Forum
Black Mirror
Created 4th January 2012 @ 02:02
Add A Reply Pages: 1 2 Next »
Charlie Brooker has done three dark dramas that are a critique of modern society, albeit, taken to extremes. Very dystopian, especially one of them, but all worth watching.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od#3264020
You will need a proxy to see them, as that site is UK only, I am sure there are download links somewhere, but as forum rules don’t allow me to post them, I didn’t bother searching.
The first one, linked above, is the one that should interest people here the most, as it is a comment on the internet, how it has changed the ways we respond to things and how information is spread. Bear in mind that Brooker is a massive nerd, so this is coming from one of our own, much better than the alternative.
Please note it might be disturbing to some, although the fact that we are on the internet means that mostly likely we have seen and for many, posted, worse.
The second one is about capitalism and the trend in television. Really interesting concept and a quite disturbing idea for energy. This and the first one are the ones I really recommend.
The last one is about memory and how the ability to forgot should not be taken for granted, let alone cursed. Although I think it is the weakest out of the three, it may be just because I have a greater interest in the other two. Quite good for budding philosophy students, perhaps sociology as well.
Would be interested in hearing other’s thoughts and interpretations and we might get some interesting discourse.
Quoted from CrashSite
Would be interested in hearing other’s thoughts and interpretations and we might get some interesting discourse.
Highly unlikely if you want to use this forum as a medium for intelligent discussion.
cool story
charlie brooker’s always been a g and it’s no different with this series
i cba to write any pretentious ponderances on the concepts brought up with this series(and tbh, the general running theme of anything charlie brooker makes, most notably i’d say newswipe and 10 o’clock news) but i will say he’s generally on point.
i’ve not watched the third one yet but the first two parts of this series were particularly good watches, though i’d have liked a bit more context w/ the second but i suppose that’s the point
I watched them when they were on, and they are really really great.
The third felt a bit weaker as well to me, though it still wasn’t bad.
Charlie is a massive boss. I love him and his “Games journalist” background just a little too much.
Long live the Brooker!
The only thing is that going off the three dramas, Brooker appears to have a somewhat weird relationship with sex, which I am sure an over zealous psychologist would love to pick apart. It might be a point he was trying to make, but relationships and sex heavily feature in all and in all in either perverse or negative lights.
It could be that he sees that as a measurement of humanity and the fact that in all three there is issues to do with it, thus reflecting the society around them. Or he has issues with normal relationships.
Probably unfair to speculate on it <3
On the other hand I did really like his comment of how society is currently changing, to where we are voyeuristic sadists. Things like Total Wipeout, which is basically laughing at people failing and getting mildly hurt. No more is this more apparent that on the internet, with youtube being full of videos of people failing or getting hurt, with huge numbers of people watching them.
The banality of entertainment on the internet, just sensational (as in, of the senses) images without meaning is the preferred form. Also thought it was interesting to see that he wanted to show how the impersonal comments on youtube can still hurt real people. It has always bothered me that people are willing to be assholes because they know there are no consequences, it speaks badly for the human condition, that by nature, if we know we are free from being accountable, we are not altruistic, but in fact the opposite.
It should be mentioned that Brooker didn’t have anything to do with episode 3, I believe.
In my opinion the first episode was pretty weak. It seemed to be exploring hypocritical expectations and voyeurism, but ultimately degraded into juvenile sniggers and cliché plotlines.
The second episode was fantastic, and in my opinion was the best by far. So many concepts explored. First of all, the whole plot revolves around people powering their own existence. It seems very removed from reality, but in fact, this is a fair representation of reality, where money is the ultimate carrot on a stick, ultimately producing exportable and unrevolutionary products and saleables rather than new ideas and concepts; where on the rare occasions that such things can be found, they are made to appeal to a mass market. Lots of other stuff, too, but if I go into it all I’ll probably end up making this a page long post (misanthropy, hypocrisy, luck and chance, whether money is a true measure of success, love, watered-down commercialism, helplessness, amongst other concepts). One thing I never heard mentioned when discussing it with people afterwards is this idea that he is acceptant of other people’s roles in society, but when these people have direct relation to him, he feels personally responsible (but he doesn’t feel that personal responsibility is invoked by capitalistic exploitation).
Episode three was weak-ish, explored ludditry and transhumanism, but ultimately just felt like a cliché.
Quoted from octochris
It should be mentioned that Brooker didn’t have anything to do with episode 3, I believe.
