Adam Curtis

crackerjack

Well-known member
ONly very tenuous connection, but this was really interesting - first prog of 3 about man's attempts to protect nature from us, raising the point that in doing so we're going against nature itself. This one's all about Serengeti.
 

rob_giri

Well-known member
One thing that gets to me about the latest installment, and it was also touched on in the second, is how he states we are more and more mechanistic, machine like, computer like. Though isn't it a bit self-fulfilling in a way? We created these machines, with our own cold hard logic, especially the logic of those who created computers. Therefore isn't more of a case of the machines being created in our image?

Don't understand what would 'get' you about this. The point of the series was to highlight how much this has been overlooked, and how both the utopianism in the pioneering computer age AND the current IT ethos take for granted the notion that computer technology will set us free, whereas in fact - as you have stated here - it is, perhaps, just another form of well-meaning but ultimately delusional technocracy, which has the potential to take away our freedom and our ability to grow rather than grant it.

...series as a coherent piece, it lacks a central focus and flirts with many disparat ideas.

All of his films and his thinking are like that, that's kind of the beauty, and brilliance, of them, IMO.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Off-topic because not related to Curtis per se, but I think it's important not to over-emphasise the similarity between computers and human brains (even human brains in late C20/early C21 Western societies that have been infected by the von Neumann/Nash/Rand (etc.) mind-virus, blah blah blah...) - in fact there's ample reason to think brains function in a radically different way from computers, even terribly complex ones based on neural networks or whatever.

Of course, some people might think their brains (and everyone else's) work like computers or vice-versa, and that could have important ramifications, but it doesn't make it true. For one thing, computers operate on principles of pure logic while humans, even very clever ones, are often not logical at all (just ask Spock).
 
Last edited:

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Off-topic because not related to Curtis per se, but I think it's important not to over-emphasise the similarity between computers and human brains (even human brains in late C20/early C21 Western societies that have been infected by the von Neumann/Nash/Rand (etc.) mind-virus, blah blah blah...) - in fact there's ample reason to think brains function in a radically different way from computers, even terribly complex ones based on neural networks or whatever."
Reminds me of something that DannyL said to me once about how it is easy to think in terms of computers as being a model for our brains because they are the machines of our age - probably a century ago we would have imagined a mechanical machine or something and so on. I guess that each age has its myths and this is in some way analogous to the way that flying saucers replaced faerie folk as our bogeymen or whatever towards the end of the last century.
 

vimothy

yurp
The point of the series was to highlight how much this has been overlooked, and how both the utopianism in the pioneering computer age AND the current IT ethos take for granted the notion that computer technology will set us free, whereas in fact - as you have stated here - it is, perhaps, just another form of well-meaning but ultimately delusional technocracy, which has the potential to take away our freedom and our ability to grow rather than grant it.

Isn't this extremely trite though?

Computers--not a panacea. Technology--first and foremost a social phenomenon.

Quelle surprise. In other news: Catholic bears, popes shitting in woods, one legged ducks swimming in circles, etc, etc...
 

you

Well-known member
Off-topic because not related to Curtis per se, but I think it's important not to over-emphasise the similarity between computers and human brains (even human brains in late C20/early C21 Western societies that have been infected by the von Neumann/Nash/Rand (etc.) mind-virus, blah blah blah...) - in fact there's ample reason to think brains function in a radically different way from computers, even terribly complex ones based on neural networks or whatever.

Of course, some people might think their brains (and everyone else's) work like computers or vice-versa, and that could have important ramifications, but it doesn't make it true. For one thing, computers operate on principles of pure logic while humans, even very clever ones, are often not logical at all (just ask Spock).

It's interesting that our development is changing depending on our exposure to computers - loads of research on this. It's not news that computers ( read external stimuli ) affect our brains development - to be expected, but such a ubiquitous influence is prime for questioning - we question popcorn adverts, how much time do you spend in front of all these boxes and scroll bars?

Also - all this set you free nonsense - I dunno - who honestly believes that? Bottom up structures = old power struggles of yesteryear, quelle surprise!?! - not news. Everything formatted...... zeros and ones don't make emancipate me, a trillion zeros and ones dont-not-neither.....tripple-negz,..... computers reflect their(!....duh duh durrrr personification) creators brains....as these machines breed their influence affects our development through ubiquity - bit of a feedback I guess for the creator groups, the guys working on and making them - but the paradigm is from a select group.....it's essentially an idea catching like wildfire - to me anyhow......
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
The central idea running through the series is : thinking that humans are like machines leads to dehumanisation, hence the irony in the title. It's a good idea for a TV series.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think Dan (via Rich, above) is right about seeing humanity reflected in whatever technology happens to be cutting-edge at the time, i.e. computers today, the internal combustion engine a century ago or steam engines a century before that. In each case, what you have is a device that appears "clever", in that it's been cleverly made and may have some subtle feedback systems or cybernetic element - in the case of a computer, it may even simulate real "intelligence" to some extent - but is actually nothing other than an unthinking mechanical or electronic slave. It's a machine that does what it does based on what it's been built to do (built into it on a genetic level by the team of experts who designed it) and what it's been told to do (by the user, who may be an expert, a intelligent layman or a pathetic noob). The technology changes and it changes the way power is distributed between the designer-makers and the consumer-users, but the technology is only ever a conduit. There's no "ghost in the shell" of my laptop subtly making me do this or that according to its own whim; it's just a physical product made by Acer and loaded with software made by Microsoft, Mozilla etc., connected to the internet by Talk Talk and so on.

Not really sure where I'm going with this...although I now remember seeing some fantastic drawings made in the 1920s to show 'how the human body works' that translates everything into standard industrial technology of the time, all pistons and motors and conveyor belts and vats of acids and solvents in the digestive system, electric wires for nerves, all that stuff - I'll post it here if I can find it, it illustrates this point perfectly.

