I got the chance to attend at least one of the many free films presented at the Environmental Film Festival, Tales from Planet Earth, organized by the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. I had seen the preview of this film a while back, and the amateur photographer in me was intrigued by the images I saw. Edward Burtynsky’s photographs are beautiful to the eye at a glance, but distributing to the mind when you finally comprehend what you are seeing - the footprint of large scale industrialization and the environmental destruction that accompanies it.
The majority of the film focused on the industrialization of China and how this shift is changing not only the landscape of their country but their society as well. Their goal is to invert the ratio of their land use from 70% agriculture and 30% urban development to 30% agriculture and 70% urban. They believe this will improve their quality of life. In the discussion that followed the film, someone asked “Will this shift to urban living really make them happy and improve their quality of life”? I was reminded of a study which found that when a child’s poor, urban living conditions improved due to increased “greenness” (they regularly saw grass and trees), they notably experienced higher levels of cognitive functions compared to when they were living somewhere less green. And yet, as the film illustrated, we continue to bulldoze and exploit our natural places in the name of progress, marvel at our tenacity and ingenuity, and then still find ourselves wondering why we are so miserable.
Burtynsky and the film director, Jennifer Baichwal, make a point to provide very little commentary throughout the film, leaving the strong images to speak for themselves and requiring the viewer to come to their own conclusions. While I understood this argument to purposely avoid spin or persuasive narratives, I was left wanting more from the film. I wanted to know more about what I was seeing, who these people were, and what these places were about. I think more factual explanations would have pushed this slowing moving film along at a better pace. Nevertheless, the film did succeed in making me and other audience members think about the issues, as evident from the lively discussion afterwards.
The majority of the film focused on the industrialization of China and how this shift is changing not only the landscape of their country but their society as well. Their goal is to invert the ratio of their land use from 70% agriculture and 30% urban development to 30% agriculture and 70% urban. They believe this will improve their quality of life. In the discussion that followed the film, someone asked “Will this shift to urban living really make them happy and improve their quality of life”? I was reminded of a study which found that when a child’s poor, urban living conditions improved due to increased “greenness” (they regularly saw grass and trees), they notably experienced higher levels of cognitive functions compared to when they were living somewhere less green. And yet, as the film illustrated, we continue to bulldoze and exploit our natural places in the name of progress, marvel at our tenacity and ingenuity, and then still find ourselves wondering why we are so miserable.
Burtynsky and the film director, Jennifer Baichwal, make a point to provide very little commentary throughout the film, leaving the strong images to speak for themselves and requiring the viewer to come to their own conclusions. While I understood this argument to purposely avoid spin or persuasive narratives, I was left wanting more from the film. I wanted to know more about what I was seeing, who these people were, and what these places were about. I think more factual explanations would have pushed this slowing moving film along at a better pace. Nevertheless, the film did succeed in making me and other audience members think about the issues, as evident from the lively discussion afterwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment