Annotations--JW


 * Film Annotation #1**

The first film of the semester, //The Blind Spot//, is a film directed by Adolfo Doring, released in 2008. The film sheds light on the current global oil and energy crisis. In comparison to most other films in the same vein, //The Blind Spot// takes largely a doom and gloom take on the dependency of oil and petroleum products, the stubborn perseverance to keep using them, and what might happen if the same is ongoing. Through expert interviews stock footage, and anecdotes, the film’s central argument is made. By seeking out professionals who give both sides of the psychological and ecological meaning and potential harms, the viewer is able to understand a bleak, fully complete picture of the oil crisis. I found, as far as sustainability issues go, political, cultural, and ecological, mostly. As for the political sustainability issue, //The Blind Spot// aims to show how the system in America is geared towards making incentives for big companies. In the political realm, oil companies are notorious for offering enormous campaign donations, and in return they usually are granted tax breaks. Ecologically, natural gas extraction, oil extraction and more is damaging to the earth and climate. Culturally, consumption is a major aspect if not the complete picture of American culture. As far as petroleum goes, the film made a point to show how it is used in myriad products, and we continually buy them. This point also played into what I found particularly appealing, and that is that we are bound to oil. Another argument that I thought played into this idea was that of “make believe,” or the idea that society plays into what ideology works for them. If it is more convenient to live life under the belief that climate change isn’t real, or there isn’t a problem, then maybe it does not exist. Mostly relying on facts and science, the film also makes some emotional appeals to the audience through its footage, allowing the viewer to use their imagination to paint the picture. I did not find that the film called on specific action as it was more of an informational piece, however it aims to incite a feeling of caution, allowing the audience to consider conservation and limits on usage. Lastly, the target audience was mostly not aimed at all types of people, however those of an educated pedigree, or at least those with the tools to comprehend its implications.


 * Film Annotation #2: on “Food Inc.”**

The film which stuck out the most to me was “Food Inc.”, a graphic and detailed look inside America’s corporate food industry, written directed by Robert Kenner along with Elise Pearlstein and Kim Roberts, released in 2008. The central theme or goal of the film is to shed light on the food processing industry—how it has changed, its presence in the federal government, and how it is a harmful business. For example, the beginning of the film shows the transformation of the meat packing industry from a business standpoint. In the 1970s, the film states that the top five beef packers controlled about a quarter of the market, whereas today the top four control more than eighty percent. In addition to showing how companies dominate the food industry, factory farms do as well, according to the film. In the 70s, as the film explains, there were thousands of slaughterhouses producing the beef, and now there are only thirteen. “Food Inc.” also uses specific cases to show how federal laws protect such a questionable industry. In it, the writers make a distinct case to show those working in the White House at cabinet-level positions that were once lobbyists for big food corporations or the FDA. It also shows how the food industry is largely protected by legislation. One clear example is how it is nearly impossible to go after food corporations after harm has been done it is very hard to go after them in a court of law. Kevin, the young boy who was killed after an E.coli outbreak in meats that a factory was continually producing, is a prime example. Kevin’s mother fought in Washington to seek any response from the FDA or the corporation to no avail, and the law she was looking to pass—Kevin’s Law—has pretty much reached a stalemate. Another case was discussed that in 1998, the USDA began to implement microbial testing for salmonella and E.coli so that if a plant failed the testing the USDA could close the factory, yet they now no longer have that power after meat and poultry associations brought them to court. This also brings about the last point in that the food industry is very harmful. Many, including Kevin, have died from poisonous cultures in meat and poultry. Testing is also incredibly minimal to protect the millions who consume them. To me, I found a few legal issues that were very much implied. Tort law has a big presence, after it was clear that many plants were still producing meats that had E.coli in them, which could have a case for negligence or strict liability. On the part of the factory, it may not have been clear until it was too late that the product was contaminated; however the failure to conduct ample testing is negligent behavior. I also thought that given the way the laws work in favor for these factory farms, perhaps strict liability was the better argument. Because these farms are not subject to rigorous testing and probably would not be for quite some time, the factory in question is still liable for producing meats that had the bacteria which killed Kevin. I found these parts in the film the most compelling, along with Monsanto’s practices and their control over farmers. The film very much as an emotional appeal, and they do so by interviewing farmers who have been affected by food corporations, especially the story of the two friends who were not allowed to be seen around each other for fear of being accused of using seeds not sanctioned by Monsanto. In the end, that farmer ended up losing his farm and money due to court fees. Kevin’s case is also a great example of appealing to emotion, by showing the pain of a mother with pictures of her son. The film mixes science and emotion pretty well, by showing the logistical practices (or lack thereof) and showing how they affect millions of people. Focusing heavily on the law and agricultural practices, “Film Inc.” manages to flawlessly mix it with emotion, prompting the viewer to feel obligated to act. It encourages the audience to change their own practices and buy local as well as contacting local legislators and demand a new future. While it is unsure that these actions will help, it is important for all to start environmentally-smart practices when it comes to buying food. On the legal side, the food industry is a colossal giant that is hard to take down, but as the tobacco industry has done, it is possible that it can fall. I also think the film should have recommended for the audience to become more educated in agricultural sciences and grow and cultivate their own foods. The target audience was for parents, activists, environmentalists, and the general (and perhaps uneducated) public.

