I have this problem too. I have the problem that even though I admire the complexity and the hopping from location to location, to me it's the fact that it's sp

I have this problem too. I have the problem that even though I admire the complexity and the hopping from location to location, to me it's the fact that it's spun into a narrative that makes me feel uncomfortable that some people will treat it like it's more than a hypothetical narrative. I haven't found any events that were not real or were convincingly disputed in the Adam Curtis films I've seen. Some of the claims of causation and responsibility are a little more disputed -- the bit where it is claimed it was really Syria behind the attacks blamed on Libya ignores the fact that others claim it was Iran stands out for me. I tend to view it like a history documentary. You can't really trust it because it will be a narrative account and so many of the events in history are dependent on the greater context for a deeper understanding. But it's probably fine for an idea of what you should look into. In the case of most history documentaries they take the narrative they think is the easiest for the audience to understand as they go through things that happened. The narrative makes it more interesting at the expense of academic rigour. In the case of Adam Curtis films I often feel that he is trying to find the most mind-bending narrative and choosing events to suit that. Other times I get the impression that he is choosing key bits of archive footage he likes and finding a narrative to fit that. Personally I'm fine with this because I have no expectation for him to cover events across a time span or even chronologically. The truth is that events happen. Sometimes those events don't even happen for a reason. Other times they happen for a reason. Sometimes the reason that seems most obvious afterwards was never even entertained at the time. The real world isn't a narrative, it's much more complex than that.