i didn't really  buy  the linking   of economics and  computing   sure   economics uses computer systems  but computing  doesn't actually control  anything  computers are tools  used by humans   programmed by humans  based on human thoughts.


i like his stuff  normally  too


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

plus  that whole thing about  the internet comodifying you

internet drama  oldskool style


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 23, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Ayn Rand came across as well creepy.


 
smart but MAD


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> this one i found very disjointed  he talks about lots of stuff  but  doesn't really link it
> 
> it kind of feels like three documentaries  turn into one.  the is a documentary  about rand   and documentary about economics and a documentary about computing  and  they arn't that well connected  and  frankly the one about computing isn't  very good.   the economics bit i found intresting  and  that link reasonably  with  the economics bit  but  i didn't really  buy  the linking   of economics and  computing   sure   economics uses computer systems  but computing  doesn't actually control  anything  computers are tools  used by humans   programmed by humans  based on human thoughts.



Perhaps you're meant to make the link yourself and thereby be more convinced of his argument. Classic teaching/brainwashing technique.


----------



## miss minnie (May 23, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> sure   economics uses computer systems  but computing  doesn't actually control  anything  computers are tools  used by humans   programmed by humans  based on human thoughts.


Computers change the way we think which changes how we programme computers which changes what computers control...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

my dad was more of the opinion that  if he said  he was making a documentory on economic   no one would  care  so he pretends it's about computers.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> this one i found very disjointed  he talks about lots of stuff  but  doesn't really link it
> 
> it kind of feels like three documentaries  turn into one.  the is a documentary  about rand   and documentary about economics and a documentary about computing  and  they arn't that well connected  and  frankly the one about computing isn't  very good.   the economics bit i found intresting  and  that link reasonably  with  the economics bit  but  i didn't really  buy  the linking   of economics and  computing   sure   economics uses computer systems  but computing  doesn't actually control  anything  computers are tools  used by humans   programmed by humans  based on human thoughts.
> 
> ...



I have heard some interesting stuff on economics radio programmes on computers. They are so fast compared to humans that some running Hedge funds etc found that in effect they lost control of what was happening to the computer programmes they had built. Its unexplored territory how markets and computer programmes work. There is an interesting prog to be made on computers and economics. 

I agree with you it seemed like 3 docs together.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Computers change the way we think which changes how we programme computers which changes what computers control...


 
yes but  that's  a bit more lose.

really   this seems to be all about Black–Scholes thinking rather than the computer systems  that  ran it


----------



## ska invita (May 23, 2011)

interesting and brilliantly made as ever. didnt quite get how rand and clintons love/sex lives fitted in to the whole picture though. i guess it showed rand as a failure in that it contradicted her own beliefs - clinton wasnt relevant i thought, other than maybe the drama made him take his eye off the economy - that felt a bit cheap to me.

i thought the spelling out of how the IMF bailouts of the 90s secretly went to bankers/financiers was a process being repeated with the current crisis was an interesting point - i hadnt thought of it like that, that it was a process repeating itself. 

i got that the IMF bailouts were an aggressive attempt to spread neoliberalism, but hadnt picked up that it was also a bailout of capitalist investors/speculators/bankers by taxpayers.




Gramsci said:


> He interestingly does not [go after hippies].


 i read a preview of the whole three parter and it particularly mentioned having a go at hippies as a highlight (the reviewer was happy about it as he hates hippies) - it was in the sunday times culture section i found in a recycle bin by the bus stop today. im guessing that;ll be in part 2 or 3.



Shippou-Sensei said:


> my dad was more of the opinion that  if he said  he was making a documentory on economic   no one would  care  so he pretends it's about computers.


 maybe, but i think it'll all tie in a lot clearer over the next two episodes. theres this whole thing about ecosystems being self regulating, and how that inlfluences computer networks and how that influences economic models to come...

SPOILER ALERT! 

Ah, I just remembered how hippies fit into it - according to the preview supposedly he looks at communes that set up on a 'self-regulating' libertarian (maybe randian in his opinion ) basis, and how in countless cases they collapsed, as individuals become overly powerful within groups - or somesuch. not sure as have to see for ourselves, but i think the overall point is a sort of Weber-ian one, that there is always power and powerful people, and they always control/mess things up, and that the dream of decentralised, egalitarian, anarchist maybe, freedom (like the giant pong game), is a delusion, as powerful individuals and groups get their way over time.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 23, 2011)

perhaps  it's  just going to be  a thematic link rather than  a real cause and effect link


----------



## Part 2 (May 23, 2011)

Has the Greenspan bit, (especially the stuff about him changing his mind and announcing he was wrong and must've missed something in the data) been on something else recently or is it in another documentary of note? 

I had a bit of deja vu while watching it.


----------



## ska invita (May 23, 2011)

SPOILER ALERT! 

Ah, I just remembered how hippies fit into it - according to the preview supposedly he looks at communes that set up on a 'self-regulating' libertarian (maybe randian in his opinion ) basis, and how in countless cases they collapsed, as individuals become overly powerful within groups - or somesuch. not sure as have to see for ourselves, but i think the overall point is a sort of Weber-ian one, that there is always power and powerful people, and they always control/mess things up, and that the dream of decentralised, egalitarian, anarchist maybe, freedom (like the giant pong game), is a delusion, as powerful individuals and groups get their way over time.

(Is that what Weber says? I'm not sure)


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> i thought the spelling out of how the IMF bailouts of the 90s secretly went to bankers/financiers was a process being repeated with the current crisis was an interesting point - i hadnt thought of it like that, that it was a process repeating itself.
> 
> i got that the IMF bailouts were an aggressive attempt to spread neoliberalism, but hadnt picked up that it was also a bailout of capitalist investors/speculators/bankers by taxpayers.



Thats straight from Stiglitz. Stiglitz became disillusioned with IMF after the way IMF dealt with Asian crisis. 

Ive almost finished Stiglitz book "Freefall" .He does not blame computers but political choices that assumed mantras of neo liberalism were gospel.

Personally Im not happy at bashing Hippies. 

Maybe its best to see Curtis work as a whole rather than as separate doc series. He deals exclusively with the growth of ideas and there influence on modern society. His main thesis is that ideas that were supposed to liberate us in fact ended up being oppressive. Its a bit like what the Frankfurt Marxists used to argue. They saw the Hippies liberation as "repressive sublimation" btw


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

Bloody Sunday times wants to charge me to see there review of this doc that Ska Invita mentioned.

