"Zeitgeist"--the Movie

[Ruger Mason]

How about this for conspiracy?

Invent the AIDS virus and use it as an excuse to implant RFID chips into people:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070724075657.4w2f978g&show_article=1

[jaqeboy]

Exactly.  And anyone who deemed the movie "boring" after only five minutes, or "hurting my feelings" within the first 30, is unlikely to accept the message (or even be willing to listen to it).

The first 5 minutes of the film WERE boring!  I wondered if it was going to be two-hour music video and light show.  If their goal is outreach, why would they do this?

He calls the first 5 minutes an "overture" and, as such, it's a mood-setting device.

I know in many theatrical performances, it's the signal to go to your seats and get ready for the beginning of the piece. Obviously we're already in our seats (watching the film online).

I thought it was pretty effective as a mood-setter.

[SpeedPhreak]

I personally liked the opening... to each his own.

I also thought the Christian part was unneccessary - although I am glad I watched it.  As I was raised Christian (as a lot of us probably were) & recently have began a more personal journey w/religion & Christianity it was a good piece to watch (assuming the facts are accurate).  I have spent a lot of time reading Islamic & Jewish websites concerning Jesus & I am now more confused than ever... partly due to this film & partly due to other things I have read.

I feel the rest of the movie would have been better received w/out the 1st part as well.  Maybe the goal was to self-select the viewers.  However I have to ask if that were the case then is that the best course of action?  If it were my film I would want as many people to see it & discuss it & ponder it as possible - not just the non-christian minority. 

Also, like others, I didn't feel the subjects were related enough to be included in a film together.  Though I suppose one could argue that the fabricated (assuming of course it was fabricated) institution of Christianity allowed the other events to be willingly accepted by the majority Christian masses... thus a necessary part of the film to show the viewer how such mass manipulation could be easily orchestrated.

I dunno - I'm moving to Cuba.  At least I kinow what I'm getting into there.

[jaqeboy]

Keep in mind that you can write the filmmaker, Peter J, with your comments and he responds to them all. zeitgeist@zeitgeistmovie.com. If you give him your comments below and he writes back, let us know what he said..

[CNHT]

I was sent email by this person who made this video, presumably because of the RP campaign, and I flat out told him it was not going to be helpful to the campaign in any way so I was not interested in buying a DVD.

I restrained myself from telling him it was a poorly put together movie that did not hold my interest past 2 minutes....

And, I agree with Ruger Mason on the bashing part.

[error]

Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.

[dalebert]

I think the portion about Christianity was an excellent way to show the tactic of fabricating an irrational belief system for the purpose of controlling people. The government is defended by a vast majority of people who irrationally believe in its legitimacy. Without that vast network of support, it would have great difficulty existing and weilding so much power. That's why I tell people that anarchy is a state of mind. It's not a system that replaces the current system. You simply dispel irrational beliefs that people have about the nature of government. As more people start to see it for what it really is and start applying rational judgements, like viewing taxation as theft, the support system that makes an aggressive and tyrannical government possible just starts to collapse.

[CNHT]

Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.

[jaqeboy]

Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.

Filmic art, by its nature, and a credit to its incredible power, appeals as much or more than any other art-form to the emotions (moods), since it provides a great range of sensory and cognitive input. It is not a computer data download into the orderly memory banks of the viewer. To be unaware of that is to possibly be unduly influenced by a filmmaker's considerable power to manipulate those emotions in people. Te eschew that would also disempower yourself to enjoy the emotional sagas dramatic arts do typically portray.

Just curious, but are you making the claim that a documentary should NOT use any artistic or other creative devices? Where are the "Rules for Documentaries" that you rely on? I'd like to find them so I can equally grade and damn this enjoyable creative piece for its indiscretions (just kidding, of course - I've already praised it).

By using these strict rules, whether they are published or in your mind, you may have missed the point of the piece - regrettable, but your loss, not others. Hopefully you can grow into full appreciation of artful presentations - it's an enriching human experience.

[dalebert]

Don't waste my time on mood-setting, especially in a film which purports to be a documentary. A minute would have been too much; five minutes was absurd. Get on with it, present your evidence, and leave the bullshit on the cutting room floor.

Filmic art, by its nature, and a credit to its incredible power, appeals as much or more than any other art-form to the emotions (moods), since it provides a great range of sensory and cognitive input. It is not a computer data download into the orderly memory banks of the viewer.

Maybe you'd like it better if they did it like some of those YouTube videos where they just scroll text across the screen while music is playing.

[Dreepa]

I dunno - I'm moving to Cuba.  At least I kinow what I'm getting into there.

Fatso  I mean Sicko got you convinced huh?

[CNHT]

I dunno - I'm moving to Cuba.  At least I kinow what I'm getting into there.

Fatso  I mean Sicko got you convinced huh?

I can't go around bashing Christians because at least I know 90% of them will vote with me on home schooling and taxes, gun rights  and right to know, whether I share their religious beliefs or not.

[Insurgent]

I'm pleased that there is so much intelligent and thoughtful discussion about this new film. It's been taking the internet by storm, generating a flurry of controversy and heated debate, just like what is on this thread. It's really interesting, to me to see different people's reactions to it--those who seem to get it and those who don't. There doesn't seem to be many in the middle who are completely unaffected by this film.

As a bit of background, I was raised in a devoutly baptist family, immediate and extended. I even explored the Orthodox Church, living at a monastery for 1 year and a half. Needless to say, I am well-aware of what Christianity does and does not teach. I fell away from the Church several years ago and haven't looked back. Finding sources of information like referenced in this film only cement what I have grown to suspect for many years...that religions are frauds used by people in power to manipulate others.

Someone else mentioned that there hasn't been that much discussion here about parts II and III, which is interesting because they are just as controversial as part I. Maybe we're still reeling from part I and need more time to move on!

Just today I received in the mail, the DVD's which I had ordered. Quality looks good and it's certainly more enjoyable to watch on the big screen than perched in my computer chair  link to order http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htm

[Dreepa]

Someone else mentioned that there hasn't been that much discussion here about parts II and III, which is interesting because they are just as controversial as part I. Maybe we're still reeling from part I and need more time to move on!

Maybe most people here agree with PII and PIII....

[Ruger Mason]

I know many people involved in the freedom movement have a natural bent toward skepticism, particularly toward government.  That's good.  However, this same skepticism needs to be applied to the sensational claims made by these filmmakers and others.  There's a great deal of information on the internet debunking various "9/11" myths, including those made in the film, and I've begun to dig up much to dispute the anti-Christian claims in Part I as well.  Shame on those who take this film at face value without reviewing the evidence for themselves.  As someone else has already pointed out, significant effort was put into this film to evoke an emotional response.  Don't be suckered by it.  Research the claims yourself!

This film has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, and I will be not be recommending it to anyone.