Some comments on the new trend of the internet - media age called "Zeitgeist"

After seeing "Zeitgeist Final Edition" and "Zeitgeist moving forward" I wish to say the following few comments that I think sum up my view on such documentaries.

Firstly, documentaries, as opposed to films (popular films and "art" films) require a critical audience that is also aware of certain ethical and even moral issues that come with their making and viewing. Documentaries document certain realities concerning real events, people, historical landmarks and more. As Walter Benjamin once pointed out in his seminal essay "the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (Benjamin 1968), the mode of capitalism, being mass production and consumerism, has affected the arts and Beauty. Reproductions of stills, paintings etc through the mechanisms of capitalism, as Marx also perceived it, is characteristic of the 20th century as being the age of reproduction and mediation. Hence the critical discourse that has been going on for more than half a century on the nature of the cinematic medium, one which reproduces and processes images which immediately become mediated, loosing thus their virgin form as seen by a naked human eye, instead of a mechanical eye which places every image in the sphere of capitalism - production and consumption. However, it is not on the other hand a coincidence that this is one reason why fictional films, especially in the age of modernity and modernism have become intrinsically tied to Marcel Proust's quote: "we do not need to change the world. We need a new set of eyes to look at it."

Benjamin's concept applies greatly to documentaries primarily for the reason that they document facts and even form a public opinion (as is the case always with the general media). Let us get back to "Zeitgeist" Final Edition at this point. The director of the film, Peter Joseph, reproduces many images and sounds which have marked certain turning points of the last century as well as events which take place however in very specific and distinct of character contexts. One is the speeches of stand-up comedians who talk about religion. The director of the film extracts these jokes, and the laughter that follows from the audience from the original context and places them together with animation representations of the gospel, of Heaven and Hell. Thus, he removes these from their first place to support his claims and primarily to mock religion and to create an ominous atmosphere.

The most crucial image of course is that of the planes crashing in the Twin Towers in 9/11. The moving images, the sounds, the testimonies, which have become practically pop symbols of New Age Media, which undoubtedly Andy Warhol would reproduce in his famous "factory," are reproduced numerous times in the film in montage sequences, slowly, fast, in close-up etc. It is certain that by now it has become very difficult to define the source of these images. This is the key to Benjamin's notion. This constant reproduction solely in the internet, through numerous mediated screens (youtube) strips the image from any authenticity but also from its original context and character. primarily, an act of terrorism but also an immense tragedy which entails the deaths of more than 2000 people. However, the image of a man, a John Doe, falling from the tower, again in close-up, in montage sequences and so forth, is used only for the sake of projecting an image related to the general event. Other than that, the tragedy of 9/11 is reproduced in "Zeitgeist" to serve a certain purpose, that of proving a very vague conviction. A conspiracy theory which dictates that this was just one of the many inside jobs of a dark and mysterious band of people who conspire against the unaware lambs that we all are, thrown to the slaughterhouse. lets us skip all the other ethical issues and say the following concerning the content of Zeitgeist:

It is patronizing to say the least to claim that this man, Peter Joseph, is enlightened, a new age messiah, who knows the truth (what truth exactly?) and that we are all slaves, brainwashed and immersed in some kind of web of lies that "the men behind the curtain" feed us. Indeed, it has been proven over the last century that the United States have been responsible for immense crimes against humanity and that they have funded wars. This is something that "Zeitgeist" needn't prove to us as there have been numerous other films, documentaries and a vast literature on the matter (Arendt, Adorno, deleuze, Aliente, Kouloglou, Chomsky, Barthes, Sauper, Pakula, Pollack are just few names of artists and writers who have dealt with the matter). What Peter Joseph deals with is defined as fringe theories, which go beyond the rational and material world of perception, but simply into the realm of conspiracy theories. I will return to this soon, after I say this: In a quasi democratic world (let us adopt the idea that true democracy is utopia) where a film-maker like Joseph can make documentaries but a spectator as myself has the right to choose what to see and not, by simply pressing the red button on my remote control, I do not believe that I am a slave who needs to wake up to the good versus bad "truth" of a film-maker who, with absolution and fanaticism, serves us a perception of the world that we are asked to believe, as religion and governments do as well. I must say however that the man has provided us with evidence, which is of course biased and processed for the purpose of the film-maker, but it is not without some thought that I disregard this evidence. Therefore, let me say that until proven through more objective and unbiased means, I do not believe either the film-maker's or the legislator's side. I prefer to be critical towards any such approach.

