GENERAL FAQ AND FEEDBACK RESPONSES
"Who are you and what is your background?"
"Can I speak to you on Facebook or Myspace?"
"What are you trying to do with this site?"
"Are you going to update the look of your site?"
"Can I help with your site design and graphics?"
"Why don't you switch to Wordpress?"
"Do you do this full time?" (updated 3rd Jan 2012)
"Can I make a donation to help cover your time and expenses in developing and running the site?"
"Can I get DVD copies of your videos?"
"Can you make your DVDs available at a lower cost?"
"Will you review my film / book / artwork?"
"Will you offer me feedback about my script / film / book in progress?"
"You haven't responded to my email."
"Will you place a link on your site for me?"
"I don’t agree with all your insights."
"You shouldn’t be stating your opinions as fact."
"What qualifications do you have to support your writings?"
"How did you learn to analyze films and media the way you do?"
"Why don’t you get a book published about your film analysis?"
"What's your IQ / have you sat the MENSA test?"
"You’re a left winger / right winger / conspiracy theorist."
"Someone on the internet said something bad about you."
"How do you know you’re not just seeing what you want / expect to see as opposed to what’s there?"
"But you can read anything into anything. Look at some of the crazy articles floating around on the net."
"You're not using Occam's Razor?"
"Why haven't film makers come out and confirmed the kinds of themes that you attribute to their work?"
"You’ve got way too much time on your hands."
A note for insistently negative correspondents and those attempting outright character assassination.
POPULAR FILM ANALYSIS REQUESTS (please check here before sending requests for particular films).
"Why are there lots of spelling and grammar mistakes in your articles?"
"What's coming in 2012 on this site?" (updated 3rd Jan 2012)
"Are you still intending on making much of the site available only by paid subscription?"
"Why don't you allow ads to bring in revenue so we can view all your material for free?"
"When will Turn In Your Grave be released?" (updated 3rd Jan 2012)
"Who are you and what is your background?"
My name is Rob Ager. I was born in Liverpool, England (so yes, I am a "scouser") in 1973 and have spent most of my life living here, but also lived in Alberta, Canada for five years. I've been fanatically interested in creative arts, films in particular, and psychology since childhood.
Due to harsh social and economic conditions in the 1980's most teenagers in the poorer parts of Liverpool, including myself, left school with few qualifications or job prospects. I broke away from the thuggish street life trends and resorted to self-education. After a couple of years I broke into the field of computer games as a graphic designer / animator. Finding that line of work disappointing I worked my way, as a volunteer, into the field of social care and have since spent 15 years working with the mentally ill, homeless, children in care and probation.
In my late 20's I finally took the plunge into film making. Having never been on a film set I dove in at the deep end by writing, directing, editing and co-producing a half hour fiction film, The Victim. After two more half hour short films (and discovering the politicized and self-defeating nature of state-sponsored film in the UK) I hit a financial crisis and was unable to make films for a period of four years. It was during that crisis that I learned some basic web design skills and created collativelearning.com. To my surprise the content of the site (despite its amateur technical design) connected with many thousands of people from across the globe - people of different age brackets and professional standing. In four years my videos have had nearly five million viewings on Youtube and the site has received millions of visits.
My film making is now back on track. In 2011 I completed the screener edit of my first feature film Turn In Your Grave.
"Can I speak to you on Facebook or Myspace?"
I've finally surrendered and joined Facebook, but only to keep in touch with relatives and friends who know me in the real world. Someone else has set up a Facebook account using my name and picture. On close inspection it describes itself as a fan page, but initially appears to be my "official" Facebook page. My real Facebook page is this one, please only send a friend invite if you know me personally. I don't use myspace at the moment.
"What are you trying to do with this site?"
Originally this was an experimental website I set up in 2007. As its audience has grown so has the original idea. My basic aim originally was to promote public interest in psychology and independent film making techniques. We all make use everyday of whatever psychological insights we have gained in life and so it is to everybody's benefit to actively progress their understanding of this subject. The articles I offer draw on a variety of sources (mostly sources that get little exposure or are usually treated separately) and I try to write them in a way that can easily be understood by the average Joe Bloggs rather than appealing merely to a handful of academics.