I blame technology.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

ska invita said:


> SPOILER ALERT!
> 
> Ah, I just remembered how hippies fit into it - according to the preview supposedly he looks at communes that set up on a 'self-regulating' libertarian (maybe randian in his opinion ) basis, and how in countless cases they collapsed, as individuals become overly powerful within groups - or somesuch. not sure as have to see for ourselves, but i think the overall point is a sort of Weber-ian one, that there is always power and powerful people, and they always control/mess things up, and that the dream of decentralised, egalitarian, anarchist maybe, freedom (like the giant pong game), is a delusion, as powerful individuals and groups get their way over time.
> 
> (Is that what Weber says? I'm not sure)


 
Spoiler Alert again. In this Guardian interview with Curtis he goes into this and what he means.

And its free to read unlike evil Murdoch press. It must be because the hippy liberals at the Guardian want to brainwash me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/06/adam-curtis-computers-documentary


----------



## gosub (May 24, 2011)

thought it could have been better, not bad but trying to mesh to many things to be really coherent


----------



## toblerone3 (May 24, 2011)

Really enjoyed this. Was thought provoking. Of course you can argue with the different strands of the argument and the connections between these different strands. Didn't know much about Ayn Rand before. I found the way that her eyes kept on shifting around quite disturbing.


----------



## Part 2 (May 24, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Spoiler Alert again. In this Guardian interview with Curtis he goes into this and what he means.
> 
> And its free to read unlike evil Murdoch press. It must be because the hippy liberals at the Guardian want to brainwash me.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/06/adam-curtis-computers-documentary



Well something good came of That's Life!


----------



## ernestolynch (May 24, 2011)

Well that sent me to sleep after 20 minutes.


----------



## _angel_ (May 24, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> p.s. I see that nazi heifer Myleen Klass is on the payroll of the fascist Dubai shithole now. What a repellent cunt she is.


 
?


----------



## London_Calling (May 24, 2011)

Not easy to follow as the brain slows down at the end of a busy day but I presume he’s mainly talking about how computers and Internet have made easier or even enabled Ayn Rand’s vision of human society – at least as seen from 1990s California.

Then about how that vision has been usurped by the Goldman Sacs era/hegemony of international capitalism, as well as the quite distinct commodification of Internet users.

That’s the best I have for now, anyway . . .

I suppose, atm, I’m wondering why we needed to focus quite so much on Ayn Rand given she was one of many influences on Greenspan – has the feel of a little too much dramatic effect causing the main thrust to become obscured. Maybe that footage of Rand was just too 'good' to not include.

It’s the first of three though, isn’t it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2011)

ska invita said:


> SPOILER ALERT!
> 
> Ah, I just remembered how hippies fit into it - according to the preview supposedly he looks at communes that set up on a 'self-regulating' libertarian (maybe randian in his opinion ) basis, and how in countless cases they collapsed, as individuals become overly powerful within groups - or somesuch. not sure as have to see for ourselves, but i think the overall point is a sort of Weber-ian one, that there is always power and powerful people, and they always control/mess things up, and that the dream of decentralised, egalitarian, anarchist maybe, freedom (like the giant pong game), is a delusion, as powerful individuals and groups get their way over time.
> 
> (Is that what Weber says? I'm not sure)



No, that's got nothing to do with Weber at all. That's classic elite theory (pareto onwards).


----------



## Citizen66 (May 24, 2011)

ernestolynch said:


> Well that sent me to sleep after 20 minutes.


 
I literally did fall asleep when it was on.

Will watch tonight or maybe wait until the series has been aired and watch it in one hit.


----------



## magneze (May 24, 2011)

It did feel a lot like 3 separate documentaries until the end where he brought it back together. I thought it was really well done - having been aware of the Asian crisis it was interesting to learn about Ayn Rand, how she links to the behaviour seen during that crisis and how the computers enabled it. It wasn't explicit though - you had to make the links yourself.

On the subject of commodification of thoughts online - this is pretty persuasive for me. Not really as part of this site, but certainly Facebook & Twitter take your thoughts and life experiences, package them up and sell them. That's what they do. In earlier computing generations this was much more subtle and, I would say, accidental. Now it IS the point of social networking.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 24, 2011)

Ayn Rand's eyes are swivel eyes.

Stuff about China was interesting. The argument went. 

1.To recover from the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11, Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates to such an extent that he encouraged a consumer boom in the developed world.
2. Usually this type of Keynsian policy has resulted in inflation.
3. But in the 2000s it did not because China (newly admitted to the WTO) was able to supply a increasing range of cheap consumer goods.
4. US paid the money to China for these exports also supported by a artificially low valued RMB
5. China thinks of what do with this sea of cash.
6. Decides (at least for part of the money) to buy US treasury bonds.
7. This means that the money is back with the US (its hot money) too hot to hold.
8. US banks lend the money to sub-prime mortgagees.
9. US lenders want to insure themselves in case these subprimes default and buy insurance for these and float asset-backed securities.
10. These get passed around the speculative financial sector (too hot to hold) until the confidence bubble bursts.
11. Western banks put severe pressure on US governments to bail them out. (just as they might have done in 1998 following Asian economic crisis then)
12. Robbery takes place
13. Current economic crisis takes shape.

Interesting argument but its very open to attack. Does it stand up?


----------



## isvicthere? (May 24, 2011)

I enjoyed it, but am going to watch it again before committing myself to comment here.


----------



## Diamond (May 24, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Ayn Rand's eyes are swivel eyes.
> 
> Stuff about China was interesting. The argument went.
> 
> ...


 
That's a pretty standard, uncontroversial analysis.

Looking forward to having a gander at this but, oddly, I don't expect a huge amount.


----------



## Diamond (May 24, 2011)

Well, that was a bit crap, wasn't it?

Essentially and fundamentally incoherent...

But first of a few I suppose so best reserve judgment.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 24, 2011)

Didn't rate it at all, thought it was poorly constructed as an argument...


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 25, 2011)

The documentary was not pitched at the sort of people who post somewhere like this. Most people on any decent political forum could have strung together some of the concepts for themselves. The documentaries are aimed at making political points in a audio\visually stimulating fashion. For a large part of Britain it would have felt to be very revelationary. Curtis is very good at turning dry academic discussions into prime time material. 


