Docufilm to get you thinking??

Dabko

This is probably an old topic but only seen zeitgeist for the first time last night.
For a picture that was put together in 2007, it sure as hell answers alot a today's questions??

Food for thought i guess.

(the link is for you tube, im sure though you can download the flick in entirety elsewhere?)

Joycey

Dabko wrote: »

For a picture that was put together in 2007, it sure as hell answers alot a today's questions??

Food for thought i guess.

Not really. Zeigeist is sensationalist, conspiracy theoretical poo.

If you actually want to learn about the questions Zeitgeist purports to answer instead of just being shown an elaborate, three quarters BS fiction surrounding them, take a look at this crash course in economics:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-1-three-beliefs


If your genuinely interested in the issues then watch the first 3 chapters and you will be hooked.

AnonoBoy

Oh good Lord.

Zeitgeist is a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense. 5 minutes research disproves the entire first section. As for the 9/11 sh*te - that's all been long ago showed as inaccurate.

And on top of all that it's really poorly put together. Shoddy shoddy shoddy with appalling voiceover.

Ugh!

BuachaillAbroad

A good movie is "Why We Fight".

It's about the links between American arms companies & their involvement/influence in American wars.

I found it very nteresting.
...
Must check out that Zeitgeist flick

L31mr0d

there's a thin line between documentaries and propaganda I've found. Quite a few I've seen clearly have a biased agenda to their viewpoint.

However another good one is "Earthlings". You will either turn it off after 5 minutes, or be in tears at the horror by the end of it. I did feel it was biased towards a pro-PETA standpoint, however I can't resolve the fact that this is actual footage of animals being mistreated so it did and still is happening now. It made me completely change my opinion on how we as humans view and treat animals. It deals with all aspects of animal exploitation, for medicine, food, clothes and entertainment.

Regardless, if you watch it in entirety it will get you thinking and you probably won't eat meat for a few days after watching it also, if ever again.

purple_hatstand

Any piece which sets out to present a point of view (as the 'Zeitgeist' films do) cannot really be classed as a documentary. It is almost the same as the difference between investigative journalism and the editorial/comment pages in the written press.

As a film, 'Zeitgeist' is hampered by its obvious budgetary restrictions and by the disjointed feel it has as a result of its 3-pronged narrative. To be successful in delivering its message(s), it should have been shorter and more focused. The second film is better but is hindered by repitition, a lack of conviction in the second half (ironically, it is the absence of the voice-over for long stretches which makes it drift) and, again, it's way too long.

Whether or not you subscribe to any of Mr.Joseph's beliefs is probably irrelevant in the film forum, but the irony of dismissing his research with 5 minutes' research of your own (anonoboy) is quite hilarious! Anything which challenges the way you think (even if it's only for 5 minutes) is worthy on some level.

Incidentally, I had high hopes for 'Religulous', but found it, repetitive, unintelligent, unenlightening and surprisingly unfunny.

kierskoe

purple_hatstand wrote: »

Whether or not you subscribe to any of Mr.Joseph's beliefs is probably irrelevant in the film forum, but the irony of dismissing his research with 5 minutes' research of your own (anonoboy) is quite hilarious! Anything which challenges the way you think (even if it's only for 5 minutes) is worthy on some level.

I would imagine the "5 minutes" statement is a deliberate exaggeration to make a point. The fact is that with little research or even a small amount of common sense the "facts" which the film proposes are just plain ridiculous and unsubstantiated. In my opinion a documentary which has no factual information, cites no credible source(s) and deliberately try's to con its audience in order to profit is not worthy of anything. It doesn't challenge anything it just plain lies, to challenge would presume it provides an intelligent argument.

An interesting docu I recently watched was "Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon".

jotom

9/11 sh*te - that's all been long ago showed as inaccurate.

i'm sorry, when was 9/11 ever sh*te, inside job or not?

that's all been long ago showed as inaccurate.

since when? there are nearly 400 extremmely relivent questions left unanswered by the commission.

purple_hatstand

kierskoe wrote: »

I would imagine the "5 minutes" statement is a deliberate exaggeration to make a point. The fact is that with little research or even a small amount of common sense the "facts" which the film proposes are just plain ridiculous and unsubstantiated. In my opinion a documentary which has no factual information, cites no credible source(s) and deliberately try's to con its audience in order to profit is not worthy of anything. It doesn't challenge anything it just plain lies, to challenge would presume it provides an intelligent argument.

An interesting docu I recently watched was "Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon".

FAIL

Did you deliberately miss my first paragraph - which it appears you agree with? Zeitgeist is not (IMO) a documentary - that's clear, I hope.

As for the actual content of the film, as I said, I believe it is irrelevant to discuss it here - the nature of "research" is interesting, though in these days of wikipedia etc. when we all have such easy access to "the truth". If we can learn how to tell the difference between: 1) self-evident truth and 2) beliefs/opinions/feelings & superstitions.......then surely we'll al be better off no matter what they turn out to be.

AnonoBoy

purple_hatstand wrote: »

but the irony of dismissing his research with 5 minutes' research of your own (anonoboy) is quite hilarious!