At the moment my purpose with the site is to help people develop their knowledge, creative / perceptual abilities and philosophy, and to enhance public appreciation of and interest in the arts, especially film.
Regarding film making, I consider this a great opportunity for the average citizen. The cost of digital film making equipment is now at an all-time low. It's fun, it's educational and it gives you a powerful new communication medium in a society that is sadly turning away from the world of literature in preference of unbelievably mind-numbing forms of quick-fix entertainment. I'm keen to attract a lot of people away from the brain-numbing stuff and toward active self-education. The key seems to be ... make it interesting!
"Are you going to update the look of your site?"
As of June 2011 the site is undergoing significant changes. Until now my effort has been expended on essential content - writing, shooting and editing. The site design has been purely functional, but being that the function of the site is now undergoing change the presentation and structureis changing accordingly.
"Can I help with your site design and graphics?"
I've had many offers for this, which are much appreciated. As a former graphic artist I have a very specific eye for what I want in terms of artwork so will continue with the visual designs myself. Technically, the site currently serves its intended purposes, but suggestions for improved functionality are welcome.
"Why don't you switch to Wordpress?"
I use wordpress for the Breaking News and Ager on Film sections of the site, but the format is too technically limiting especially with some of the changes I'm intending on making to the site in the future.
"Do you do this full time?"
Up until mid 2011 I was very limited in how much time I could put into the site (10 to 15 hours per week), but thanks to a boost in site traffic and DVD sales I'm now working almost full time on new content. There will be a lot of new material in 2012.
"Can I make a donation to help cover your time and expenses in developing and running the site?"
Purchasing one of my DVD sets is the easiest way to do this - see products page. Being that I'm able to vary my hours at my regular job, donations actually help me free up time, which can then be devoted to adding new content to this site.
"Can I get DVD copies of your videos?"
Yes. Most of my videos are available on compilation DVDs - see Products Page. Several of these DVDs include material that isn't available online and my intention is to keep a 50/50 ratio of free and DVD only material from here on. If you prefer to just be a freeloader that's ok, but you'll only have access to half my material. The DVD sets can also be bought on ebay - just search "Rob Ager" on the ebay site.
"Can you make your DVDs available at a lower cost?"
They aren't expensive, especially in light of the of dozens of hours worth of free material I've made available (that's thousands of hours of effort on my part). Those who step beyond freeloading by purchasing one or more of my DVDs are the people who've made it possible for me to free up time to create more content. So it's they who will be most catered for in terms of future content.
"Will you review my film / book / artwork?"
I virtually always write about very well known material. If you're asking me to review an unknown work then there's little benefit for me or this site, unless you've produced something highly exceptional. Possibly I could provide such a review service for a fee or equivalant favour, but again your material has to be good.
"Will you offer me feedback about my script / film / book in progress?"
Viewing material that has been sent to me takes time out of my schedule, especially books, so generally I'm unable to find the time. Unless the material is of specific interest to me personally, I can offer a detailed feedback service (of books, scripts, treatments etc) for a negotiable fee. There are writers who provide such a service for £25 an hour. I wouldn't charge by the hour, but would instead provide a flat fee. The advantage you'd have is in knowing, from the material on this site, my level of "expertize" in the study of art and fiction.
"You haven't responded to my email."
I get hundreds of emails every month, some very long winded, some asking questions / providing information that is already covered elsewhere in the website, and some downright absurd. Unfortunately I don't always get around to responding. The shorter the email the quicker I can respond.
"Will you place a link on your site for me?"
That depends on the link. I don't allow advertising on the site, but if your site bears relationship to mine then yes, a mutual link can be arranged. Email me and ask.
"I don’t agree with all your insights."
If you did then that would mean you were putting me on an intellectual pedestal, which would be a mistake. There are many thoughts and insights written in my articles which I only partially believe myself. Everything I say is open to question.
"You shouldn’t be stating your opinions as fact."