The films deal with issues concerning religion, war, capitalism, the media, the destruction of the environment, pharmaceutical businesses and industries. These matters are scrutinized by Joseph in order to (arbitrarily) conclude that all these world-wide matters are impinged upon us in order to bring world slavery. yet here I am writing about this. Am I a slave, as lets us say George Orwell perceives it in 1984? Leaving that comment aside, let us examine one of these topics in conjunction with the crucial concept of intolerance.

Joseph, a film-maker, blogger and activist, searched very thoroughly into historical and conceptual matters concerning religion, from antiquity to this day. Again, he manages, maybe not so arbitrarily, to concentrate the deities, history, miracles and dogmas of religions from Ancient Greece, to Asia and Europe of the Renaissance and the 20th century, in order to state that plagiarism has been the rule by which every religion is formed. That doesn't seem untrue, as of course many scholars and researchers of biblical studies and archaeology have proven before Joseph, without of course the myopic and fanatical assumption that these are used for brainwashing and world slavery. This all comes down to one simple, and quite human issue: arrogance and intolerance.

Bill Maher in "Religulous," acquiring once again the position of a messiah for the enslaved people, essentially mocks and challenges people who are deeply religious (Christians, Muslims and numerous heretics of the United States such as Mormons and others) and fanatics as himself. Having obtained the idea that his ideas are the only true and meaningful (atheism essentially) he asks people how they can believe in a man living in the clouds who looks upon people etc etc but lets say not in Santa. His intolerance is displayed in many other instances, where, just like Nixon, Bush and other war and political criminals, he is unable to respect and acknowledge a culture and world perception different from his own. This is evident when he travels to the Holy Lands. This is the same approach adopted by Joseph in "Zeitgeist" Final Edition. None of these people are capable of abandoning the truly myopic view of the world which they have created (0bviously without reading any material from anthropology, ethnic studies, ethnoarchaeology and ethnography. By the way here are some names that are useful on this topic: Mead, Conckey, Levi-Strauss, Moody). They do not acknowledge, in their nevertheless, careful study, the right of every person to believe in a God, Santa or for that matter, fringe theories concerning conspiracies, alternate universes. Who am I after all to deny any of that? This critical approach I believe is healthy, in contrast to intolerance. The attitude of Maher and Joseph is no different from that which the conquistadors or the American troops had in the 15th century and the 20th respectively. The indigenous tribes of Latin America were seen as primitive and inferior in their cultures as opposed to the much more superior of the Portuguese and Spanish conquerors. Likewise, the Vietnamese people were perceived as slaves who needed to be freed by the yoke of communism, by their great liberators the Americans. This is not at all different from Joseph's perspective. We are all slaves who need to open up our eyes and stop believing in any religion and adopt his truth.

One may say that religious fundamentalism is an outcome of bad education. However, who and with what means will determine what should be taught and not? politicians? teachers? parents? and how did the teachers become teachers in the first place? it all comes down of course to free will, in a time when there are very many restrictions. But isn't the core of democracy that Ancient Greek notion that democracy requires that your freedom stops where another individual's begins? again, this idea has been highly scrutinized by scholars and philosophers, notably Plato in "The Republic." As evolution, these ideas constantly change and are in flux. But above all, we must be tolerant towards cultural difference, even if it seems to us as primitive or dangerous. This attitude alone, led to the most appalling crime of the 20th century, which very little has to do with religion, but merely with simple cultural attributes, with bigotry and intolerance: the Nazi death camps, images which again have been reproduced (notably in "Schindler's List" which reproduced Auschwitz and Nazi atrocities in a Hollywood studio). It truly worries me that so many young people use "Zeitgeist" as a banner for a 21st century revolution, a revolution which would probably lead to a new form of cultural fascism. If one cannot understand and tolerate cultural difference, then that person should at least leave it as mystery or primarily ask the people representing that culture if they actually want to change (according to one person's truth). let us remember here the films of Werner Herzog but also that one film of a fanatic enfant terrible, Lars Von Trier and his film "Manderlay."

Lastly, let me note that what is shown and said in "Zeitgeist Moving Forward" is not absolutely untrue, but of course all these matters have been debated by serious scientists who refer to matters concerning the environment, capitalism and industry in much more pure and scientifically objective frameworks without making the arbitrary claim that we are slaves. Again of course, we are all free to believe what we wish to believe.

My 20 most beloved movies from last to first