At any rate, try to see this at your earliest opportunity. I'd love to discuss it with others who have experienced it. I still think this is one of the best (and most entertaining — often disconcertingly funny) nonfiction films I have ever seen. Since it consists of three one-hour parts, watching it on your PC is hardly an acceptable substitute for seeing the film in a theater or on DVD (or TV), but none of those methods are likely in the near future. If you have a fast connection, an alert frame of mind, and a little time, please take a look. By the end of the first 20 minutes, you may find yourself as hooked as I was/am.
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Why do I get the feeling that this movie got its strong reactions--sustained applause and cheering at the end--because the audience was seeing what they wanted to see? That irrational preconceptions molded their responses?
If anything, the disconcerting message of the fim should have met with sobering alarm.
2 - Matt Riviera
I saw the film when it aired on the BBC in the UK, and also felt the impulse to stand up and cheer, or at least phone a few friends to tell them about it.
Don't worry, the film is both sobering and alarming. I think the reason I felt like applauding is because it's one of the rare dissenting voices in the current homogenous media landscape, and that's something worth cheering for. It's a cleverly formulated piece of activism which dares to say out loud things that many are thinking, not just in the UK but in the US as well.
I really recommend this film, not because it's has the final word on the rise of terrorism and that of the neo-conservatives, but because it offers a different perspective, one which enriches the debate tremendously.
3 - Gordon Hauptfleisch
Nevertheless, for the film to dismiss the notion that there is or ever was an Al Queda is so patently absurb and discreditably crackpot that I can't see Curtis' assertions to amounting to anything more than left-wing screed that has found a ready-made audience of conspiracy hounds. To cite--as indicated in the review--Peter Bergen in the Nation:
"But [Curtis] blows it when he concludes that Al Qaeda is a phantasmagorical construct of US officials...
Indeed, there is an excellent example of how this global organization operated that, for obvious reasons, goes unmentioned in Curtis's documentary. In December 2001 Singaporean authorities arrested thirteen operatives of Jemaah Islamiyah, the largest Southeast Asian terrorist group, for planning to blow up the US Embassy there. It transpired that those operatives had videotaped the embassy as part of their preparations for attacking it and had sent a copy of the tape to Mohammed Atef, Al Qaeda's military commander in Afghanistan, so he could give the operation his blessing. In addition, a man who went by the alias of Hambali was simultaneously Jemaah Islamiyah's operational commander and a member of Al Qaeda's shura council, or deliberative body. Although Burke in his book was correct to emphasize that lumping together all the jihadist groups from around the world as "Al Qaeda" is a serious oversimplification, that does not change the fact that there was an Al Qaeda organization (an organization that has now largely been replaced by the militant jihadist ideological movement from which Al Qaeda first sprang and to which Al Qaeda has now given a tremendous boost)."
4 - handyguy
The applause was largely due to how exhilaratingly well made the film is. Adam Curtis uses the medium as skillfully and entertainingly as anyone ever has, turning what could have been a dry essay into something much more riveting. Of course this was in New York, and there was plenty of liberal/left/anti-Bush sentiment in the room, but it was also at a film festival, and people were reacting to a really great movie.
It's also helpful to think of the film as a work of exploratory ideas, not a recitation of facts. Thus to focus on whether or not Al Qaeda is a real global network is to miss the larger point: the fear of terrorism has given politicians a means to extend and consolidate their power.