Scott Noble's new film, "Human Resources"

[MacCruiskeen]

Subtitle: "Social Engineering in the 20th Century." Released online in November 2010.

This is a wonderful new two-hour film that covers & integrates a very wide range of topics. It consists mainly of often-stunning historical archive footage, interspersed with a number of fantastic speakers, some of them more-or less famous (Noam Chomsky, Michael Albert, John Taylor Gatto, Howard Zinn, etc.) but many of them previously unknown to me (e.g., George Ritzer, author of The McDonaldization of Society, and the educational theorist Alfie Kohn).

What this film achieves is precisely the kind of thing that bloody Adam Curtis gets praised incessantly for doing yet never actually does because he is quite simply several miles up his own arse.

The whole thing can be viewed for free at the filmmakers' own website, Metanoia:

http://metanoia-films.org/hr_watchonline.php

Some reviews:

“Brilliant… Riveting… The amount of material the filmmaker covers and unifies is astounding… Human Resources diagnoses the 20th century.”

- Stephen Soldz, Professor, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility

"Powerful… Must See… It will leave you spellbound.”

- Andrew Goliszek, Author, In the Name of Science:
A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation

“An important work…terrifying in its implications…. Human Resources is a must see for those of us who still take democracy seriously.”

- Bruce E. Levine, Author Commonsense Rebellion: Taking Back Your Life from Drugs, Shrinks, Corporations, and a World Gone Crazy

“It scared the shit out of me…A powerful and methodical dissection of the dominant culture.”

- Derrick Jensen, Author, Endgame

“A masterful examination of the mechanization of human existence… It is a rare occasion when watching a film can help open not only our eyes, but our minds.”

- Andrew Marshall, Centre for Research on Globalization

"A masterpiece. Unless you weep, you may be damaged by this film. Viewer discretion, and love, advised."

- David Ker Thomson, Professor, Language and Thinking Program at Bard College

"Scott Noble's work is a pioneering development in documentary filmmaking in its content,
documentary technique, and even distribution method. Watch his stuff, use it, and build on it."

- Chris Simpson, Professor, School of Communication, American University

http://metanoia-films.org/hr_acclaim.php

(I'll put this in the Data Dump too, but I wanted to post it here to hear people's responses to it, if any.)

[Wombaticus Rex]

Thank you for the heads-up, downloading that puppy right now. Sounds pretty perfect for the path I've been on lately.

[Bruce Dazzling]

This is awesome, Mac.

A bit like turning on the overhead lights in Plato's cave.

Thanks for posting.

[eyeno]

I usually have no problems with video but no matter what I try it says "this video is unavailable"

Anybody know another source?

[eyeno]

Found this but so far have not secured the documentary.
http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewto ... 5069f20ae4

[Wombaticus Rex]

Made it into a torrent...try this. I'm currently the only seed.

[Fresno_Layshaft]

There's a purple link underneath the video that says "Download" -- A 663MB .avi

No need to wait 3 days for a torrent DL.

[stefano]

Made it into a torrent...try this.

Thanks so much, I actually wanted to email Metanoia and ask. My connection isn't reliable enough for direct d/l of a big file...

edit and thanks Mac for the recommendation. I actually quite like Adam Curtis so if this is better, fantastic.

[Wombaticus Rex]

This was indeed a very important step in the right direction. Of special note to RI, it includes extensive interview footage with Dr. Colin Ross @ the end, which was a welcome suprise. I like to see people, it's an important part of the process of passing arbitrary judgment over their lives and work.

I'm really glad I watched this but I really didn't like it. This was research or homework, more than a documentary to recommend to people who want to learn more about this material. It definitely was more thorough and more methodical than Adam Curtis' work, which is probably more important than all the cosmetic points I'm about to talk shit about...

I wish it were better produced, for sure. I'm hesitant to recommend it to people, it's just not a general audiences kind of film, it's unpolished and almost unfinished at many points. Most of the interview footage is very lo-fi and in need of sharper editing -- most of the speakers are allowed to wander quite a bit, too. At 1:15 it would have been a much more effective documentary, as it stands it's exactly two hours. Michael Albert is, surprisingly, a truly bad speaker who doesn't even manage to explain himself during the course of his rambling, sign-language heavy presentation...it was honestly so bad it should have been cut. I like his work a lot, it's important, but it just wasn't good footage.

Unfortunately, Adam Curtis rules this realm because of the depth of his archival film (much of which was also used here) and his dedication to aesthetic style and ambitious editing. If Human Resources were as tight as Curtis' work, it would have been a home run. A little slick goes a long way.

