I'd be more critical about Shifty than The Crown. Shifty claims to be a documentary and we expect facts to be correct, The Crown is a drama and its okay to use dramatic licence if it improves the story
I'd agree with that, but I think it's up to other people to make their own mind up - for example, are these two things I've spotted the only issues like that, or is there more? How major are they etc
I think one issue too where The Crown comparison is apposite is the extent to which Curtis' entire style is enabled by an ability to play fast and loose with facts in a way that's unchallenged on screen.
The makers of The Crown would rightly say that dramatic licence and an ability to tweak timelines is necessary to make it work as entertainment.
A problem that's been highlighted with Curtis' previous work and now this is that his style relies on being able to be fast and loose with facts and timelines in order to tell the "story" he wants to tell and is what makes his work popular. If he'd gone in and added the caveats about the Thatcher speech to make it true then the whole thing would be more prosaic - even if it came to a similar wider conclusion in the end.
Unlike a traditional documentary - which relies (or at least should) rely on taking a balanced, thorough approach to its subject - interviewing protagonists and witnesses with differing views, presenting documentary evidence and so on. But that's often quite dry, not overly revelatory, and makes it harder to win awards and acclaim unless you've turned up something genuinely newsworthy and important you can back up.
I'd recommend you spend your (valuable) time watching The Gold, which is a drama based on the 1983 Brinks Mat gold robbery, and the efforts of those involved to either not get caught with the money, or (on the police side) catch those with the money. The real-life villains includes such names as Kenneth Noyes, who became infamous for quite a different reason later. Two series, all on iPlayer, get it while it's hot. Quite a lot of the detail appears to be true, and they say that other bits are inferred or figured out. Probably as good as Curtis on the truthiness scale, but much more fun to watch.
First series of The Gold is truly fabulous, one of my favourite things on telly for years. (Haven’t watched most of S2 yet.) It is quite close to The Crown in its approach though - if you read the accompanying book by Neil Forsyth (the screenwriter/showrunner), a lot of the story has been very flattened out and some major characters are totally invented. As another commenter said, I think this is fine in drama so long as the viewers are aware they’re watching a fact/fiction blend. The problems arise when viewers take drama as gospel. Not sure how you legislate for that - drama has to be allowed to be drama. If it was 100% true it would be news coverage and hardly anyone would watch it... But I do understand why real-life people featured in The Crown get fed up and feel misrepresented. (Not much sympathy for most of the wrong ‘uns represented in The Gold.)
On another tip - as a long term Adam-Curtis-non-enjoyer I’m fascinated that the dam seems to have broken with this most recent film. Until now I’ve always felt alone in my irritation, and now suddenly it feels like there are thousands of us saying ‘this is credulous bollocks for over-excitable people who like conspiracy theories set to ambient techno’. I saw someone call him a ‘gabbling twat’ on Bluesky the other day, I felt very seen.
Ah, then this is where I recommend Justwatch.com (which also has an app so you don't have all the tedious repeated logins) which will tell you on which streaming service, for how much, a TV programme/series or film is available.
Thanks, might try it. I tend to just use "my watchlist" on Google, which does quite a lot of that, but that looks like it might have more bells and whistles.
I guess we'll never truly know how Thatcher managed to prevail against a government that had spent the past few years presiding over rampant inflation and widespread strike action. It's a riddle for the ages.
Er...no. Inflation fell to 5% by 1982, it had been as high as 25% under Labour. 12.9 million days were lost to strikes in the 1970s, in the 1980s that fell to 7.2 million days.
I'm guessing you didn't live through the 70s or 80s?
Obviously, you do know the situation was more complex than you suggest.
In May 1979 when she came to power, inflation was about 7%, though already going in an upward direction. It went to 15% by the end of 1979 and went down to about 5% in 1982. Her policies were based on controlling 'the evil of inflation' and bringing it down, which is what happened.
Reduction of lost strike days is an even more complex issue because, as unemployment doubled to 3 million by 1982, there were fewer potential strikers in a job! 1978 was an infamously bad year for Callaghan's gov't as the media-driven so-called 'winter of discontent' kept the headlines going. The 70s also included the disastrous Heath government, with the 3-day week caused by coal strikes, along with strikes in the motor, shipping and steel industries.