Unfortunately human language is too limited for me to avoid doing so. Often in my articles I use words and phrases such as “possibly … could be … in my opinion”, but to do this with every single sentence would be boring and repetitive. Believe it or not, I’ve also had messages from people claiming that my articles aren’t convincing because I don’t express enough conviction about my opinions. There will always be someone who disapproves, no matter how an article is written.
"What qualifications do you have to support your writings?"
Academically, none. I don’t pursue academic education because of the unnecessary costs frequently involved (time, money, resources) and the political and economic factors which often hamper the work of academic institutions. Much of my work is also based upon the cross referencing of disciplines that are treated separately in academia. What I do have an abundance of is practical experience and extensive reading / research in most of the topics I write about. I also receive a lot of correspondence from academics about the site content and am always receptive to their feedback.
"How did you learn to analyze films and media the way you do?"
It’s a complex combination of factors - broadly the most influential of which I believe to be the following.
1) A lifelong fascination with psychology and philosophy related disciplines such as Gestalt therapy, NLP, marketing psychology, military psychology, psyops, KHTP, the enneagram and Buddhism. My experiences of these disciplines haven’t just been theoretical. For over 12 years I’ve worked with children, the mentally ill, homeless people and ex-offenders – this helped me find out first hand how the various psychological theories bear up to the test of real life. As a result of all these experiences I wrote a book detailing a model of self-therapy, which I call Collative Learning Systems.
2) A lifelong pursuit of creative activities. This began early in my childhood as a preoccupation with drawing and painting, followed by spells of short story writing and eventually low budget film making. The latter was essential for my film analysis articles because having written, produced, directed, edited and acted as cinematographer I have an understanding of the broad fundamentals of how films are made.
3) The articles I write are not just about perceptual skills. They’re very dependent on articulation. Many of the things I write about are things that people are already aware of on some level, but they just haven’t put words to the experience. Like anyone else who’s done a lot of writing, I’ve managed to develop this skill to a reasonable level. In particular I try to keep the descriptions as basic and accurate as possible … many writers try to spice up their writing with colourful language to show off their supposed intellectual abilities – something I don’t find impressive or useful.
To learn the deeper psychological processes relating to my work you can purchase a copy of my pdf book Collative Learning Systems (2006).
"Why don’t you get a book published about your film analysis?"
I do publish … on the internet, and the traffic of readers on my site has been growing steadily enough (currently over 45,000 visits a month) that a high street publisher is not needed. High street book publishing these days I consider to be an exercise in building an image of credibility for the author. A lot of people get stuck in the mentality that if a piece of writing gets published by a well funded distributor then it must be good writing. There are plenty of entirely ridiculous books in circulation that disprove that notion. It’s also true that there’s quality writing out there that publishers avoid for a variety of reasons – controversy, the lack of an identified market, political / economic bias or the expense of excessive visual accompaniments relating to the text. The latter is certainly true with my film analysis articles. It’s essential for a great number of DVD stills and clips to be included due to the detailed references I make to the films in question. This would not only be expensive and impractical for book publishers, but would also generate a high risk of copyright lawsuits. I doubt many publishers would be willing to take such that chance.
"What's your IQ / have you sat the MENSA test?"
Although I'm not a believer in numerical measurement of intelligence, I sat the MENSA test at ages 19 and 27 (I'm now 37) passing for membership both times. The second time MENSA had split the test into two parts - one for visual cognition and the other for logic and reasoning (membership required top percentile pass on one of the tests, regardless of how low the other was, which I thought was odd). I ended up passing on both, but when I attended a couple of MENSA meetings, found the members very ordinary - they just happened to be good at processing data, but lacked any other distinguishing mental abilities so far as I could tell. And they didn't put their intellect to useful purpose other than an ego-boosting "we're smarter than other people" club.
I would never quote my MENSA IQ ratings publicly for several reasons. 1) It would give some people the mistaken impression that they could never learn to write the kind of material I do because they're "not intelligent enough". 2) Intelligence is such a multi-facted and subjective concept that it can't be quantified through numbers. 3) It would provoke a backlash from people who believed I was using my scores on IQ tests to override the opinion of those who disagree with the material I put out (and rightly so).
