Sep 19th, 2007
Zeitgeist, The Movie
At its best Zeitgeist, the Movie explores power dynamics latent in religious, political, and economic institutions that have dominated modern Western civilization. At its worst, Zeitgeist is nearly two hours of left-leaning propaganda that borders on stoner conspiracy theory.
At the very least, Zeitgeist is a well-produced piece of cultural production that defies the theory that you need a marketing strategy, a visible producer, director, or even a traditional film production methodology to have an impact Zeitgeist has already been viewed by nearly three million people with none of the above simply by being posted on Google Video and marketed through word-of-mouth.
Interestingly enough, there is no mainstream coverage of Zeitgeist - only blog coverage - perhaps because there is no one visibly associated with the film (which is a great depiction of the relative shortcomings and advantages to the blogosphere versus traditional media). Even the omniscient Wikipedia doesn’t provide any coverage of Zeitgeist.
At any rate, I was recommended Zeitgeist by a close friend of mine with left-leanings and watched it with a bit of skepticism. I found that the film actually kept my attention for nearly two hours (despite my consistent urges to fact check dubious claims made throughout the film).
After watching the movie and noodling it a bit, I’ve drawn a few conclusions:
1. Zeitgeist the Movie was produced on a decent budget Although there was very little original video content produced for the piece and no discernible marketing or distribution costs, there were still substantial financial and time investments that must have gone into the research, planning, and editing of the video. The editing in particular was fairly impressive, stitching a hodgepodge of voice-over, music, still images, video content, animation and sometimes just a black screen together to create an engaging experience. Anyone who thinks that this was produced by a small group of friends wanting to make a subversive video needs to think again.
2. Zeitgeist’s underlying argument doesn’t make a great deal of sense So let me get this straight (note: I don’t believe in these inferences so if you are a fanatical Christian, from the CIA, or a member of the illuminati / federal reserve please do not hunt me down):
- Part 1: The Christian bible appropriated stories and myths from astrology and shares a great deal in common with other mythologies. It has largely been used to subjugate and pacify the masses.
- Part 2: There is allegedly evidence suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration, in large part to satisfy the financial goals of organizations and individuals who profit from war.
- Part 3: The Federal Reserve Bank and federal income tax are institutions controlled by ‘the elite’ and they are manipulated for personal gain (at the expense of the American people).
Am I crazy or do these three inferences have very little to do with one another apart from sharing a vague platform about power dynamics?
It is almost as if three Berkeley professors who respectively teach theology, political sciences, and economics got together, sucked on a bong for several hours, and then decided they would collaborate on a film and split up the screenwriting into three distinct parts without consulting with one another or considering the role of continuity in a film.
3. Zeitgeist is propaganda - Productions that make staunch social or political commentaries but do not contain verifiable sources are basically propaganda. I’m sorry to say it, but this is propaganda of the worst type entertaining, emotionally compelling, and ultimately manipulative. Time and time again, the film draws sweeping conclusions and points out ‘flaws’ in conventional thought with no basis in third-party authorities.
There are only a few instances when a verifiable source is connected with any of the claims made during the video and all too often, the arguments are simply categorical. Even more condemning is the method of overlaying strategically selected audio content over video footage containing a mainstream media logo, conjuring a sense of validity out of thin air.
4. Zeitgeist is worth the price of admission - Actually, the price of admission is free so I’m going to go out on a limb and say it is worth slightly more than the price of admission. I actually found myself engaged for the majority of the film. Considering the number of Hollywood products that are so excruciatingly boring they have left me feeling as though I just had a chunk of my soul nipped out with tweezers, I would say it is pretty impressive that a film primarily distributed through Google video could captivate my interest for nearly two hours.
5. Zeigeist matters - I’m not actually saying that I think Zeitgeist is going to change the world here. What I am saying is that I’m thoroughly amazed that a feature length video production could be anonymously produced, distributed through a free online service, and be watched by millions of people (although I’m sure only a fraction of the viewers made it through the entire thing).