The 1979 Tory poster with a long (dole) queue of people claiming 'Labour isn't working' was a classic sign of disinformation. More prophetic than descriptive. [Similar imagery was regurgitated by Farage only a few years ago, characterising immigrants, and again, more prophetic than descriptive. Funny that, innit!]
Thatch and my local MP Keith Joseph had no regard or care for the impact of unemployment. Tebbit was more of a caring chap and advised people to get on their bike, in between asking them to decide which cricket team they would support or play for. So yes, clearly, I was around in the 70s and 80s.
There is nothing complicated, you claimed there was high inflation and levels of strikes under Thatcher, there were not. If you lived through those days that makes things worse not better.
Well, it is complicated according to the Office of National Statistics, inflation spikes during 70s and 80s were preceded by 'oil shocks' rather than government policy. Indeed, inflation doubled to nearly 10% in 1990.
The engineered recession between 79 and 82, which lowered inflation along with allowing unemployment to rise at the end of the 70s and into the 80s, was the application of specific government policy.
And yes, many people felt and even were better off in the Thatcher years due to financial deregulation benefiting the South East and with the cheap purchase and subsequent profitable sales of Council houses.
These are facts, not opinions, whether they are lefty, emanating from someone's mouth in their trousers, or otherwise.
Meaningful and respectful debate on issues from times which proved to be polarising and divisive is challenging.
Yes I was 17 in the 1979 election, and remember it fairly well. I don't remember Mrs Thatcher ever beings behind. Jim Callaghan might have won if he'd gone in October 1978, but after that very cold winter of strikes he was always behind.
I was the same age, and yes, that previous winter was genuinely one of discontent.
Having said that, Callaghan was probably not worthy of being elected as PM in his own right. Did he not take over as leader of the Labour Party following Wilson's 'surprise' resignation?
The thing about that winter with fuel shortages due to transport workers on strike, council workers of a variety of union flavours on strike, leading to refuse and allegedly bodies 'piling up in the streets', wasn't so much the events themselves, even though they were inconvenient and painful.
The newspapers had a field day, with all the headlines being handed to them on a plate. Possibly the most impactful was the picture of Jimbo on holiday in the Caribbean with the headline, 'Crisis! What crisis?'
And we thought Milliband eating a bacon sandwich or standing in front of a tombstone with his policies written on it was bad!
I'm not sure what you are suggesting about Callaghan? I mean, at the time he became PM he'd been an MP for 31 years, he'd been Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, so it's not like he was inexperienced or a left-field selection. Foot beat him on the first ballot, but he must have got a lot of transfers from Jenkins and Crosland on the second one and from Healey on the final one, so it was hardly a stitch up
No doubt you are correct, I’m not saying it was a stitch up, I’m just saying he was perhaps the wrong person for the job of PM. When given the opportunity, the electorate as a whole didn’t vote for him.
Didn’t he do the speech conference espousing the ideal of achieving ‘the three Rs’? Hardly inspirational stuff was it.
Then all the other us and them stuff he seemed to be so cosy with. Nah. I’m sure he was a nice bloke and all that and competent in the other jobs he did, but havin’ your grandpa on the world stage wasn’t going to lead us into success with such aspirations of mediocrity.
Interesting how the tories ended up with a female leader when Labour had far better quality female MPs on the benches.
The Lib-Lab pact ended in Sept 1978 - It was only a deal for motions of no confidence so Labour was a ruling party with no majority, barely clinging on, and unpopular prices and incomes policy which, due to high inflation, was always going to lead to strikes.
"gone a bit Robert Fisk" (derog.), see also "doing a Seymour Hersh". I agree with that - I do find Curtis's stuff engaging and entertaining in not too big doses, but sometimes it's so slick you have to wonder if the substance is secondary to the style. (There's a load of stuff with Stephen Hawking in the new one which I'm really not sure what he's trying to say)
This looks like a pile of old video clippings Curtis had hanging around that he shoved together to try and create a story. His claims in episode 1 that monetarism caused interest rates to zoom upwards and the destruction of British industry is bizarre - British Industry collapsed due to the oil price rise post 1973, entry to the Common Market bringing in cheap goods and the Stagflation of the 1970s, ignores the winter of discontent, ignores the extensive tax cuts of the 1979 and ignores the growing inflation during 1977 and 1978 when interest rates more than doubled. It had nothing to do with Thatcher or the British empire whcich had gone by 1960.