I believe intelligence to be a flexible aspect of human nature - something that can be developed through training and experience.
"You’re a left winger / right winger / conspiracy theorist."
These kinds of comments tend to come from people who have watched a particular video of mine that conflicts with their political opinions. The vast majority of time the accuser has prematurely reacted without having watched any of my other videos, visited my site or read my articles. Unfortunately, some of them are also trolls who wish to poison debate with misinformation to artificially discredit the character of their target.
These accusations don't apply because I don’t buy into the deceptive left / right political model. The extreme left (communism) and extreme right (fascism) are identical because they both lead to centralized social control and hence a tyrannical police state. It is only the ideological justifications - the propaganda - that are different.
As for “conspiracy theories”, the only articles of mine that delve into the classic examples (Illuminati, New World Order etc) are my reviews of films in which the film maker has embedded such themes. That doesn’t mean I'm promoting those ideas. The same logic could be used to call me a “religious nutter” because my Cape Fear film analysis offers a religious interpretation. My analysis of Hitchcock films could be used to label me as a promoter of outdated “Freudian” theories. Again with these films I have simply explored themes and psychological devices that were embedded by the film maker.
If you wish to know my political opinions then avoid my film analysis and read my actual political articles such as Choose Your News, Economy Vs Ideology and Strategic Discrimination in the British Film Industry. "Conspiracy theorist" theorists are invited to read my article How to Make Sense of Conspiracy Theories, which I submit is one of the most balanced and unbiased studies to be found on the subject.
"Someone on the internet said something bad about you."
Anybody whose built up a significant audience base online encounters this, especially if they do any kind of campaigning against corruption, which I occasionally do. There are a lot of trolls out there. The majority of trolls retain anonymity to avoid a libel case, though some will attempt to pass themselves off as having some official affiliation to give false credibility to what they're saying. Always check up on who they claim to be. If you're referring to the politically motivated smear attack conducted against me by The Sun newspaper in 2010 you can read the full story on my Press Page. If it's anything else than I suggest you take a look at who the person is that is posting the claim. If they're anonymous then it's very likely they're either affiliated with the aforementioned or a company called Skillstrain in response to this public information video, which I released two years ago. And at a push they may be affiliated with a company called Adullam Homes Housing Association regarding a neglect case I've been publicly bringing attention to concerning a family member.
"How do you know you’re not just seeing what you want / expect to see as opposed to what’s there?"
We all do this on a regular basis in life whether we intend it or not. So it would be an outright lie if I were to tell you that everything I write is 100% unbiased. A better question is “How often, and to what degree, do you distort information by imposing preconceived ideas?” There are a variety of approaches I use to reduce perceptual mistakes in my work. One is that after developing an interpretation of something I then seek out counter-evidence. I step into critical mode and ask questions like “What else could this mean? … What conflicts with this? … Is there anything I haven’t taken into account?” Because of this approach my work does not simply consist of me saying the first thoughts that pop into my head. Each article and video has developed through a complex filtering of assorted ideas and cross-referenced information. For every idea that I write about there are several more that have been considered and then discarded because they weren’t up to scratch.
I generally find that when a correspondent tries to convince me that the majority of my work is over-analytical speculation (which is less and less these days), they will cite a very limited number of my statements to support their claim. These are usually what they selectively consider to be the perceptual weakest links. In some instances I agree with such assertions and will update the articles in question to include corrections (unfortunately this generally isn’t practical with videos that have already been edited and posted on Youtube). I also sometimes give credit to the person who gave the corrective feedback.
"But you can read anything into anything. Look at some of the crazy articles floating around on the net."
Yes, you can read anything into anything, but discrepancies of logic can easily be identified by the reader. An article that consistently withstands the test of varied and intelligent reader critique is worth taking seriously ... and currently my articles and videos have an audience consisting of tens of thousands of people of various ages, professions and levels of education.
It's also important to note, and I think this is a frequent mistake even among intelligent readers, if you're using the worst case examples of analytical writing as a yard stick for analytical writing in general ... then even the most scholarly and well researched piece of writing can be brushed off as baseless, which of course would limit the reader's opportunity to learn from any author, whether academic or not. Such a one-sided yard stick would effectively render all human communication and perception as valueless. Any generalized opinion about writers should take into account both negative and positive examples of analytical writing, but ultimately the writing should be judged on it's own merit.