Edit: agreed with mistersloane, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, innit.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
It's pretty easy to see how dominant techologies or ideologies can shape the metaphors we use - also easy to see how this can delude rather than illuminate. You get a lot of computer metaphors in the wackier end of occult/self-help stuff i.e. Lilly's "Programming the Human Bio-Computer", Neuro Linguistic Programming etc. LObviously crops up a lot of science i.e. biological discussions of cell mechancis that use banking/economic metaphors.
 

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
I'd like you to do one on chaos theory and how it's currently affecting everything from philosophy to economics to nature, if you're reading, Adam. It's problematic if you're talking about managerial culture and constantly managing the present when the medium through which you're working is found footage - even if you're talking about the symptom, you're still a symptom of it rather than a causal aspect. Given that the last episode was more experimental, it seems it's time for a change I think.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
You get a lot of computer metaphors in the wackier end of occult/self-help stuff i.e. Lilly's "Programming the Human Bio-Computer", Neuro Linguistic Programming etc.

Terry McKenna's "Culture is your Operating System"...actually I think there's something in that one. Less sure about his "Timewave Zero" bollocks but the guy's got some interesting ideas all the same.
 

Tentative Andy

I'm in the Meal Deal
Some rambling, possibly simplistic thoughts –

I’ve been watching the new series plus taking the chance to catch up on earlier ones like Power of Nightmares and Century of the Self that I’d either missed the first time or forgotten about. Also had a look over some great old threads about him on here. I’ve got a lot of time for Curtis. Like Grizzle said, at the very least his work has opened up the ideas of a lot of important and influential 20th century thinkers to many people (off the top of my head Freud, Reich, Marcuse, Hayek, Issiah Berlin, RD Laing, Qutb, Leo Strauss, Rand, Dawkins – I’m probably missing a few here) . Obviously some are treated in more depth and with more reverence than others, and there’s been concern in some cases about the accuracy of his treatment, but even if he’s just set people down the route of finding out more about them for themselves, that in itself is something that’s quite rare these days.

When it comes down to what his documentaries are about and what he’s trying to achieve, I’d say I don’t have quite as open/free an interpretation of his work as the ones rob & grizzle have offered upthread. I see his work as mainly being about the links between ideas and institutions, the way ideas are taken up by different people, groups and power formations and change and develop in the process. Might just be me but I often feel there’s a strong influence of Foucault on his work, especially in The Trap.

I don’t agree with the view of his work as being a form of conspiracy theory – his programmes deal with things that are a matter of public record, and when he deals with politicians and political groups, he largely deals with what they have done openly and as part of their official role. Also his presentation of history and society gives a good deal of room for accident in a way that conspiracy theory doesn’t - one of the most profound things I’ve gathered from his work is the way that policies and initiatives that were introduced with sincere or benevolent intentions have ended up producing very unfortunate consequences that were often the opposite of their initial aim.

Maybe I’m looking at this the wrong way, but I think a lot of the people and events he includes in the programmes (e.g. the different generations of the Freud family in Century of the Self) are chosen as striking examples of large-scale, systematic processes. I don’t think he actually intends to present a whole historical narrative as being ‘all about’ a tiny number of individuals.

I do think there are problems with his method though. A lot of it comes down to what Rich was talking about: the way each series basically sets out by saying ‘we are trapped in these terrible ways of thinking and behaving, I am going to trace how these developed and got progressively worse and more constricting’ – but the problem is he’s used the same structure for at least 4 different series, covering different ideas and ways of thinking, some of which sometimes contradict each other. They can’t all be totally dominating society, the reality must be that they are different, sometimes conflicting forces within society but his approach doesn’t really allow for this.

Also although I’ve enjoyed the current series I do feel it was one of his weaker ones comparatively. Century of the Self was to me his most coherent and compelling series, with The Trap not far behind. All Watched Over seemed rather higgledy-piggeldy by comparison, as a lot of you have already said. The second episode was the strongest for me because he showed how the concept of ecosystems tending towards a natural equilibrium has actually been discredited at a scientific level. By contrast in the last episode, while his distaste for the idea that gene replication is the main driver for all human behaviour is clear, he doesn’t really make any arguments against it (except for the ‘argument’ that the people who came up with it were personally a bit odd). That said, it was still compelling to watch the way he brought all the different strands of the narrative together around Hamilton’s trip to Rwanada.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Good post! Though I would say that wouldn't I?
Was saying pretty much this to the person I watched it with straight after the third episode:

"in the last episode, while his distaste for the idea that gene replication is the main driver for all human behaviour is clear, he doesn’t really make any arguments against it (except for the ‘argument’ that the people who came up with it were personally a bit odd)."
Basically, not liking a theory or what that theory implies is not at all the same as proving it wrong, I would have been much happier if he had suggested reasons for why it was wrong or, better still, an alternative model. Although he's not in the business of doing that I guess, I don't think he ever makes any positive suggestions - his point is not to change the world but describe it - and possibly hope that someone will be inspired by that to change it for him.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Ha! "But this was a fantasy..."..."But this didn't matter..."..."But this was a fantasy..."
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
My favourite bit is when he says "No-one noticed the gaping chasm between argument and conclusion.... and as a result Mbeki swept to power in the next election".
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
I've only just found out the Mayfair Set was one of Curtis'.

Fantastic series, as I remember; not as sweeping as later work, but really unusual insight into a group of fascinating bastards.

Available here.
 

luka

Well-known member
i watched that thing the other day and just thought it was mean spirited and resentful. i disliked it intensely. literalists might have a problem with curtis but no one with a sense of humour does.
 
Top