**//Annotation #3: A Fierce Green Fire//**

//A Fierce Green Fire// is a 2012 film directed by Mark Kitchell, and narrated by Robert Redford, Ashley Judd, and Meryl Streep. The film’s goal is to paint a semi-complete picture of the Environmentalist movement, its origins and where it can go in the future. The narrative is told in three acts, each narrated by a well-known actor. Act One, titled “Conservation,” narrated by Robert Redford, focuses on just that—the origins of the environmentalist movement. Citing mostly John Muir and Gifford Pinchot’s contributions in the early 1900s, this act shows the early tensions between conservation and economy—the need and desire to keep lands the way they have always been versus using them for resources for a viable economy, a sustainability problem that lasts even today. Act Two, narrated by Ashley Judd, is called “Pollution,” showing the movement through the 20th Century. It begins by displaying the environmental zeitgeist of the 1970s—Nixon was in office and was passing considerable amounts of “green” legislature from the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency was enacted, and more. This act really kicks off when describing the first Earth Day in 1970. It goes to discuss the Lois Gibbs and Love Canal phenomenon that occurred and how effective it was. While environmentalism picked up in the 1970s with Nixon and Carter, it was greatly diminished once Regan came to office, as he was a strong and stubborn believer in the strength of the market, as he even hired James Watt, a blatant anti-environmentalist. The end of the act focuses on Environmental Justice, as it destroys many impoverished and mostly black communities around the country. The last act, “Alternatives,” narrated by Meryl Streep, discusses alternative views and approaches taken by activists over the years. It cites the Integral Urban House, a project in Berkeley, California that focused on sustainable living, the Whole Earth Catalog, which beckoned the question of the relationship between humans and the environment, Buckminister Fuller and “Spaceship Earth,” and communes as alternative re-negotiations of the meaning of community. As for sustainability problems, the film focuses on an extremely large amount, but mostly ecological, political, cultural, and media. Ecologically speaking, the film discusses John Muir’s early attempts to stop the Hetch Hetchy dam project in California. The dam proved, as most do, to drastically alter wildlife in its area. There were also ecological sustainability problems and others in the Love Canal happening, as there were intense chemical deposits being opened up around children, proving (though not according to the EPA) to be harmful to children and pregnant mothers. Politically speaking, sustainability issues were at every corner, as with Regan hiring James Watt, or for Lois Gibbs, she faced political contention at every stage, eventually getting legislation passed under President Carter. The EPA would not be in full compliance, and she faced the “red tape” of bureaucracy almost constantly. Culturally, the film sheds light on the environmentalist cultural, and how it is perceived to the masses. The cultural in its earlier times faced much contention as it skewed from what was the accepted norm. It also shows the stress between environmentalism and consumerism. Lastly, for the media, it is shown how it has been useful and also ineffective and harmful. The coverage of the first Earth Day proved to set a precedent. The film mostly relies on emotion, using narrative and storytelling from an inside perspective through interviews, old news clips and more. It also makes a claim to emotion I felt through using such big names to tell the story. The relationship between the audience recognizing their voices, and seeing the images gives the film a quality that is higher than most. Another emotional appeal is through the Greenpeace story of saving the whales. At the end, one of the founders says that he looked in the eye of one of the whales and saw its pain, for example. There really is not a need for a scientific argument as it proves to be a narrative documentary. The film at the end suggests action, but mostly for the viewer to realize that they are environmentalists—because if you care about issues in your community, if you care about the environment, then you can be classified as such. To me, this means that the film aims to serve as a wakeup call for those previously unfazed or overwhelmed that they can also take action. The film is aimed for people who are interested in environmentalism, students, scholars, and people who enjoy documentaries.

