8 ms·

Adam Curtis’ “Bitter Lake”: A Review

91 points by chippy 5y ago

pan69 5y ago
> Curtis draws a conclusion without a narrative trajectory; he leaves multifarious discordant happenings to interplay... I think Curtis does this on purpose. Whenever I watch a Curtis doco, I feel I'm being told a compelling story. However, if you ask me afterwards what it was about, I will stumble to explain what it was about. I think Curtis is trying to show the viewer the complexity of the world and how difficult it is to actually get a grasp on reality and that there are no good guys and bad guys and that we're all the good guys and bad guys and that most of what we "believe" to be true is a simplification (a caricature) of reality.
- neighbour 5y ago
  Agreed on nearly all points except the following. >there are no good guys and bad guys I don't think that's what he is implying. He is leaving it up to our interpretation but the absence of a position does not mean he is saying that there are no good or bad guys. From what I gathered, he's not saying anything at all. Big fan of his work regardless.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    Well, I think he's definitely saying that we've been tricked and that the narratives that are pushed supporting our lifestyle and societal choices are lies told to enrich and empower others.
- renjimen 5y ago
  Agreed. It's a point he makes over and over again: the world is complex and any alleged narrative is just a simplification we make to help ourselves understand the complexity or influence others. "Good guys" and "bad guys" are just a part of this narrative we create. People are a product of their past, which is also complex, but good and bad are powerful models we are programmed since childhood to apply to the world.
  - rusk 5y ago
    > we create I think one of the core ideas that is smeared across Curtis’ work is that these narratives are created and fed to us as an explanation of the world that we rarely question.
- ayngg 5y ago
  I think it is like what you said, most of his work seems to fundamentally revolve around how incomprehensibly complex systems in society have become, and the consequences of attempts to control many of those systems (either by necessity or arrogance). Most of this stories are just myths, strings interwoven in the much larger fabric of interlinking events meant to show how many of these discrete simplifications of reality interact and often clash with each other.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Not just the modern world. Any connected civilization which needs to contend with factions, differing interests, foes, allies, and "intersectionality". If you lived in an isolated island a half dozen centuries ago or more, then it would be simpler till a voyager tribe, society or civilization landed.
- aguasfrias 5y ago
  He is not saying there are no good guys or bad guys. He is saying that when we're told of good guys or bad guys, they are usually characters in a narrative. But he does not go so far as to say good guys and bad guys don't exist. Merely that we have not done the necessary work to make sense of it. In fact, he seems to rebuke moral relativism, if HyperNormalisation is any indicator.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  > I think Curtis does this on purpose. He is trying to give perspective rather than telling a story. Yet, by selecting the elements he uses to base the perspective, he’s kind of telling the skeleton of a story.
- dash2 5y ago
  > I think Curtis does this on purpose. Whenever I watch a Curtis doco, I feel I'm being told a compelling story. However, if you ask me afterwards what it was about, I will stumble to explain what it was about. Agreed. > I think Curtis is trying to show the viewer the complexity of the world An alternative, more reasonable take is that Adam Curtis is a bullshitter, whose documentaries give the illusion of understanding complicated subjects without any actual understanding.
  - beckman466 5y ago
    > Adam Curtis is a bullshitter, whose documentaries give the illusion of understanding complicated subjects without any actual understanding Only God knows the whole truth! /sarcasm Both can be true imo. The problem is that the media which we consume is made ephemeral by way of omission. Media is turned into 'intellectual property' by our outdated copyright/IP system, which makes (now)digital media artificially scarce. Someone like Adam Curtis is merely lucky because he has both the time and the access to this material, and the BBC is paying the 'licensing fees' for the footage he uses. The average working class person in the US is constantly bombarded with media, yet our collective memory (in the form of archival video/media) is often lacking universal access. So the means to reflect and make connections and conclusions is artificially scarce, which means we jump from newsworthy 'event' to 'event' (without seeing and understanding their interconnectedness): "To describe the spectacle, its formation, its functions and the forces which tend to dissolve it, one must artificially distinguish certain inseparable elements. When analyzing the spectacle one speaks, to some extent, the language of the spectacular itself in the sense that one moves through the methodological terrain of the very society which expresses itself in the spectacle. But the spectacle is nothing other than the sense of the total practice of a social-economic formation, its use of time. It is the historical movement in which we are caught." - Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord [1] or Wikipedia summary: "Debord analyzes the use of knowledge to assuage reality: the spectacle obfuscates the past, imploding it with the future into an undifferentiated mass, a type of never-ending present; in this way the spectacle prevents individuals from realizing that the society of spectacle is only a moment in history, one that can be overturned through revolution." [2] In other words, the schizophrenic capitalist-owned media isn't followable without serious mental health implications as it's an overwhelming never-ending assault that captures the working class' imagination. The confusion and alienation it creates solely benefits the propertied class. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.ht... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
