The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom

Adam Curtis has insight into the world, more than Boris, Thatcher or Trump. He understands our paradox and how we will destroy ourselves.

Shot in similar fashion to Pandoras Box, with his unique style, a disturbing view of the world and our future. It's about the illusion of control, we think we have free will, but that is an ingrained illusion.

Ep 1 deals with the bomb, communism, sanity and how we rely on the atom. Moving onto politics. At times tender, he focuses on R D Laing at one point. Psychology abounds, about the idea of freedom, oppression. Game theory comes up again. A topic underlying Curtis' films.

Curtis, still alive in 2024 is an exceptional documentary maker, ignored by society as we watch YouTube clips, controlled by adverts and AI. He can see Armageddon coming and is, (hopefully) trying to warn us. He would be on my dinner party list.

He has a very distinctive visual and audio style, not to everyone's tastes. They, like the Zeitgeist movies are important to watch. You may not agree, but it makes you think. A lot of re-used footage, and how does he finds the clips?!!

But, it is interesting, if you read, or have any psychiatric background. If you are doing the Prime Minister's Degree, (PPE) - I have little doubt it has been watched by most of the Oxbridge set. Understand why the common man may belittle it, it is hard to get into if all you know is Facebook. Which is a shame, but if you are happy to be led, rather than to lead - go ahead.

In these times, (2024) more relevant than ever. Unique on the BBC, so rare these days. Nick Bloomfield does Rock and Roll, Louis Theroux does the lighter side. I can't believe theses series have not been ripped away from iPlayer. Catch them while you can.

They say history is written by the victors, my worry is that sooner or later these will be wiped. Elon Musk should have sent some bootlegs off in his red Tesla - that would keep the Aliens away until we blow up the world.

Much like his previous work, THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES, Adam Curtis' THE TRAP takes an intriguing and complex idea, the idea of freedom used by western governments, and expands it to three superb and detailed episodes, that looks how this idea has been developed, through cold war strategy, American psychiatry, political ideology and eventually to the Blair government and its use of free market ideas and target strategy's in public services. There is a lot to talk about, but all i would say is that, you need to watch it. If you want to watch a series that questions the state of things in the world and allows an intelligent and sensible argument as to how we have fallen into this false sense of freedom, that has led to the rise of social inequality and the disastrous attempt to establish democracy in Iraq, which has led to a rise in violent factions in the country itself and the rise of the threat of terror attacks in Britain, Europe and America, this series will draw you in as it is both revealing and eye opening, and the sort of intelligent documentary film making that we need more of. Naturally what sounds like a subject that may seem boring to some on paper, is perfectly handled by Curtis, who inter cuts talking head interviews along with a mountain of archive footage that is funny, revealing and disturbing. This is essential viewing.

This series proposes a pair of arguments: That ( 1 ) the principles of Game Theory applied to domestic policy resulted in a loss of freedom and ( 2 ) the same principles applied to foreign policy, specifically in Iraq, caused Islamic extremism making the West a target for terrorists.

The second thesis contradicts historical facts. The invasion of Iraq took place in 2003. The destruction of the World Trade Center happened in 2001. The first attempt to destroy the same complex using a giant truck bomb, killing and injuring several, took place in 1992! The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards took the 50 American hostages in 1979.

Regarding personal liberty and the effect upon it of Game Theory, the argument is advanced via two tactics: avoiding difficult questions and the assertion as fact of contentions without evidence.

The film-maker repeatedly asserts that a central assumption of Game Theory is the self-interested behaviour of individuals. It is repeatedly asserted that this is a "bleak" vision, as though that bleakness were itself sufficient reason to reject it. Never once in the entire series is it asked whether this bleak vision is or is not correct! It is as though in the mind-set of this film-maker and his intended audience the mere undesirability of a thing is sufficient reason for us to regard it as not true! This is, indeed, instructive. It does explain a great deal about the behaviour and posturing of Western "intellectuals" who endorse freedom and the revolutionary pursuit of the liberation of oppressed and minorities yet who consistently support those movements and institutions that most obstruct such trends: previously the Soviet Union, today reactionary Islam.

As far as asserting facts unsubstantiated by evidence, the series contains numerous examples but one, in particular. It is asserted as a fact that a result of the widespread use of objective assessment and diagnostic criteria in psychiatry is that an entire generation of people took to applying such tests to themselves and as a result presented for psychiatric treatment of their behaviour. Thereby producing a self-imposed conformity effect. The only support for this assertion in the series is an anecdotal comment by a psychiatrist, in his office, that this was his personal observation. This clip is shown twice in the series. No other support for this contention is offered.