**Annotation #4: The End of the Line**

//The End of the Line//, directed by Rupert Murray and released in 2009 is based on the book, //The End of the Line: How Overfishing is Changing the World and What We Eat// by Charles Clover. The film adaptation focuses heavily on the environmental changes and the meaning behind overfishing and its effects. The argument is made through a series of accounts from fishermen, researchers, scientists, politicians and more. These speakers offer a diverse narrative on the subject, allowing the audience to see all aspects of the crisis. I found primarily economic, cultural, and ecological sustainability problems. As far as economics go, there is emphasis on the market demand for fish as a huge component of the overfishing problem. There is a problem however, and that while demand is up, resources are consistently dwindling, thus there is no room for a sustainable system. Culturally, I found sustainability problems with one being that the influx in demand for bluefish tuna was largely due to the cultural demand of sushi. Now, sushi is becoming an increasingly popular and more accessible food than ever. This shows how cultural shifts can have negative effects on sustainability. Ecologically, the film makes a huge plea to understanding how marine life and climate as well as fish populations from such a sudden imbalance. One claim that appealed to me, perhaps emotionally, was its discussion of the potential loss that the cod population had endured in Newfoundland. They also use fisherman to help make the plea recognize how devastating this problem is. Using these tactics, along with others, the film relies mostly on emotion. The film does at the beckon the viewer to take action, ranging from becoming politically involved, buying fish from more sustainable systems, urging consumers to question the environment in which it comes from, and to contact politicians to take action as well. It focuses heavily on educating viewers, as this is projected as a problem that people have never heard of. The film’s primary target audience ranges to people who regularly eat fish, and people who never knew this was such a grave problem.

//Gasland// is a 2010 documentary directed by Josh Fox, a film which takes a hard look at the fracking industry and its effects on communities affected. Mostly, the film provides a narrative strongly against natural gas extraction—fracking practices, moral and ethical meanings, and its adverse effects on the environment and people. Fracking does not only spell big bucks for companies, however it also means danger. The film’s narrative is largely told through the filmmaker’s life, travels, and detective work on the subject. As far as sustainability problems go, the film explores them in economic, ecological, legal, political, and behavioral realms. Regarding economic sustainability, Fox proclaims that while enormous profits can be made on fracking, the process itself requires many economic resources, including tens of truckloads for water alone, which is only one of the process phases. Ecologically speaking, fracking requires an immense amount of resources and infers much damage. In the process alone, one to seven million gallons of water are used and fracking fluid contains 595 plus chemicals. For the waste part of the process, pools of wastewater sit above ground to be evaporated into the air, which then comes down in acid rain. These practices are incredibly harmful to neighboring communities. For example, Fox travels first to Pennsylvania around the New York border, to meet with a woman affected by fracking after Cabot Industries began extracting nearby and her water well went bad. Up the street to Ron and Jean Carter’s, their water well began fizzing. Once trying to confront Cabot, it was clear that there was a cover-up, and while they attempted to do so, there was a loss of “normal life” for all of them. In Colorado, families were able to light their tap water on fire. Politically, the film covered topics such as the Halliburton loophole as well as the Energy Task Force of the Bush Administration, and how both served as legal vessels to allow for natural gas extraction. The film largely relies on emotion to make its claim, as the film starts with Josh Fox wrestling with the offer to buy out his family’s home from a large company for fracking purposes. It also does so by showing how fracking has impacted families’ homes by offering in-depth conversations with them.
 * //Annotation #5: Gasland//**

