Year: 2016
Director: Adam Curtis
I’m guessing that Adam Curtis is a familiar name to many here, to some not so much – particularly as his work is now mainly seen on the BBC iplayer which those abroad may not be able to access. He’s a journalist and film-maker, who for the last two decades has been crafting a singular approach to documentary making. Curtis’ films are collages of archive clips from primarily the BBC News that explore a particular topic, anchored by Curtis’ own narrative voice and a kicking selection of background music. All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011) argued with a techno-optimist view, suggesting instead that technology has simplified and distorted our view of the world. Bitter Lake (2015) looked at how many Islamist terrorist groups have their origins in the nature of the alliance between the USA and Saudi Arabia; and now we have Hpernormalizion.
Hypernormalization starts in 1975 in New York – where the politicians have bankrupted the city and the financiers take over the running of government; in Syria – where Assad’s father, the first dictator, is trying to create a pan-Arab settlement for the middle East. Frustrated by the Americans’ support of Israel he allies Syria with Iran and creates suicide bombers to drive American troops from the middle East. Hypernormalisation as a concept comes life from the former Soviet Union, to describe a state of mind in which everyone knew that what was said by the government about the world was untrue, but behaved as if it was as no-one could imagine an alternative.
Curtis then traces the rise of hyper-normalisation from Russia into the West The Middle East exemplifies a political problem that is too difficult for the politicians to solve. As attacking Syria would have had unthinkable consequences, Western leaders promote Gaddafi as a cartoon tyrant backing terrorists – as they can bomb Libya without serious reprisals. Curtis is nothing if not contentious, arguing that there was significant evidence Syria was behind the Lockerbie bombing rather than Libya.
Patti Smith makes an early appearance: her work, centred on an individual expression of identity rather than participation in a collective cause, Curtis sees as emblematic of a cultural and political retreat from sixties mass attempts to change the political system.
The rise of the internet saw two things happen: that the utopian ideal of cyberspace was a retreat from a too-complex world, and that it was in turn undermined by corporate interests. Society itself – where data networks work globally in pico seconds – has become too complex for politicians to think about any change, and so they have turned to management and the avoidance of risk rather than trying to change anything.
His section on the role of the internet in the Arab spring and in the Occupy movement starts to bring his argument into complete focus – that the internet enabled networked protest movements to emerge spontaneously without leaders, but utterly failed to provide any workable model of a new society to work towards. The internet has become an ‘echo chamber’ in which we are separated from any views and interests that conflict with our own, served only that which reinforces what we already think. It will be no surprise to say that Trump makes an appearance before the end, and the timeliness of Curtis’ thesis is shown by the current debate about Facebook’s effect on the American Presidential election.
So, in the spirit of Curtis I would be fascinated to hear views from across the political spectrum from those who’ve watched it. The Afterword is perhaps one of the few places I go to on the internet where those of different political opinions debate on equal terms. It’s 166 minutes long, but every ten minutes there’s a turn in the argument or an archive clip that will have you gobsmacked.
Might appeal to people who enjoyed:
Adam Curtis, thinking about the world, archive clips and familiar but strange music, conspiracy theory, Patti Smith being singled out
Great review. Bookmarking this.
I’m intrigued by the image up top. What’s the story behind that, do you know?
Looks like the trail of blood left by the body of America as she was dragged out the back door of the Camp David lumber store, on her way to a shallow grave.
It’s never specified but the last hiding place of Saddam Hussein comes to mind. There’s the last moments of Gaddafi and Ceausecu later in the film for those keen on executions of brutal dictators.
Thanks for the heads-up moseley, grabbing this now before the NSA block my access.
*reaches for tin-foil hat*
His previous one, “Echo Lake” (also on iPlayer) is interesting if you want to understand why the Saudis are never held to account for the terrorism which springs from their version of Islam.
Bitter Lake
He’s mixing it up with Echo Beach
….far away in time. I’m singing that now, I don’t see why you shouldn’t.
Whoops (hums)
Grr links never show in posts here’s hypernormalisation – maybe on youtube too for those outside the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation
We watched this a few weeks ago but, unusually for me, I lost interest after a while. I found it a bit incoherent. Maybe I should give it another go.
Nah, I’m with you, Davebig. It was recommended to me by a couple of good friends (who don’t know each other) so I gave it a shot. I found it boring, full of ridiculously sweeping generalisations and very meandering.
I kind of agree. I think Adam Curtis is more style over substance. He makes what amount to fantastic arty music videos, but I’m not sure he has a consistent philosophy or any real point to make.
He calls himself a documentary maker, but I think he’s effectively a conceptual artist playing a game.
I’ve followed Curtis’ works for years & he just gets better & better, the deeper & weirder he goes.
I loved the mind melting Hypernormalisation. I agree with Arthur that he’s more a conceptual artist than a documentary maker but this allows him the artistic freedom to get heavy & hold your attention in a way that the dry, traditional form can make difficult.
His labyrinthine ideas and curve ball questioning always come together towards the end of his films.
@gary Hypernormalization is very much a sprawling triple-album – a Sandinista to Bitter Lake’s London Calling.
I enjoyed it and I learned a lot from it but it was frustrating.
Sometimes the digressions (that are supposed to be connections) are interesting in themselves, but they don’t always have any relevance to the main theme. Also, for a guy who likes to expose the “smoke and mirrors” of politics, Curtis is pretty fond of using the seductive/hypnotic properties of music and images to slip in some claim that is purely subjective or at least, a bit of a stretch.
That apart, I did enjoy it. I always enjoy his films but I sometimes think if he stuck to a more conventional linear narrative, he’d make his point a lot more effectively.
My comment above sounded maybe a bit overcritical. I do think he makes terrific, thought provoking films. But I don’t think he WANTS to make a point, he’s more interested in the effect he can get in an audience by raising challenging subjects.
Making people think about things is his intention, but its secondary to creating a mesmerising film. So he would never be an activist or campaigner, for example.
But in many ways that makes him more honest than, say, Michael Moore, who has a one-sided agenda fueling his movies.