[MacCruiskeen]

This was indeed a very important step in the right direction. Of special note to RI, it includes extensive interview footage with Dr. Colin Ross @ the end, which was a welcome suprise. I like to see people, it's an important part of the process of passing arbitrary judgment over their lives and work.

I'm really glad I watched this but I really didn't like it. This was research or homework, more than a documentary to recommend to people who want to learn more about this material. It definitely was more thorough and more methodical than Adam Curtis' work, which is probably more important than all the cosmetic points I'm about to talk shit about...

I wish it were better produced, for sure. I'm hesitant to recommend it to people, it's just not a general audiences kind of film, it's unpolished and almost unfinished at many points. Most of the interview footage is very lo-fi and in need of sharper editing -- most of the speakers are allowed to wander quite a bit, too. At 1:15 it would have been a much more effective documentary, as it stands it's exactly two hours. Michael Albert is, surprisingly, a truly bad speaker who doesn't even manage to explain himself during the course of his rambling, sign-language heavy presentation...it was honestly so bad it should have been cut. I like his work a lot, it's important, but it just wasn't good footage.

Unfortunately, Adam Curtis rules this realm because of the depth of his archival film (much of which was also used here) and his dedication to aesthetic style and ambitious editing. If Human Resources were as tight as Curtis' work, it would have been a home run. A little slick goes a long way.

Thanks for your reply, WR. But we're going to have to agree to differ about Adam Curtis. What you call Curtis's "dedication to aesthetic style and ambitious editing", I just call shallow tricksiness and self-indulgence. Example: 1950s golfer tees off /CUT/ 1950s nuclear bomb goes off! ... that kind of thing - that kind of meaningless pseudo-clever "associative" "visual pun" that tells us nothing of any interest about the 1950s, the Bomb, or even the game of golf. His films are packed full of that stuff, that eye-candy, that "quirky" "take" on things, and frankly it irritates the hell out of me. Because it's antithought, really - the triumph of the Spectacle at the expense of discursive thinking and actual serious attention to the world outside his own fascinating mind.

And when Curtis does affect to summarise the life and work of a really serious and honest thinker like R.D. Laing, all he can come up with is a string of lazy clichés, sloppy slanders and actual untruths, all of which serves an essentially reactionary agenda. The only reason he gets away with it is because very few people have actually read R.D. Laing (just for instance). They trust that clever fellow Curtis to have done it for them so they can take a warm bath in the stream of moving pictures. And of course because it's all narrated in that "wry" yet "authoritative" Oxbridge drawl.

Curtis is an adman, all style and very little substance (and much of that little substance is demonstrably false). Everything and everybody is grist to his mill, because the true topic of Adam Curtis's films is: The Genius of Adam Curtis. Well, I'm not buying it. I think he's a pseud, and a reactionary pseud at that.

- I didn't actually mean to write a polemic, but there you are, I've just done so. And one of the many things I admired about Scott Noble's documentary is the amount of space and time it gives to so many different speakers and real thinkers in different fields. It's very much a collective effort. It is not focussed on demonstrating the Genius of Scott Noble. It makes real connections between real things in the real world rather than indulging in fake and shallow "associative" "thinking" or creating flashy "visual metaphors" that are metaphors for nothing, but mere egotistical distractions.

PS Sorry if this comes accross as a bit aggressive, WR, but Adam Curtis really gets on my nerves. And you know, I hope, that the aggression is not directed at you personally. I'm glad, at any rate, that you agree Noble's film is well worth watching.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Nah, I don't feel you have imparted any guff in my direction. Curtis can fend for himself, and should, too.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Here's the Kubark Interrogation Manual mentioned in the final 15 minutes of the film.

[norton ash]

Great thread. You guys are the best.

[Fresno_Layshaft]

[
Thanks for your reply, WR. But we're going to have to agree to differ about Adam Curtis. What you call Curtis's "dedication to aesthetic style and ambitious editing", I just call shallow tricksiness and self-indulgence. Example: 1950s golfer tees off /CUT/ 1950s nuclear bomb goes off! ... that kind of thing - that kind of meaningless pseudo-clever "associative" "visual pun" that tells us nothing of any interest about the 1950s, the Bomb, or even the game of golf. His films are packed full of that stuff, that eye-candy, that "quirky" "take" on things, and frankly it irritates the hell out of me. Because it's antithought, really - the triumph of the Spectacle at the expense of discursive thinking and actual serious attention to the world outside his own fascinating mind.

When making a films composed entirely of stock footage how does one avoid "ambitious editing"?

[eyeno]

I watched both Human Resources and Psywar. I thought they were pretty good. I appreciated the explanation about what socialism truly is because most people don't understand it.

Thank you for your assistance in helping me with the video problems.