4 ms·

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 comm

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.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    But ultimately I think that's a component of his overarching mindset. That sort of post modern 'there is no thing as objective fact', but instead a sea of conflicting opinions and intentions that a lot of times diverges from the popular viewpoint the more details you know.
  - frabbit 9y ago
    This was interesting to read. Especially the fantasy/thought-experiment about how I might feel if the narrative were to move to a position that I found offensive. But then I switch on 60 Minutes. Or read the NYT. And I realize that they do not even have the courtesy to make it possible to distinguish fact from opinion and possibly (and in the case of the NYT outright fabrications planted by the military). I do not take Adam Curtis as Truth. But his work has suggested that there are ways to stitch together narratives that suit different mindsets.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  > 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. Any historical work at the abstract high level of societal forces and societal evolution has the same problems though. How on earth do you prove that X did Y because of Z with facts? The fact that the format is less familiar seems to just be making it more apparent that history is interpreted.
  - danbruc 9y ago
    How on earth do you prove that X did Y because of Z with facts? [Auto]biographies, letters, interviews of friends, family members and companion, diaries, records about the books they lent from the library, intelligence records ... we know quite a lot about the motivations of well-researched important personalities. It would of course still not be a proof of mathematical rigor but such sources would definitely lend a lot of credibility if they are itself reliable.

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.
- monocasa 9y ago
  But ultimately I think that's a component of his overarching mindset. That sort of post modern 'there is no thing as objective fact', but instead a sea of conflicting opinions and intentions that a lot of times diverges from the popular viewpoint the more details you know.
- frabbit 9y ago
  This was interesting to read. Especially the fantasy/thought-experiment about how I might feel if the narrative were to move to a position that I found offensive. But then I switch on 60 Minutes. Or read the NYT. And I realize that they do not even have the courtesy to make it possible to distinguish fact from opinion and possibly (and in the case of the NYT outright fabrications planted by the military). I do not take Adam Curtis as Truth. But his work has suggested that there are ways to stitch together narratives that suit different mindsets.
freshhawk 9y ago
> 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. Any historical work at the abstract high level of societal forces and societal evolution has the same problems though. How on earth do you prove that X did Y because of Z with facts? The fact that the format is less familiar seems to just be making it more apparent that history is interpreted.
- danbruc 9y ago
  How on earth do you prove that X did Y because of Z with facts? [Auto]biographies, letters, interviews of friends, family members and companion, diaries, records about the books they lent from the library, intelligence records ... we know quite a lot about the motivations of well-researched important personalities. It would of course still not be a proof of mathematical rigor but such sources would definitely lend a lot of credibility if they are itself reliable.