June 16, 2011
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace
I’ve been wanting to watch Adam Curtis’s All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, but fifteen minutes in I realized I completely disagree with his premise. To put it more bluntly, I think he’s wrong. Sometimes I can adapt that into my experience, and make it part of the narrative, like when I read an interview sometimes or a chunk of non-fiction, and think of it as a novel. So far, though, I haven’t been able to do that with All Watched Over. Am I wrong?
Update: Here’s Episode One on YouTube.
comments
Leave a Reply
I don’t know about this particular film, but I can say in general that you are not wrong. I won’t read anything that doesn’t grip me within the first couple of pages (more like the first couple of sentences, actually). We are not obliged to give ourselves over to everything that might interest us. The important thing, I think, goes back to a discussion we had on clusterflock recently regarding how we frame our judgment in these matters. You are saying that you disagreed with the premise 15 minutes in and needed to stop watching. You didn’t say it’s a bad film, you didn’t say the premise is necessarily wrong–you said, in essence, that the film isn’t for you. Nothing at all is wrong with that.
The interesting thing is I wanted to keep watching because I really like the way he puts his movies together. I just thought he was wrong, and wouldn’t have been able to focus on the film beyond that observation. I wonder if anyone has seen it so far and agreed with the premise.
I wondered how you’d respond to the film, Deron, as I’d been reading a bit about what Curtis was up to with it, and I was certain you’d take issue with his stance. (I’ve only watched fifteen or so minutes myself.)
I’m trying to think of films that pose a similar difficulty for me. I’m coming up dry, but I expect something will pop to mind.
Like you, I can sometimes incorporate off-putting aspects of a written work into a larger experience. I’ve actually made my way through the first third of Rebecca West’s 1,000-page treatise on Yugoslavia, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, which by and large commands my attention — and then she makes another of a series of scattered observations about “homosexuality” or “effeminacy” that set my teeth on edge. But I have come to expect these annoyances, and while I don’t accept her judgments, I accept their presence in a larger world-view.
That may be more troublesome with films. I really don’t know.
And in the case of Machines, it is the entire premise you reject. It’s more than a misstep here and there.
Yes, it’s the premise, although sometimes the structure and construction would allow me to look beyond that. And Curtis is a filmmaker that usually might.
Oh, and as for Curtis’s take on order (and power) and hierarchy (or non-hierarchy), it is something I continue to ponder. I’m inclined to situate myself on Curtis’s side of the fence but am trying to examine why this is so and whether it is valid.
I think in general, I might, but when it comes to technology and Rand, I don’t. I think he’s got that wrong. It feels simultaneously cliched and dystopian.
Yes, I agree that there is something wrong in the way Curtis links the Rand cult to his argument. That felt wrong to me from the very start.
I also disagree with his premise about technology, but tying it to Rand was the clincher. The funny thing is, if I could set that aside, I would still love to see it.
I’m curious to continue watching to see if he ditches the focus on Rand. Of course, having begun the film as he did, he really can’t, even if he ceases references to her.
Another thought: I gather that voice-over narration is actually more typical of the bulk of Curtis’s work than is the purely musical soundtrack of It Felt Like a Kiss. That could in fact be part of the problem.
It Felt Like a Kiss is just about perfect. I’m going to watch that over and over.
And I’ll tell you what, Deron. I’ll watch the rest of it so you don’t have to!
I think you should try to suspend your disbelief and watch the rest of it. He makes an argument that is bigger than the connection of Rand with Silicon Valley. Also bear in mind that that is one episode of a three part series, I think the third has just been broadcast on the BBC, will probably be on archive.org and youtube in due course.
Sheila, if it shifts, let me know.
Lucy, good to know.
Did you get to the part with Greenspan before you switched off? He really starts to get into the meat of the matter at that point.
That’s right where I switched off. I’ll take a look.
Well it’s just very interesting. If you take it as a series of very interesting pieces of information and sub-arguments you’ll get more out of it. The Rand thread is fascinating in its own way as it progresses through the episode but it’s very tenuously connected to the machine theme. Not that I care, really. Nice scene where Joseph Stiglitz talks about how Wall street was running the White House during the Lewinsky affair.
