Read the following review and discussion about the movie, taken from Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things, then, write your own opinion, both about the movie itself and the comments you read.
From: http://boingboing.net/2007/08/06/jay-kinney-reviews-z.html
Jay Kinney reviews Zeitgeist, the Movie
Posted by Mark Frauenfelder, August 6, 2007 4:13 PM | permalink
I don't know enough about politics, history, or religion to have a valid opinion of Zeitgeist, but I was interested in getting a well-informed person's assessment of the documentary. I could think of no one better suited than Jay Kinney. He was the publisher of the late, great Gnosis Magazine, the author of several books on Western esoteric and occult traditions, and the author of The Masonic Enigma, "a journey of discovery into the real facts (and mysteries) of Masonry's history and symbols." He's also an amazingly talented cartoonist, and contributed to The Whole Earth Review which is how I first learned about him. (His 1987 article, "If Software Companies Ran the Country," where he compares Al Capp's Shmoos to infinitely-copyable software, remains as fresh and powerful today as it did 20 years ago).
At my request, Jay watched the movie, and kindly wrote the following review for Boing Boing:
Zeiting the Geist
The latest bit of guerrilla media to take the online universe by storm is “Zeitgeist, the Movie.” Clocking in at close to two hours’ length, and with over a million views on Google Video since its June 26th “official” release, Zeitgeist is a grabby, cranky, can’t-stop-watching-it documentary that purports to tell the real truth about Christianity, 9/11, and the International Bankers.
Exactly who is behind the video is unclear, although someone with the moniker of “Peter J.” has posted an online letter claiming credit and explaining Zeitgeist’s message to those who may have somehow failed to grasp the worldview that the video hammers home.
And what is that worldview, pray tell? Religions in general, and Christianity in particular, are primarily systems of social control. 9/11 was an inside job and the destruction of the WTC twin towers and building 7 were aided by controlled demolition. And finally, International Bankers, through the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), control our money and our future, leading to, ta da, the coming One World Government and the microchipping of everyone.
Exactly how all this fits together is left to the viewer’s imagination or, presumably, the film-maker’s hash pipe. Are those who manipulate Christianity for control purposes in cahoots with the Bankers, and were the Bankers in on the 9/11 caper? Zeitgeist sidesteps such logical questions through the use of the all-purpose term, “the elite,” a shadowy group of rich and powerful men who want nothing more than to enslave humanity and reap block-buster profits through the promotion of wars and financial crises.
For conspiracy buffs, this is all pretty standard fare, and, indeed, aficionados of the genre will find little new in “Zeitgeist.” The notions that most religions were originally a kind of solar worship, and that the Jesus Christ story recapitulated the mythos of numerous other “dying gods,” were floating around in the late 1700s. Fittingly, the video features a quote from Thomas Paine reducing Christianity to warmed-over sun worship, which was a daring bit of religion-baiting 200 years ago, albeit not so earth-shattering today.
The nefarious International Bankers meme has been propagating itself since at least the mid-1800s and has long been a mainstay of radical right-wing circles where it has often overlapped with mutterings about Jewish cabals.
The 9/11 truth segment of the video is, of course, of much more recent vintage, but, here too, it mostly repeats accusations that have gotten widespread play in the uber-skeptic milieu.
Breaking new factual ground is not what Zeitgeist is about, however. Rather, the video is a powerful and fast-acting dose of agitprop, hawking its conclusions as givens. Unfortunately, like most propaganda, it doesn’t play fair with its intended audience. At times, while watching it, I felt like I was getting Malcolm McDowell’s treatment in Clockwork Orange: eyes pried wide open while getting bombarded with quick-cut atrocity photos.
At other times, Zeitgeist engages in willful confusion by showing TV screen shots of network or cable news with voice-overs from unidentified people not associated with the news programs. If one weren’t paying close attention, the effect would be to confer the status and authority of TV news upon the words being spoken. Even when quotes or sound bites are attributed to a source, there’s no way to tell if they are quoted correctly or in context.
Late in the video, there’s a supposed quote from David Rockefeller, which, if genuine, would be an astounding confession of complicity in mass manipulation. But, of course, the quote is not sourced or dated, which renders it useless. (The video’s website does feature a Sources page, but a hodge-podge list of books, with no page numbers cited, is of little value for source verification.)
The over-all temper of the video is rather like the John Birch Society on acid, with interludes by Harry Smith. Incongruously, after spending nearly two hours trying to scare the bejeezis out of its viewers, Zeitgeist ends on an oddly upbeat note, telling us that Love — not Fear — is the answer, We are all One, and featuring sound-bites from Ram Dass and Carl Sagan.