"You're not using Occam's Razor."
Nor do I intend to. Occam's Razor is a flawed perceptual principle. Reality is much more complex than humans perceive it to be so there is no merit in the idea that simple explanations have more validity than complex ones. Simple explanations are more likely to be generalistic and run a greater chance of ommitting relevant information. For example the Periodic Table is a complex set of assumptions about the chemical structure of the universe, but we should not abandon it in favor of centuries old models of chemistry that reduced nature to just a handful of base elements. A better name for Occam's Razor would be Occam's Perceptual Limitation. Another example of a flawed theory of perception, though widely used as an argument of convenience, is Godwin's Law (the assumption that whoever first raises the topic of Nazism in an internet discussion immedietely loses the debate). Nazism is tied directly to one of the most world-influencing events of the last century and so is frequently raised in relevance to modern day discussions of world events. Godwin's Flawed Opinion is a more appropriate name for the theory ... perhaps I should call this Ager's Law.
"Why haven't film makers come out and confirmed the kinds of themes that you attribute to their work."
Sometimes they do, but in those instances my articles would be unnecessary. It's much easier to understand this if you've actually written or directed a film yourself.
Films aren't just about making statements. They're frequently designed to affect the audience in non-verbal ways - feelings, intuition etc. The film makers themselves are often driven by feelings and intuition without having a verbal road map of what they are communicating to the audience. In a way, my film analysis articles are merely attempts to construct interesting verbal road maps of these intuitive experiences.
Another factor is that the film maker often doesn't want to speak publicly about these intuitive (or even consciously secretive) themes. The reasons for this are many.
Yet another factor in this is that the creative impetus behind a film is often miscredited. Multiple rewritngs of a script by different writers can effectively mean that an authoritive creative source can't be identified. A mediocre director who doesn't understand the finer qualities of a script can be carried along by a producer or cinematographer whose finer input isn't duly credited. In the case of a film like Alien or Pink Floyd The Wall, the end result can be an almost accidental combination of talents from different collaborators who never even openly agreed on what the core themes of the film were going to be.
And ... sometimes a film carries accidental themes that were only partially intended by the film makers, yet drew audience appreciation regardless.
"You’ve got way too much time on your hands."
Not at all. I’ve got a job, a partner, lots of friends and several other activities in my life, BUT … I don’t watch TV, I don’t follow sports, I don’t hang out on Myspace or Facebook all day and I don't waste my time with The Lottery or celebrity gossip "news" papers (and I highly recommend you avoid those distractions too). I put 15 to 20 hours a week into the content of this site and I use that time effectively.
A note for insistently negative correspondents and those attempting outright character assassination.
The factor that generally determines simple corrective feedback from underhanded personal attacks, is whether the correspondent is willing to acknowledge both the weakest AND strongest points in my work. Those who refuse to acknowledge any strong points tend to assume that if they can disprove my weakest statements then my strongest statements will be automatically disproved by implication. When I demonstrate that this is not the case the correspondent often becomes sarcastic or even resorts to swearing and name-calling. I find this fascinating because the correspondent is actually engaging in the perceptual flaw that they are accusing me of – wishful distortion. I’ve reached two conclusions as to why certain correspondents engage in these personal attacks and refuse to let up … and I would like those people in particular to read and consider these conclusions.
1) Intellectual competitiveness. A lot of people in society have developed ego barriers that prevent them from learning. They’ve come to believe that their first intellectual reactions on any subject are as good as anyone else’s. On the one hand this gives them a false sense of security because they wish to believe that they are firmly in touch with reality, and on the other hand it gives them the illusion that they cannot be outsmarted by anyone else - another false form of security. Both of these forms of security are illusionary. Try playing chess with a grand master … you will be beaten hands down. Try making sense of a long and complex legal document … you’ll fail, but a top notch lawyer will succeed. We are not as smart as we think we are, but our chances of maximizing our knowledge and ability are greatly increased if we drop our competitive egos and acknowledge opportunities to learn from others.