At its core, Zeitgeist is simply about power and that is something I can dig (after all, I did study at the LSE). It attempts to represent the dominant articulation of power in religion, politics and the economy and I think anyone would be crazy to argue that there aren’t serious imbalances in all three of these landscapes. Simply put, Zeitgeist is hyperbole and if taken as such, is a worthwhile experience.
What is not hyperbole however is the fact that in its form, Zeitgeist proves that subversion of dominant institutions is actually feasible in the mediascape. The fact that it exists and continues to rack up views is evidence that an idea can be transformed into a feature length documentary that hits people without a Hollywood budget, Madison Avenue advertising, or any mainstream media coverage.
Ultimately, it is what the video represents, not what it expresses, that is the most compelling argument in Zeitgeist.
As for myself, after being around for 50 years
the information I received over time about the
universe, earth, dinosaurs, man, time, religion,
power, control, destiny, had conceptual gaps,
or inconclusive information. My dad always
told us if you new only half of what is really
going on it would scare you to death.
Although I agree it is easier to believe in a
simplification our full reality, or to be in a bias
overtone toward it, I believe the movie has done
a great justice in moving us forward to what our
world needs which is critical thinking, and a
promotion of peace. If any Christians deny this it
proves the control theory in part one. Thou shall
not kill! The no.1 point of the movie!
Attack on Iraq:
A man comes to your door and convinces you to
give your life savings to a new annuity policy
and you loose it all to junk bonds- forfeiting your
children’s future.
Attack on Iran:
Now the man comes back and wants what you have
left and inslave your grandchildren.
Reach the senses of the people, restore hope.
T
Terry,
Thanks for your contribution. It was quite well written although I have to admit I didn’t understand every piece of it. Then again I’ve just been working all day so I don’t think I could understand much right now.
Jiyan
Hi Terry,
It’s nice that you feel the way you do, but I’ve been watching you post that exact same text for multiple reviews. Are you a bot, a spammer, or someone who prefers not to answer reviews with a unique response to each one?
This isn’t meant to be hostile — merely to double-check that you’re a human being.
I recently watched the movie, and I’m not sure what to think. I agree with your assessment that it’s a little fragmented and not entirely clear what the links between the sections are (although I believe parts 2 and 3 were at least slightly more linked by the fact that the Bush family was connected to the banking industry. The connections weren’t actually played up as much in this movie as I have seen in a more reputable biographies, although those were intended to paint the family in a favorable light).The movie itself is disturbing, because as you say, it reeks of propaganda. The first 5 minutes of images with no voice-over almost made me turn it off without watching it. Yet provides enough fact to make you suspend disbelief of its more ludicrous-sounding claims. However, to give the movie credit, I’m not entirely convinced that it is a simply a montage of unverifiable sources. The website for the movie does have a page for its sources (unlike several other documentaries I’ve seen of this nature), and an “interactive transcript”, which I intend to research more later. Clearly, this movie is something more than someone trying to get rich off of duping the masses or some crackpot that can’t string two coherent sentences together. But what that “something” is, I have no idea…
Good points Kamni (by the way I am not a spammer nor a bot - I hope!)
It is just interesting that no one is really taking credit for the production of the film in my opinion. What do they have to hide?
I think whenever someone puts something out there anonymously it automatically detracts from the legitimacy of their message.
I’d love to hear anything else you might find out!
The most believable thing about this is movie is that no one is taking responsibility. There is nothing for them to gain. When you put your name on something like this you become a target. People promote propaganda to gain things. When there’s nothing to gain, not even publicity, I see no reason to call it propaganda. Lets say everyone looks at it and does believe it. What are they going to do about it. If it is fake, then at the very least, I hope it will get some people to research and investigate to prove that its fake. And if that is the case, nobody gets hurt anyway.
It is fake.
The film isn’t even properly named. Zeitgeist means “The Spirit OF The Age”, and the film didn’t tlak about the prevailing mood of any time period.
The section about the Mythic Jesus was just recycled from soruces on the fringe that have long ago been discredited, from Acharya S to Gerald Massey ( who is himself a source of Acharya S, along with joseph Wheeles and Alexander Hyslop and Kersey Graves, all f which are also listed as soruces, and yet no mentin is amde of how much is copied straight form them in Acharya S.)