It’s a shame, really, that Zeitgeist is, ultimately, such a mess. There are plenty of legitimate questions about what transpired on 9/11, just as there are plenty of shady doings in international finance or puzzling aspects of religious history, for that matter. And what is coming down in the name of National Security is truly unnerving. Yet, bundling them all together in disjointed fashion does justice to none of them. Time and again, Zeitgeist maximizes emotional impact at the expense of a more reasoned weighing of evidence. But, perhaps that’s the intention.
I’ve often pondered about what it might take to snap everyone out of the walking dream we collectively entered on 9/11/01. Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall provided the emotional pivot for the end of the Cold War, only a collective experience of an intensity equal to that of 9/11 might jolt us awake as to what is really happening in the corridors of power and certain undisclosed locations.
It’s my hunch that Zeitgeist is one attempt to provide such a jolt, and it does indeed pack a certain punch. Too bad it also runs off in three directions at once, and is so indiscriminate in its sources and overly certain of its conclusions. Zeitgeist may be powerful, but its power is tainted with some simplistic and pernicious memes that have already received more propagation than they deserve. The video’s producer does inform us that “It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth . . .”
Indeed.
Discussion
#1 posted by Anonymous, August 30, 2007 8:31 PM
You, like many others, attack the credibility of the sources, rather than look at the facts and dispute them. There is a video of our president getting upset when asked why he and vice president cheney would not answer questions individually, not under oath, not recorded and no press or family present! When the police have 2 suspects, what is the first thing they do? Seperate the 2, question them individually and record it.
There are also facts, rather evidence of the author's claims, in the sky! There are 3 stars, after the star in the east, that align with the sun on december 25th! The stories line up and the proof is in the sky. Look up and wake up! You are being lied to! While all of the claims and details in this movie may not be true, the general idea is supported by very solid EVIDENCE. Look at the profits of the defense contractors, and cheneys involvement, and then all of the legislation that has taken place on the heels of 9/11, and you have your proof. You people are ignorant and unwilling to consider that your president has an agenda simply because he quotes the bible. Again, I'm sorry to say it, but you are brainwashed folks. Keep blindly obeying the man, see where we end up. Shame on you for not asking questions.
#2 posted by Anonymous, August 31, 2007 1:54 PM
Kinney opposes the movie's stance yet makes no stance of his own.
#3 posted by Anonymous, August 31, 2007 3:35 PM
AMEN
or if you prefer
I BELIEVE
we all need to wake up
#4 posted by Anonymous, August 31, 2007 4:40 PM
It sounds like you had the recorder going after sharing a few cocktails together. Where's the rebuttal of facts etc?.....If you're going to question some the quotes and statements presented in the film, you better put in some time with your research and offer up something substantial...your critique sounds as lightweight as you accuse the film of being. I think this film is just meant to awaken a few people from their stupor and provoke them in to engaging in their own inquiries as to the veracity of received dogma, and hopefully spread the word. Questioning the status quo shouldn't throw you out to the fringes.
#5 posted by Anonymous, August 31, 2007 4:58 PM
Great review! Thanks!
#6 posted by Anonymous, August 31, 2007 6:05 PM
No matter what, the narrator is not forcing any views on us. The beauty of left-wing "propaganda" is that it leaves you to do all the work. Now religious views are stated as implied. The justification of numerous and continual war crimes is always stated as implied. And many involved in the institutions attacked by the movie are racing away from skeptics. What do they have to hide. A simple no comment would suffice. An arrogant refusal always works. But the lengths to which they go to hide so much information that is more than readily available to us is preposterous. Now I wouldn't have ever been interested in politics had I never read any Chomsky or publications such as Znet and the American Free Press. But they only managed to confirm suspicions that I've had purely from an assesment of the news. And all that libertarian speakers can do is point you towards the truth. It's hard to call them activists because they offer few solutions but as long as they're able to report facts freely I am obligated to trust and accredit them as genuine. Now you yourself stated having little knowledge of the topics addressed by the movie so at a first glance, to an observant person, the hypotheses would seem perfectly concordant. And as a natural skeptic,I always make sure to do my own research.
Every ten minutes while watching the movie, I would pause the movie and check out things that seemed uncertain. The stated points were all easily confirmed.
So before you can so easily denounce these overstated views, I'd suggest to always check the facts for yourself because we as typers of the web age are rarely hard up for every single possible view.
#7 posted by Anonymous, September 1, 2007 6:06 AM
I love it.
I love reading these reviews that use name calling and accusations of radical conspiracy groups as basis for the argument, it supports the film even more.