elmomle 5y ago
Overall it's an interesting review, but saying that 99% of Afghanis want Sharia Law and citing an unsourced claim in a blog post is poor writing and undermines the author's credibility, which is unfortunate. Edit: The cited blog actually does cite a research poll, my mistake! https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-taliban-won-sharia-is-democratic-will-of-99-of-the-people/ https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-taliban-won-sharia-is-dem...
- croumet 5y ago
  We all know Sharia-law is all about love and compassion, no problem there...
- grapist420 5y ago
  a bigger problem is what “they support sharia law” actually means. any two supporters of any broad political signifier in the US often mean totally different things
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/in-the-news/2019/02/25/sharia-law-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-you-should-know https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/in-the-news/2019/02/25/shar... I think the better analogy is what a Fox News viewer thinks a word like "liberal", "BLM" or whatever buzzword or label represents and what the people who use it to describe themselves mean by it. That broadens and distorts further than the real difference between two people within a community or faith.
optimalsolver 5y ago
I used to be quite an Adam Curtis fan until I realized his work is basically the narrative fallacy gone wild. I still recommend Century Of The Self as a great piece of documentary filmmaking.
- tonymet 5y ago
  Please don't let a rush to "fallacy" prevent you from building your own critique.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  Best way to describe it I’ve found is this phrase: It’s filled with rich material but when I reach for it, my hand closes on air.
austinjp 5y ago
I genuinely like Curtis' work, and Bitter Lake is peppered with interesting stuff and fantastic stock footage. But the dialogue in his recent films has been predictable: *But the old systems had never gone away. And then one person realised there was a vacuum at the heart of it all. But they had forgotten to program the computers with the one thing that really mattered. And then...." etc. I honestly can't tell if it's meta-parody. And that's why I'll keep watching.
- renjimen 5y ago
  You'll enjoy this parody then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg It hits the nail on the head (but I still enjoy Curtis' work)
  - jgalt212 5y ago
    quote from video > the audience didn't notice the chasm between argument and conclusion. due to all the crap he throws up on the screen.
  - AlbertoGP 5y ago
    That’s a great parody, and Adam Curtis himself agrees: > [Brooker] I’m guessing you’ve seen the parodies, things like the Adam Curtis Bingo Card, where people are – I think affectionately – listing some of your stylistic quirks. How do you feel about those? > [Curtis] I really like the parodies when they are good. That one called The Loving Trap I loved, because it was so sharp. It spotted that really it was the voice. It was just really well done. https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad8db/adam-curtis-charlie-brooker-cant-get-you-out-of-my-head https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad8db/adam-curtis-charlie-b...
- teh_klev 5y ago
  > I honestly can't tell if it's meta-parody. And that's why I'll keep watching. I'm kinda in the same boat. But I think one of the things I like about Curtis is that he's made me read more about things I didn't know about. For example I'd never given much thought about Afghanistan (other than Afghan coats) until the Soviet Union invaded. I was an early teenager (I'm in my mid 50s now), but reasonably interested in world politics, and even back then, and the Afghan war seemed like another cold war proxy conflict, and same old same old. There were many events like that for me, and then I bumped into Curtis in 1992 and his Pandora's box series and I was sort of wowed at his take on the world. These wee snippets of, often obscure, history made tantalisingly accessible and fascinating by the way he assembles his final cuts, so much so that I went off and bought books on history rather than be informed by the opinion pieces in the Times (London), The Guardian etc. I will caveat that I realise history books are not free of bias. Whatever he's doing I think it's a good thing. Sure he often reaches no conclusions but he throws many ideas at us to make us think. Maybe proper historians rue the day he got the cart blanch from the BBC to make these films and series and don't find them "academic" enough. And maybe his work is just a form of meta-parody art, but there's always something in these films to tickle your grey matter. Finally, if anyone's interested in a docu-fictional story about the British Empire's comeuppance in Afghanistan the I'd recommend the first book in George MacDonald Fraser's "Flashman" series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_(novel)
sammalloy 5y ago
My only complaint about Curtis is that some of the music samples he uses over and over again are phenomenally bad and distracting to the viewer. The trope of using discordant, clashing notes is obviously retro, but its day has come and gone. It's never been clear to me as to why he would want to turn his audience away, but the only thing I can come up with is that it's generational, as many of these bad sound clips come from the 1960s and 1970s, and it's possible they sound different to his ear than they do to mine.
- jdkee 5y ago
  His latest work certainly uses a lot of This Mortal Coil and other early 4AD bands.
  - sammalloy 5y ago
    I should clarify, that aside from the discordant samples he uses, his soundtrack selections are incredible and worth checking out. I think it's possible I'm just ever so slightly on the spectrum and that biases my experience of Curtis. In other words, I have a weird susceptibility to loud music that hits certain notes. I suspect most people don't even notice how disturbing some of the music samples he uses can be to some people, so this is probably on me. It's likely Curtis isn't even aware of it. I've had a strange reaction to certain sounds, colors, and textures all my life, so I'm probably projecting my preferences on to Curtis. I really enjoy the films by Curtis, but I have trouble watching them because the sound is so triggering to me. Those samples he commonly uses, where it sounds like high pitched squeals (violin?) and overdriven metal on metal tones (synth or tube amp with reverb) drive me crazy. It's literally painful for me to listen to it.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
