Hacker News Reader

Comment by darawk | Hacker News Reader

Curtis documentaries are in this weird uncanny valley that I intensely enjoy, but deeply uneasily. They're very pleasurable. They string together a grand narrative that says...something. Not quite sure exactly what. But man it sure does feel like you're learning a deep truth when you watch them. As much as I like them, I suspect they are essentially poison. They're Alex Jones for smart people. Half cocked ideas strung together in a deeply aesthetic, but mostly meaningless way.

I don't want to impugn him too much. He seems like a good guy and I genuinely enjoy his work. But it really does feel like there's something narcotic about it, something insidious about the way it creates the feeling of insight without actually teaching you anything.

View on HN

I think his work is a great jumping off point. After watching Century of the Self, I started reading pretty heavily into Walter Lippman, Edward Bernays, and the general development of neoliberal thought. Most all of what I read backed up his thesis with much more concrete details.

I think it would be great if he released a reading list alongside each of his documentaries - let the films serve as a compelling aesthetic work and the reading as essentially a citation. Alternatively, maybe I should try to compile some for each of his films.

> let the films serve as a compelling aesthetic work and the reading as essentially a citation. Alternatively, maybe I should try to compile some for each of his films.

Yes, that would be awesome, and would add much more weight to the arguments he makes in his documentaries.

I would absolutely love that and use it.

Curtis is the reason I got into Max Weber and Jacques Ellul. I cannot remember which of his series led me into that rabbit hole though.

What from Weber? Connection between religion and capitalism?

About rationalization. That the world has not always been as bureaucratic as it is now. And then Jacques Ellul who says that this bureaucracy, which he calls technique, is a self-reinforcing entity on its own outside of the people that make it happen.

Some of his Eastern Bloc stuff in Hypernormalization echoes to this day. It's fair to say he orchestrates feelings, it's semi-fair to object that he's not outlining a detailed plan for how to fix and run everything (to which I would reply that's not his job), but I don't like seeing his work written off as meaningless. It seems to be to be journalism of a very high level, in that he outlines things clearly and understandably that are newsworthy and that matter.

I guess the take-away there is that news is not enough. You can document the human condition all you like, and then if we do nothing to evolve it away from its darkest aspects it's just depressing. Knowing that I still like that he's doing that reporting, the way he's doing it. He's making abstractions concrete for people.

This is usually what's missing from people criticizing Curtis. It's a form of superficiality where people feel that they don't need to look further into the subjects before drawing fundamental conclusions. I've spoken to so many people that loudly proclaim that Curtis' work is just conspiracy theory, totally oblivious of the instagram level of depth such a conclusion requires.

It would be great with a solid text to go along his films. For now I would urge everyone who get that uncanny feeling after watching Curtis' work to read up on the subjects covered. I promise you that feeling will go away!

That would be a useful website. Reading lists for documentaries and movies

Absolutely. He taps into the same need for narrative coherence that fuels more conventional conspiracy theories.

His work is meticulously researched, fantastically edited, entertaining and I feel, especially since the mid-00s, quite problematic. He wants to be seen as revealing how our conventional narratives are constructs but then replaces them with just another construct and apparently lacks the self awareness or intellectual honesty to realise that his version is just another way to frame a bunch of things which aren’t (and have no reason to be) a neat story.

That said, I expect I’ll give the new series a shot.

> but then replaces them with just another construct

I don’t see this as a problem. I think his work would be far more cumbersome if he exhaustively detailed all the different possibilities ...

I like the idea of constructing a powerful alternative narrative that I can compare and contrast with the conventional one.

I think for me at least the “danger” of Adam Curtis is somewhat mitigated because I know how to take it. I always presumed most other people that enjoy Curtis think similarly but I guess that could be a dangerous assumption...

Thanks, that's described my thoughts about his films really well, I could never quite explainy problem with them.

I think they are good, but they are almost too well made, too persuasive. If they were less well made I'd come away thinking "that's an interesting idea/insight to add to how I think about the world", instead they give you the feeling of "this is how it is, and all it is". They are too definitive.

Really, that's interesting, I've always thought about his work the opposite way. As if he's saying 'this is a story about the way the world works, you can take it or leave it'.

Yes, his work is literally thought provoking. You have to think about it, read about the history presented, think about it some more and come to your own conclusions.

Amazed nobody has posted it yet - Infinite Adam Curtis by Tom Scott: https://www.tomscott.com/infinite-adam-curtis/

They'd be dangerous if they were your only source of information, but if you take them on board with the right perspective they're fine, I think.

I'd put Adam Curtis in the same category as Zizek, where they're about aesthetics and moods with heavy artistic licence, rather than a literal documentary exposition.

Zizek writes serious books. He's often known by the public for making jokes because that's what the public consumes: they don't read serious books.

Might you or someone else recommend which book or books might be a good introduction to Zizek? Thanks.

Zizek has made a joke once, that he has essentially written one book, but that about 60 times. If you want to seriously engage in his philosphical thought: "The Sublime Object of Ideology" is a good pick.

https://youtu.be/x1bX3F7uTrg

Thank you for bringing this. When I saw this thread, I immediately thought of this parody. Clicked your link and was not disappointed.

>something insidious about the way it creates the feeling of insight without actually teaching you anything.

I always thought that was on purpose. I've never come away from one of his shows and thought he has tried to persuade me to subscribe to a particular narrative. I enjoy his exposition and interesting revelations of connections that exist in the vast web of life. I think it's only dangerous if you consider it a source of truth on any particular subject.

I watched one of his films. can't remember what. super disappointed. huge conspiracy claims that sort of sounded clever/insightful, but actually totally empty with zero evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com