Like the other reviews I have read that question its validity, this one, again, summarizes by saying nothing at all.
I've yet to see a review that can hold its ground against the movie's claims as it is hard to argue against logic.
If you can't see how the three parts tie together, maybe it's because the pathetic education system never asked you to critically analyze anything but merely to regurgitate what you've heard.
Reform your brain or remain sheep.
The Rockefeller quote was from Alex Jone's interview with Aaron Russo - R.I.P.
#8 posted by Anonymous, September 1, 2007 2:24 PM
There are literally hundreds of statements in the first portion of the movie that contradict everything I have read about ancient mythology and world religions. There are also a great many statements that seem absolutely correct, and many more on which I am not qualified to have an opinion.
I can't really trust any of the claims made in this movie, since it makes so many false statements in part one. I'm no fan of Christianity, by the way. It does raise a lot of legitimate questions, however, and it makes me want to know more.
The Rockefeller quotations are just that - not tape recordings or documents written in his hand. It is intriguing, but it's what the law calls hearsay as far as evidentiary value goes.
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
"Zeitgeist: The Movie" is a conspiracy theorist's paradise. Don't get me wrong, I'm as leftist as leftist can be, but the movie's subjects are just not researched seriously enough for an educated audience to take it with a straight face.
ResponderEliminarThat's the beauty of academic research; it gives validity to your claims. The research in the movie could have been more thorough, the possible counter arguments could have been considered more, the claims could have bee made in a more formal (read: less tabloid) way. It feels like watching Michael Moore's films: you know he makes a good point, but you just can't trust the guy.
And that's also the great problem with bias; it alienates anyone in your audience who does not agree 100% with what you're saying. What I would advise people to do is, if they find the movie interesting, to actually go and research the subjects in it explored. You will find both that there's more to things than we're being told, and that the "facts" on "Zeitgeist: The Movie" are only haphazzardly explored and researched.
On the plus side, the soundtrack is great, and the excerpts of George Carlin and Bill Hicks comedy bits are awesome. Here's the full routine from George, quoted in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNy6ziOyxoA&NR=1
The soundtrack?!
ResponderEliminarOkay, I really don't take any position as to the movie: even though it truly made me question a lot I would've never questioned by myself, I think we should do our own research to come up with a position -which is hard, especially when you don't give much about religion or US politics.
I understand Allan's point on having counterarguments. It would've been better and more credible. But as to the first part of the movie, how would you do it? Religion, to me, is a matter of faith, not so much of reason. So, how would you put yourself in faith's shoes with numbers, facts and dates if you don't believe in it in the first place?
As to the comments, I disagree with the first one: it is obviously from hater who clearly doesn't believe in anything and is always criticizing others; I advocate for the second one.
that soundtrack's sick man!!
ResponderEliminarZeitgeist: The Movie
ResponderEliminarWhile I believe that Zeitgeist: The Movie makes some great points and really makes its audience question a lot of popular assumptions about the world, I am very skeptical about most of what the movie claims about Christianity (and religion in general), the events of 9/11, and International Bankers. For example, while I personally am not religious and am rather skeptical about certain religious beliefs, and I am not so naïve as to believe that the United States government had absolutely no prior knowledge of a potential terrorist act before September 11, 2001, I still think that the movie goes too far in many of its claims of conspiracy and corruption by the so-called “elite.” Too many of the movie’s sources are quoted or referenced without citations or are more than likely taken out of their original context. I personally am not convinced of the majority of the movie’s accusations or conclusions just because its “sources” do not seem valid and the movie just seems too overconfidently conclusive. So while I believe that the movie does a decent job of making me as a viewer skeptical about a lot of topics that should be examined more critically, I think the movie goes way too far and instead makes me more skeptical of the movie’s extreme accusations than I am about the topics it covers.
With respect to many of comments that the many “Anonymous” persons posted in response to Jay Kinney’s review, I think their authors are much too easily convinced by the movie‘s claims. The first post states that the movie uses “very solid evidence” right after he or she says that it is likely that “the claims and details in this movie may not be true,” which to me is completely counterintuitive. Another commenter attacks Kinney by saying that he does not provide any counter-evidence to the movie, but I do not think it was Kinney’s intent (or duty) to rebuff every point of the movie, but rather to call to light that many of the quotes and “evidence” presented in the movie are unfounded or taken out of context. I think a lot of the anonymous commentators should not be so quick to accept the movie’s claims and should just be aware that not all of Zeitgeist’s conclusions should be taken as absolute truth.