Little of what Curtis says is in itself unique, but for a large part of the country it is unique, its the first time they have thought about things the way he presents them.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2011)

twas all a bit vague and scattershot. nicely put together mind.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 25, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> The documentary was not pitched at the sort of people who post somewhere like this. Most people on any decent political forum could have strung together some of the concepts for themselves. The documentaries are aimed at making political points in a audio\visually stimulating fashion. For a large part of Britain it would have felt to be very revelationary. Curtis is very good at turning dry academic discussions into prime time material.
> 
> 
> Little of what Curtis says is in itself unique, but for a large part of the country it is unique, its the first time they have thought about things the way he presents them.


 
You saying most people aren't aware of the world to the same degree as urban75??


----------



## soulfulofsoul (May 25, 2011)

I'm feeling a bit less excited about seeing this now. Although the posts on this thread don't exactly say it, the response on this thread seems a bit lukewarm. Is it actually good? How does it compare to his other stuff?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 25, 2011)

Ime it's very poor compared to his other stuff...lots of evidence free assertions and some rather loony connections contrived to force his point.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 25, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You saying most people aren't aware of the world to the same degree as urban75??


 

LOL He is as well. The vanguard of thought. Global warming crackpot.


----------



## Badgers (May 25, 2011)

Watched this last night and enjoyed it. Probably nothing hugely new to many of the better read or more computer savvy Urbans. Ayn Rand was totally new on me, I will try and get a copy of her book Atlas Shrugged to read a bit more. 



Brainaddict said:


> He says some interesting things but has a tendency to oversimplify his stories to the point of undermining any rigour the ideas might have had. Usually presented in an entertaining way though so I don't complain too much.



I got this too but some of this programme made me think 'well duh?' but a lot was totally new on me.


----------



## Voley (May 25, 2011)

I enjoyed it but I thought it seemed a bit all-encompassing. He might have been better just concentrating on the economic issue rather than wandering off into Clinton's affair with Monica Lewisky etc. Having said that, the slo-mo bit of her going all gooey when she met Clinton was pretty fucking funny, as was Ayn Rand's evident bonkersness.


----------



## madzone (May 25, 2011)

I watched it. Ayn Rand frightened the shit outta me.


----------



## Diamond (May 25, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> The documentary was not pitched at the sort of people who post somewhere like this. Most people on any decent political forum could have strung together some of the concepts for themselves. The documentaries are aimed at making political points in a audio\visually stimulating fashion. For a large part of Britain it would have felt to be very revelationary. Curtis is very good at turning dry academic discussions into prime time material.
> 
> 
> Little of what Curtis says is in itself unique, but for a large part of the country it is unique, its the first time they have thought about things the way he presents them.


 
Wow, that's condescending.


----------



## ska invita (May 25, 2011)

For those outside the UK theres a link here for part 1 http://wtrns.fr/HgGX1gdSnqJZxB


----------



## alsoknownas (May 25, 2011)

So, anyone had any dreams featuring Ayn Rand yet?


----------



## alsoknownas (May 25, 2011)

Diamond said:


> Wow, that's condescending.


No, in a way I think it's a fair point to say that Curtis is a populiser, bringing left field political concepts to the mainstream in a, dare I say it, entertaining way.  It's like those Brian Cox-like science programmes that look amazing - if you already know a bit about science they are always dissapointing, but for many they are a revelation.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 25, 2011)

_erotic _dreams?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2011)

yup, gonnna write some ayn rand/don draper/peggy olson/allen greenspan slash fiction. noam chomsky's gonna come in as a masked s&m troll at some point


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 25, 2011)

I liked the conclusion but I'm not 100% sure about his path getting there

I'm not quite sure why he was trying to juxtapose Ayn Rand's affair that that of Bill Clinton's and his explanation of individualism and Silicon Valley was too brief.

I await the second episode for further clarification


----------



## madzone (May 25, 2011)

Was Ayn Rand a sociopath?


----------



## Maggot (May 25, 2011)

soulfulofsoul said:


> I'm feeling a bit less excited about seeing this now. Although the posts on this thread don't exactly say it, the response on this thread seems a bit lukewarm. Is it actually good? How does it compare to his other stuff?



Why don't you watch it and make your own mind up?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 25, 2011)

I thought it was great.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 25, 2011)

it was, as a pretty picture show with music and lights


----------



## Citizen66 (May 25, 2011)

I'm gonna wait and watch the series in one hit. For traditional reasons.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 26, 2011)

Having read the Guardian interview, going to see the whole thing before I pass judgement. Some of the assertions about what the overall series is about sound very interesting and true (developing Randian individualism and the internet age of Twitter into a worldview in which people not only desire stability, but see no way of changing the system they are a component part of).

I'll be back after the last part


----------



## soulfulofsoul (May 26, 2011)

Maggot said:


> Why don't you watch it and make your own mind up?


 
I will as soon as the download completes for me (since I'm not in the UK). It's taking ages though and I'm very excited about seeing it. Given that I usually love his stuff, I thought I'd see whether others considered it as good as his previous work. 

Of course I'm going to watch it...


----------



## kropotkin (May 26, 2011)

I had to turn it off as I got too irritated with the completely disconnected argument themes.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 26, 2011)

kropotkin said:


> I had to turn it off as I got too irritated with the completely disconnected argument themes.


 
There were connections, it's just that some of them were a little opaque. You've got to use your imagination. Take for example the Monica Lewinsky affair and the Asian Financial Crisis. At first they are seemily unconnected, but if you look at a little closurer you can see the parallels: at the same time the bubble burst in the SE Asian economies due to hot money, Clinton was bursting his bubble all over Lewinsky's dress due to her hot body. See?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 26, 2011)

Is it a thorough, well researched, detailed argument with all dots and i's crossed and dotted?

No. 

But what it is - as with all his work - is a thought provoking, original, facinating and insightful pesepctive on our world delivered with humour, style and poetry.

Just ordered the DVD of 'centuary of the self' from amazon as a result - missed most of it first time around. 

And fuck me Ayn Rand was a wierd, scary women - like thatchers even more mad and alien mother.


----------



## London_Calling (May 26, 2011)

The imagery he chose detracted from the strands of the argument. Really _way_ too much of those two Rand interviews - without the sound.

What was the relevance of Lewinsky's dry cleaning?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 26, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> There were connections, it's just that some of them were a little opaque. You've got to use your imagination. Take for example the Monica Lewinsky affair and the Asian Financial Crisis. At first they are seemily unconnected, but if you look at a little closurer you can see the parallels: at the same time the bubble burst in the SE Asian economies due to hot money, Clinton was bursting his bubble all over Lewinsky's dress due to her hot body. See?



lol.