Lucy, it’s great to see you here.
I was thinking the same thing.
Cheers Cindy, I felt this post was addressed directly to me so it would have been rude not to step in.
I hope you’ll step in more often. We’ve missed you around here.
Oh. Actually, your tweets came at the end of collecting a few links and resources to think about as I was watching it. I did think of you and Sheila, though, in terms of experiences. Which is an attempt to say, the post wasn’t an attempt to call anyone out, if that’s the way it came across, but I am happy to hear your thoughts on it.
I didn’t feel called out — not in the bad sense! I just figured you were curious to hear others’ responses.
And yes, it is a good day when Lucy’s in the house.
Oh no, I meant that you asked about something I’ve been spending some time with lately.
Cool, cool.
Deron? I got to the middle of the second episode, and it was really spooky, as it speaks directly to something I’d scrawled yesterday when I began watching. About “the illusion of an ordered non-hierarchy,” sort of a Memo to Self.
Deron. Fassbinder’s “Holy Whore” and the communal ideal — the need for someone to take charge. Also — the process of making a film. Before or during trip to LA!
You might recall my recommending to you Fassbinder’s “Beware of a Holy Whore.” I really want you to see it, and it would dovetail with the Curtis film and with your visit to LA and with Amanda.
Sadly, it is not on Netflix, and the DVD is no longer available. I have a closely guarded VHS tape, but that probably doesn’t help.
Anyway. Keep it in mind, okay?
I will. I will.
I guess I went into it not caring what the premise was, that he was trying to make a statement. What is the premise anyway, that we are being colonized by the computers we are creating? I was mesmerized with the first episode (haven’t watched the others because i want my significant other to see it but she is being held hostage by USAir). Regardless of whether you agree or not with the premise, you can’t deny the influence Rand had on the economy, just her influence on Greenspan alone. I lived & worked in the silicon valley in the 80s & her books definitely had a presence there, they were on everyone’s shelves. I read into the Fountainhead differently (still haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, though after seeing this i’m curious)… i though it was more of a statement about artistic integrity, of not compromising, and yes, a justification for selfish interests. The selfish interest bit gelled me with me juxtaposed with my belief system being rooted in quantum physics, and the copenhagen interpretation thereof. But i thought it was fascinating her influence on Greenspan. Much as i don’t care for or know much about economics, i always felt Greenspan had more of an influence over the world then any other person in the 90s and early 00s (for better or worse). I’m still a bit traumatized living through the 90s and early 00s, working in and around dot coms, it was like living in la la land, i didn’t understand how it could all be so easy. I admit i was a cog in the machine. This 1st episode gave me a lot of insight into what happened then, and yes, i think our brains were seriously reconstituted as a consequence, and even more so now with the advent of social networking (the Carmen Hermosillo quote particularly hit home with me, of how we, yes, and that includes even clusterflockers, independent as we think we are, are inevitiably commodifying ourselves.). Incidentally, i showed this video to the wife of Jeff Sachs, who is currently writing a book on this very subject, and she says everything is accurate and true (though doesn’t jive at all with Rand). I don’t know, i guess to me it’s not a matter of whether it’s true or whether i agree, it’s all entertainment disguised as something else so it may as well be entertainment, art, and it is indeed well done, he could teach the likes of Michael Moore a thing or two. i didn’t feel he was imposing his will so much, forcing his points or being selective in what he showed, he just pieced together some amazing footage (1st episode worth it alone just for the Wallace/Rand interview) in a artful way, and maybe it’s because i’ve been colonized, cannibalized, by the machine, but i couldn’t stop watching & can’t wait to see the other two.
Well, shit. I have to see this.
[...] of episode 3 were a let-down, a cop-out that left me hanging (for perhaps the same reason that Deron couldn’t get past the premise): … But Hamilton’s ideas remain powerfully influential in our society. Above all, the idea [...]