What can I say about the “documentary”? Any of the “facts” portrayed in “Zeitgeist” were new to me. Not that I am an expert, but the “theories” about Christianity, 9/11 and bankers are not exactly new. I would have to agree with Jay Kinney about the sources. How reliable they are? I think that when someone wants to really challenge the status quo, backing up your sources it VERY important. Like the other viewers and classmates, I think the documentary is good because it causes a reaction in the audience– and it makes people question themselves about their surrounding; the world.
ResponderEliminarI agree with must of the comments. I just got to say I like the chapter about religion because it is new info. Regarding the chapters about 9/11 and the bankers it wouldn't surprise me if all is true, I mean, for high percentage of Americans money and social status are above family, love, social respect and many other things. So they will do anything in their hands to achieve power. In other words if you ask me if those people did all that and will do more to rule the world I will say yes
ResponderEliminarSoooo the movie, film, documentary whatever you want to call it was rather clever and made points that made me question my religious beliefs and political stance, but that's it. I only see it is another point of view or another side to the story, which twisted my mind. I feel that the most important thing is for one to indeed question whatever is fed to them and research themselves. It amazes me, however, how much textbook history has lied to me in the past about my "great nation's history," which has been glamorized although it was founded on bloody injustice (shout out to MaryKate. I enjoyed the film, however it was not enough to change my stances on certain issues because I make my own thank you very much.
ResponderEliminarYour are all very right to say that Zeitgeist does not really inform us of any new theories against religion, 9/11, or the banking system. It does, however, present it in a way that the information becomes accessible to more people. So what is old to some, becomes new to others. In either case, I am glad a good many of us question this information. Regarding the attacks against the Christian religion, which by the way should be taken with a huge grain of salt, I was fairly surprised to see that after all that criticizing, they warned us about the dangers of a unified government and microchipping, which some Christians have discussed, for quite a while now, to be part of a sequence of events coming before the end of times. I'm not saying Christians came up with it, for it is evident certain political moves point to it and many experts recognize this, but it is funny to see how many people have judged Christians to be paranoid lunatics, and this super-anti-religious movie criticizes it as well (while some environmentalist, by the way, believe this is the ultimate answer for humanity -as presented in The 11th Hour, for example). This really made me laugh...
ResponderEliminarFor some people, this movie was some kind of a wakeup call. I compare this reaction with the movie The Matrix. “You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” This movie is definitively the red pill for some people. And as Allan said” That's the beauty of academic research; it gives validity to your claims.” As long you support your evidence with proven facts, it must be true. In addition, in the movie The Matrix, I’m sorry to insist quoting from this movie, Morpheus says to Neo when he took the red pill, "Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more." This should be the slogan for this movie. The facts shown in the movie have no counterarguments or whatsoever. So, you just can’t believe in something that a couple of minutes ago you just found out, unless you don’t like to think. However, other people wish that they would have never seen the movie because it gives a lot to think about. That’s why, I guess, people say "ignorance is bliss". If somebody wants to believe in what it is said in the movie is fine, but at least it would be a great idea to do some research. “The pathetic education system never asked you to critically analyze anything but merely to regurgitate what you've heard.”
ResponderEliminarIt is very interesting to see another prove of the hierarchy that society has established since ever. There are always people that controll other people and as this film shows, elite groups have manipulated all the humanity throughout centuries. In the movie all the proves that attack banking issues and the 9/11 "accident" fit perfectly togheter as a puzzle does. The only part that I don't agree with is the one about religion. For me, it is a mere criticism that is not even new; many people with other beliefs rather than Christianism have done the same.
ResponderEliminarI strongly agree with Herick's opinion that it is really hard to make people to have critical thinking. What makes this movie interesting is that it does not matter if the facts in it are true or not, what it matters is that this documentary, movie creates an impact. It makes us wonder about the truth or what we thought was the truth, so we start to be critical or at least, more aware of what is going on around the world and that we are part of that world.
