The popularity that Naomi Klein has garnered oddly reminds me of Paolo Coelho...sometimes depth can be very aptly simulated...
When the documentary started out by mentioning sensory deprivation I thought it would talk about how lack of real information (or perceived lack of information) can shape the human psyche and how this is used as a means of political control (during the Arab spring, every government that faced upheaval tried to close off its population and muffle the internet). But nooooo.....it conflated sensory deprivation with physical torture thus managing to say nothing new or interesting about either. Then it veers into electric shock therapy because....documentary logic....and then compares it to the economic doctrine of "shock therapy" as envisaged by Friedman. These two things have similar names but are comparable in as much as the Razzies are comparable to the actual raspberry fruit...See, in the world according to this documentary, every time you drink raspberry juice....you taste Halle Berry's tears.
And it just goes downhill from there as the documentary meanders in paranoid stupor towards telling us that all sudden political and social change is part of an evil plot and it always ends bad, capitalism is the source of all that is rotten and Friedman is a bad dude.
Of course, while it spends some time on Russia (but don't worry, the analysis is not too deep or in any way tries to capture the complexity of the situation there), it neglects to mention what happened to countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic which have successfully used "shock therapy" in their transition to democracy and the free market after the fall of the Berlin wall....because cherry-picking is fun. Also let's not talk about the former Eastern Block countries that adopted Gorbachev's gradual reform route and how that turned our for them....because that would be pointing out that while a sudden switch to capitalism can be risky and painful....sometimes it may just be the lesser or 2 evils.
The hell with that, it's far more fun, and easier to get more attention, if you pick an idea that you find "edgy" (someone or something is out to get you), an evil shady boogie man (Friedman) we can all boo at, and then throw everything and the kitchen sink into your version of reality until it somehow starts to make sense, at least if you can't be bothered with nuances or the real complexity of geopolitics and how it's never just one variable that determines an outcome as huge as a country plunging into disarray, but many factors influencing each other in subtle ways.
I don't think capitalism is above reproach and there are many fair criticisms of both capitalism as a doctrine and the flavor it has acquired in contemporary times. I also don't think that the idea that crisis situations make us more willing to accept things we would not normally accept is without merit. But the way these 2 ideas are tied in "Shock Doctrine" is painfully contrived and the documentary overall has both the clarity of thought and the logic of your average conspiracy theory flick.
When the documentary started out by mentioning sensory deprivation I thought it would talk about how lack of real information (or perceived lack of information) can shape the human psyche and how this is used as a means of political control (during the Arab spring, every government that faced upheaval tried to close off its population and muffle the internet). But nooooo.....it conflated sensory deprivation with physical torture thus managing to say nothing new or interesting about either. Then it veers into electric shock therapy because....documentary logic....and then compares it to the economic doctrine of "shock therapy" as envisaged by Friedman. These two things have similar names but are comparable in as much as the Razzies are comparable to the actual raspberry fruit...See, in the world according to this documentary, every time you drink raspberry juice....you taste Halle Berry's tears.
And it just goes downhill from there as the documentary meanders in paranoid stupor towards telling us that all sudden political and social change is part of an evil plot and it always ends bad, capitalism is the source of all that is rotten and Friedman is a bad dude.
Of course, while it spends some time on Russia (but don't worry, the analysis is not too deep or in any way tries to capture the complexity of the situation there), it neglects to mention what happened to countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic which have successfully used "shock therapy" in their transition to democracy and the free market after the fall of the Berlin wall....because cherry-picking is fun. Also let's not talk about the former Eastern Block countries that adopted Gorbachev's gradual reform route and how that turned our for them....because that would be pointing out that while a sudden switch to capitalism can be risky and painful....sometimes it may just be the lesser or 2 evils.
The hell with that, it's far more fun, and easier to get more attention, if you pick an idea that you find "edgy" (someone or something is out to get you), an evil shady boogie man (Friedman) we can all boo at, and then throw everything and the kitchen sink into your version of reality until it somehow starts to make sense, at least if you can't be bothered with nuances or the real complexity of geopolitics and how it's never just one variable that determines an outcome as huge as a country plunging into disarray, but many factors influencing each other in subtle ways.
I don't think capitalism is above reproach and there are many fair criticisms of both capitalism as a doctrine and the flavor it has acquired in contemporary times. I also don't think that the idea that crisis situations make us more willing to accept things we would not normally accept is without merit. But the way these 2 ideas are tied in "Shock Doctrine" is painfully contrived and the documentary overall has both the clarity of thought and the logic of your average conspiracy theory flick.