As for the race problems they had existed since mass immigration started with Windrush, look at Notting Hill in the 1950s.
Curtis used Stephen Hawking's theories about a new more complex understanding of time/space/reality etc as a parallel to the deregulation of the money markets and the ensuing chaos. Then the personal stuff about Hawking's divorce is shown to ram home a point Curtis has made many times before - the atomisation of society and the retreat into individualism. Adam Curtis is great and there's a paradox in all of his work - he seems to yearn for a kind of bowler hat British socialism.
I'll be honest, I didn't make it that far. But the stuff in the first episode about "PARTICLES COULD BE WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO BE" and "APPARENTLY IMPOSSIBLE THINGS WERE HAPPENING ALL THE TIME" was just a Deepak Chopra level of understanding of Hawking's stuff, so I'm not sure it brought much to the table
I'd be more critical about Shifty than The Crown. Shifty claims to be a documentary and we expect facts to be correct, The Crown is a drama and its okay to use dramatic licence if it improves the story
I'd agree with that, but I think it's up to other people to make their own mind up - for example, are these two things I've spotted the only issues like that, or is there more? How major are they etc
I think one issue too where The Crown comparison is apposite is the extent to which Curtis' entire style is enabled by an ability to play fast and loose with facts in a way that's unchallenged on screen.
The makers of The Crown would rightly say that dramatic licence and an ability to tweak timelines is necessary to make it work as entertainment.
A problem that's been highlighted with Curtis' previous work and now this is that his style relies on being able to be fast and loose with facts and timelines in order to tell the "story" he wants to tell and is what makes his work popular. If he'd gone in and added the caveats about the Thatcher speech to make it true then the whole thing would be more prosaic - even if it came to a similar wider conclusion in the end.
Unlike a traditional documentary - which relies (or at least should) rely on taking a balanced, thorough approach to its subject - interviewing protagonists and witnesses with differing views, presenting documentary evidence and so on. But that's often quite dry, not overly revelatory, and makes it harder to win awards and acclaim unless you've turned up something genuinely newsworthy and important you can back up.
I'd recommend you spend your (valuable) time watching The Gold, which is a drama based on the 1983 Brinks Mat gold robbery, and the efforts of those involved to either not get caught with the money, or (on the police side) catch those with the money. The real-life villains includes such names as Kenneth Noyes, who became infamous for quite a different reason later. Two series, all on iPlayer, get it while it's hot. Quite a lot of the detail appears to be true, and they say that other bits are inferred or figured out. Probably as good as Curtis on the truthiness scale, but much more fun to watch.
First series of The Gold is truly fabulous, one of my favourite things on telly for years. (Haven’t watched most of S2 yet.) It is quite close to The Crown in its approach though - if you read the accompanying book by Neil Forsyth (the screenwriter/showrunner), a lot of the story has been very flattened out and some major characters are totally invented. As another commenter said, I think this is fine in drama so long as the viewers are aware they’re watching a fact/fiction blend. The problems arise when viewers take drama as gospel. Not sure how you legislate for that - drama has to be allowed to be drama. If it was 100% true it would be news coverage and hardly anyone would watch it... But I do understand why real-life people featured in The Crown get fed up and feel misrepresented. (Not much sympathy for most of the wrong ‘uns represented in The Gold.)
On another tip - as a long term Adam-Curtis-non-enjoyer I’m fascinated that the dam seems to have broken with this most recent film. Until now I’ve always felt alone in my irritation, and now suddenly it feels like there are thousands of us saying ‘this is credulous bollocks for over-excitable people who like conspiracy theories set to ambient techno’. I saw someone call him a ‘gabbling twat’ on Bluesky the other day, I felt very seen.
Ooh, thanks. I'd heard good things about it, but I thought it was on Disney+ or Apple for some reason! (So many streaming platforms, so little time)
Ah, then this is where I recommend Justwatch.com (which also has an app so you don't have all the tedious repeated logins) which will tell you on which streaming service, for how much, a TV programme/series or film is available.