Ah. I think someone had vaguely said that to me before, although they weren’t particularly sure.
Funny that you adressed the sexuality as leading theme in all 3 episodes, I noticed that too CrashSite. I have to agree with Chris about episode 1, it was in itself as sensationalist as the things it tried to condemn, and at times felt really contrived trying to twist it’s plot into making some weak points that are not really discussed further. Episode 1 and 2 get a lot of ideas from the Marxist theory of alienation, and continuations of that matter by Guy Debord (Society of the Spectacle). Interesting, and very well put to screen, but, as previously said, the concepts arent really explored further than just “pointing things out”.
Episode 3 wandered around and ultimately couldn’t decide on a core statement to make. Ultimately it was just a story of a mad man, as the rest of society seemed to function fine with this seemingly out-of-place piece of technology. Would type more but no time now ;D
d2m, you were saying? ;D
Last edited by skeej,
Quoted from octochris
It should be mentioned that Brooker didn’t have anything to do with episode 3, I believe.
In my opinion the first episode was pretty weak. It seemed to be exploring hypocritical expectations and voyeurism, but ultimately degraded into juvenile sniggers and cliché plotlines.
The second episode was fantastic, and in my opinion was the best by far. So many concepts explored. First of all, the whole plot revolves around people powering their own existence. It seems very removed from reality, but in fact, this is a fair representation of reality, where money is the ultimate carrot on a stick, ultimately producing exportable and unrevolutionary products and saleables rather than new ideas and concepts. Lots of other stuff, too, but if I go into it all I’ll probably end up making this a page long post (misanthropy, hypocrisy, luck and chance, whether money is a true measure of success, love, watered-down commercialism, helplessness, amongst other concepts). One thing I never heard mentioned when discussing it with people afterwards is this idea that he is acceptant of other people’s roles in society, but when these people have direct relation to him, he feels personally responsible (but he doesn’t feel that personal responsibility is invoked by capitalistic exploitation).
Episode three was weak-ish, explored ludditry and transhumanism, but ultimately just felt like a cliché.
I feel the the first one is not as bad as you portray. I disagree that is descended into adolescent jokes. The quite disturbing climax (may be a bad choice of words…) was very well acted and I felt the repulsion conveyed excellently. Although the message that we are being glued to our screens, becoming spectators rather than agents in society is an interesting concept, albeit not one that I believe is as pressing as the points that are brought up in the second in the series. I also disagree that is was cliché if you could explain why we believe that I would be interested. The ending, which was mixed in with the credits made it felt the most human, although I am worried that it might be that is the one closest to reality, therefore I see it as most easy one to relate to.
The second one is the best, in our shared view it seems. The ending was really good, the warning that power and money changes people, even those who seem to be preaching the downfall of what they are participating. TBH I hadn’t even thought of the metaphor of people powering their existences, I looked at it in a more literally way, a simple comment of resources and how lower classes are exploited. In fact rather the opposite of yours, a more Marxist one. One thing I didn’t quite get, or at least felt was adequately explained, was the under underclass, those who did the sweeping. The abuse of them by the guy next to the protagonist seemed to try and comment on how the repressed repress others. That everyone is as bad as each other, but this wasn’t shown in any other characters. One problem I had with it was in fact that number of issues it tried to tackle. I felt it made it feel unfocused rather than broad, if it had just stuck to capitalism/reduction of entertainment to either reality TV either laughing or cheering on people it would have been better (if someone could remind me where, book/film etc the idea of entertainment simply being a man being hit in the balls with an american football came from, and yes I know it was referenced in the Simpsons). Also if you are talking cliché then the second one has taken so much off over, more well-known dystopian novels. The female character love interest is taken by the system, male protagonist then tries to overthrow system, becomes a part of it is basically 1984.
Also I think in Episode three Brooker is mentioned in the credits and was marketed as his work, so seems likely he would be involved. I also don’t think that the last has Luddite views, as Brooker is defiantly not one, I feel it is trying to be a less practical comment on society and a more philosophical one. If you take it as showing the importance of forgetting then it is a quite interesting concept. On the other hand the main character felt badly developed, as at first he seemed to be a paranoid obsessive, but in the end of was proven right, with the final scene showing him regaining his humanity, eg the ability to forget and not go over every memory in the smallest detail.
Last edited by CrashSite,
Add A Reply Pages: 1 2 Next »
content rss