The best (meta) Adam Curtis piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
raidicy 5y ago
I really do not like it at in episode 1, of his latest doc series, Curtis did not show the very questionable results from MK Ultra and chose only to cherry-pick the only woman coming forward to say that it wiped her memory and cut it so that it looked very credible. And then went on further to say that it only wiped patients memories which from my understanding all it did was create a bunch of people with PTSD or Nothing at All. Ironic that the episode is largely about paranoia,disinformation and persuading someone's thoughts based on narratives. Curtis asserts shaky if not outright wrong results about a once popular American Mythos, MK Ultra. If my suspicions are true; in that which he has assembled a series of facts that he believes fits a certain narrative that he is weaving into this documentary, the irony would further solidify into an ingot. As this first episode is also about succumbing to false narratives via paranoia and the false idea that appearance of patterns alone are evidence enough of a phenomenon. While this episode attempts to dispel the notion that grand conspiracies and higher forces are driving the centuries narrative, his cuts and edits and how he presents the information may weave his own. It's disappointing because I want to watch something like this that condenses and attempts to form some kind of understanding on how the state of the world is today.
- kafkaIncarnate 5y ago
  I think this is a reference to Subproject 54. Take this information as you wish (pg. 40): https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/95mkultra.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hear... > Senator SCHWEIKER. Subproject 54, MKULTRA, which involved examination of techniques to cause brain concussions and amnesia by using weapons or sound waves to strike individuals without giving and without leaving any clear physical marks. Someone dubbed it "perfect concussion" - maybe that was poetic license on the part of our staff rather than your poets over there. I wonder if you could just tell us what brain concussion experiments were about? > Admiral TURNER. This project, No. 54, was canceled, and never carried out. > Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I do believe the first year of the project in 1955 was carried out by the Office of Naval Research, according to the information that you supplied us. The CIA seems to have been participating in some way at that point, because the records go on to say that the experimenter at ONR found out about CIA's role, discovered that it was a cover, and then the project was transferred to MKULTRA in 1956. Again, this is all from the backup material you have given us. So, it was canceled at some time. I am not disagreeing with that, but apparently for at least a year or two, somebody was investigating the production of brain concussions with special blackjacks, sound waves, and other methods as detailed in the backup material. > Admiral TURNER. The data available to me is that this project was never funded by the CIA, but I will double-check that and furnish the information for the record for you as to whether there was ever any connection here and if so, what the nature of the work was.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
woleium 5y ago
On point parody of Curtis' work https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg
mhh__ 5y ago
Curtis should really scratch a certain part of me, the part that listens to numbers stations and stays up at night reading old declassified cold war papers etc., But I just can't believe anything he says. The ratio of confidence to lack of citations is just alarming. I enjoyed and somewhat agreed with the main thesis of hypernormalisation but it just seemed impossible to verify. It doesn't help that a lot of his work is inspired by philosophers writing about society, which is usually completely unfalsifiable and comes with a certain smugness.
- vizzier 5y ago
  If you take it as a piece of entertainment, more of a historical clip show with some connected narrative they can be enjoyable to watch even without trusting the information entirely. Curtis has a gift of picking out obscure and interesting clips many of which were filmed before many of his audience (including myself) were even born. His British slant (and the fact that they come from the BBC archives) may make their relevance to those watching from outside of the UK particularly low however, depending on the overall film's subject matter.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    The clips are why I bothered to finish watching it. Its interesting it just isn't true... I am British so no complaints about archival footage
    - sgt101 5y ago
      Which bits aren't true?
      - mhh__ 5y ago
        I was being hyperbolic. The whole narrative with Syria for example is vaguely plausible but I really struggled to find sources to back up this grand conspiracy he very directly alleges.
- max_ 5y ago
grapist420 5y ago
Article has some aesthetic appeal but I don’t think really pulls together a reasonable argument. “Liberty: antidote to death” is ... not quite right - Christ was certainly that, and the “breaking of chains” of Christ does follow, but seems like a false connection in particular. Also FYI this mag is a project of the “dissident right”, formerly “alt”, broadly construed, (don’t intend any judgement just informing).
dayaz36 5y ago
To this day Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self" is my favorite documentary of all time
bog_alchemist 5y ago
