Estelle Simpson

The film feels as oppressive to Fisher’s legacy as the past feels to the present. Somewhat structured by key elements of Fisher’s philosophy, it fails to deliver a script as relatable as Fisher’s. Undelivered are his multilayered observations of the 21st century - an aptly idiosyncratic approach to exploring the insidious human activity - and I am left wanting for it to be immersed in his deeply cerebral and engaging perspectivity.


Yes there was much for Fisher to lament when looking so closely into the k-ulture, but, I have to say, I found hope in his compassion for mental health affects of modern stimuli, as well as bragging the highlights of British media and arts through his fervour for specific writers/filmmakers/musicians, and, analysing within these narratives, lessons for humanity. Found in online archives or the library bookshelf, generous in the amount of thought he shared, Fisher’s writing has been effortlessly accessible to the masses; much cherished by those who feel unmoored by contemporary society.


Against the critique of Fisher’s writing and thought was an appealing use of style and aesthetic, which functioned to further, effortlessly animate the language of his rhetoric rather than overshadow it. While evidently low budget, unrealised visual elements in the film further rot away at the power of Fisher’s evolution of thought. If collaged internet search screens and website browsers (found in rough around the edges treatment) and seemingly unfinished graphics were intentional, they felt unendearing in their overt sincerity. The film depends much on crowds at protests, offering no visual treatment, whilst being interspliced with dormant, vague graphics.  


“We are making a film [...] , so are you,”

Albeit the film appeals to collectivity and is clearly aiming to be accessible whilst trying to define the depth of British culture theorist. Observing the nature of humanity, culture, and society, Fisher was able to identify frequencies in our reality that hide in obvious places, sometimes only realised retrospectively. As his concepts unravel over time before our eyes (I’m thinking of insidious hauntological atmospheres presiding over the present, for example) his voice has become globally recognised since 2017. Can you define a figure whose theory continues to define culture itself, prefiguring you as it does the nature of society. Fisher has affected many personally, and also provided one of the most cohesive reflections on our current day, especially in the opinion of those who already feel time is out of joint. So the film is ambitious in its exploration of a figure who had a significant meaning to many individuals…

As an art student I, like many others, found myself invested in the philosophy and cultural voice of Fisher, being yet another lamenting youth brandishing my copy of ‘Ghosts of my Life’. His thought articulated the 21st century fatigue. I found it refreshing when experiencing the false economy of the mainstream educational system, the rising-fees of full-time courses, balanced by my extra jobs. Further suggesting ways to navigate the nascent online world, this writing has continued relevance for me in ongoing life. The author offered a way to perceive my dread and fear of selling one’s soul to the electronic device, picking up on frequencies which beguile many of us. Found in the temporary positions he held as lecturer, K Punk blog posts, and books, the author of this compelling rhetoric pondered why our generation has the heightening rate of poor mental health answered by the observation: “Why is it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism?”


Yet Fisher offered so much more; his work had a flair in its gothic and hauntological elegies, and was full of personality in his enthusiasm for art and culture. A compelling philosophy was matched with a fascination in aesthetics, making for encounters with analogue decay in a retrofuturistic aptitude. In encountering Fisher’s evolution of thought, there is also rich analysis of the writing of Lovecraft, Daphne Du Maurier, and H.G Wells, film directors like Hitchcock and Kubrick. From ‘The Fall’ and ‘Joy Division’, his embracement of such fascinations was an imperative to consider the wider dynamics of society in relation. The culture critic parades his adoration of ‘Burial’, suggesting within the music’s “ghost in the machine” sound, a successful mirroring of the feeling of longing for lost futures; a collective experience, wishing on an alternative to neoliberal melancholia and austerity.


The intricacy and detail in Fisher’s thought allowed him to create a bayeux tapestry of the new age, highlighting the institutional beasts and dragons of capitalism presiding in the borderlines, while observing the morality and chaos of Internet culture, punk, academia, mass media, and popularism. Beyond politics, this tapestry warns of the dangers of mindlessly floundering in the ideology, and empathises with what life feels like for those who have not fallen into the projected fantasy of capitalism. Is it possible to capture this all in a 65-minute film? Perhaps not. But in its attempt it falls short of energising the audiences yet to fall down the rabbit hole, as well as providing an ode that approaches suitability for those already invested.


I would have liked the script of the film to be immersed more in what I perceive the mind’s eye of Mark Fisher to be. It felt overly littered with political activity, whilst only lightly referencing topics like Jungle, the underground/ experimental scene, or digital hardcore, for instance. The vibrancy of his voice felt rather dulled down by uninspiring interviews and narration focusing obsessively  on general collectivist rhetoric. As someone familiar with Fisher, (albeit I must have so much more to explore) I understand that an intimate knowledge of his literature facilitates the best understanding of the references and structure of his thought. This makes the film neither a great place to start or a suitable biopic to the familiar. What both excites and alarms me is that his evolution of thought only gains connection to the present… There are so many relevancies his work could have to the context of 2025 which could be explored. I will have to continue to imagine myself what he would have made of AI slop, para-social relationships, “vibes”, rage-bait, political cyberwarfare, and post-Brexit England.