Talk:Adam Curtis/Archive 1

Popbitch??
Is there any evidence that Curtis is involved with Popbitch ? This seems highly unlikely, and should be removed until is can be verified. There is an [article in The Times], suggesting it, but seems unclear. Also The Guardian link here. --Tomhannen 13:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The most recent interview in the Observer says he's just a friend of Popbitch - so have changed this.

The scope of Pandora's Box
Pandora's Box is more far-reaching than nuclear science; it discusses science's role in modern society. Tonight's episode was about the 'science' of Economics.

"The Mayfair set" or "The Westminster Set"?
This page at the BBC refers to "The Westminster Set". Is this a different documentary, or is that press release wrong? (Or is this article?) Mr. Jones 10:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I own a video of this, and it's clearly called THE MAYFAIR SET - FOUR STORIES ABOUT THE RISE OF BUSINESS AND THE DECLINE OF POLITICAL POWER during the title sequence. so, embarrassingly, the bbc-press release seems to be wrong. I would be very pleased if there actually is "the Westminster set" as this means there is another great documentary, but i think its highly unlikely. --80.131.109.25 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Living Dead
I don't remember this series arguing that fighting WWII was a mistake; as I remember it, it was about the way politicains have used the past to forward their own ideas. I'll rephrase this unless there's any objection. JW 00:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV
Total Point of view problems.

Disgraceful

jucifer 04:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough I should list some points that make this article POV.

1)Article consists mainly of complementary reviews from left-wing British newspapers. This cannot be right, there is extensive critisism of his work from many quaters - especially the Power of Nightmares.

2) "The Power of Nightmares (BBC Two) drew parallels between the rise of Islamic terrorists and the US neoconservatives who exploited the terror they created." This statement assumes that "neoconservatives exploited the terror they created." jucifer 22:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the first quote is not the way to write an encyclopedia article by just cutting and pasting material that is not neutral. The second quote is illustrative of his film making technical skills and is legitimate and neutral. It's better to edit an article than slap a template tag on it. Stbalbach 23:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't have the requisite time to research this. However as it stands it needs a NPOV tag so what am I to do? jucifer 23:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It took me all of 30 seconds to read and remove the offending lengthy quote. The second one, is just a short caption of the show, sometimes shows are NPOV, theres nothing to do about that.Stbalbach 03:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Cold Cold Heart/The Trap confusion
There current seems to be some confusion over whether these are the same series or separate one. The original BBC publicity for the 2006 Autumn season states that Cold Cold Heart is, "a series of three one-hour films about the death of altruism and the collapse of trust – trust in politicians, trust in institutions and trust in ourselves, both in our minds and our bodies." Advance publicity for The Trap states it is, "a series of three films... that explains the origins of our contemporary, narrow idea of freedom.", while now that it's scheduled it's similarly described as being about freedom. These look like two separate series, and I certainly can't find any categoric linkage of the two. Nick Cooper 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cold Cold Heart/The Trap (again)
I've reinstated the fact that Cold Cold Heart was the working title for The Trap. You can't reason that people could get the information from the Trap page, because how would they know to look there? Nick Cooper 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources problems
I made this edit, which was promptly reverted with the following summary: "Reverted. "Parallel" is entirety correct; claimed "POV" is what the programme actually argues!"

While "parallel" is not entirely false, it's still grotesque over-simplifying the actual content of the series, to the grade of utter wrongness. The series argues far more complicated than "both needed to inflate a myth of a dangerous enemy in order to draw people to support them." It's wrong and I'd like to see a reference for that exact assertion, otherwise POV like that should go. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While "parallel" is, of course, a (necessary) simplification, my chief objection was that replacing it with "connection" is far more misleading. There were areas in which the intrests and/or beliefs of the Islamists and the neo-conservatives met, but "connections" implies something far more corroborative/conspiratorial than Curtis suggests. As to the second part which you objected to, again it seems a simplification, but not an inaccuarte one. Curtis talks repeatedly of the neo-Conservatives creating "phantom enemies" i.e. the Soviets, Clinton, and international terrorism respectively. This is implicit and can't be denied. At the same time, the radical Islamists are similarly - although less obviously - shown to exploit the same concept. Curtis certainly argues that both groups attributed the failure of the Soviets in Afghanistan to their own - rather than the other's - actions there. Nick Cooper 07:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the limitations of a one-sentence summary of a three-part television series, the version parallel...in that both needed to inflate a myth of a dangerous enemy in order to draw people to support them does a very good job. The whole series argued this: it is its own primary source. --Old Moonraker 07:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

documentarian
Adam Curtis is a documentarian.

Radical invididualism - thread running through Curtis' works
It's probably worth putting together a precis of Curtis' vision about the destruction of ideology and the rise of what he calls 'radical invdidualism' - this was presented as the thread that runs through at least his most recent works in a talk at the Whitechapel Gallery on 9th December 2007. When I get the time I'll expand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.156.225 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also more here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.156.225 (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry: The Great British Housing Disaster
Have added this to list of his documentaries,with a reference to the BFI database. Is there a rationale why it was omitted (i.e. he's the producer but not the narrator)? Robin Guest (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The following pages contain video of Adam Curtis' 'The Way of all Flesh'. I tried to insert these links into Adam Curtis' page but it was auto-rejected, can someone add them somehow please? Thanks you. http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/adam-curtis-the-way-of-all-flesh/ http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtisTheWayofAllFlesh/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.19.101 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam Curtis' next project "It felt like a kiss"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/19/adam_curtis/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.111.27 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet Archive
Okay, I see now that previous links to these docs on the Internet Archive have been removed from the doc pages due to copyright violation concerns. But I have not seen any discussion yet... Are we sure that the IA is violating copyright by hosting these docs? It is not in their charter to do so, and they are listed as open source, and have been up for a while without being taken down... Just want to have this confirmed, because if I had made these documentaries, I would certainly want them openly distributed... - Elgaroo (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I don't really know the policies involved, but look at this quote from an interview in "Cineaste" with Adam Curtis about "The Power of Nightmares":

 Both the BBC and I tried to get it shown on U.S. channels--but no one was interested. After I realized that the networks weren't going to show them, I encouraged distribution on the Internet. Although this was against formal BBC policy, I thought it was fulfilling our public service remit for the new age. And it worked very well. The series was seen by far more people, and across a much wider demographic range, than would have been the case if it had been transmitted on TV. I took note of that and it made me think that the traditional TV outlets' growing tendency to show stuff that is focused on particular sections of the audience--and which will not challenge that section's view of the world--is probably counterproductive in the end. You can see why they are doing it--trying to cling onto a declining audience. But its actual effect is to shift more questioning programs over onto the web, which then increasingly bites further into the TV audience, thus making it decline even more. So I think I got perfectly good distribution in the U.S. on the web--and they are still there. 

Interview

Elgaroo (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to discuss. The finished programmes are BBC copyright, so any claim that they are "open source" is - frankly - a lie. The BBC does not license its programmes to the likes of IA. If these particular programmes (i.e. Adam Curtis's works) could be available online, they would be on the BBC's own iPlayer. Curtis's wishes do not over-ride the actual copyright status, so the above quote is worthless in this respect. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)