3 ms·
This is so much better than his films. I used to find his films exciting, but the more I thought about them the more I found them conceptually soupy and complet
by frereubu 6y ago
This is so much better than his films. I used to find his films exciting, but the more I thought about them the more I found them conceptually soupy and completely lacking in rigour - just finding narratives that felt satisying. When he's challenged by someone smart like this he's able to articulate his ideas in a much better way than in film. This interview has raised my opinion of him again. He's an interesting thinker, but I really think film is in fact the one medium he shouldn't use because it allows him to weave unchallenged grand narratives that don't really stack up.
- neartheplain 6y agoYou may appreciate this parody and deconstruction of his filmmaking style: https://youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
- paganel 6y agoReally interesting, there's a smart comment in there about capitalism appropriating its critics and their criticisms. Now the question is: is Curtis the person first doing the appropriation of capitalist criticism and is this guy actually doing an appropriation of the appropriation of capitalist criticism? Again, I find it very interesting nonetheless.
- sirsinsalot 6y agoI see his documentaries more as art than fact, that makes them easier to consume and be provoked by.
- jonnyone 6y agoI kind of see all documentaries this way. All documentaries rely so much on manipulation to drive a narrative that it's difficult to classify it as anything other than art. They can still be informative for sure, but I will never watch a documentary and think I've done any kind of research.