A contention, easily contradicted. Ask yourself, have you ever set yourself a formal diagnostic test for psychiatric disorder and gone to a doctor as a result? Do you know anyone in your family to have done that? Have you ever heard even indirectly of any person in your wider circle of associates who has done that? Have you ever before heard of such a thing at all? I have observed psychiatry throughout the entire three decades that the claim applies to. I have never come across such a bizarre assertion other than in this series.

If I try to argue the case for the assertion, I can only imagine that it refers to one of two things: The popularity of quizzes in magazines along the lines of "Take this months test to find out if you are a workaholic". Or the widespread phenomenon of the "worried well" who present at therapy for the treatment of non-existent conditions, in effect, life's dissatisfaction.

As far as the latter goes, it has been known for about a century that such "worried well" form the multitude of those who seek "therapy". Such behaviour has nothing whatever to do with either objective diagnostic criteria or Game Theory. Nor do such clients but rarely alter their behaviour in any significant way.

On the other hand, pop-quizzes of a self-questioning kind have been popular for almost as long as the kind of magazines that they appear in. A long time before the emergence of objective diagnostic criteria in psychiatry and owing nothing to either that or Game Theory.

I do not know if these are what the film-maker refers to but they offer no support for his contention that Western societies have become in some way self-straight-jacketed by conformity as a result. It seems, rather, that this is merely what he would like to believe, and hopes that by asserting it boldly, repeatedly and each time quickly passing on to something else, he will like an after-dinner illusionist convince us that something has happened that in reality has not! Only in the last few minutes of this series is any alternative vision to the "bleak" contention that Human behaviour is self-interested offered. It is that we...may...instead... assume... and act upon the ...assumption ...that Human Nature is capable of change! Not only is this a major contention, offered as an assumption without any supporting evidence, but it implicitly concedes that there is substance to the "bleak" contention, such that an "alternative" is warranted, whilst yet again dodging the real issue: is it or is it not true? The "retro" montage of archival material is edited for the most part according to principles of affective consonance or non-rational association. Images are mainly matched to the narrative according to the associations that they evoke, rather than to illustrate facts. Typical is the repeated use of a pairing of reference to post-war ideals of personal freedom with what appears to be a snippet from a film of housewives at a workshop for jive-dancing from about 1965. Why? The function of such a technique is to massage the viewer into the acceptance of assertions whilst de-potentiating rational engagement. It is like the "programming" scene from "The Parallax View". The effect is the unpleasant sense that the film-maker is attempting to make us accept that against which we might otherwise be guarded.

Replace that monologue with a sound-track of dance-music and the programme would look little different from that one-time staple of late night viewing "The Trip".

You may agree or disagree with the vision this documentary exudes. I certainly thought the steps taken where a bit rash at some places. I do agree however, with the message which is given as a whole.

Regardless of what your opinion is on current day socio/economic/political society. This documentary is of such outstanding cinematographic quality, that it just cannot be ignored. It looks like they went through all the pieces of film of the last 4 decades to make this! And the use of sound is simply astonishing.

I usually loathe the 'leading' documentary, like Michael Moores cheap propaganda I just refuse to watch out of principle. However, 'What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom' is very direct and conscious about it guiding the viewer. To redeem itself it simply contains so much facts and correct historical reference, it doesn't become a 'mockumentary'.

If you do not agree with the vision that we are all trapped in a system of numbers and targets, just see this film document as you would a riefenstahl. Commend it on it's graphical excellence supported with great sounds, a vicious style and sublime directing. See it anyway if you like (political) documentaries.

If you are a person that does connect with the message this document conveys: Try to see it as soon as you can and be enthralled.

This was a mostly a waste of 3 hours...I did like the portion about 'targets' promoted to hold government accountable, which became a total disaster as workers found all manner of destructive loopholes to appear successful, to get their maximum paycheck...but as a whole, it was a disjointed, boring mess with giant leaps of logic and false, blind conclusions drawn...I also liked the highlighting of mass death under communism...but then, did he go on to call for more government regulation, less privatization, to fight income inequality??...don't get me wrong, I hate what bush/cheney did and continue to do as much as anyone, but I will never again believe that MORE central government planning/regulation will help the people more than it harms...I would listen to elon: get government and their immortal regulations out of the way...AND LEARN FROM HISTORY.