15-09-2011, 10:07 PM
The more comments, the better, Carsten.
The film can be analyzed as a film. The fellow who twice refused to pass me in a mandatory course on the history of film would be surprised to hear me speak of this (sitting and watching old Eisenstein movies at 10AM when you are a 22-year old college student is not fun), but the film can certainly be discussed as information, communications, perhaps even propaganda. The film (different than in Eisenstein's era because we have control of the projector and can stop and read a huge number of frames to see the title, author, date, headline or other piece of information that can easily be fact-checked or verified) can be discussed in terms of errors, fact checking, 'analytical validity" (as you say, juxtaposition of items, events, etc,, or the dot-connecting). The video can be analyzed in terms of source, author of the narrative, inputs (fiscal and otherwise). The film can be analyzed in terms of purposeful manipulation; is it present? The film can be seen as the joint product of several entities, and the political backgrounds of those entities ascertained (dominantly US Libertarian)(is there a difference among Libertarian philosophies as they move from nation to nation?). That the Libertarians and Ron Paul are opposed to the Federal Reserve is a given.
It is a very complex subject, and one made doubly and triply complex by linking events (Oklahoma bombing, the first WTC bombing, 9/11, et al).
But isn't that what we try to do here at DPF? Do we analyze events as separate entities or do we begin to see similarities, the same players, etc.? [A trend started by Peter Dale Scott...]
I can recall an earlier film entitled "Who Killed John O'Neill" [ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...3523144457 ] which utilized the story-telling technique of having two intense protagonists charting and linking facts by Post-It notes and string.
The film can be analyzed as a film. The fellow who twice refused to pass me in a mandatory course on the history of film would be surprised to hear me speak of this (sitting and watching old Eisenstein movies at 10AM when you are a 22-year old college student is not fun), but the film can certainly be discussed as information, communications, perhaps even propaganda. The film (different than in Eisenstein's era because we have control of the projector and can stop and read a huge number of frames to see the title, author, date, headline or other piece of information that can easily be fact-checked or verified) can be discussed in terms of errors, fact checking, 'analytical validity" (as you say, juxtaposition of items, events, etc,, or the dot-connecting). The video can be analyzed in terms of source, author of the narrative, inputs (fiscal and otherwise). The film can be analyzed in terms of purposeful manipulation; is it present? The film can be seen as the joint product of several entities, and the political backgrounds of those entities ascertained (dominantly US Libertarian)(is there a difference among Libertarian philosophies as they move from nation to nation?). That the Libertarians and Ron Paul are opposed to the Federal Reserve is a given.
It is a very complex subject, and one made doubly and triply complex by linking events (Oklahoma bombing, the first WTC bombing, 9/11, et al).
But isn't that what we try to do here at DPF? Do we analyze events as separate entities or do we begin to see similarities, the same players, etc.? [A trend started by Peter Dale Scott...]
I can recall an earlier film entitled "Who Killed John O'Neill" [ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...3523144457 ] which utilized the story-telling technique of having two intense protagonists charting and linking facts by Post-It notes and string.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"