Jump to content

Talk:Adam Curtis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Website

[edit]

The BBC blog linked as Adam Curtis's website hasn't been updated for 8 years. Shall we remove the link? Bakert (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

This is a POV statement I think:

// His programmes express a clear, albeit sometimes controversial, opinion about their subject. //

I was going to edit it so say 'his programmes set out to express a clear...', but then I stopped as I don't know if that is his intention at all. Would it be better to say his the program 'adopt a polemic style' or something ? Personally I didn't find anything clear at all in 'All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace'.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to break down his degree into separate subjects: or are these in addition to Human Sciences?

The article currently reads:

// Curtis completed a Bachelor of Arts in Human Sciences at the University of Oxford, where he studied genetics, evolutionary biology, psychology, politics, sociology and elementary statistics. Curtis taught Politics there for a time. //

So: does this mean that the Human Science degree included those topics as part of the course (in which case, do we need to list them?) or does this mean he studied them in addition to the Human Science degree? (Perhaps the Human Science Wikipedia page should be expanded - it doesn't mention genetics for instance...)

Don't forget to sign your posts, Monowiki. I like that list as it seems to cover the range of interests that emerges in his documentaries. I take the particular subjects to be components of the single course he followed. Adding specificity can't do any harm. Since this is a description of a Human Science BA at Oxford at the time, it might not be appropriate to change the general Human Science article. Exok (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's his title? His relatioship to these documentaries is unclear

[edit]

I'm uncertain how you would cite one of his documentaries and his relationship to it. I get he is "documentarian," but you can't say "documentary by" Adam Curtis. Was he the director, producer, executive producer (i.e., the money) or all of the above? Did he have the same relationship in all of the documentaries listed or are these all documentaries that he is affiliated with in different ways? Ileanadu (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political affiliation issue

[edit]

A recent edit has added "left-wing" with a link to a recent article by Adam Curtis on his BBC blog by way of evidence. This is a mistake - impartiality rules of the BBC prevent the use of blog posts or documentaries to advocate specific policies or ideologies. I am not aware of Curtis describing himself as "left-wing" or being billed as such, or of any other documentary-maker being permitted to produce films for the BBC whilst simultaneously pursuing political advocacy. The hyperlinked article is a commentary based on archive materials and themes from Curtis' documentaries such as The Trap and The Century of the Self which deal with the evolution of political and economic ideas in the US and UK during the past century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.23.66 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although the blog post is clearly about left-wing ideology and activism, at no point can I see Curtis saying words to the effect of "I am left-wing" himself. I have therefore reverted the edit. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone define what Adam Curtis meant by "libertarian"? He is from Europe and European definitions of libertarian refer to left wing movements relating to socialism while economic laissez faire are generally defined as liberal. In the US libertarian takes on the European definition of liberal. I would appreciate if this could be cleared up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28disambiguation%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:BE11:C811:8448:4037:3EF8 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update date of upcoming documentary

[edit]

It was set to 2011. Given that 2011 has already passed and that it is unlikely Curtis will release the documentary before the end of 2012, I have made a guess it will come out at some point next year. The previous date was simply incorrect and, although I haven't provided a source, the new date is an educated guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.247.137 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it back. After trying to find out a release date I get the impression Curtis has dropped the project, there is no new news on it since the 'rough cut' released in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.247.137 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics (delete)

[edit]

Strongly recommend remove/replace this quote/section as it is deliberately misrepresentative. Firstly, the citation link is dead(I tried and failed a google phrase search, the source article seems offline). Secondly, the quotation is redacted. Selectively redacted, it seems, by someone with an agenda to paint Curtis as a Neoliberal thinker, by conflating separate lines of thought about Neoliberalism and Libertarianism.

In the talk available here [1] [2] Curtis says of the same subject matter and film:

"I mean somebody pointed out to me the other day The Century of Self which I made, was a perfect Neoconservative tract"

This, in the immediate context of the preceding seconds, is in discussing being open to fallibility and changing his mind within his work. He also explicitly denies being ideological. "somebody pointed out to me..." is obviously not the same thing as deliberate intent, which is the clear (false,misleading) implication of the current quote.

For further verification, one can refer to the earlier minutes of the same talk, or the talk in its entirety, where Curtis discusses or dismisses Neoliberalism/NeoConservatism in the negative. This also bears out in the totality of his filmography, including Century of the Self. The existing quote is in binary opposition to the central theme/conclusions of the talk I've linked (being a tract against 'individualism' as defined by capitalism).

In conclusion, the quote is gross misrepresentation, and I may edit to remove it in time, this argument standing.

Given the above, I also feel a 'Politics' section may be wholly inappropriate and much better covered by a 'Themes' section. Rick Deckards Terrible Shirt (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ 2

His best known work...