The Dyng and Rising god-myts they present, complete with Virign Birth, 12 Disiples, and Cruxafiction, did not happen in mythology, and if you pick up any standard work on ancient mythology, and read the myths of Horus, or Dyonisus, or Appolo, or whoever, you will note the abscence of all of tose features.
Horus was not Born of a Virign, for instance, nor was he Crucified.
The astrotheology segments are also bizzarre, and out of palce. COncepts such as “The Age Of Picese” woudln’t have existed in the firts century, and are part of Modern Astrology, not the Astorlogy that woudl have been familiar to the Roman Emire.
And when you look at the rest of the clams that are about the Supposed Mythic nature of Jesus, noen fo them add up.
For instance, Constantine never msde Christianity the state relgiion, and long before COnstantine was born, we have the Early Churhc Fathers writting of Jesus int he same way, as a deity.
No historian in the world would beelive this, and there is enough evidence ( as Ancint Hisotry is measured) for them to accept Universlaly that Jesus was a real man.
When you look at Sections two and three, they are just as bad.
A Missle hi t the Pentagon? Even other cnspriacy theoriests don’t buy that ne.
9-11 was clealry commite dby Al Queda, who even took credit for it, and the unwarrented allogatiosn otherwise mad ein this film lack any suppoirt.
The same can be said of the bankign interest.
And , he origional poster is right, nothgn connects these three things, excet soem vauge notion of power.
Yet another review that provides a barrage of criticsm without actually addressing the facts that ARE presented. There are quite a few ideas/concepts presented in PART I regarding religion. Are these all falsehoods? If not then which ones are true? Can someone point me to a review that actually addresses the content that is presented?
It’s a strange film. It’s not a professionally produced film. It’s not suppose to connect the dots–it presents varying ideas/concepts and, like many films, expects the viewer to draw their own interpretations/conclusions. It’s not meant to be a phd thesis. It is meant to tantalize the base concepts that 1) religion is manmade and is used to control the masses, 2) the US government and especially the oligarchy known as Bush/Cheney fully knew and may have been directly involved in planning the 9/11 attack and finally 3) the world is hugely influenced by the international banking industry which has no allegiance to country–be it US or otherwise.
Excerpt from website: google horus dec 25
Life events shared by Horus and Jesus
Stories from the life of Horus had been circulating for centuries before Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). If any copying occurred by the writers of the Egyptian or Christian religions, it was the followers of Jesus who incorporated into his biography the myths and legends of Horus, not vice-versa.
Author and theologian Tom Harpur studied the works of three authors who have written about ancient Egyptian religion: Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). Harpur incorporated some of their findings into his book “Pagan Christ.”
He argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion. “[Author Gerald] Massey discovered nearly two hundred instances of immediate correspondence between the mythical Egyptian material and the allegedly historical Christian writings about Jesus. Horus indeed was the archetypal Pagan Christ.”
Jerome, I’ll admit your perspective is interesting and I think you make a valid point about the fact that the film does present some interesting connections between Christianity and ancient religions.
At the same time, my perspective was they were clearly trying to draw connections between Christianity, the Federal Reserve, the government being behind 9-11…
If you are going to make claims like this in a public space then my opinion is you have to be prepared to substantiate those claims and I simply don’t think they do that.
WOW! Your Zeitgeist Movie is really well done. I was actually impressed when I watched it, but also saddened, since the concept of human beings having microchips implanted underneath their actual skin is simply nauseating to me. How on Earth can the object of profit and power become so out of control? This world needs to wake up and smell the coffee so immediately that it ain’t even funny anymore, for REAL. I have not been exposed to all of the media’s propaganda for years, besides the radio nonsense I hear in public places, and the nonsensical propaganda jargon that goes way beyond Orwell’s newspeak coming out of my neighbors’ mouths on a continual basis, the never ending nonsense which they actually believe to be the TRUTH! It sickens me to see how easily the masses can be opiated with religion, with media, with lies that they teach the children in schools. I have said enough about issues at hand already. You have done a great job in explaining a lot about how sick this world has become already. Thank You for being so honest with people, Thank You for attempting to OPEN peoples’ EYES, to make them REALIZE what is actaully going on in our crazy world.