Glad you found it hilarious. All I had to do was open a couple of books to debunk the 'claims' made in the religion section of Zeitgeist. The whole 'December 25th' claims alone are so inept it's absolute astounding that even a hack such as the Zeitgeist creator kept them in.

jotom wrote: »

9/11 sh*te - that's all been long ago showed as inaccurate.

i'm sorry, when was 9/11 ever sh*te, inside job or not?

that's all been long ago showed as inaccurate.

since when? there are nearly 400 extremmely relivent questions left unanswered by the commission.

Honestly? Take it to the Conspiracy Forum (via the spelling forum).

Dave!

'Fog of War'

AnonoBoy

Dave! wrote: »

'Fog of War'

Now that is a documentary that will make you think.

kraggy

L31mr0d wrote: »

there's a thin line between documentaries and propaganda I've found. Quite a few I've seen clearly have a biased agenda to their viewpoint.

However another good one is "Earthlings". You will either turn it off after 5 minutes, or be in tears at the horror by the end of it. I did feel it was biased towards a pro-PETA standpoint, however I can't resolve the fact that this is actual footage of animals being mistreated so it did and still is happening now. It made me completely change my opinion on how we as humans view and treat animals. It deals with all aspects of animal exploitation, for medicine, food, clothes and entertainment.

Regardless, if you watch it in entirety it will get you thinking and you probably won't eat meat for a few days after watching it also, if ever again.

In what way did you feel it was biased towards Peta? I thought it was purely factual, non-sensationalist. There's no getting away from the footage it shows.

Brilliant documentary that I watched last year on your recommendation by the way.

kierskoe

purple_hatstand wrote: »

FAIL

Did you deliberately miss my first paragraph - which it appears you agree with? Zeitgeist is not (IMO) a documentary - that's clear, I hope.

As for the actual content of the film, as I said, I believe it is irrelevant to discuss it here - the nature of "research" is interesting, though in these days of wikipedia etc. when we all have such easy access to "the truth". If we can learn how to tell the difference between: 1) self-evident truth and 2) beliefs/opinions/feelings & superstitions.......then surely we'll al be better off no matter what they turn out to be.

Wow I got "Fail".. in all caps as well, not only are you current and hip, you are also witty and not one to argue with... thank you for putting me in my place.

Label it documentary or not, makes no difference to my point. It is obvious what the filmmaker is trying to convey but it has no "worth" as you put it, for reasons I have already stated... though im sure you will probably miss my point this time around as well and shatter my confidence with another sassy one worder followed by pretentious drivel.

L31mr0d

kraggy wrote: »

In what way did you feel it was biased towards Peta? I thought it was purely factual, non-sensationalist. There's no getting away from the footage it shows.

Brilliant documentary that I watched last year on your recommendation by the way.

Well it doesn't show both sides of the coin such as people who have to kill animals for food and clothes because they have no choice (Inuits for example), and the benefits of medical research on animals and what this world would look like without it (I find it Ironic that PETAs Vice President also uses medicine for her Diabetes that we only have because we tested it on animals).

Plus I found the score to be very emotive in this documentary. In my opinion a documentary meant to portray both sides of an argument and then explain why one choice is more beneficial to the other, should not use any form of audio score that could evoke an irrational emotive response.

Take Louis Theroux for example, you'll be hard pushed to find any of his documentaries that have any form of musical score over it to taint the viewers reaction.

While enlightening and interesting and something I think all humans should watch, it does need to be taken with a pinch of salt, and also research independent of it should be done on the other side of the coin to form a balanced opinion.

Joycey

L31mr0d: take a look at a film called "Night and Fog" by Alain Resnais. Its the single best piece of film ive ever seen about the holocaust, half an hour long and incredibly powerful. However Resnais does something really interesting with the score/narrative voiceover, he deliberately puts in this jaunty, folky French music, even over the most awful footage, and he asked the actor who did the voiceover to keep his voice absolutely deadpan, completely flat, no emotion whatsoever seeps through, except at one particular point in the film.

I highly recommend it, though you wont forget it after you watch it.

Another documentary in the same vein is called "The Blood of Beasts" (both in French BTW), same kinda thing is done with the voicover/narration, but its about a slaughterhouse in France in the 1950s, made by a horror director influenced by surrealism.

Both well worth checking out and both are floating around on youtube as far as I know...

purple_hatstand

kierskoe wrote: »

An interesting docu I recently watched was "Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon".

Points taken and understood. And apologies for the tone of my post - it is not my intention to upset anyone.

I just believe that Mr.Joseph is as entitled to his opinions as we are to ours and that his chosen method of sharing those opinions is fairly harmless.

I remain at least as sceptical of his opinions as I am of the "facts" which may be found on wikipedia (and similar...), in the bible and in press releases put out by governments/banking institutions etc...which he attacks. I don't think scepticism is unhealthy.

Could you give me a link for more information on the film you mentioned? I found a book of the same name by Daniel Dennett which looks interesting - are they related?