Playing over the BBC archived footage is Scubaz's 'The Vanishing American Family', a title card in Arial font with something ominous and foreboding like 'The Last Panopticon' or 'The Mesmerising Autarch' appears on screen before a publicly educated Southern begins his voiceover: But life wasn’t always as it seemed. In far away Angola, Marshal Dos Santos took the same lessons that the bankers and power brokers of New York learnt but instead of applying it to the teamsters and unions, he would apply it on a systematic scale to his people. It was the worlds first information war and it was being jointly sponsored by both the Soviets and Americans.
coldtea 5y ago
>supposed link between the insularity of American foreign policy in the 1930s and the worldwide chaos of 1945 gave credence to the view that the elixir of liberty could not be contained within the borders of the country alone. It had to be given to others so America might be protected from the threat of external tyranny. That was the official story. The unofficial story was than an emerging empire was flexing its muscles and extending its reach, as it had already done e.g. in the Phillipines, and its military and industry wanted wanted more of the global pie (though, for historical reasons, it would have to do it in a post-colonial world, and in a post-colonial manner - Banana Republics, proxy wars, and support for every dictatorship under the sun, all in the name of giving this "elixir of liberty").
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
That went all weird at the end a bit like Curtis's films. Dark hints that non-christians can't be civilized or something? Hard to argue with since it not stated but presented in a vague and poetic way, but seems obviously false if that is the claim.
jonplackett 5y ago
The main problem with a Curtis doco is that the people who need to know the content are the least likely people to sit though it. I love them, but I mostly agree with his world view already.
VieEnCode 5y ago
Curtis makes interesting films and digs up some fascinating footage. And yet, what he offers up is profoundly orthodox, explicit, postmodernism with a capital P: the music, visuals, world view, narrative style, overlapping narratives, the intertextuality. My sense is that he is somehow simultaneously frustrated and altogether too pleased with the fact that this is the best story he can tell. That is, that everything is connected in a bewildering, unknowable number of ways and nobody has any real new understanding as to how best to move forward beyond the old paradigms that trap us. He frequently criticises the left for not having any new ideas—with some merit. Ultimately, however, neither does he.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  I think you are close to the truth with this. I saw a talk with him and regarding morality and the media he was basically saying, basically, that he was sad but that the media just likes sensation, and that changes. He basically said he makes films for an amoral media industry. But perhaps his art reveals this?
denton-scratch 5y ago
I didn't care much for the review; way too much verbiage before he gets to talking about the film. I found the film difficult to consume. He mentions "wahaabism" very early on. Then he keeps linking the Taliban to wahaabism. Well, they're related, in that both are islamic revivalists. But from the start, the mention of "wahaabism" put me off, and led me to question his arguments. You see, there is nobody that refers to him/herself as a "wahaabist". The term is considered insulting. Saudi revivalists call themselves "salafists". So that got my ears pricked-up looking for propaganda. He then launches into a long chain of argument, claiming that the Taliban are the direct result of CIA interference in the Moslem world. I can't refute that claim, but I found many of the links in the chain rather tenuous; and his conclusions depend on all of those links. There is a lot of footage I've not seen before, and a bunch of material that was pretty interesting. But the Taliban and AQ were not cut from the same cloth; the Taliban are Afghan Pashtuns, and they regard AQ as "foreigners".
- nyolfen 5y ago
  aq & taliban are both the result of a chain of events you can draw to the post meccan siege shift in power among the saudi elite to the clerics that led to the mass establishment and funding of salafi madrassas abroad, sending young men and funds abroad to the afghan conflict, etc. the taliban come directly out of these madrassas. they are part of the same great cultural current which is at its root a dialectic between royals and clerics in ksa. wahhabism is an exonym but is a perfectly valid descriptor.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to describe the Taliban as "part of the same great cultural current which is at its root a dialectic between royals and clerics in ksa". The Taliban are interested in Afghanistan. In fact I suspect they are primarily interested in "Pashtunistan", or Waziristan. They are interested in western Afghanistan only insofar as it is primarily Shia, and the Taliban are very much sectarian Sunnis. I don't think many Taliban are particularly interested in what happens in faraway Saudi Arabia. AQ are interested in destroying the enemies of their kind of Sunni islam, especially in Saudi Arabia and the USA. So while the Taliban and AQ share a Sunni affiliation, the former want to run Afghanistan; the latter want to change the whole world.
ryhtgergf 5y ago
It seems relevant to mention to anyone who isn't english that the BBC channel Adam Curtis works with is British State Media. A lot of his indecisive dialogue and orthodoxy being weirdly at odds with the information and footage he shows the viewer might be explained as a man with more controversial opinions trying to subvert from inside the establishment. If he'd come out too damningly against the UK military or establishment he'd probably lose his comfortable platform.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  Indeed the article hints that Curtis work is very pro liberalism at heart. The article suggests that this is hollow because Afghanistan in recent times (5 years after his film) has shown it to be fruitless.
js2 5y ago
I had trouble understanding what this review is talking about. I searched and found this review which is more expository: https://letterboxd.com/gdw/film/bitter-lake-2015/ https://letterboxd.com/gdw/film/bitter-lake-2015/ I was then able to go back and read the submitted link and it no longer seemed to be written in a foreign language.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

