Very interesting look at a few of the unethical MKUltra CIA programs.
It also features some of the lead-up for the programs, giving some background for how such things could come about, which was very welcome.
Surprisingly, the famous drug-focused programs that so usually occupies these is only touched upon here. Although drugs are sometimes part of these programs, they are not the sole focus of them. It's more about brainwashing, and reprogramming with other (sometimes horrifically direct) means. So don't expect lots of information on the programs where they just messed with people who were on LSD.
Some of the reenacted readings are less than ideal, particularly CIA-man(?) at typewriter. You'll see what I mean.
It certainly didn't need to be 3 ¾ hours long. The editing was lacking in several areas...
A lot of time is spent listing names for each portion, that could have just been shown to the viewer all at once, for about 15 seconds, then later, when comparing who was involved with each segment, by highlighting and fading each portrait and name, the inter-involvement could have been more clearly illustrated. Perhaps with diagrams. The narration serving to draw attention to overlap etc, rather than listing, always listing. The same could have been done with the funding sources. As it stands, it's difficult to make sense of any of it.
Sometimes the documentary will just stop, and there will be echoing audio snippets with eerie visuals for a minute or two. Often things we've already seen & heard. The documentarians were trying to establish some atmosphere or something? A good editor will mold the content in such a way to give the viewer chills and moments of impact, rather than separating the content for substance-less droning. Not well executed, just more time wasted really.
In the latter half when interviewee (if memory serves, the only one) Peter Breggin is introduced, it's a big breath of fresh air from the established editing formula. Although his ideas & criticism towards classical psychiatry are not properly explored, he does offer a valuable humanist perspective of the callous & absurd CIA-endorsed programs. His full ideas could have been an interesting counterpoint. I definitely recommend viewers to look up Breggin's work, even if you disagree with him, if only for a change of perspective from the typical medical practitioner's. Thomas Szasz also comes to mind.
The narrators (who I understand to be the authors of docu) also take some ridiculous liberties, such as ending sentences with patronising smirky lines like "see how that works?" These do not belong in documentaries. When you're taking a break from cringing at the horrific medical experiments you might be lucky enough to cringe at one of these unnecessary lines. There are also more than a few repetitions that will have you wondering if they're trying the unethical techniques on the audience, themselves.
The black & white aesthetic looks good for the most part, little bits of colour are permitted during specific moments, but I get the sense that the film might have worked better if it were even less enforced. For instance, perhaps during the new location footage?
Optimally, if somebody with skill in editing were to fanedit this, they could probably achieve great improvements. One of the few cases where a faneditor is given a documentary with much material to work with, to do so. It might just be the first documentary fanedit, unless any commenter would like to enlighten me.
This may seem like a very critical review, but the good content of the documentary speaks for itself, so I definitely recommend a watch if the subject interests. Perhaps one chapter at a time will be best, however.
If only it didn't have so many elements holding it back, that at this length, are difficult to forgive.
EDIT: It seems that skeptics* don't like the docu authors much at all, and my own perspective has lowered to a degree. They appear to have some questionable ideas about vaccines (a topic to which I personally defer to the mainstream consensus) and have had collabs with Alex Jones (whom I detest, he is a hilarious living meme though...) in the past.
*(although I'm not personally a traditional skeptic, by any measure as, somewhat paradoxically, I follow many philosophical & religious movements AND secular, atheist & skeptical organisations simultaneously)
It's up to you whether this impacts your own skepticism when watching this docu but my general suggestion would be to take it with more than a little salt.
It also features some of the lead-up for the programs, giving some background for how such things could come about, which was very welcome.
Surprisingly, the famous drug-focused programs that so usually occupies these is only touched upon here. Although drugs are sometimes part of these programs, they are not the sole focus of them. It's more about brainwashing, and reprogramming with other (sometimes horrifically direct) means. So don't expect lots of information on the programs where they just messed with people who were on LSD.
Some of the reenacted readings are less than ideal, particularly CIA-man(?) at typewriter. You'll see what I mean.
It certainly didn't need to be 3 ¾ hours long. The editing was lacking in several areas...
A lot of time is spent listing names for each portion, that could have just been shown to the viewer all at once, for about 15 seconds, then later, when comparing who was involved with each segment, by highlighting and fading each portrait and name, the inter-involvement could have been more clearly illustrated. Perhaps with diagrams. The narration serving to draw attention to overlap etc, rather than listing, always listing. The same could have been done with the funding sources. As it stands, it's difficult to make sense of any of it.
Sometimes the documentary will just stop, and there will be echoing audio snippets with eerie visuals for a minute or two. Often things we've already seen & heard. The documentarians were trying to establish some atmosphere or something? A good editor will mold the content in such a way to give the viewer chills and moments of impact, rather than separating the content for substance-less droning. Not well executed, just more time wasted really.
In the latter half when interviewee (if memory serves, the only one) Peter Breggin is introduced, it's a big breath of fresh air from the established editing formula. Although his ideas & criticism towards classical psychiatry are not properly explored, he does offer a valuable humanist perspective of the callous & absurd CIA-endorsed programs. His full ideas could have been an interesting counterpoint. I definitely recommend viewers to look up Breggin's work, even if you disagree with him, if only for a change of perspective from the typical medical practitioner's. Thomas Szasz also comes to mind.
The narrators (who I understand to be the authors of docu) also take some ridiculous liberties, such as ending sentences with patronising smirky lines like "see how that works?" These do not belong in documentaries. When you're taking a break from cringing at the horrific medical experiments you might be lucky enough to cringe at one of these unnecessary lines. There are also more than a few repetitions that will have you wondering if they're trying the unethical techniques on the audience, themselves.
The black & white aesthetic looks good for the most part, little bits of colour are permitted during specific moments, but I get the sense that the film might have worked better if it were even less enforced. For instance, perhaps during the new location footage?
Optimally, if somebody with skill in editing were to fanedit this, they could probably achieve great improvements. One of the few cases where a faneditor is given a documentary with much material to work with, to do so. It might just be the first documentary fanedit, unless any commenter would like to enlighten me.
This may seem like a very critical review, but the good content of the documentary speaks for itself, so I definitely recommend a watch if the subject interests. Perhaps one chapter at a time will be best, however.
If only it didn't have so many elements holding it back, that at this length, are difficult to forgive.
EDIT: It seems that skeptics* don't like the docu authors much at all, and my own perspective has lowered to a degree. They appear to have some questionable ideas about vaccines (a topic to which I personally defer to the mainstream consensus) and have had collabs with Alex Jones (whom I detest, he is a hilarious living meme though...) in the past.
*(although I'm not personally a traditional skeptic, by any measure as, somewhat paradoxically, I follow many philosophical & religious movements AND secular, atheist & skeptical organisations simultaneously)
It's up to you whether this impacts your own skepticism when watching this docu but my general suggestion would be to take it with more than a little salt.