Thanks, might try it. I tend to just use "my watchlist" on Google, which does quite a lot of that, but that looks like it might have more bells and whistles.
So far I've only seen the first season of Gold, but that was great. Looking forward to getting to the second season.
I guess we'll never truly know how Thatcher managed to prevail against a government that had spent the past few years presiding over rampant inflation and widespread strike action. It's a riddle for the ages.
Yes, it is a riddle. What followed was her own period of rampant inflation and widespread strike action ...
... and then Argentina came to the rescue.
Er...no. Inflation fell to 5% by 1982, it had been as high as 25% under Labour. 12.9 million days were lost to strikes in the 1970s, in the 1980s that fell to 7.2 million days.
I'm guessing you didn't live through the 70s or 80s?
Obviously, you do know the situation was more complex than you suggest.
In May 1979 when she came to power, inflation was about 7%, though already going in an upward direction. It went to 15% by the end of 1979 and went down to about 5% in 1982. Her policies were based on controlling 'the evil of inflation' and bringing it down, which is what happened.
Reduction of lost strike days is an even more complex issue because, as unemployment doubled to 3 million by 1982, there were fewer potential strikers in a job! 1978 was an infamously bad year for Callaghan's gov't as the media-driven so-called 'winter of discontent' kept the headlines going. The 70s also included the disastrous Heath government, with the 3-day week caused by coal strikes, along with strikes in the motor, shipping and steel industries.
The 1979 Tory poster with a long (dole) queue of people claiming 'Labour isn't working' was a classic sign of disinformation. More prophetic than descriptive. [Similar imagery was regurgitated by Farage only a few years ago, characterising immigrants, and again, more prophetic than descriptive. Funny that, innit!]
Thatch and my local MP Keith Joseph had no regard or care for the impact of unemployment. Tebbit was more of a caring chap and advised people to get on their bike, in between asking them to decide which cricket team they would support or play for. So yes, clearly, I was around in the 70s and 80s.
There is nothing complicated, you claimed there was high inflation and levels of strikes under Thatcher, there were not. If you lived through those days that makes things worse not better.
As for the rest it is simple lefty crap.
Well, it is complicated according to the Office of National Statistics, inflation spikes during 70s and 80s were preceded by 'oil shocks' rather than government policy. Indeed, inflation doubled to nearly 10% in 1990.
The engineered recession between 79 and 82, which lowered inflation along with allowing unemployment to rise at the end of the 70s and into the 80s, was the application of specific government policy.
And yes, many people felt and even were better off in the Thatcher years due to financial deregulation benefiting the South East and with the cheap purchase and subsequent profitable sales of Council houses.
These are facts, not opinions, whether they are lefty, emanating from someone's mouth in their trousers, or otherwise.
Meaningful and respectful debate on issues from times which proved to be polarising and divisive is challenging.
Yes I was 17 in the 1979 election, and remember it fairly well. I don't remember Mrs Thatcher ever beings behind. Jim Callaghan might have won if he'd gone in October 1978, but after that very cold winter of strikes he was always behind.
Yes, I think that's correct. After one poll at the start of the year, she was only ever behind in one single opinion poll in 1979 before the election, and that was by a margin of 0.7% which is well in the noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election#1979
I was the same age, and yes, that previous winter was genuinely one of discontent.
Having said that, Callaghan was probably not worthy of being elected as PM in his own right. Did he not take over as leader of the Labour Party following Wilson's 'surprise' resignation?
The thing about that winter with fuel shortages due to transport workers on strike, council workers of a variety of union flavours on strike, leading to refuse and allegedly bodies 'piling up in the streets', wasn't so much the events themselves, even though they were inconvenient and painful.
The newspapers had a field day, with all the headlines being handed to them on a plate. Possibly the most impactful was the picture of Jimbo on holiday in the Caribbean with the headline, 'Crisis! What crisis?'
And we thought Milliband eating a bacon sandwich or standing in front of a tombstone with his policies written on it was bad!