91 points by chippy 5y ago

> Curtis draws a conclusion without a narrative trajectory; he leaves multifarious discordant happenings to interplay... I think Curtis does this on purpose. Whenever I watch a Curtis doco, I feel I'm being told a compelling story. However, if you ask me afterwards what it was about, I will stumble to explain what it was about. I think Curtis is trying to show the viewer the complexity of the world and how difficult it is to actually get a grasp on reality and that there are no good guys and bad guys and that we're all the good guys and bad guys and that most of what we "believe" to be true is a simplification (a caricature) of reality.

neighbour 5y ago
Agreed on nearly all points except the following. >there are no good guys and bad guys I don't think that's what he is implying. He is leaving it up to our interpretation but the absence of a position does not mean he is saying that there are no good or bad guys. From what I gathered, he's not saying anything at all. Big fan of his work regardless.
- sgt101 5y ago
  Well, I think he's definitely saying that we've been tricked and that the narratives that are pushed supporting our lifestyle and societal choices are lies told to enrich and empower others.
renjimen 5y ago
Agreed. It's a point he makes over and over again: the world is complex and any alleged narrative is just a simplification we make to help ourselves understand the complexity or influence others. "Good guys" and "bad guys" are just a part of this narrative we create. People are a product of their past, which is also complex, but good and bad are powerful models we are programmed since childhood to apply to the world.
- rusk 5y ago
  > we create I think one of the core ideas that is smeared across Curtis’ work is that these narratives are created and fed to us as an explanation of the world that we rarely question.
ayngg 5y ago
I think it is like what you said, most of his work seems to fundamentally revolve around how incomprehensibly complex systems in society have become, and the consequences of attempts to control many of those systems (either by necessity or arrogance). Most of this stories are just myths, strings interwoven in the much larger fabric of interlinking events meant to show how many of these discrete simplifications of reality interact and often clash with each other.
- mc32 5y ago
  Not just the modern world. Any connected civilization which needs to contend with factions, differing interests, foes, allies, and "intersectionality". If you lived in an isolated island a half dozen centuries ago or more, then it would be simpler till a voyager tribe, society or civilization landed.
aguasfrias 5y ago
He is not saying there are no good guys or bad guys. He is saying that when we're told of good guys or bad guys, they are usually characters in a narrative. But he does not go so far as to say good guys and bad guys don't exist. Merely that we have not done the necessary work to make sense of it. In fact, he seems to rebuke moral relativism, if HyperNormalisation is any indicator.
rbanffy 5y ago
> I think Curtis does this on purpose. He is trying to give perspective rather than telling a story. Yet, by selecting the elements he uses to base the perspective, he’s kind of telling the skeleton of a story.
dash2 5y ago
> I think Curtis does this on purpose. Whenever I watch a Curtis doco, I feel I'm being told a compelling story. However, if you ask me afterwards what it was about, I will stumble to explain what it was about. Agreed. > I think Curtis is trying to show the viewer the complexity of the world An alternative, more reasonable take is that Adam Curtis is a bullshitter, whose documentaries give the illusion of understanding complicated subjects without any actual understanding.
- beckman466 5y ago
  > Adam Curtis is a bullshitter, whose documentaries give the illusion of understanding complicated subjects without any actual understanding Only God knows the whole truth! /sarcasm Both can be true imo. The problem is that the media which we consume is made ephemeral by way of omission. Media is turned into 'intellectual property' by our outdated copyright/IP system, which makes (now)digital media artificially scarce. Someone like Adam Curtis is merely lucky because he has both the time and the access to this material, and the BBC is paying the 'licensing fees' for the footage he uses. The average working class person in the US is constantly bombarded with media, yet our collective memory (in the form of archival video/media) is often lacking universal access. So the means to reflect and make connections and conclusions is artificially scarce, which means we jump from newsworthy 'event' to 'event' (without seeing and understanding their interconnectedness): "To describe the spectacle, its formation, its functions and the forces which tend to dissolve it, one must artificially distinguish certain inseparable elements. When analyzing the spectacle one speaks, to some extent, the language of the spectacular itself in the sense that one moves through the methodological terrain of the very society which expresses itself in the spectacle. But the spectacle is nothing other than the sense of the total practice of a social-economic formation, its use of time. It is the historical movement in which we are caught." - Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord [1] or Wikipedia summary: "Debord analyzes the use of knowledge to assuage reality: the spectacle obfuscates the past, imploding it with the future into an undifferentiated mass, a type of never-ending present; in this way the spectacle prevents individuals from realizing that the society of spectacle is only a moment in history, one that can be overturned through revolution." [2] In other words, the schizophrenic capitalist-owned media isn't followable without serious mental health implications as it's an overwhelming never-ending assault that captures the working class' imagination. The confusion and alienation it creates solely benefits the propertied class. [1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.ht... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

elmomle 5y ago

Overall it's an interesting review, but saying that 99% of Afghanis want Sharia Law and citing an unsourced claim in a blog post is poor writing and undermines the author's credibility, which is unfortunate. Edit: The cited blog actually does cite a research poll, my mistake! https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-taliban-won-sharia-is-democratic-will-of-99-of-the-people/ https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-the-taliban-won-sharia-is-dem...