2) Fear of complexity. This could be thought of as mental laziness, but I use the word “fear” for good reason. Our social system has somehow persuaded most of us that we each have a fixed level of intellectual ability that cannot be changed. When faced with mentally challenging information it’s easy to just turn away and pay attention to something simple and familiar, and to compensate for the feeling of failure or inadequacy it’s also tempting to label the thing that we couldn’t understand as “geeky … worthless … a waste of time”. This can even extend into character assassinating the person who has presented the challenging information, but the person who really loses out is the one who’s avoiding the complex or challenging information. They don’t get to learn anything. The most mentally capable people in society aren’t that way by default. They’re the kind of people who pursue new skills and knowledge on a regular basis … and not just in the areas in which they naturally feel confident and comfortable. They work on their weak spots by seeking out difficult information and they seek out people who know things that they don’t know.
POPULAR FILM REQUESTS (please check here before sending requests for particular films).
DARK KNIGHT - This has been one of the most requested films for analysis. Generally I like to write about films that have already had several years to sink into public consciousness, but I would probably not review this film even in hindsight. Despite its popularity I’m just not a fan of Dark Knight (or any other Batman film). I personally think that the Batman character spoils Dark Knight and that Joker versus the authorities with believable hero characters would make a much better film. Superhero films also generally aren’t my thing. Specifically with Dark Knight I disapproved of the film's attempt to promote a ludicrous idea of anarchist, homegrown terrorism. The film plays political games relating to the war on terror and the dead giveaway is that the DVD cover features a supposed Batman logo of blazing fire on the side of a building. This doesn’t appear in the film at any point and is more than likely a reference to the burning plane impacts of the twin towers on 9/11. Please no argumentative emails trying to sing Dark Knight’s praises. It’s not my thing.
DONNIE DARKO - Although I initially found this an interesting film, I was unable to identify coherent themes in subsequent viewings. I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that Donnie Darko is like an extended music video. Either that or it’s style of narrative is not something I’m familiar with.
MEMENTO - I couldn’t even bring myself to watch this film all the way through. The backwards storytelling I personally found gimmicky.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD - Although I have mentioned elsewhere that I intend to do an article about this film, several people have requested that I drop all other projects and write this one immediately. Unfortunately, I won’t be hurrying to write this review ... for two reasons. First, I want to allow a little more time for the hype to die off. It’s much easier to assess a film after its affect on society has been more fully felt. Second, and I know this will disappoint some people, I don’t rate There Will Be Blood as a bonafide classic. It is outstanding in many ways, but I found the final act of the film to be a very weak conclusion to an otherwise thought provoking story. Nevertheless, I will review the film eventually.
FIGHT CLUB - Yes. I intend to review this one eventually.
MATRIX SEQUELS - No. I'm not a fan of the sequels and much prefer the original as a standlone film.
Why are there lots of spelling and grammar mistakes in your articles?
Partially because of the extremely limited time I'm able to put into working on the site content and partially because the articles are frequently being updated with additional material.
What's coming in 2012 on this site?
Among other things, I hope to get most of the following done throughout 2012.
Are you still intending on making much of the site available only by paid subscription?
No. I've been finding the DVD sales method to be efficient. It also means that once people have bought the discs they're theirs to keep, even if the site were to permanently disappear.
Why don't you allow ads to bring in revenue so we can view all your material for free?
Because I don't want commercial content on the site that isn't in line with what the site is about. I agree with free loading on the internet to the extent that there's a lot of garbage out there to sift through, but once you know that a certain artist or writer consistently delivers material that you like then its time to start giving something back. If you want more content then you can purchase it on my DVD sets.
When will Turn In Your Grave be released?
I'll be releasing the current cut of the film independently in early 2012 (probably in February) to recoup some of the production costs. Around the time I finished editing the screener I ran into a few funding obstacles so haven't had the time and resources to pursue distribution or promote the film. I haven't even had a chance to complete a proper trailer yet. When I have properly edited trailers ready I'll start pushing the project for distribution.
