Poet, sound-artist and film-maker Robin Parmar sat down to watch Adam Curtis’ BBC documentary HyperNormalisation after all the hype.
How did that go?
Well…
Throughout the film he repeats absolutes like “all” and “every”, without support or justification. For example, in the Soviet Union in the 1980s “no-one believed in anything, or had any vision of the future” This is an essentially stupid statement that cannot possibly be true. It betrays Curtis as unwilling to allow his viewer the freedom to consider any reading of a situation, outside his own narrow view.
This attitude is in place from the outset of the film. “No-one has any vision of a different or a better kind of future” he states categorically. Er, “no-one”? Curtis is simply ignorant of the many thinkers from the 1970s until today, who proposed Green, anarchist, communitarian, or other alternatives to state power (a phrase I believe that Curtis never utters)….
It is telling that the film quotes not a single philosopher or political theorist, leaving us in an intellectual vacuum to be filled only by Curtis and his measured inflexible tones….
This is meant to reassure us. But such certitude and absolutist statements are suspect from the beginning, as they replace any deeper or broader understanding…
…I have belaboured this point since it’s symptomatic of Curtis’ approach. He creates a fictional totalising narrative in order to “make sense” of the apparent chaos of today’s society. He essentially uses the same techniques that the film pretends to critique. It’s theatre with himself as the protagonist, a documentary dictator if you will…
“…Patti Smith is singled out for derision, typified as “a new kind of individual radical”. Apparently Curtis is unaware of the antecedents, even though he might have studied the likes of Rimbaud when getting his humanities degree.
Curtis refuses the challenge of placing Smith within the context of rock music, photography (Mapplethorpe), the gallery scene, sexual expression, or, well, anything really. Instead he claims that people like her didn’t try to change anything but instead “turned to art and music as a means of expressing their criticism of society…
…This documentary is a cautionary tale, and Curtis offers no solutions. Those that lie directly under his nose are lost in his hyperopia. Instead, he repeats tired fears that were already played out in the last millennium.”
Gulp.
FIGHT!
The BBC Echo Chamber (Robin Parmar, Theatre of Noise)
Pic: BBC
https://youtu.be/x1bX3F7uTrg
Facts and Truth do not need to go hand in hand.
Um…what?
You use the present tense. It underlines your omniscience, and the powerlessness of your subjects. You use the present tense. Repetition creates a sense of deadening inescapability. You know this, and your subjects know this, but they continue to listen, because… you use the present tense.
Eh, generally speaking if your rebuttal hinges on “But what about the greens and the anarchists?” then you’ve kind of missed the point. The better criticism is aimed at the film’s oddly infuriating vagueness. It’s a bad habit Curtis has been cultivating.
Its not a narrative documentary, its somewhere between fact and conspiracy. He uses it as tool to provoke debate (successfully) and maybe disturb peoples apathy, something a factual and balanced documentary would not have been as successful at. But whether thats part of the problem is the question. He’s presenting his argument in the same manner than the villains of his story are conducting themselves.
I thought it was great, as was Bitter Lake. I watched it in two sittings and it left me with lots of questions that I hadn’t considered before and wanted to research.
Artist berating an artist for poetic licenses.
I enjoyed it. Gaddafi footage was particularly good, speaking for itself. Short footage of his son Saif was just as good. Portrayal of Asad Senior was interesting, the Hezbollah and Hamas relationships…
I didn’t agree with everything, but it was elegant in bringing personal point of view. Good followup on Bitter Lake.
FWIW Curtis explicitly rejects the label of ‘artist’, but I suppose that’s not necessarily relevant.
“For example, in the Soviet Union in the 1980s “no-one believed in anything, or had any vision of the future” This is an essentially stupid statement that cannot possibly be true. ”
Here Parmar does what he criticizes Curtis for – unsupported statements. “Cannot possibly be true”. I believe Curtis referred to collective believe in the future of country/nationa/[whichever-you-call-it], not individual aspirations.
Should Parmar have given more thoughts about body bags with 18 year olds arriving back home from afganistan (that was going on for 10 years – and is completely verifiable) – he might have been more reflective on his statements. Or food rationing and war veterans living in poverty. While tons and tons of grain shipped overseas for geopolitical leverage.
Romer should have stuck to artistic merits or lack of thereof, it’s his turf and expertise.