I'm not sure what you are suggesting about Callaghan? I mean, at the time he became PM he'd been an MP for 31 years, he'd been Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, so it's not like he was inexperienced or a left-field selection. Foot beat him on the first ballot, but he must have got a lot of transfers from Jenkins and Crosland on the second one and from Healey on the final one, so it was hardly a stitch up
No doubt you are correct, I’m not saying it was a stitch up, I’m just saying he was perhaps the wrong person for the job of PM. When given the opportunity, the electorate as a whole didn’t vote for him.
Didn’t he do the speech conference espousing the ideal of achieving ‘the three Rs’? Hardly inspirational stuff was it.
Then all the other us and them stuff he seemed to be so cosy with. Nah. I’m sure he was a nice bloke and all that and competent in the other jobs he did, but havin’ your grandpa on the world stage wasn’t going to lead us into success with such aspirations of mediocrity.
Interesting how the tories ended up with a female leader when Labour had far better quality female MPs on the benches.
If, what if, and if only … ! Who knows?
Callaghan had no chance.
The Lib-Lab pact ended in Sept 1978 - It was only a deal for motions of no confidence so Labour was a ruling party with no majority, barely clinging on, and unpopular prices and incomes policy which, due to high inflation, was always going to lead to strikes.
I’m unlikely to watch the film but nevertheless really enjoyed your article.
I read the ‘Berenstein’ bears to my children probably 43 years ago and I only realised the ‘-stain’ after reading your article.
Why all this mis-remembering?
Interesting about the ‘soft Mandela effect’. I lived through all of that and not certain what it is.
Once again thank you for always bringing some light relief to my reading.
Thanks - glad you enjoyed it ..
Thanks for mentioning The Loving Trap. It's a great critique.....
I liked Adams Curtis earlier films, but he seems to have "gone a bit Robert Fisk" in recent years....
"gone a bit Robert Fisk" (derog.), see also "doing a Seymour Hersh". I agree with that - I do find Curtis's stuff engaging and entertaining in not too big doses, but sometimes it's so slick you have to wonder if the substance is secondary to the style. (There's a load of stuff with Stephen Hawking in the new one which I'm really not sure what he's trying to say)
I think that’s a bit harsh. The Russia documentary was pretty uncranky and his best work imho.
I guess it all depends. Cheers for the reply.
What do u mean doing a “robert fisk” ?
Becoming a crank.
This looks like a pile of old video clippings Curtis had hanging around that he shoved together to try and create a story. His claims in episode 1 that monetarism caused interest rates to zoom upwards and the destruction of British industry is bizarre - British Industry collapsed due to the oil price rise post 1973, entry to the Common Market bringing in cheap goods and the Stagflation of the 1970s, ignores the winter of discontent, ignores the extensive tax cuts of the 1979 and ignores the growing inflation during 1977 and 1978 when interest rates more than doubled. It had nothing to do with Thatcher or the British empire whcich had gone by 1960.
As for the race problems they had existed since mass immigration started with Windrush, look at Notting Hill in the 1950s.
Curtis used Stephen Hawking's theories about a new more complex understanding of time/space/reality etc as a parallel to the deregulation of the money markets and the ensuing chaos. Then the personal stuff about Hawking's divorce is shown to ram home a point Curtis has made many times before - the atomisation of society and the retreat into individualism. Adam Curtis is great and there's a paradox in all of his work - he seems to yearn for a kind of bowler hat British socialism.
I'll be honest, I didn't make it that far. But the stuff in the first episode about "PARTICLES COULD BE WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO BE" and "APPARENTLY IMPOSSIBLE THINGS WERE HAPPENING ALL THE TIME" was just a Deepak Chopra level of understanding of Hawking's stuff, so I'm not sure it brought much to the table
I don't understand Stephen Hawking and I've never heard of Deepak Chopra but I knew what Adam Curtis was doing and what it brought to the table.
This is sad to see, but not unexpected I guess. It makes me wonder how many other things he's played fast and loose with.
Not surprising Adam prioritised aesthetic over truth in parts. Artistic licence his cover. 🤓🍿
Aaron good does a fantastic critique of curtis work if anyone’s interested !
It has always been acceptable for a Brit to be 'a little bit racist', and it doesn't take much to bring it to the surface.