Woah - I didn’t make this film, I just blogged about it…
I think there is a broader point to part 1 of Zeitgeist. The film isn’t saying some Christian conspiracy throughout history eventually caused 9/11. I think it’s saying that religion has been used to control people for centuries, and has created an atmosphere where people no longer think critically about there lives or their leadership, and instead rely on religion. And many who are in power today have been able to use religious fervor to their advantage as a result of it. If we understand this, we can better understand Bush’s ability to characterize the war in Iraq (post 9/11) almost as a holy crusade against ‘Evil Doers’. In societies where people supposedly have rights, a public which thinks critically is dangerous for those who’d like to rule. Religion is a powerful and convenient sedative.
If we do think critically, then we can begin to question some of the things that are being forced on us (without feeling blasphemous or unpatriotic). We can question the official report on 9/11, why Bush and Cheney were so secretive with the 9/11 commission, the overzealousness to go into Iraq (eventually finding no WMDs), the push behind the patriot act, the forming of the North American Union, etc.. These are all things which rational thought would question.
From here we can look at our history to see how we got to where we are, who has had power and influence, and how they’ve used it previously, to better understand our current situation. And in that light perhaps we can start to look deeper at entities in our country that benefit from war, and would also benefit from a loosening on of our civil liberty protections. We can then look at current events in a different light, as “means to an end”.
Maybe it’s all crazy talk, I for one hope so, but if nothing else the film is a pinch reminding us to THINK, beyond what the government/media tells us, which is healthy.
Sorry, but I happen to know that this film was the work of a single, focused individual. Why you need to believe only a cabal of pot smoking professors from Berkley could accomplish such a task suggests you don’t want to think we each have the power to challange the status quo and argue for everyone to get involved.
For; Zar: Zeitgeist means the climate of an era. Actually the name has alot to do with the movie. 9/11 creates a climate for this era… There is other climates in different era’s stated in this movie. Obviously the name Zeitgeist will not cover every topic in the movie as it is broad. That being said, I couldn’t think of a better 1 word title, myself. Thus that’s one lousy reason to disprove this movie.
Driftreality stated: Even the omniscient Wikipedia doesn’t provide any coverage of Zeitgeist.
Actually it does buddy… So far not impressed by the ?facts? here.
I myself am a skeptic. I wouldn’t be here if I wasnt.
I can see “why this kind of movie” would put some truths in and leave the rest false, it is a possible successful marketing sceme. However there is no broad and plausible evidence to state that these people involved in this movie are really only out for the money. It is one big curiousity for me. for the meanwhile confusions and questionings will prevail!
One definate truth in this movie is the 9/11 incident being an inside job.
As for the rest, the evidence is hard to prove.
this film is some big bashy bumba clart business, it opened my eyes big down - the world around us is a fraud, jesus isnt real, and there is no war on terror
The video did get me very excited as I am an atheist and I actually did think the government was kind of corrupt even before watching the movie. The first part, as an atheist I believed every word of it, but there are so many people saying ,”Oh it’s fake,” that I’m starting to disbelieve. However, I still believe most of it because of the fact that most of the people who are refuting Zeitgeist are Christians, so I’m thinking that Christian people just want to hold onto their belief systems. this is evident in that no one has tried to debunk parts two and three since it doesn’t offend them. Whatever offends you, you protect. This is true.
Townmans comments on May 8/08 are right on. I’ve just recently been introduced to this movie and have been fascinated by the presentation. (By the way Jiyan, very nice review-entertaining and interesting views..I wonder if you investigated 911 yourself though…) I personally bought the official story as presented in the mainstream media re 911 and hadn’t had any reason to question it. After viewing zeitgeist, I did some research on my own and have been saddened by what I’ve found. Links below..The three chapters are very relevant.
