your just upset you never got to see it in all its glory.

the film is the was the centre section of a walkthrough theater production with curtis and punchdrunk theatre company. The first half of which you with 6 others walk through rooms set out like clips form his docs.

then the middle is the film.

then the second half is something that scared the living daylights out of me and having been in there for hours quite disturbing.

You will never get this film unless you attended one of the performances in manchester. On its own the film doesnt make sense, but Just hearing that song now is giving me the creeps

http://www.mif.co.uk/events/it-felt-like-a-kiss/

Except that particular Freudian intellectual edifice ultimately rested upon a mistranslation/comprehension of Ancient Egyptian of all things. It was complete crap but utterly compelling, otherwise well researched and well presented.

I think there are many forces which drive culture both ideological and psychological, but that Curtis pulls a Freud and creates an argument that may be either wrong or just part of the truth. Furthermore arguments by design, like his, appeal to our inner conspiracy theorist, tendencies that drive sales of books like the Da Vinci Code and are exacerbated on the Internet.

The problem is that Curtis is really clever, so its like watching the best version of what may or may not be conspiracy theorist nonsense (frankly I don't know).

I'll give a concrete example that makes me suspect this, however. Curtis' next film is about the Internet. His premise (expressed in the interview in the post above) is that the Internet changes communication because it allows people to take more time to create deeper more thorough, longer pieces than TV which is based on short term engagement of an audience.

This sounds like someone who is imagining the Internet rather than using it. You may be able to create a 3 hour in-depth multimedia presentation online because you don't have a BBC commissioner telling you not to, but to argue that people's attention spans are longer means that you have never immersed yourself in LOLCats, Perez Hilton, Twitter, and Youtube.

He is confusing the flipping of the pre Internet world limited channels, with finite supply and insatiable demand to the fact that now there are unlimited channels and content but people are competing for people's finite attention. They end up doing that competing with 30 second videos, 140 character articles and cute pictures of cats.

Curtis' argument about the Internet is wrong but plausible. I think the same might be true of The Century of the Self, Pandora's Box etc.

Incredibly, considering that much of what he says about things like the PR industry is backed up by evidence, that implies that perhaps these industries themselves are largely based on fallacies – but that is another story.