----------



## ska invita (May 26, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just ordered the DVD of 'centuary of the self' from amazon as a result - missed most of it first time around.


 
not stopping you, but all the older ones are online - google video etc - or can be downloaded


----------



## sim667 (May 26, 2011)

the arguments were connected, the lewinsky thing was to do with how clinton had effectively handed over control of the market


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 26, 2011)

sim667 said:


> the arguments were connected, the lewinsky thing was to do with how clinton had effectively handed over control of the market


 
Really? Not that Clinton was just a neo liberal and the two parties in the US effectively represent different wings of the business community then?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 26, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Really? Not that Clinton was just a neo liberal and the two parties in the US effectively represent different wings of the business community then?


 
Yeah, but do you really need Adam Curtis to tell you that? Furthermore, merely asserting that Clinton and the Democrats are neo-liberals tells us nothing about why they are neo-liberals. Why is neo-liberalism hegemonic? Various historical materialists tend to emphasise the crisis in capital accumulation that engulfed the Keynesian world economy in the 1970s. The fall rate of profits of the transnational corporations demanded the need for a new type of political-economic order and a new type of ideology to justify it. Curtis, in his various films (The Trap, Century of the Self, It Felt Like A Kiss), seems to invert this argument, and suggests that ideologies themselves engender shifts in modes of political-economic organisation. Maybe this can seem idealistic at times (and I agree that the Lewinsky aspect of the program was the least helpful to his overall narrative - but it was entertaining anyway so fuck it), but by the same token, many on the left can be overly deterministic and mechanistic in their explanations of historical change. At any rate, when I listen to an argument, I'm not looking for somebody to spoonfeed the right answer to me, but to offer an alternative and interesting way of thinking about something that I can take away and play about with. That's what Curtis' documentaries do for me.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 26, 2011)

So it's ok to simply assume that Clinton was just horny and not make a proper structural analysis of this period in US history?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 26, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So it's ok to simply assume that Clinton was just horny and not make a proper structural analysis of this period in US history?


 
I suggest if want a structural analysis of neo-liberalism you read David Harvey rather than watch Adam Curtis.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 27, 2011)

Crowd source........

What was the song that accompanied the pensive close up of a bespectacled Greenspan, which included the line "there's a monkey on my back"?


----------



## alsoknownas (May 27, 2011)

isvicthere? said:


> Crowd source........
> 
> What was the song that accompanied the pensive close up of a bespectacled Greenspan, which included the line "there's a monkey on my back"?


What a fucking brilliant question.  I really wanted to find out about that track too.  I'd forgotten about it.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

google says the kills (i doubt it's aerosmith)


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 27, 2011)

ska invita said:


> not stopping you, but all the older ones are online - google video etc - or can be downloaded


 
£8 for the complete set on DVD  including postage - less phaff, can watch it on TV from my sofa rather than on the PC monitor etc..


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 27, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I suggest if want a structural analysis of neo-liberalism you read David Harvey rather than watch Adam Curtis.


 
I would suggest reading Chomsky tbh. Adam Curtis got some stuff very right with the Power of Nightmares, the big one being that AQ wasn't some huge well organised group, but he misses the factors that give rise to circumstances or events too easily. It's just become all too painfully obvious with this latest mess of a documentary...


----------



## alsoknownas (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> google says the kills (i doubt it's aerosmith)


You win sir - flippin' good too:


----------



## sim667 (May 27, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Really? Not that Clinton was just a neo liberal and the two parties in the US effectively represent different wings of the business community then?


 
Wasnt the point though that government was distracted from what was going on in the banking sector by the lewinski scandal?

I thought thats what the point was


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 27, 2011)

But the point earlier on though was that right at the beginning of the Clinton reign he acquiesced to the financiers and conceded control to a market led bubble. So he didn't want to look too closely at the banking sector with or without the Lewinski scandal


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

it seemed to make the point that clinton was too distracted by getting noshed off by lewinsky to pay adequate attention to the banking crisis.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2011)

The one he deliberately set to engineer? If that's what he argues it's as shallow as possible.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

well it's hard to tell, he kind of lost me at that point.
i think he just liked the juxtaposition of slow mo footage of lewinsky with leonard cohen's hallelujah and any point he was trying to make here just went on the backburner


----------



## isvicthere? (May 27, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> well it's hard to tell, he kind of lost me at that point.
> i think he just liked the juxtaposition of slow mo footage of lewinsky with leonard cohen's hallelujah and any point he was trying to make here just went on the backburner



It was Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne", wasn't it?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 27, 2011)

isvicthere? said:


> It was Leonard Cohen's "Suzanne", wasn't it?


 
i'm sure you're right, i recognised his voice and jumped to a rash conclusion


----------



## elbows (May 30, 2011)

Just got round to watching the first one. Curtis remains very good at pointing out facepalm-worthy ideas and the nutters behind them in an entertaining way. As usual the story being told is not completely convincing. Especially as there is the usual overlap with prior works, and that I bet if I go back and watch The Power Of Nightmares, The Trap and Century Of The Self there will be times where the different angles in these programs will clash with each other quite badly, although they sometimes compliment each other well too. 

One of the most obvious flaws, that seems apparent in most of his other output this century at least, is that politicians are usually presented as having been conned in some way by other powerful forces and ideas, and their motives are to be assumed to be a good deal nicer than people are generally inclined to believe of politicians these days. Another reason why the appeal of Curtis's stuff may be limited for some people is that a lot of the ideas that he is looking at, especially ones that become part of mainstream justification for the way the world is ordered, may never have been taken seriously by some of us in the first place. And if we are very cynical about how many of the powerful fuckers whose needs just happen to be met by these ideas are really true believers as opposed to mere opportunists, the works of Adam Curtis may sound horribly out of tune.

I was pleased to see IMF stuff got a proper look in, some nice sinister looking meeting footage set the tone nicely. 

Given how unwilling Curtis seems to be to get deeply into discussing politics of a certain kind, and various other kinds of detail, it is quite amazing how many works he's been able to squeeze out from a relatively short period of history. His use of archive footage dooms him to run out of subject matter eventually I would have thought, as his tales mostly have to start in the era of the motion picture, and thus far also seem highly UK & US-centric.


----------



## boohoo (May 30, 2011)

There some very clunky editing which I find uncomfortable.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 30, 2011)

hmmm... pushed it too far with a direct comparison with between the "colour revolutions" and the commune ideal


----------



## toblerone3 (May 30, 2011)

interesting.


----------



## captainmission (May 30, 2011)

... or confused and shit


----------



## Part 2 (May 30, 2011)

Confused me this week.

 at the bison with a hole in!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 30, 2011)

I actually got bored half way through...


----------



## toblerone3 (May 30, 2011)

There was a lot about ecology tonight. About how ecology has changed from focussing on states of natural equilibrium to a realisation that nature does not alway snap back into an equilbrium state after natural disasters and how populations of bisons and wolves and plants on an island in the Great Lakes were not stable but kept on changing even without any obvious external interventions.

Idea was proposed that cybenetics, systems theory and the Club of Rome prescription for saving the planet's ecosystem were based on an outdated mechanistic view of natural ecology which was inherently conservative and elitist.


----------



## binka (May 30, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> the bison with a hole in!


 
that was the best bit


----------



## toblerone3 (May 30, 2011)

It was funny that hippy with a microphone who followed the antelope around all day commenting on what it was eating. What a job!


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2011)

I also felt sorry for the bison.  Though it seemed pretty unperturbed tbf

This one seemed to be putting a little more flesh on the bones of the first one, though.


----------



## Paul Russell (May 30, 2011)

I studied scientific ecology at uni in the 1980s and at that time no-one really believed in "the balance of nature". Even then, that idea was as outmoded as the behavioural equivalent, "The Good of the Species". Both were phrases that you would hear in natural history documentaries (even by the sainted Dave Attenborough) and in the press, but I could rightly sneer at them as having no basis in current scientific thinking, except that it sounded sort of cuddly.

Having made a claim that I know something about the subject matter, I found the sweeping generalisations, time jumping back and forwards, and those visuals a bit distracting. Maybe I should watch this again when sober. The whole thing washed over me like some sort of ambient music mixed in with possible information...


----------



## Hooly Martins (May 30, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> It was funny that hippy with a microphone who followed the antelope around all day commenting on what it was eating. What a job!


 
Self-reflectivity.


----------



## metalguru (May 30, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> I studied scientific ecology at uni in the 1980s and at that time no-one really believed in "the balance of nature". Even then, that idea was as outmoded as the behavioural equivalent, "The Good of the Species". Both were phrases that you would hear in natural history documentaries (even by the sainted Dave Attenborough) and in the press, but I could rightly sneer at them as having no basis in current scientific thinking, except that it sounded sort of cuddly.
> 
> Having made a claim that I know something about the subject matter, I found the sweeping generalisations, time jumping back and forwards, and those visuals a bit distracting. Maybe I should watch this again when sober. The whole thing washed over me like some sort of ambient music mixed in with possible information...


 
Similarly, economists didn't really believe in the 'new economy' in the way described in the first episode where Curtis makes it sound like economists thought you could hand the whole economy over to machines.


----------



## gavman (May 31, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Supposedly he lays into hippies as a bunch of individualist Ayn Rand-ian liberal right-wingers - should be fun


 
it's a bit more sophisticated than that. his analysis of the commune movement i'd say is spot on- that they end up being destroyed by the lack of structure or politics, that the concept of equality, when followed to a logical conclusion, just enables the stronger personalities to bully the weaker ones.
this i can relate to from my own experience of social living. ultimately, how do you discipline those members of the community whose behaviour threatens the whole community?
this was a problem we never solved


----------



## gavman (May 31, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> smart but MAD


 
hoist on her own petard


----------



## gavman (May 31, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So it's ok to simply assume that Clinton was just horny and not make a proper structural analysis of this period in US history?


 
no, it's ok to assume that clinton was distracted and macro-economic policy fell into the hands of others.


----------



## gavman (May 31, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I would suggest reading Chomsky tbh. Adam Curtis got some stuff very right with the Power of Nightmares, the big one being that AQ wasn't some huge well organised group, but he misses the factors that give rise to circumstances or events too easily. It's just become all too painfully obvious with this latest mess of a documentary...


 
i agreed with his analysis, but it didn't really move us forward. whether aq is an organisation or an ideology seems to be splitting hairs; it doesn't make it any less of a force


----------



## gavman (May 31, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> it seemed to make the point that clinton was too distracted by getting noshed off by lewinsky to pay adequate attention to the banking crisis.


 
i suspect it was the reaction of the us right that caused the distraction, not lewinsky. which was perfectly understandable when you think back to the hubris they created


----------



## Part 2 (May 31, 2011)

Paul Russell said:


> The whole thing washed over me like some sort of ambient music mixed in with possible information...



I find a lot of his stuff like that. I kind of float along with it picking bits up here and there.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 31, 2011)

I might have to watch that episode again - ecology and network science is all quite alien to me


----------



## Apathy (May 31, 2011)

kin'ell its boring


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2011)

gavman said:


> i suspect it was the reaction of the us right that caused the distraction, not lewinsky. which was perfectly understandable when you think back to the hubris they created


 
the hubris?


----------



## gavman (May 31, 2011)

i'm not sure i agree that having sex and lying to cover it should be impeachable. it almost got to that. i'd say it was hubris, no?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2011)

what is hubris?


----------



## London_Calling (May 31, 2011)

He'd be great making music videos with this excellent archive material. He might even make a sensible piece on whatever-the-hell-you-call-what-he's-doing-now, but not the two in tandem. Not to my taste, anyway.


----------



## Augie March (May 31, 2011)

I get completely sucked in to every one of his documentaries then come out of the other side believing that I understand the mechanics of society and order. However, I end up looking foolish whenever I try to explain it to someone as I can't get it across to them without use of flashy edits and cool archive footage. 

I know my place now. I'll just listen, take it all in and do nothing about any of it.


----------



## gavman (Jun 1, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> what is hubris?


 
from wiki:
Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2011)

i know what it means. i meant what was the hubris you were referring to?


----------



## gavman (Jun 1, 2011)

that created by the republicans during the lewinsky witchunt


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2011)

i'm not sure hubris is 'created'


----------



## gavman (Jun 1, 2011)

ok, you got me


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2011)

I watched about three-quarters of the first one on i-Player. He doesn't wear his cleverness lightly, does he? In the end I just thought life was too short to continue participating in something that left me irritated and not really learning anything worth knowing.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 1, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I watched about three-quarters of the first one on i-Player. He doesn't wear his cleverness lightly, does he? In the end I just thought life was too short to continue participating in something that left me irritated and not really learning anything worth knowing.


 
Heh


----------



## ska invita (Jun 2, 2011)

link for pt2 for those outside the UK (up for 2weeks i think)
http://wtrns.fr/oSMrygWj3gcQK0


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 2, 2011)

gavman said:


> i agreed with his analysis, but it didn't really move us forward. whether aq is an organisation or an ideology seems to be splitting hairs; it doesn't make it any less of a force


 
Or both at various times. I've read a few books on the subject and seen it broken into three. The Al Qaeda "hardcore" which is/was basically Bin Ladens circle who would plan, fund and carry out various atrocities.  A further group or organisations that received support and funding from Bin Laden and his cronies. Then the ideology. Interestingly it is suggested that the first and second parts are being destroyed especially the hardcore which is pretty much destroyed(even before Bin Laden was killed). However the ideology has been strengthened by efforts to combat the first two and other actions supposedly designed to fight terrorism.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 2, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I might have to watch that episode again - ecology and network science is all quite alien to me


 
That was pretty full on.  I was in the midst of a deep despair before I came across this on the box. Now I feel okay.  Was network science the last burb of 20th modernism, I ponder.  Probably not - on all accounts.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2011)

Just watched part 2

It's shit

What he presents as the progression of ideas and actions in the world is completely selective and simplified in order to fit his thesis. Which is exactly the mistake that he criticises the early ecosystems ecolgists for making.

Is he talking about self regulating systems? Or is he talking about systems in general that we need to intervene in.

Grrrrr.

Power of nightmares was excellent. This is very much not.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 2, 2011)

It may ultimately be 'shit' but I still wouldn't describe it a shit to the extent that it has managed to introduce "network science" to numerous people, including myself, who didn't really know what the fuck it was, or that it existed before.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2011)

Fair enough, but it's a very filtered and biased view of the field. If it encourages learning it can't be all bad I suppose


----------



## revol68 (Jun 2, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Just watched part 2
> 
> It's shit
> 
> ...


 
Yep, he selects ideologists and theorists who suit his overblown thesis rather than ones who were actually that representative of prevailing ideology, hence him focussing on cranks like Ayn Rand. For me it all stems from the fact he takes these ideas and principles to be self propelling, rather than seeing them as arising from material socio-economic and historical contexts, he is fundamentally lacking a class analysis.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2011)

When you have to brazenly chop and truncate your interviewees in order to make them say what you want them to say, then your documentary ceases to document and proselytises instead. One of the commune hippies says "we never used the word system" and then he carries on talking about the communes as being a product of systems theory. As if the previous hundred years of communes and anti-heirachical theory never existed!


----------



## revol68 (Jun 2, 2011)

Crispy said:


> When you have to brazenly chop and truncate your interviewees in order to make them say what you want them to say, then your documentary ceases to document and proselytises instead. One of the commune hippies says "we never used the word system" and then he carries on talking about the communes as being a product of systems theory. As if the previous hundred years of communes and anti-heirachical theory never existed!


 
his bullshit claim that the communes didn't work because of hidden power riled me too, surely the real problem was that isolated somewhat artificial communities are a hot bed for fucked up relations, fuck families can be even worse, the problem isn't soo much power as an inability to remove oneself from it, which is precisely the reason why the worst bullying and abuse happens in prisons, schools and relationships where someone is trapped.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 2, 2011)

What a load of shit. It was one of the most dishonest documentaries I've seen. It's hard to imagine he even believes half the shit he spouts in this, or if he does he is seriously deluded.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 2, 2011)

revol68 said:


> his bullshit claim that the communes didn't work because of hidden power riled me too, surely the real problem was that isolated somewhat artificial communities are a hot bed for fucked up relations, fuck families can be even worse, the problem isn't soo much power as an inability to remove oneself from it, which is precisely the reason why the worst bullying and abuse happens in prisons, schools and relationships where someone is trapped.


 
Funnily enough I think that's one of the few worthwhile things he said. People always exercise power over each other and when people fail to realise this because they believe they've 'freed themselves' then things are bound to go wrong. I'm sure the isolation is a factor too.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2011)

I think the problem with the communes is that they try to ignore the very real and well documented power relationships that occur between people of different dispositions, regardless of class or material wealth. We are very smart monkeys, but monkeys we remain and all monkey society is about power and (shifting) hierarchies. Leaders just happen, but as long as they don't become rulers, they're a useful way of organising the effort of small groups of monkeys.

(typed while BA was typing his reply. We both just watched it together, so share a righteous anger right now )


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 2, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Just watched part 2
> 
> It's shit
> 
> ...



Through my drunken stupour, this is what I suspected, knowing a little about some of the subject matter. It just seemed a super-polemic with all the facts neatly assembled/massaged to fit the groovy edit, and with the aura of authority to make you feel you were watching something really profound.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2011)

The worrying thing is that it has made me rethink my opinion of Power of Nightmares, which I've always consider to be a very insightful piece of work.


----------



## revol68 (Jun 2, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Funnily enough I think that's one of the few worthwhile things he said. People always exercise power over each other and when people fail to realise this because they believe they've 'freed themselves' then things are bound to go wrong. I'm sure the isolation is a factor too.


 
well yeah his point about the dangers of denying the existence of power was fair enough and pretty pertinent in todays apparently post ideological culture but his argument was little more than the usual inane liberal abstract wanking on about power as just magical thing and not one tied to actual conctrete circumstances and relations ie the closed isolated nature of the communes, something he tried to suggest was a deliberate thing in line with systems theory rather than really being a product of the retreat of the commune dwellers politics into self preservation.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 2, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The worrying thing is that it has made me rethink my opinion of Power of Nightmares, which I've always consider to be a very insightful piece of work.


 
Yep, I've put aside some time soon to watch the DVDs to re-assess. I think one of his key points still holds value though, that Al Qeada wasn't some organised, centralised massive organisation but a network more a franchise than anything....


----------



## Crispy (Jun 3, 2011)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep, I've put aside some time soon to watch the DVDs to re-assess. I think one of his key points still holds value though, that Al Qeada wasn't some organised, centralised massive organisation but a network more a franchise than anything....


 
and also that al qaeda and neocons both had to invent a mythical enemy in order to define themselves and maintain power


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 3, 2011)

Crispy said:


> and also that al qaeda and neocons both had to invent a mythical enemy in order to define themselves and maintain power


 
Yep.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jun 3, 2011)

boohoo said:


> There some very clunky editing which I find uncomfortable.


Regardless of anything else, the editing is fantastic. 



CNT36 said:


> Or both at various times. I've read a few books on the subject and seen it broken into three. The Al Qaeda "hardcore" which is/was basically Bin Ladens circle who would plan, fund and carry out various atrocities.  A further group or organisations that received support and funding from Bin Laden and his cronies. Then the ideology. Interestingly it is suggested that the first and second parts are being destroyed especially the hardcore which is pretty much destroyed(even before Bin Laden was killed). However the ideology has been strengthened by efforts to combat the first two and other actions supposedly designed to fight terrorism.


Ooooh, ooh, that's like a self-regulating eco-system with feedback!  Do I get a point?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 3, 2011)

And another thing:
His criticisms of computer modelling were largely based on their promise of perfect prediction. After the discovery of Chaos (which he did touch on tbf), computer modelling has always taken probability into account. Small variations in starting conditions can cause large variations in future results. But if you run the simulation multiple times, with multiple variations in starting conditions, and you still get the same broad results, then your simulation has merit. This has particular relevance to the study of climate change, which directly descends from the ecosystem theory criticised in the programme.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 3, 2011)

yeah agree with the concensus - this is pretty weak stuff from curtis. I dont really see what the relevance of the commune movement was  - it was a failed offshoot of the 60s counter culture, influenced by some of the ideas he was talking about but which had no discernable influence on society subsequently  - this was crowbarred  - along side a critique of systems theory - into an explanation of the faliure of  the 'colour' revolutions - but completely ignored the context of these conflicts emerging from the  post cold war flux and the clear influence of the 1989 revolutions. 

There are some interesting ideas in here - but he seesm to constructing a blatant straw man of naive cyber-utopianism to damm  the postive liberating potential of information technology. Techology is - as ever - a double edged tool, whose consequneces are the result of complex interactions between power relationships, social structures  and ideology. The uprisings in the arab world demonstrate this - the core forces are demographics, corruption, poverty and oppression and enough people angry and deteminced enough to do somthing about this - access to  IT has certainaly helped enpower and enable those taking to the streets - but are not the cause in themselves. 

Dissappointing - definietly not up to his usual standards.


----------



## elbows (Jun 3, 2011)

I think a big part of the problem is that his way of making documentaries, along with what sort of thing seems to interest him, imposes quite severe limits on potential material. He is simply running out of vaguely believable yarns he can spin about stuff that happened in the 20th century, and he does not seem to have shown any evolution in his methods. His desire to tie several nutty characters and their ideas in with a variety of social, political & economic events always produces flaws and distorted versions of the truth. This was true even for his works that I consider were him at the top of his game, Century of the self & Power of nightmares. It does not bother me that much because I still find the programs enjoyable, interesting, and illuminating, even if they introduce as many falsehoods as truths. If I were trying to compose a guide for aliens to humanity using only tv programs, I would include most of his works, but would need a heck of a lot of other non-Curtis stuff to get the balance right and provide the alien viewer with clues as to when to ignore Curtis's storyline simplifications.

The colour revolution stuff was a great example of something given so little time and detail that it ended up with very important aspects completely missing. Some of the language he used at least left the door open to the wider story, eg when describing these revolutions with words to the effect of them being 'apparently leaderless', but even so its not really good enough, not when a variety of established powers may sometimes lurk behind such movements. Some of his storytelling is as naive about power as the communes were, and I dont know how he can be excused for this when power is a main theme of his works.

Perhaps some of the frustration about his work comes from him touching on issues that seldom get addressed sanely on the telly, and on his own he does a far from adequate job. In this regard a lot of my anger at the wasted opportunity is directed not at Curtis, but at whoever else is not stepping up to the plate and getting other programs made & broadcast that do dwell on the multitude of issues that seem well off the radar. Curtis isnt a heavyweight, and I dont expect him to become one, nor could I imagine reading a book by him if he ever wrote one. But for entertaining telly that gets the brain somewhat active I'll still give him a thumbs up.


----------



## gavman (Jun 3, 2011)

revol68 said:


> his bullshit claim that the communes didn't work because of hidden power riled me too, surely the real problem was that isolated somewhat artificial communities are a hot bed for fucked up relations, fuck families can be even worse, the problem isn't soo much power as an inability to remove oneself from it, which is precisely the reason why the worst bullying and abuse happens in prisons, schools and relationships where someone is trapped.


 
having lived in a commune, i thought he got that bit spot on.


----------



## gavman (Jun 3, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Funnily enough I think that's one of the few worthwhile things he said. People always exercise power over each other and when people fail to realise this because they believe they've 'freed themselves' then things are bound to go wrong. I'm sure the isolation is a factor too.


 
i agree


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm glad though that this type of tv is getting mainstream airing - surely it has to be better then the usual cookery and property programmes?

It did make me think about a number of issues. Sarkozy's recent speech on government control of the internet chimed in perfectly with the arguments in the series


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 4, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I think the problem with the communes is that they try to ignore the very real and well documented power relationships that occur between people of different dispositions, regardless of class or material wealth. We are very smart monkeys, but monkeys we remain and all monkey society is about power and (shifting) hierarchies. Leaders just happen, but as long as they don't become rulers, they're a useful way of organising the effort of small groups of monkeys.


 Sometimes 'power', sometimes what I would more readily describe as 'control'. For example, the clip with the female addressing the male in the Partridge Family bus wasn't about power as much as control - using emotional-based tools assertively/aggressively.

Agree with the point (that) you might conclude from Curtis that communes had just been thought of in 1967 - another demonstration of middle class experiences dominating media.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Agree with the point (that) you might conclude from Curtis that communes had just been thought of in 1967 - another demonstration of middle class experiences dominating media.


 
I think this points towards Curtis's real failing. He's very much a part of the upper middle class establishment. Minor public school, Oxford, BBC. The problem is that he doesn't question what he thinks he knows. So he starts from a position based on a very narrow experience and then rejects anything that doesn't fit with that.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I think this points towards Curtis's real failing. He's very much a part of the upper middle class establishment. Minor public school, Oxford, BBC. The problem is that he doesn't question what he thinks he knows. So he starts from a position based on a very narrow experience and then rejects anything that doesn't fit with that.