Chapter 1:-Townmans statements are right on..No need to add anything to the comments made..As far as whether or not every blip there is fact..Here’s one fact I’m well aware of. Organized religion is a scam. How can any organization/church support an act of war. “Christ was all about loving your fellow man” Also, in the bible…”Thou shalt not kill”..At the end of the day, my god ain’t short of cash..My personal view..
Chapter 2:- This was a very bitter pill to swallow and I was sceptical but being a curious person I ventured and found a plethora of very very interesting information. Very little of which has been discussed in any “mainstream” media outlet..One has to ask why??? My research has left me dissappointed/saddened. There are a lot of movements out there for 911 truth. One of the videos I found was the conclusive evidence I needed to believe 911 was an inside job..The presentation is 2hrs in length and a bit on the dry side but the material is of interest. See below and the sceptical will run out of you..
http://blip.tv/file/306082/
Another must see is this video:
9/11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions (2006)
linked at Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Mysteries-Part-Demolitions/dp/B000QGE8A6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1223872529&sr=8-1
Rent it or buy it. It has more detail and some interesting information on the person who purchased the lease on the “problem laden” Twin Towers.I did a bit of research on this guy and found some interesting ties to persons of power. No surprise, he even has a relationship with the Bush family.. Interesting how this real estate tycoon also included a ryder in his insurance policy that included payment for destruction of the towers related to a terrorist act such as a commercial airliner striking the towers..Building 7 not struck by an aircraft collapsed free fall..Must be seen..Files kept in building 7 contained vital evidence in ongoing cases/investigations related to the scandals with MCI Worldcom/Enron/and others..All information/evidence-gone forever..His take on his initial investment of I believe $124 million: If I remember correctly, $4.6 or so Billion..
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Many people in high profile positions question the events of 911.
One has to also question why so many extremely important bits of information/evidence were omitted in the official report by the 911 commission..Why,why,why??? See link below:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404
Since the lie of 911, so many of our civil liberties have been eroded.. We should be afraid..Big brother can now watch us all..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3105519703637733227
I bought the official story that was presented by the media..Part one..”Don’t think for yourself, believe what you are told to believe”…
Chapter 3: Fascinating..I have yet to do research on this.More is presented in the newly released Zeitgeist Addendum on the zeitgeist website:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
This movie (zeitgeistmovie) has forced me to ask questions..For this I am grateful as I’ve uncovered some truths not yet exposed. The truth needs to come out and let the chips fall where they may.. 911 was the spark that led to our invasion of Afganistan and a bitter lie which was going into Iraq. Over one million innocent people dead..Who is benefiting from this? What is the agenda? People need to ask questions. We deserve answers..I hope in my lifetime, we will know who the guilty parties involved are and I hope they will see justice..
I’ll admit I’m not expert on 9-11 however my commentary was primarily directed at the production of the film and what I instinctively felt were some almost religious (get the irony) leaps of faith made by the producers.
Additionally, I’m not crazy that the film was produced and distributed anonymously. I think it would have been a lot more credible for me had those associated with the film actively asserted who they were.
That being said, I am grateful to you for providing your input on this and also for providing links to more information for others’ reading this blog.
Regardless of its veracity it is clear that the piece has struck a chord with many out there and provided some good fodder for discourse.
I have to disagree with the blog comments.
Whoever the author or authors are should be given the anonymous credit because they would rather spread the knowledge and ability to question the current events and organizations that exists in the world. I personally question every institute and it’s true motive behind it.
The moment of Iraq invasion I had slowly woken up to realization that everything had it’s own hidden agenda as long the public is manipulated by it. This movie is one of the best examples for those people who are in confusion. I had been born in Catholic family with strong faith roots and I had renounced the belief system as defective, it can not be trusted. In other words, there are three types of people.
1. Those who hear the truth will seek it and move forward.
2. Those who know the truth but deny it because they are afraid.
3. Those who turn blindly to truth and do not want to know it.
It’s funny though, but the quote is meaningful, the question is who is the true author of it;
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
In my personal opinion, when I had left the “belief of faith” system, my ability to think critically and analytically has grown tremendously, hence “thinking outside the box.”
my .02