[edit]

The current claim that Curtis's best known work is Century of the Self is pretty questionable, and seems to have been added out of nowhere a couple of years ago, even after the broadcast of The Power of Nightmare, which is arguable more well known. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article could mention two or three things Curtis is well known for rather than getting into a debate over which he is best known for. The removed section is almost a copy of the collobators section at the bottom of this Guardian article. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film-maker or documentary maker?

[edit]

@Nick Cooper: Re [1] and [2], British dictionaries give these definitions for "film-maker" in British English:

  • Cambridge: "Someone who is in charge of making a film" [3]
  • Oxford: "A person who directs or produces films for the cinema or television" [4]

Definitions of "film":

  • Cambridge: "Mainly UK (US movie); a series of moving pictures, usually shown in a cinema or on television and often telling a story" [5]
  • Oxford: "A story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on television" [6]

Definition of "filmography":

  • Oxford: "A list of films by one director or actor, or on one subject" [7]

No matches were found for "screenography". It would therefore suggest that using "screenography" instead of "filmography" is WP:Original research.

We have Curtis describing himself as a film-maker:

  • "He quit and joined the BBC training course, during which he made a "silly film"" [8]
  • "In the films, the inner DJ comes out. That is what it is, it's me nicking all the stuff I like" [9]
  • "I want you to get engaged. So of course I'm playing with you. But that's what a good film maker does" [10]

And being described by others in the British media as a film-maker:

  • "Oppenheimer and Curtis are two of my favourite filmmakers" [11]
  • "Adam Curtis: cult film-maker with an eye for the unsettling" [12]
  • "veteran BBC film-maker" [13]
  • "The film maker and journalist talks to Nathan Budzinski" [14]
  • "A new documentary by acclaimed filmmaker Adam Curtis (Bitter Lake, The Century of the Self) [15]
  • "Legendary factual film-maker Adam Curtis" [16]
  • "Adam Curtis, the film-maker behind All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" [17]

His television documentaries being called films by himself and others:

  • "If Curtis's last film, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011)" [18]
  • On The Living Dead: "The third film I made was really experimental and I thought I'd gone bonkers" [19]
  • On All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: "I sort of think I got it right in the last film" [20]

Firebrace (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that repeatedly using the term "film" diminishes the reality that virtually every piece of Curtis's work is for television. As I noted, in British-English "film" refers primarily to theatrically-released feature films. Virtually everything Curtis has done have been TV programmes - many multi-part series - not "films." It's also a bit weird for you to suggest that "screenography" is not a widely recognised term (even on Wikipedia). Nick Cooper (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see it one way and I see it another, and that is why we defer to reliable sources whenever possible. He calls himself a film-maker, other reliable sources call him a film-maker, and he calls his work a series of films or a film. "Filmography" produces 12 million results on Google; "screenography" produces 4,700. If you want to look at other articles, then Louis Theroux, Sean McAllister, and David Munro are all referred to as documentary film-makers. Firebrace (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every day is like Sunday

[edit]

I am wondering why the list is missing "Everyday is like Sunday". It can be found on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cicunsmUnas - Shall we add it? --Lommes (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Curtis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who sponsored his documentary movies? $$$$

[edit]

In his movie HyperNormalisation he blames US with "Perception Management": telling dramatic stories, it doesn't matter if true or false". Which is exactly what he does.👍

In the references at the end, he thanks a company called Perception Management Inc.

He does not inform, who is paying him in other to tell that false narrative. The Agenda is clear, the sponsor is a Sunni rich person $$$$ from Saudia or Qatar? maybe even from Syria, as by the narrative of the "documentary" Syria is the center of the Universe and Israel is the cause for all the problems in the Middle East (Yeah the MOSAD wrote the Quran & the Hadiths). He lies that the Quran & Sunni Islam has nothing to do with the Islamic suicidal attacks. That sponsor hates Israel, Iran & USA.

By his previous movie, Al Qaeda (thus ISIS)does nor exist Yeah

Who sponsors his documentary movies? Ronmar24 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is employed full-time by the BBC, working in the Current Affairs department.[1][2] (He doesn't only make documentaries.[3]) Firebrace (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Adam Curtis: The TV elite has lost the plot". The Register. 20 November 2007.
  2. ^ "Adam Curtis joins BBC Current Affairs". BBC Press Office. 6 November 2002.
  3. ^ David Hendy (2013). Public Service Broadcasting. Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 55.

Possible reliable sources

[edit]

Do these qualify as reliable sources:

Autarch (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, yes. --Jabbi (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parody

[edit]

Curtis' style has also attracted parody - there's an example here. JezGrove (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


& here: https://www.tomscott.com/infinite-adam-curtis/

86.175.223.138 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Curtis&oldid=1222291653"