 
Hmm, I think you might be onto something there.  He knows there's something wrong with the picture but is solely dealing with the links between various bits of 'conventional wisdom' rather than sufficiently questioning the premises.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 7, 2011)

well thats it then 

as to ep3: all very interesting, but the final 'point' is completely...whats the word...spurious? Its not founded in any reality mentioned in the film, and the idea that we're all paralised by fear, and secretly hide behind the theory of the selfish gene is bizarre (especially as dawkins seflish gene book finishes on the note that game theory proves that being altruistic is the best option for gene replication). 

Is there a crisis in the belief that we cant change the world for the better? That seems to be the question at the heart of this series. Im sure there is to some extent. Best book ive read in the last couple of years has been Mark Fishers Capitalist Realism, which sort of touches on similar territory -  is there an alternative to capitalism, and are we really able to conceptualise it, or has the logic and 'pervasive atmosphere' of capitalism made that impossible?

I feel like if thats what is really being asked why not really address it directly and positively, such as by looking at places where alternatives are still being attempted, or even continued after many years (latin america would be my destination). But that would be too explicit and political. 

To quote him he say the films are to reassert the idea





> "that humans have the capacity to bend the world to our will. The Enlightenment idea is that's what marks us off from the rest of the world. This idea drove progressive politics from the mid-19th century - I think it's wonderful. It's led to wonderful things. But from there we've retreated into this systems idea instead."


and then


> "People became disenchanted with politics in the 1970s - because it hadn't worked, and it had led to deep economic crisis, and global chaos. That's when people turned to this idea that we are part of a global system. It seemed like a non-political way of ordering the world.
> 
> The fact is that the Left, who might bemoan this, don't have any ideas. And I think what they hide behind their criticism of managerialism, is that they have no ideas. We don't have any optimistic ideas for the future. It's up for the Left to come up with some."



He clearly has thought a lot about psychology and subconscious - thats pretty much what  The Century of the Self dealt with - and I think the whole visual style of the docs also tries to get its message across at a more subconscious level.  I get the impression that hes tried to make a film aimed at the subconscious that makes you want to ask the question 'why am i so unable/unwilling to try and make the world a better place'? and gently inspire a bit of good old fashioned mid-19th century progressive  zeal without going anywhere near what kind of politics that might look like.

His swipes at non-hierarchical left politics were lumped together with the failure of right wing free marketeers - and he dismisses any kind of managerial socialism - what does that leave? By default suggests some kind of hard statism i expect.

Whatever his own politics its all a great watch and top telly - just a shame there isnt more if it about.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 7, 2011)

Did he mention the word 'evolution' at any point?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 7, 2011)

Well part 3 was a lot more interesting. The stuff about how the Rwanda genocide was a direct result of Belgium colonisnism, and how the chaos combined with growing demand for coltan helped kick off war in the congo was mostly new stuff for me. The stuff about how the selfish gene argument came about was interesting stuff as well. 

However, how he linked these and the conclusions he drew were tenusous and vauge in the extreme - never mind how Ayn Rand, hippy communes and Diane Fossi fit in as well. Adam Curtis  - in this outing anyway - is like some highly educated, erudite stoner constrcuting a narrative that makes sense to himselg but seems like a vauge cobbling together of unreleated parts to anyone else. 

The unrelated parts were very interesting and explained with hunour and insight - but I ended up thinking 'whats your point caller?'.

And he leaves unaccountable gaps - we are told that the bloke who came up with the mathematical gene formulas starts beliving that our ptotection of the weak will lead to a degrading of human DNA. Yet no mention is made that this   ground that was  well trodden by the socail darwinists and - not least - the nazis in the first half of the 20th centuary, as Curtis must know. Yet it was put accross as if it was a new idea (he simalarly ignored all pre-60s experiments in communal living). Odd.


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 7, 2011)

What was the first name of the guy with the surname Price (the one with the glasses who became christian and then killed himself? Hamilton and Price seemed interesting to read and I've found Hamilton's stuff on amazon but I need the first name of Price to find further info.

ta.

Those clips of drunks fighting over methylated spirits brought back a few childhood memories, you don't see that anymore, I suppose supermarket alcohol is cheap enough these days.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 7, 2011)

On reflection, I think the only redeeming feature of this 'documentary' may have been the bison with the hole in it.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 7, 2011)

It was all interesting and even if the links didn't alway convince there were some great bits of fairly unknown 20th century intellectual history here, some very evocative old film footage and a good soundtrack.   I still think its amazing that we can watch something like this online and then come here to discuss it. We are lucky!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jun 8, 2011)




----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 8, 2011)

nuffsaid said:


> What was the first name of the guy with the surname Price (the one with the glasses who became christian and then killed himself? Hamilton and Price seemed interesting to read and I've found Hamilton's stuff on amazon but I need the first name of Price to find further info.
> 
> ta.
> 
> Those clips of drunks fighting over methylated spirits brought back a few childhood memories, you don't see that anymore, I suppose supermarket alcohol is cheap enough these days.


 
FYI - George Price and I've just bought his book, The Price of Altruism - that's my holiday read sorted.


----------



## gavman (Jun 8, 2011)

i know this sounds insipid, but i'd like to echo the earlier point about how nice it is to watch something intelligent, stimulating and thought provoking on tv. there's not nearly enough of it

although slightly obsessed with dancing....i know he likes to let us join the dots ourselves, but what to make of all the shots of white people dancing badly compared to the black dude grooving away in his lounge? riddem is racial?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 20, 2011)




----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 20, 2011)

Very good. That video sums it up nicely.


----------



## elbows (Jun 20, 2011)

Quality


----------



## Random (Jun 20, 2011)

Hillarious


----------



## Will2403 (Jun 20, 2011)

says it's not available now 

anyhoo, here's the link:


is it simon mayo doing the narrating?


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Jun 20, 2011)

Class!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 20, 2011)

Ha Ha.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 20, 2011)

I'm sure this had about 400 views when I looked at this earlier. Now 8000.

Crispy you are psychonomy and I claim my £5.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 21, 2011)

Thats pretty brilliant.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 21, 2011)

I love the way it says 'but this was an illusion' twice within about a minute


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 21, 2011)

he never used the word 'illusion' once   (illusion is the word Curtis would've used mind)


----------



## Will2403 (Jun 21, 2011)

anyone know what the piano tune at 0:52 - 1:00 in this clip is? also used in AWOBMOLG.


----------

