I've just found a cool documentary, it tries to establish a link between astronomy and religion. It's pretty mind blowing and also received an award.
The beginning is kinda bit strange but once you get through the first 5 minutes it switches to ordinary documentary style.
Check out
zeitgeistmovie.com if you're interested.
Also features 9/11 and conspiracy stuff ... which might or might not be true.
Had to find something to busy myself with because FX is so boring at the moment
.
Here's the criticism section from wikipedia
|
Quote: |
 |
|
|
In addition to attracting significant public interest, it has been criticized for relying too heavily on anecdotal evidence[8] and for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers.[9][10][11] In a piece entitled Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic, the Arizona Daily Wildcat (Student Paper) refers to the film as "internet bullshit" saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points".[12] The Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates".[13]
Jordyn Marcellus of The Gauntlet felt it ironic that the film's viewers "have blindly followed the documentary without doing their own research." He states that, though the film is "well-edited and is truly compelling", it "glosses over inconvenient facts," uses "deceptive filmmaking" and that "for a film that rails against deception, there's a lot of deception implicit in its creation."[11]
On March 10 2008, director Peter Joseph removed the 'Clarifications' section from the Film's official site, which The Guardian believed "alluded to dishonest filmmaking tactics that would otherwise help to discredit the film." It was replaced by a 'Q&A Section'. The new section responds to the film's critics stating that "All Part 1 "debunkers" do one or more of the following: (1) They attack/marginalize the messengers. (2) They do no real research. (3) They blindly ask "Where are the 'Primary Sources'?" (4) They projected their own subjective interpretation of a piece of information by using "semantic manipulation""[11] |
|
|
|
|