Bitter Lake (2015)

Even for an avid documentary lover this film manages to take the interest out of one of the most relevant topics of our time. I tried watching it twice but abandoned it 1.5h into the spectacle both times, because it was just annoyingly biased, simplistic content with a lot of predictable art school type 'look at my meaningful composition of clips' faffing. Incredibly hard to follow rambling type of story telling that does nothing to keep and peak the viewers attention at reasonable intervals.However, I guess it is noteworthy that at least someone is pushing the boundaries of narration and film making here.

There are a lot of very detailed and thoughtful reviews of this movie if you want more help determining if you should watch this film. I want to talk about how to watch it. Because you should, if you can stand it. I thought some of the information on the history of the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and how it affected Afghanistan to be interesting and relevant.But, as with a few other reviewers, I felt a lot of the footage was unnecessary and distracting. We learn that things aren't always as black and white as they presented to us in news stories - that the messages have been simplified to make it easier to grasp and perhaps to hide mistakes that have been made. But in this "experimental" documentary, the explanations are muddied with clips that perhaps are designed to make us think, but in my case a lot of my thoughts were, "What is the point of this?" "Bitter Lake" could be an important movie if it were a lean 80 or 90 minutes long instead of 2 1/4 hours.But if you try watching and find yourself losing patience at times as I did, or if you are hesitant to even start watching, I have a suggestion. Watch the screen only when the narrator voice-over is present. This will give you the bulk of the orderly, historical stuff. Look away when it shifts to people dancing, or a soldier balancing a small bird in his hand. Do text messages during the comedy movie clips, or when the camera focuses for 30 solid seconds on the death stare of a "freedom" fighter. Obviously, this will be more easily achieved watching at home than in a theater, and cost a bit less, also.

This film marks a new era in online content from both one of the worlds great broadcasters and filmmakers. Rather than be constrained by the formats of television and convention of breaking things up into mini-series (Curtis has already made several of such landmarks), Adam Curtis has been given the freedom to make a lengthy, challenging feature documentary that has gone straight to BBC iplayer.The result is a departure from his usual heavily-narrated work to a much more impressionistic piece of cinema that uses the metaphor of SOLARIS for the incomprehensible Afghanistan and related middle east conflicts. Raw footage is able to speak for itself. Typically cutting-room-floor material, such as shaky re-framing between shots is used to express something of complexity, like reading between the lines. The BBC's job is to be relevant and provide what the market is unable to do. Here, the BBC triumphs, Curtis having the shackles taken off has delivered a giant canvas of grey with various drip patterns, which is the perpetual mess of foreign intervention in Afghanistan and western policy in the middle east. The closer you get, the more complicated it is.Labor, Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans all get a hiding in the cyclical mess, which is examined via the extensive BBC archives to Which Curtis was given full access to. Some highlights include:Art teachers sent from England to the Afghan war effort to educate Afghanis about Marcel Duchamp and the early Avant-Garde. British "supermarket" for high-tech weaponry, set out like a luxury department store of big-toys whose customers are wealthy Gulf states. In Thatcher-era Britain, this was one of the most thriving industries. Highly recommended. This marks a new era because instead of bite-sized webisodes, this is a very serious piece of long-form filmmaking being made exclusively for what must become the main platform for public broadcasters world wide (online content). Though counterintuitive to what we perceive online content to be like, work like this is vital both in-itself but for breaking new ground and showing us what is possible with the relatively new platform/medium. Mike Retter

Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis Good Intentions Adam Curtis is a good film maker. He knows how to edit and use music to great affect but it is the message in his films that are extremely troubling.The message taken from Bitter Lake (2015) is very simple.The West had nothing but good intentions with their disastrous invasion of Afghanistan. The sole reason was to spread democracy. Politicians have simply lost their way and in doing so, lost the confidence of their people. What is needed is a new story to believe in.Really? Is that it? One interview with a British Captain towards the end of the film says more about the illegal invasion of Afghanistan then the two and a quarter hours that precede it. He says, quite matter-of-factly, "Opium, that is largely what the conflict is about."Opium "Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist and criminal groups... Cutting down the opium supply is central to establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the global war on terrorism," (Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles. Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004) The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime acknowledged, the Taliban prohibition of opium cultivation caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001″.Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored. Opium prices increased and by early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's 2014 Afghan Opium Survey, 2014 was a bumper year for the Afghan opium cultivation as it has once again hit a record high.So how is Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade facilitated?Soviet InvasionZbigniew Brzezinski admitted CIA intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion.Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ("From the Shadows"), that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralisation and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998 September 11th 2001 Surely after the far superior The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004), a few questions should have arisen concerning the culpability of the horrific events of September 11th 2001? Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit states, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11." Milli Gazette, 6/11/2006In the final statement of the film, Adam Curtis limply states "What is needed is a new story and one we can believe in!" A new story? Is that all?How about these words - "What is needed is truth and people we can believe in!" Adam Curtis is apologist for the mainstream orthodox view. He asks few questions about the deeper reasoning behind these seemingly perpetual wars. He simply makes statements that exonerate criminals for their obvious crimes.