I remember watching another documentary from one of the filmmakers behind this one- called The Corporation- during media studies back in highschool, and I really didn't like it. I think I'd be more open to it and engaged by it nowadays, but I recall as a teenager being so frustrated by its repetition, dryness, and its length, where it took an interesting and important subject and proceeded to do a poor job of presenting it through the documentary format. I mention all this because with Manufacturing Consent, I had some similar problems, but it wasn't quite as frustrating as The Corporation, I'll admit. As a result, however, I came away from it feeling conflicted, as some of it felt vital, thought provoking, and important, while some of it was far too dense, convoluted, and ultimately infuriating.
Noam Chomsky is an interesting figure. That can't be denied. I didn't know much about him going into this, and found the parts early on in the film covering his upbringing and history to be among the film's best sections. He does bring up many solid, interesting points, but many of these don't really develop further. It's kind of like there's an idea introduced by Chomsky, and then that idea is just repeated again and again, and when it does come time to develop and explore such ideas, I'll admit it became complicated and hard to follow for me. It makes the documentary as a whole a challenge to get through; the density, language, and running time adds up to something that I don't think many people will be able to penetrate and understand. Admittedly, I only kept up some of the time.
This might not be as much of an issue if this film didn't have so much to say to the vast majority of the population. Being controlled by the media, as Chomsky and the filmmakers tell us, is something that can affect almost all of us. But if they're going to take such a dense and convoluted approach to explaining how this is, are those in danger of being controlled by the media going to be able to keep up? It might well be too frustrating for many, with the density of the information and complicated language giving me an impression that this may be a documentary that preaches to the choir more than it informs and educates the public at large; you know, the ones purportedly in actual danger. It is addressed by Chomsky, who discusses how you need time and detail to get some important points across, but at the same time, hooking people and allowing for a basic understanding to start off with is- I'd argue- just as important. There is no way that the majority of people will be able to keep up and understand everything being said here. It gets bogged down and borderline impenetrable at times, and I'll admit I'm no genius, but I find myself always being able to follow and understand the vast majority of documentaries out there. This one is probably the most complicated I've ever seen.
That being said, a lot of what's here is very important and worth thinking about. If you can get anything out of this almost 3-hour long and insanely dense film, it's probably still better than ignoring it altogether. It's dated in some regards presentation-wise, but being nearly 30 years old that's forgivable. When it comes to the message, a lot of it still feels very relevant, but it's interesting to note that for all the predictions of doom, particularly near the documentary's conclusion, the earth is still here, 28 years later. There are still problems discussed within, sure, but those problems haven't ended everything just yet. Nevertheless, the film remains in my mind, days now after watching it. Some of those reasons are surely intentional, on part of the filmmakers, but some aren't intentional (like thinking about the flawed presentation, excessive length, repetition, and overly complex narration from Chomsky himself. Also: I'm continually troubled by the infrequent but overly graphic war and holocaust images, which I really don't think were necessary and seemed a bit tacky in all honesty).
Chomsky is surely a brilliant mind, and full of ideas, but his communication skills might not be as great, in my opinion. I'm sure academics can follow him perfectly fine, but that goes back to my point about preaching to the choir: I think this film needed to put more effort into reaching a wider audience. And unfortunately, I think the film's directors are even less skilled at communicating than Chomsky, as you'd expect talented filmmakers to make his complex ideas and talks into a more fundamentally understandable and digestible format. It's an odd experience, watching all of this, and frustrating for its flaws as well as for the missed opportunity that comes with being so bizarrely complex and likely unable to reach a wide audience as a result. But at the end of the day, it's still important and at the very least interesting in parts, and if it is the case that most can follow Manufacturing Consent just fine, please feel free to disregard most of my last 800 words.
Noam Chomsky is an interesting figure. That can't be denied. I didn't know much about him going into this, and found the parts early on in the film covering his upbringing and history to be among the film's best sections. He does bring up many solid, interesting points, but many of these don't really develop further. It's kind of like there's an idea introduced by Chomsky, and then that idea is just repeated again and again, and when it does come time to develop and explore such ideas, I'll admit it became complicated and hard to follow for me. It makes the documentary as a whole a challenge to get through; the density, language, and running time adds up to something that I don't think many people will be able to penetrate and understand. Admittedly, I only kept up some of the time.
This might not be as much of an issue if this film didn't have so much to say to the vast majority of the population. Being controlled by the media, as Chomsky and the filmmakers tell us, is something that can affect almost all of us. But if they're going to take such a dense and convoluted approach to explaining how this is, are those in danger of being controlled by the media going to be able to keep up? It might well be too frustrating for many, with the density of the information and complicated language giving me an impression that this may be a documentary that preaches to the choir more than it informs and educates the public at large; you know, the ones purportedly in actual danger. It is addressed by Chomsky, who discusses how you need time and detail to get some important points across, but at the same time, hooking people and allowing for a basic understanding to start off with is- I'd argue- just as important. There is no way that the majority of people will be able to keep up and understand everything being said here. It gets bogged down and borderline impenetrable at times, and I'll admit I'm no genius, but I find myself always being able to follow and understand the vast majority of documentaries out there. This one is probably the most complicated I've ever seen.
That being said, a lot of what's here is very important and worth thinking about. If you can get anything out of this almost 3-hour long and insanely dense film, it's probably still better than ignoring it altogether. It's dated in some regards presentation-wise, but being nearly 30 years old that's forgivable. When it comes to the message, a lot of it still feels very relevant, but it's interesting to note that for all the predictions of doom, particularly near the documentary's conclusion, the earth is still here, 28 years later. There are still problems discussed within, sure, but those problems haven't ended everything just yet. Nevertheless, the film remains in my mind, days now after watching it. Some of those reasons are surely intentional, on part of the filmmakers, but some aren't intentional (like thinking about the flawed presentation, excessive length, repetition, and overly complex narration from Chomsky himself. Also: I'm continually troubled by the infrequent but overly graphic war and holocaust images, which I really don't think were necessary and seemed a bit tacky in all honesty).
Chomsky is surely a brilliant mind, and full of ideas, but his communication skills might not be as great, in my opinion. I'm sure academics can follow him perfectly fine, but that goes back to my point about preaching to the choir: I think this film needed to put more effort into reaching a wider audience. And unfortunately, I think the film's directors are even less skilled at communicating than Chomsky, as you'd expect talented filmmakers to make his complex ideas and talks into a more fundamentally understandable and digestible format. It's an odd experience, watching all of this, and frustrating for its flaws as well as for the missed opportunity that comes with being so bizarrely complex and likely unable to reach a wide audience as a result. But at the end of the day, it's still important and at the very least interesting in parts, and if it is the case that most can follow Manufacturing Consent just fine, please feel free to disregard most of my last 800 words.