17 ms·

I don't know how many people recommended HyperNormalisation to me already, yet I've never been able to sit through the whole thing. I absolutely dislike his sty

I don't know how many people recommended HyperNormalisation to me already, yet I've never been able to sit through the whole thing. I absolutely dislike his style, the image so dispatched from the narrative... So thank you for that video, it really fits my feelings about his work.

taliesinb 9y ago
The problem with Curtis is that he lacks a positive vision of the future.
- monocasa 9y ago
  IDK, rarely does Curtis touch on the future. He seems to mainly view the past through a sort of interconnected lens that, sure, makes us look at the players as human and fallible. IMO, that kind of critical view of the past is necessary for us to do better in the future.
- adamson 9y ago
  Funny, that was exactly his criticism of American liberalism in his interview on Chapo: https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-adam-curtis-121216 https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future...
  - pizza 9y ago
    This video someone made from that clip is particularly a enthralling audiovisual experience about visions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Quite interesting. Many of the topics that Curtis mentions has shown up in his previous documentaries. Like that about Ayn Rand individualism, the mechanistic view of the world, or the fear of grand ideas.
danbruc 9y ago
I on the other hand like the style for its own sake but enjoyed HyperNormalisation a lot less than Bitter Lake or The Power of Nightmares. But the style really does not help the credibility of the story or allows following the argument and spotting potential holes in it. In the end I am left with the feeling to either forget about it or having to fact check the whole thing. There are certainly interesting points in his films but they are almost impossible to evaluate without consulting other sources.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  I also like the style. I get why people wouldn't, the argument is in the narrative and the video part is just flavour (and often a little bit of subtextual commentary/comedy). I don't see how it effects credibility either way though. Do you just mean it would seem more credible with a full audio/video argument? I can buy that, it might feel more convincing while still having the same content.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    I think he mixes hard facts, like descriptions of events that undeniably happened, a lot with interpretations or connections he draws and that he often presents as causations but then fails to substantiate them. It may be plausible that X did Y because of Z but that is not really supported by any facts and could as well just be a correlation. If you watch carefully enough you can spot those things but if you are watching more casually and enjoy the pictures and the music it becomes easy to miss such things. I think if the story was narrated in a dryer, more classical documentary style it would be more evident whether and where there are holes in the argument, after all the visuals and music certainly consume part of your attention.
    - dpwm 9y ago
      I think you've nailed the problem for me as well: possibilities and opinions are presented in the same style as facts. This is more like what is done by news reporters than history documentarians. I am not happy when opinions and possibilities are promoted as though they are facts, but I only tend to pay attention when I do not agree with the position. Adam Curtis does this a lot to link things together that seem otherwise unconnected and the position he takes tends to be rather inoffensive to me. This is made worse by being combined with archive footage: we tend to believe our eyes in a way we don't our ears. I don't feel qualified enough to confirm that the archive footage is even about the events which are being discussed. Thinking about it some more, I would be outright hostile towards his methods if the narrative were to move into a position that I did find offensive.

taliesinb 9y ago

The problem with Curtis is that he lacks a positive vision of the future.

monocasa 9y ago
IDK, rarely does Curtis touch on the future. He seems to mainly view the past through a sort of interconnected lens that, sure, makes us look at the players as human and fallible. IMO, that kind of critical view of the past is necessary for us to do better in the future.
adamson 9y ago
Funny, that was exactly his criticism of American liberalism in his interview on Chapo: https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future-feat-adam-curtis-121216 https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future...
- pizza 9y ago
  This video someone made from that clip is particularly a enthralling audiovisual experience about visions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Quite interesting. Many of the topics that Curtis mentions has shown up in his previous documentaries. Like that about Ayn Rand individualism, the mechanistic view of the world, or the fear of grand ideas.

danbruc 9y ago

I on the other hand like the style for its own sake but enjoyed HyperNormalisation a lot less than Bitter Lake or The Power of Nightmares. But the style really does not help the credibility of the story or allows following the argument and spotting potential holes in it. In the end I am left with the feeling to either forget about it or having to fact check the whole thing. There are certainly interesting points in his films but they are almost impossible to evaluate without consulting other sources.

freshhawk 9y ago
I also like the style. I get why people wouldn't, the argument is in the narrative and the video part is just flavour (and often a little bit of subtextual commentary/comedy). I don't see how it effects credibility either way though. Do you just mean it would seem more credible with a full audio/video argument? I can buy that, it might feel more convincing while still having the same content.
- danbruc 9y ago
  I think he mixes hard facts, like descriptions of events that undeniably happened, a lot with interpretations or connections he draws and that he often presents as causations but then fails to substantiate them. It may be plausible that X did Y because of Z but that is not really supported by any facts and could as well just be a correlation. If you watch carefully enough you can spot those things but if you are watching more casually and enjoy the pictures and the music it becomes easy to miss such things. I think if the story was narrated in a dryer, more classical documentary style it would be more evident whether and where there are holes in the argument, after all the visuals and music certainly consume part of your attention.
  - dpwm 9y ago
    I think you've nailed the problem for me as well: possibilities and opinions are presented in the same style as facts. This is more like what is done by news reporters than history documentarians. I am not happy when opinions and possibilities are promoted as though they are facts, but I only tend to pay attention when I do not agree with the position. Adam Curtis does this a lot to link things together that seem otherwise unconnected and the position he takes tends to be rather inoffensive to me. This is made worse by being combined with archive footage: we tend to believe our eyes in a way we don't our ears. I don't feel qualified enough to confirm that the archive footage is even about the events which are being discussed. Thinking about it some more, I would be outright hostile towards his methods if the narrative were to move into a position that I did find offensive.