croumet 5y ago
We all know Sharia-law is all about love and compassion, no problem there...
grapist420 5y ago
a bigger problem is what “they support sharia law” actually means. any two supporters of any broad political signifier in the US often mean totally different things
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/in-the-news/2019/02/25/sharia-law-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-you-should-know https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/in-the-news/2019/02/25/shar... I think the better analogy is what a Fox News viewer thinks a word like "liberal", "BLM" or whatever buzzword or label represents and what the people who use it to describe themselves mean by it. That broadens and distorts further than the real difference between two people within a community or faith.

optimalsolver 5y ago

I used to be quite an Adam Curtis fan until I realized his work is basically the narrative fallacy gone wild. I still recommend Century Of The Self as a great piece of documentary filmmaking.

tonymet 5y ago
Please don't let a rush to "fallacy" prevent you from building your own critique.
kaczordon 5y ago
Best way to describe it I’ve found is this phrase: It’s filled with rich material but when I reach for it, my hand closes on air.

austinjp 5y ago

I genuinely like Curtis' work, and Bitter Lake is peppered with interesting stuff and fantastic stock footage. But the dialogue in his recent films has been predictable: *But the old systems had never gone away. And then one person realised there was a vacuum at the heart of it all. But they had forgotten to program the computers with the one thing that really mattered. And then...." etc. I honestly can't tell if it's meta-parody. And that's why I'll keep watching.

renjimen 5y ago
You'll enjoy this parody then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg It hits the nail on the head (but I still enjoy Curtis' work)
- jgalt212 5y ago
  quote from video > the audience didn't notice the chasm between argument and conclusion. due to all the crap he throws up on the screen.
- AlbertoGP 5y ago
  That’s a great parody, and Adam Curtis himself agrees: > [Brooker] I’m guessing you’ve seen the parodies, things like the Adam Curtis Bingo Card, where people are – I think affectionately – listing some of your stylistic quirks. How do you feel about those? > [Curtis] I really like the parodies when they are good. That one called The Loving Trap I loved, because it was so sharp. It spotted that really it was the voice. It was just really well done. https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad8db/adam-curtis-charlie-brooker-cant-get-you-out-of-my-head https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad8db/adam-curtis-charlie-b...
teh_klev 5y ago
> I honestly can't tell if it's meta-parody. And that's why I'll keep watching. I'm kinda in the same boat. But I think one of the things I like about Curtis is that he's made me read more about things I didn't know about. For example I'd never given much thought about Afghanistan (other than Afghan coats) until the Soviet Union invaded. I was an early teenager (I'm in my mid 50s now), but reasonably interested in world politics, and even back then, and the Afghan war seemed like another cold war proxy conflict, and same old same old. There were many events like that for me, and then I bumped into Curtis in 1992 and his Pandora's box series and I was sort of wowed at his take on the world. These wee snippets of, often obscure, history made tantalisingly accessible and fascinating by the way he assembles his final cuts, so much so that I went off and bought books on history rather than be informed by the opinion pieces in the Times (London), The Guardian etc. I will caveat that I realise history books are not free of bias. Whatever he's doing I think it's a good thing. Sure he often reaches no conclusions but he throws many ideas at us to make us think. Maybe proper historians rue the day he got the cart blanch from the BBC to make these films and series and don't find them "academic" enough. And maybe his work is just a form of meta-parody art, but there's always something in these films to tickle your grey matter. Finally, if anyone's interested in a docu-fictional story about the British Empire's comeuppance in Afghanistan the I'd recommend the first book in George MacDonald Fraser's "Flashman" series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_(novel)

sammalloy 5y ago

My only complaint about Curtis is that some of the music samples he uses over and over again are phenomenally bad and distracting to the viewer. The trope of using discordant, clashing notes is obviously retro, but its day has come and gone. It's never been clear to me as to why he would want to turn his audience away, but the only thing I can come up with is that it's generational, as many of these bad sound clips come from the 1960s and 1970s, and it's possible they sound different to his ear than they do to mine.

jdkee 5y ago
His latest work certainly uses a lot of This Mortal Coil and other early 4AD bands.
- sammalloy 5y ago
  I should clarify, that aside from the discordant samples he uses, his soundtrack selections are incredible and worth checking out. I think it's possible I'm just ever so slightly on the spectrum and that biases my experience of Curtis. In other words, I have a weird susceptibility to loud music that hits certain notes. I suspect most people don't even notice how disturbing some of the music samples he uses can be to some people, so this is probably on me. It's likely Curtis isn't even aware of it. I've had a strange reaction to certain sounds, colors, and textures all my life, so I'm probably projecting my preferences on to Curtis. I really enjoy the films by Curtis, but I have trouble watching them because the sound is so triggering to me. Those samples he commonly uses, where it sounds like high pitched squeals (violin?) and overdriven metal on metal tones (synth or tube amp with reverb) drive me crazy. It's literally painful for me to listen to it.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

The best (meta) Adam Curtis piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

raidicy 5y ago

I really do not like it at in episode 1, of his latest doc series, Curtis did not show the very questionable results from MK Ultra and chose only to cherry-pick the only woman coming forward to say that it wiped her memory and cut it so that it looked very credible. And then went on further to say that it only wiped patients memories which from my understanding all it did was create a bunch of people with PTSD or Nothing at All. Ironic that the episode is largely about paranoia,disinformation and persuading someone's thoughts based on narratives. Curtis asserts shaky if not outright wrong results about a once popular American Mythos, MK Ultra. If my suspicions are true; in that which he has assembled a series of facts that he believes fits a certain narrative that he is weaving into this documentary, the irony would further solidify into an ingot. As this first episode is also about succumbing to false narratives via paranoia and the false idea that appearance of patterns alone are evidence enough of a phenomenon. While this episode attempts to dispel the notion that grand conspiracies and higher forces are driving the centuries narrative, his cuts and edits and how he presents the information may weave his own. It's disappointing because I want to watch something like this that condenses and attempts to form some kind of understanding on how the state of the world is today.

kafkaIncarnate 5y ago
I think this is a reference to Subproject 54. Take this information as you wish (pg. 40): https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/95mkultra.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hear... > Senator SCHWEIKER. Subproject 54, MKULTRA, which involved examination of techniques to cause brain concussions and amnesia by using weapons or sound waves to strike individuals without giving and without leaving any clear physical marks. Someone dubbed it "perfect concussion" - maybe that was poetic license on the part of our staff rather than your poets over there. I wonder if you could just tell us what brain concussion experiments were about? > Admiral TURNER. This project, No. 54, was canceled, and never carried out. > Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I do believe the first year of the project in 1955 was carried out by the Office of Naval Research, according to the information that you supplied us. The CIA seems to have been participating in some way at that point, because the records go on to say that the experimenter at ONR found out about CIA's role, discovered that it was a cover, and then the project was transferred to MKULTRA in 1956. Again, this is all from the backup material you have given us. So, it was canceled at some time. I am not disagreeing with that, but apparently for at least a year or two, somebody was investigating the production of brain concussions with special blackjacks, sound waves, and other methods as detailed in the backup material. > Admiral TURNER. The data available to me is that this project was never funded by the CIA, but I will double-check that and furnish the information for the record for you as to whether there was ever any connection here and if so, what the nature of the work was.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

woleium 5y ago

On point parody of Curtis' work https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

mhh__ 5y ago

Curtis should really scratch a certain part of me, the part that listens to numbers stations and stays up at night reading old declassified cold war papers etc., But I just can't believe anything he says. The ratio of confidence to lack of citations is just alarming. I enjoyed and somewhat agreed with the main thesis of hypernormalisation but it just seemed impossible to verify. It doesn't help that a lot of his work is inspired by philosophers writing about society, which is usually completely unfalsifiable and comes with a certain smugness.

vizzier 5y ago
If you take it as a piece of entertainment, more of a historical clip show with some connected narrative they can be enjoyable to watch even without trusting the information entirely. Curtis has a gift of picking out obscure and interesting clips many of which were filmed before many of his audience (including myself) were even born. His British slant (and the fact that they come from the BBC archives) may make their relevance to those watching from outside of the UK particularly low however, depending on the overall film's subject matter.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  The clips are why I bothered to finish watching it. Its interesting it just isn't true... I am British so no complaints about archival footage
  - sgt101 5y ago
    Which bits aren't true?
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      I was being hyperbolic. The whole narrative with Syria for example is vaguely plausible but I really struggled to find sources to back up this grand conspiracy he very directly alleges.
max_ 5y ago

grapist420 5y ago

Article has some aesthetic appeal but I don’t think really pulls together a reasonable argument. “Liberty: antidote to death” is ... not quite right - Christ was certainly that, and the “breaking of chains” of Christ does follow, but seems like a false connection in particular. Also FYI this mag is a project of the “dissident right”, formerly “alt”, broadly construed, (don’t intend any judgement just informing).

dayaz36 5y ago

To this day Adam Curtis' "The Century of the Self" is my favorite documentary of all time

bog_alchemist 5y ago

Playing over the BBC archived footage is Scubaz's 'The Vanishing American Family', a title card in Arial font with something ominous and foreboding like 'The Last Panopticon' or 'The Mesmerising Autarch' appears on screen before a publicly educated Southern begins his voiceover: But life wasn’t always as it seemed. In far away Angola, Marshal Dos Santos took the same lessons that the bankers and power brokers of New York learnt but instead of applying it to the teamsters and unions, he would apply it on a systematic scale to his people. It was the worlds first information war and it was being jointly sponsored by both the Soviets and Americans.

