4 ms·

Urm clarify plz how one documentarian can hypernormalize? It's a collaborative work by many parties w overlapping interests. Over time. Using vast resources.

mhh__ 4y ago
Because he likes making up cute narratives with usually 0 citations, it's all about the tune, not the words. Lots of people listen to him, he isn't just some guy.
- chillingeffect 4y ago
  >Lots Same could be said for David Attenborough or Errol Morris, but that's not enough influence to be called "hypernormalization." Shining a light on how power functions is a gnatbite to, say, lawmakers banning abortion and homelessness, enforcing building codes, drafting a generation of males to war, engaging in armed combat against miners, etc. Even a documentarian with a mirrored ideology, say, Steve Bannon couldn't be said to be hypernormalizing- only communicating. > citations I re-watched some of "Century of Self" [0] to evaluate this statement. Much of it is primary sources: interviews. [0] https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    David Attenborough does not make the same style of programming that Curtis does. Curtis has a very specific world view, or world vibe, let's say whereas Attenborough does have views about the world but not much else beyond visual grandeur. His earlier stuff is definitely better than his more recent work, but I refer specifically to the hypernormalization documentary because it's absolutely full of "Syria this", "Assad this", "[large country or company] decided to do [remarkably simple thing]". Maybe it's right, but the point is that it's structured and edited in a way where he wants to make you feel his argument that the world is being forced into a state of inaction, not convince you that his argument is correct. In this specific documentary, he is undeniably flying extremely close to the sun in how he presents his argument versus what he is arguing against. He argument is all about the "theys" and the men in palaces, and obviously some decisions are, but some inference one makes in this mindset are simply the result of being fooled by randomness. Don't get me wrong, I like listening to Adam Curtis docs while I'm working, I just think that he goes too far. When he is covering identifiable flaws he is absolutely brilliant, e.g. his piece on Nick Leeson is really nicely done, when he is kind of mumbling about some kind of incompetent conspiracy to do [something] he is often charismatic but shallow. Also (a point about documentary filmmaking in general) the use of interviews is actually something I sort of disagree to an extent with unless it's a documentary like the fog of war where it's about a person in particular. It is extremely easy to manipulate interview. This (https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI?t=90 https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI?t=90) is an extreme example demonstrated by Charlie Brooker, but you can be really subtle. And what if they're lying? What if you end up lying by accident? Trust but verify. https://youtu.be/itqMwuB8gOk https://youtu.be/itqMwuB8gOk This is an interesting documentary about secret maps and information in Britain. I find it interesting, use my above writing as a barometer for whether that entices you or not.

mhh__ 4y ago

Because he likes making up cute narratives with usually 0 citations, it's all about the tune, not the words. Lots of people listen to him, he isn't just some guy.

chillingeffect 4y ago
>Lots Same could be said for David Attenborough or Errol Morris, but that's not enough influence to be called "hypernormalization." Shining a light on how power functions is a gnatbite to, say, lawmakers banning abortion and homelessness, enforcing building codes, drafting a generation of males to war, engaging in armed combat against miners, etc. Even a documentarian with a mirrored ideology, say, Steve Bannon couldn't be said to be hypernormalizing- only communicating. > citations I re-watched some of "Century of Self" [0] to evaluate this statement. Much of it is primary sources: interviews. [0] https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04
- mhh__ 4y ago
  David Attenborough does not make the same style of programming that Curtis does. Curtis has a very specific world view, or world vibe, let's say whereas Attenborough does have views about the world but not much else beyond visual grandeur. His earlier stuff is definitely better than his more recent work, but I refer specifically to the hypernormalization documentary because it's absolutely full of "Syria this", "Assad this", "[large country or company] decided to do [remarkably simple thing]". Maybe it's right, but the point is that it's structured and edited in a way where he wants to make you feel his argument that the world is being forced into a state of inaction, not convince you that his argument is correct. In this specific documentary, he is undeniably flying extremely close to the sun in how he presents his argument versus what he is arguing against. He argument is all about the "theys" and the men in palaces, and obviously some decisions are, but some inference one makes in this mindset are simply the result of being fooled by randomness. Don't get me wrong, I like listening to Adam Curtis docs while I'm working, I just think that he goes too far. When he is covering identifiable flaws he is absolutely brilliant, e.g. his piece on Nick Leeson is really nicely done, when he is kind of mumbling about some kind of incompetent conspiracy to do [something] he is often charismatic but shallow. Also (a point about documentary filmmaking in general) the use of interviews is actually something I sort of disagree to an extent with unless it's a documentary like the fog of war where it's about a person in particular. It is extremely easy to manipulate interview. This (https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI?t=90 https://youtu.be/BBwepkVurCI?t=90) is an extreme example demonstrated by Charlie Brooker, but you can be really subtle. And what if they're lying? What if you end up lying by accident? Trust but verify. https://youtu.be/itqMwuB8gOk https://youtu.be/itqMwuB8gOk This is an interesting documentary about secret maps and information in Britain. I find it interesting, use my above writing as a barometer for whether that entices you or not.