**Film Annotation #6 on //Fresh//**

//Fresh// is a 2009 documentary directed by Ana Sofia Joanes. The film makes its central argument around sustainable, alternative forms of agriculture. It also makes the claim against factory farming and how dangerous its practices are on livestock, consumers, and the environment. Joanes in her film makes this claim by showing the dangers of factory farming, the conditions, and lack of knowledge, while showing active farmers who alternatively raise livestock and produce in a healthy and sustainable way. As for sustainability problems, I found them to lie in the social and ecological realms. Socially, I found the part discussing community agriculture in inner city areas to be a sustainability problem as many of these areas do not have access to healthy foods. Ecologically, the mode of agriculture now is very harmful, as the film showed the dangers of large-scale monoculture which can breed diseases among livestock and de nature soil. I found the parts following Joel Salatin to be among the most compelling parts of the film, due to the fact he uses his compassion, charisma, and depth of knowledge to show the disadvantages of factory farming and the more conventional modes agriculture. //Fresh// most certainly has emotional appeal, by showing images of factory farming and telling the stories of the local farmers who use alternative and healthier methods. Towards the end of the film, there is great emotional appeal by showing community gardening and its positive effect on children and the greater community. The film uses primarily emotion rather than science, although it does so in a factual and accurate way. One such example was through showing the conditions of the chicks at the beginning of the film, and then interviewing the farm owners who believed their methods and feed was safe and appropriate to illustrate the misunderstandings and duplicity of the agriculture business. Another example is in using the subjects’ expertise, as in Joel Salatin and David Ball in Kansas City (my hometown). The film instructs the audience at the end of the film to visit [|www.freshthemovie.com], in order to get involved and volunteer or donate—in essence it is a complete plug for their own movie, however the greater message is to become an advocate and spend your time towards getting better foods to communities. The target audience is not very specific—ranging from anyone who is interested in learning about agriculture, to those who wish to understand sustainability, or those who are community-oriented.

**Film Annotation #7 on “An Inconvenient Truth”**

//An Inconvenient Truth// is a 2006, Academy-Award winning documentary directed by Davis Guggenheim. The film’s central premise follows former Vice President Al Gore’s campaign on climate change awareness. The film follows his journey and travels giving numerous speeches around the globe, while giving a closer look at the man himself. Gore makes the claim that climate change is very much a human-made predicament, and its adverse effects are very real and present a grave amount of danger. The claim is made, perhaps surprisingly, through scientific research and relies heavily on it. However, it also aims to give a personal look into Al Gore’s life, including his infamous loss in the 2000 elections to George Bush. While musing on Gore’s life and research, the film pays much attention and time to the content of his climate presentation in front of a live audience. He begins by showing iconic pictures of earth, like Earthrise, making Earth feel small and giving the audience context. He then moves on to discuss the Earth’s atmospheric mechanisms, including the greenhouse effect, then to CO2 in the atmosphere along with temperature trends, and ending on misconceptions in public perception and the media. For sustainability issues, there were mostly political, cultural, and ecological concerns. Politically, the film makes (maybe inadvertently) a slight critique on the voting system, by showing how unjustly Gore’s presidential title was taken from him, although it depicts him taking the loss in stride. Culturally, Gore makes several critiques on consumption and production, the two driving forces of the economy which can have terrible effects on the climate if unprotected, and lastly, the brunt of the film pays much attention to the ecological sustainability problems from over-production causing rises in CO2, to the addition of other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the implications of these current physical changes—from ice melt to weather trends. I found the part concentrating on the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements and how it coincides and interacts with temperature. This film has much emotional appeal through taking a close look at Al Gore’s life—his battle with depression after his 2000 loss, his home life and how he began to care for the environment, as well his struggles with his son’s accident. Gore pushes his audience to understand climate change, as well as aims to give them the correct tools to be climate literate. He does suggest to take actions such as becoming more conscious in consumption, recycling, to speak up in the community—in essence to fight against climate change by making changes in the home. This film is aimed at those who have a very basic-level understanding of climate change or those who are introduced to it.