coldtea 5y ago

>supposed link between the insularity of American foreign policy in the 1930s and the worldwide chaos of 1945 gave credence to the view that the elixir of liberty could not be contained within the borders of the country alone. It had to be given to others so America might be protected from the threat of external tyranny. That was the official story. The unofficial story was than an emerging empire was flexing its muscles and extending its reach, as it had already done e.g. in the Phillipines, and its military and industry wanted wanted more of the global pie (though, for historical reasons, it would have to do it in a post-colonial world, and in a post-colonial manner - Banana Republics, proxy wars, and support for every dictatorship under the sun, all in the name of giving this "elixir of liberty").

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

That went all weird at the end a bit like Curtis's films. Dark hints that non-christians can't be civilized or something? Hard to argue with since it not stated but presented in a vague and poetic way, but seems obviously false if that is the claim.

jonplackett 5y ago

The main problem with a Curtis doco is that the people who need to know the content are the least likely people to sit though it. I love them, but I mostly agree with his world view already.

VieEnCode 5y ago

Curtis makes interesting films and digs up some fascinating footage. And yet, what he offers up is profoundly orthodox, explicit, postmodernism with a capital P: the music, visuals, world view, narrative style, overlapping narratives, the intertextuality. My sense is that he is somehow simultaneously frustrated and altogether too pleased with the fact that this is the best story he can tell. That is, that everything is connected in a bewildering, unknowable number of ways and nobody has any real new understanding as to how best to move forward beyond the old paradigms that trap us. He frequently criticises the left for not having any new ideas—with some merit. Ultimately, however, neither does he.

thinkingemote 5y ago
I think you are close to the truth with this. I saw a talk with him and regarding morality and the media he was basically saying, basically, that he was sad but that the media just likes sensation, and that changes. He basically said he makes films for an amoral media industry. But perhaps his art reveals this?

denton-scratch 5y ago

I didn't care much for the review; way too much verbiage before he gets to talking about the film. I found the film difficult to consume. He mentions "wahaabism" very early on. Then he keeps linking the Taliban to wahaabism. Well, they're related, in that both are islamic revivalists. But from the start, the mention of "wahaabism" put me off, and led me to question his arguments. You see, there is nobody that refers to him/herself as a "wahaabist". The term is considered insulting. Saudi revivalists call themselves "salafists". So that got my ears pricked-up looking for propaganda. He then launches into a long chain of argument, claiming that the Taliban are the direct result of CIA interference in the Moslem world. I can't refute that claim, but I found many of the links in the chain rather tenuous; and his conclusions depend on all of those links. There is a lot of footage I've not seen before, and a bunch of material that was pretty interesting. But the Taliban and AQ were not cut from the same cloth; the Taliban are Afghan Pashtuns, and they regard AQ as "foreigners".

nyolfen 5y ago
aq & taliban are both the result of a chain of events you can draw to the post meccan siege shift in power among the saudi elite to the clerics that led to the mass establishment and funding of salafi madrassas abroad, sending young men and funds abroad to the afghan conflict, etc. the taliban come directly out of these madrassas. they are part of the same great cultural current which is at its root a dialectic between royals and clerics in ksa. wahhabism is an exonym but is a perfectly valid descriptor.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to describe the Taliban as "part of the same great cultural current which is at its root a dialectic between royals and clerics in ksa". The Taliban are interested in Afghanistan. In fact I suspect they are primarily interested in "Pashtunistan", or Waziristan. They are interested in western Afghanistan only insofar as it is primarily Shia, and the Taliban are very much sectarian Sunnis. I don't think many Taliban are particularly interested in what happens in faraway Saudi Arabia. AQ are interested in destroying the enemies of their kind of Sunni islam, especially in Saudi Arabia and the USA. So while the Taliban and AQ share a Sunni affiliation, the former want to run Afghanistan; the latter want to change the whole world.

ryhtgergf 5y ago

It seems relevant to mention to anyone who isn't english that the BBC channel Adam Curtis works with is British State Media. A lot of his indecisive dialogue and orthodoxy being weirdly at odds with the information and footage he shows the viewer might be explained as a man with more controversial opinions trying to subvert from inside the establishment. If he'd come out too damningly against the UK military or establishment he'd probably lose his comfortable platform.

thinkingemote 5y ago
Indeed the article hints that Curtis work is very pro liberalism at heart. The article suggests that this is hollow because Afghanistan in recent times (5 years after his film) has shown it to be fruitless.

js2 5y ago

I had trouble understanding what this review is talking about. I searched and found this review which is more expository: https://letterboxd.com/gdw/film/bitter-lake-2015/ https://letterboxd.com/gdw/film/bitter-lake-2015/ I was then able to go back and read the submitted link and it no longer seemed to be written in a foreign language.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]