This is so gloomy and captivating. But it didn't take too long into watching his movies that I began to think about what feels problematic about his work.
It's like, after unmasking our ideologies and concepts which we think of as neutral, he creates his own ideology, but at the same time obscures it as something definite or factual.
Being a montage of imagery and researched fact, it must necessarily be interpretive and tendentious (biased). But if you pretend that it's "the truth", isn't that problematic and doesn't it minimize its effect?
The summary on BBC's website I hope helps me illustrate what I have in mind. It's however only for clarification, as I don't know who wrote it (whether it was the BBC, Curtis or whether it was tailored to what he wants to accompany the film).
Granted the film is introduced as a “story”, that tells “an epic narrative” by “a brilliant storyteller“, there are a lot of instances throughout the text where these characteristics get blurred.
“It explains not only why these chaotic events are happening - but also why we, and our politicians, cannot understand them.
The film shows that what has happened is that [...]
"All these stories are woven together to show how today’s fake and hollow world was created. Part of it was done by those in power - politicians, financiers and technological utopians. Rather than face up to the real complexities of the world, they retreated." [...]
We all went along with it because the simplicity was reassuring.“
Besides the fact that it reads like Science Fiction, (which I find is not as remarkable as the fact that at the end it's just an Ad for “iPlayer”!!), the wording has something so definite, as if Curtis reveals to us the (only) truth, and not politically motivated, tendentious (and important) wake-up calls. ... So while I don't want to confuse the text with Curtis's work, I question if there's something very similar going on in the movies themselves.
In a commentary on (if I remember correctly) a book by Kurt Tucholsky and John Heartfield from 1929 Axel Eggebrecht expressed that naturally their work is tendentious, but compiling a picture book and saying the world is beautiful and claiming that's the only reality, is tendentious, too.
 in: TÖTEBERG, Michael: Heartfield. Rowohlt 1978. (S. 60-70 - „Benütze Foto als Waffe“)