A 2003 Canadian documentary film, //The Corporation//, written by Joel Bakan and directed by Mark Achbar takes a critical look at the modern day corporation. The film makes the argument that the aims and goals of the corporation has changed—and ultimately businesses have become increasingly more and more of a social threat and liability than enhancer. Such an argument is shown though its narrative. The film starts out by explaining how it went from a government made institution to having the same rights as a person under the law. Mostly, the film goes into demonstrating its negative effects on culture and the environment. One example that follows this is in its segment on sweatshop conditions. This to me, was very clear as a organizational, cultural, and ecological sustainability problem—due to the fact that many large companies use sweatshops in extremely poor, third world countries and exploits its lands and people to maximize profits. Nike, for example, paid their workers—mostly young women at pennies to the dollar. The working conditions themselves were terrible, forcing them to work towards extremely high output in a long period of time for little to no salary. Also, most of these shops in the film, all but two, disposed of their waste properly. I found these parts of the film also very compelling. Another part that was compelling was that of adverting techniques, a cultural sustainability problem. The emotional appeal to me was one that was not contrived, but through showing the facts, they were able to show how grave the situation is among large companies. However, by the end of the film, they demonstrated the future of businesses and how they can be bettered—as shown by benefit corporations. They make the claim that companies can also be geared towards social benefit. Largely focusing on legal fact and reasoning as the primary argument, the film suggests to encourage a future when corporations work for society and are sustainable—and not just for their own benefit.
 * //Annotationon #8: The Corporation//**

Ortman, Scott G., Andrew H.F. Cabaniss, Jennie O. Sturm, and Luis M. A. Bettencourt. "The Pre-History of Urban Scaling." (n.d.): n. pag. PLOS ONE:. 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 01 Mar.2015. 2. The main purpose of this article is to create a general framework and to show that there are general principles of settlement organization urbanization that can be applied across human history. 3. The argument is sustained by testing models of settlement scaling in archaeology on the Pre-Hispanic Basin of Mexico to show that particular ancient settlement shows spatial scaling properties comparable to modern cities. Finally, the framework developed here leads to exciting and testable predictions regarding a variety of socio-economic processes in ancient societies. 4.Quote 1: This quote displays the new way to consider cities, a theme of my research. As human history continues, it is important to reconsider the role of cities for sustainability's sake. "This theory derives many average properties of modern cities from their population size based on a few general principles of human social organization [|[6]] and leads to a general view of cities as // social reactors // : larger cities, on average, magnify social interaction opportunities thereby increasing the productivity and scope of material resources and human labor."
 * Annotation #9: The Pre-History of Urban Scaling**
 * Scott G. Ortman, Andrew H.F. Cabaniss, Jennie O. Sturm, Luis M.A. Bettencourt**

Quote 2: Cities and urbanization are increasingly being defined as complex webs of socio-economic relationships. "Finally, the framework developed here leads to exciting and testable predictions regarding a variety of socio-economic processes in ancient societies."

5. I find some instances of scaling to be slightly less persuasive, partially because I would like to see some equations that contradict it. I do however find it believable that cities grow in a similar fashion, however, the fact that they still do when given different environmental stresses seems inconceivable.

6. There only part I didn't understand was the advanced scaling portion--everything else was fine. Perhaps this is because I did not completely understand all the derivations of these equations.

7. My question is how to raise awareness of this sort of science? Understanding all levels of urbanization means that we can accurately look at problems with sustainability in the future.