InRealLife takes us on a journey from the bedrooms of British teenagers to the world of Silicon Valley, to find out what exactly the internet is doing to our childrenInRealLife takes us on a journey from the bedrooms of British teenagers to the world of Silicon Valley, to find out what exactly the internet is doing to our childrenInRealLife takes us on a journey from the bedrooms of British teenagers to the world of Silicon Valley, to find out what exactly the internet is doing to our children
What does this statement leave you with? What's the take home message? There isn't. There isn't, except, well - except for the movie going experience, the emotional impact of everything that involves delivering the above information. Except for the low ominous hum the editor imposed upon the above slide to make it all seems so staggeringly scary.
And it's just the above. Over and over again. Experts mention something is good but also really bad and get cut off before they get to actually explaining, cut off to scary pictures of blinking server lights in a dark room; presumably, because "the bad" doesn't actually sound as bad as the director's alarmist perspective would have you believe... I wonder how many of these were just not as convinced of the bad as the director expected them to, or simply sounded nuts the more they went on? Or, you know, just antiquated fossils who don't fit anymore into the modern world so blatantly that it's just absurd to let them finish their sentences in a timely manner. So let's leave on a high note - "THE INTERNET IS BAD BE-".
Other than experts, the egregious offenses in editing also go against supported or simply active users of these technologies. For example - the interview with Tuboscus. So you interview him. Many blatantly edited out of context sentences later, he meets his fans. One of the fans gets hurt on a spike on a fence, there's some blood, she's lying on the floor. Cut back to Tuboscus saying how much fun it was. Obviously, the editor was telling us this Tuboscus fella from YouTube is killing our kids!!!11 Another scene involved a dropout. Everything in the editing was crying - this young man who dropped out of Oxford because he played too much Halo. Cut to senior game developer saying he loves how kids play games and how many games he sells. The subtext of the editing skims the part where the kid admits he would've just watched TV or read books instead; after all, persecuting those pastimes is SOO last century.
The more rationally you observe it the more your realize - any more slant, and this movie would be completely vertical.
It's not all wrong. It's not wrong about Google or Google Analytics. Julian Assange himself is spot on right. But this has NOTHING to do with the rest of the film, which carelessly swings from topic to topic as if it's all one evil tumor on an otherwise perfectly productive and balanced race of individuals. The makers of this movie are either wrong or purposefully misleading about pretty much everything else, demonizing anything and everything from Halo to vlogs on YouTube ruining our kids' future.
Don't agree with me? Try watching 95% of the scenes that are basically slides with factoids with cheerful music instead of ominously humming servers and you've got a commercial for why the internet is awesome. "How to Spot Propaganda 101". No substance, just movie magic.
- Feb 2, 2014