ResponderEliminarI think that this movie, or documental shows an interesting point of view, especially because it presents facts that seem to be real. I consider that in this movie all the facts presented were curiously convincing. However, as we know information can be manipulated in order to induce people to follow an ideal. We need to remember that the arguments, presented in the movie, are meant to convince people that they have been manipulated all these time. Every single time that we want to persuade somebody about something we tent to use only pieces of information that fit with our theories. For example, if we haven’t read about anything that the movie present or we don’t know about politics or about religions itself, it will be easier for the author of the film to convince us about his point of view. Nevertheless, I am not telling either that the information presented in the documental was totally manipulated to make us believe what it shows because human history have proved how religion and politics have been used by many people to manipulate and control other people’s mind and will. Moreover, human history is about cheating and manipulation, so it may be possible that all the facts shown in the movie will be true. Therefore, I think that in order to understand better a movie like this, we should be well informed about the aspects that we are going to watch in order to be objective and believe what we are sure is reliable.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarThe review was reminiscent of a lot of the thoughts that I had throughout the movie. I definitely was unimpressed by how all the proposed "evidence" lacked context, and it looks like I wasn't the only one thinking that. I applaud those of you who also noticed this. Having a counter argument is nice, but not entirely necessary, when rejecting claims such as those made in the documentary. The reason it is not necessary is that the Zeitgeist movement is trying to persuade its audience; therefore it is the Zeitgeist movement’s responsibility to do their homework. Since it is a film, the communication goes in only one direction: FROM Zeitgeist TO the viewers. Therefore, as a viewer, I simply reject their point of view based on a lack of proper research. I'm always open to being proved wrong and if I see that I am wrong, I’m the first to admit it. However, Zeitgeist did not sufficiently back up their claims, so I simply reject it. In order to change my mind, it takes a lot more than twisting quotes, rapid-fire clips of pictures, the convenient and condescending dismissal of opposing viewpoints, and cafeteria-style truth (take what you want, leave the rest out). A persuasive piece that lacks context lacks credibility and therefore lacks my attention.
ResponderEliminarRegarding the movie, for me, the information presented is not enough to confirm or believe what he said. I think that he needed to do a deeper analysis. The first part did not convince at all and I found it offensive. The second and third part makes me to think more about the reliability of it; nevertheless, for me, it was more convincing than the first part.
ResponderEliminarAlso, the movie is useful in a way because it shows that there is always something behind the government and other public and private institutions that people are not aware of.
I agreed with the end of the comment #6 posted by Anonymous on August 31, where he wrote, “I'd suggest to always check the facts for yourself because we as typers of the web age are rarely hard up for every single possible view.” I agreed with it because we should always confirm if what we see and listen is true or reliable.
The movie surely is amazing, shocking and surprisig. It gives not only evidence but also facts that actually happened. I do not anything about the origins of religion or banking system, but what I know is that this world is full of people that want to take advantage of others for their own benefit. Definitely, as Costa Rican people say: "No hay cara en que persinarse," all of us cannot trust and believe everything we see or hear. I agree with the anonymous person on the Discussion #1 posted on August, what the movie presented cannot be true but the matter is to become conscious of what is happening around us. All of us need to open our eyes, and not to take everything for granted.
ResponderEliminarI am sorry I got several mistakes!
ResponderEliminarfirt line the word surprising
third line "I know anything....
Hi every body!!! I strongly agree with most of the comments above. The documentary is extremely revealing but it is also true that many of the information presented in the documentary is not reliable since it is not sourced or dated. I really like Jay Kinney’s reviews of the movie when he describes it as getting Malcolm McDowell’s treatment in Clockwork Orange. That comment exactly describes what the movie was for me … The movie also shows us important information, we never question before, which helps to develop critical thinking causing an impact on the audience.
ResponderEliminarBoth the movie and the comments seem very controversial. It calls my attention the reaction it causes on some of our classmates and I think on the general of people. TO say something that offers a new refreasing controversy idea that we have simply take it for a granted for so long makes one fell "mentaly dizzy". Religion and political interests surrond us for so long and with such power that we rearly stops ourself to question if waht they are telling us goes with our principles of life(because even our principles are mixes wirth the these ideas). I heard a comment after we watch the movie, "I rather keep ignorat". Once someone takes the basis of our thoughts one may start seeking for a new sense of life... I myself have to recognize this is a long and hard journey....
ResponderEliminarIt is an amazing movie that tried to open people's mind towars tthe perception they have about religion. I am not quite realigious even the fact that my parents are Jehovah's witnesses. I do see religion as a tool to control people and let them know that men continue to control the society.The movie did not mention at all women. all the examples bout domination were portrayed by men. the movie not only unmasks capitalist societies but also reveals the patriarcal world.
ResponderEliminarFGM Article Response:
ResponderEliminarThis article is extremely interesting and inspiring. I think all the women involved who are actively pursuing change are doing an amazing job and going about it in a culturally sesitive way; not only are they educating young men and women about the atrocities and dangers of FGM, but they are also offering an alternative (for a lack of a better word) to the practice. By presenting another ritual through which girls can learn their cultural responsibilities as women without FGM, they are demonstrating that there is another option, (or rather, the only, option) which is so much more effective than merely presenting the horrific facts about FGM and leaving it at that.