11- "Stories We Tell" and "Silverlake Life: A View from Here"

by Sherry, Peter and Émilie

             Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? Those are some of the questions that many of us ask ourselves during our lifetime. As human beings, we often attempt to answer those questions by searching for the truth whether it is by referring to our loved ones, our surroundings, our beliefs and our culture. However, truth is a concept that varies from people to people as its definition is personal and no one is quite the same. In fact, those differences in mentality, in understanding and in perceiving sometimes bring on conflicts as a compromise or an agreement cannot be met. Also, as human beings, we all possess the need, or in some cases, the urgency, to socialize with our kind. Why is that? In short, we all need "witnesses to our life" as without those "witnesses" we might as well be not alive at all...

             This week, in order to come to a "partial" understanding of what the Self, or on a bigger scale, what Life involves, two documentaries were analyze: Stories We Tell by Sarah Polley and Silverlake Life: A View from Here by Tom Joslin and Peter Friedman.

Stories We Tell by Sarah Polley, 2013, Canada, 109 minutes

                This documentary shared many facts of life such as the lost of loved ones, for example, a mother, whether it is due to sickness or old age, and trying to come to a closure once they have passed away. Understanding the past therefore played an important role as it influences the present, the reality as it is known today. The concept of reality is also brought on as it is blurred with the concept of fiction; life can be seen as a performance and a quest for answers, for the truth. However, what is the truth? How can we be sure of the "truth"? Those are some questions that are illustrated in the film. Also, the "norms" established by society are criticized as they often "judge" someone or a situation based on what it appears to be. The role of women, men and family are clearly predetermined according to society and should therefore be "respected" in order to be accepted and considered "normal". Sarah, the filmmaker, not only created a documentary about her mother's, Diane Polley, life but also managed in the process to create a personal journal of her family and herself as well as present a romantic drama and a memoir for her mother. She interrogated all of the people her mother was surrounded with in order to make sense of her past as a child since her mother died when she was eleven years old.

                The documentary is filmed such that the what is usually unseen is presented to the viewers. For example, Sarah' father, Michael, the narrator, is filmed as he reads the story in a studio in order to record his voice for the documentary. At that time, we can see Sarah giving instructions to her dad on recapitulating a part of the story or on the way of delivering the story. We not only witness Diane Polley's life journey and come to understand that she was after all a woman of secrets, but we also participate in the making of the documentary as we can see the steps that Sarah had to undertake in order to create her story, her documentary. The authorship of the documentary is also a special aspect of the film. Even though Sarah is the filmmaker, she makes sure to include all the members of her family as well as some of her mother's friends such that she has a better overview of who her mother truly was. At this point, Sarah finds out that her mother not only had an affair during her first marriage, but also during her second marriage which resulted in her birth. Michael is therefore not Sarah's actual father, Harry, a man with whom her mother worked is her biological father. Once that discovery is made, she includes his vision of her mother in her documentary. She also includes archival footage and reconstitutions of events acted out by actors  such that her mother's life journey seems to be unravelling in front of us. The way she arranges her documentary shows that it is more a matter of emotions than actual facts. For example, when she asks her interviewers to discuss her mother's passing, no words are pronounced, only silent faces of pure sadness are shown.

               This week, during class, the movie was analyzed in a way such that our weekly topic of Self Portraits was exposed. A Self Portrait is basically an artist unveiling itself, showing  a side of their Self that is often hidden or not obvious by using their creativity and imagination as well as by reaching to their viewers, their audience, their "witnesses to life". In this case, Sarah's documentary can be considered as her Self Portrait as she reveals to her audience not only the artist within her but also the person she is as a daughter, a sister and a friend. She offers a perspective of her story, or more precisely, her life from the inside (her own emotions and reactions) and from the outside (her interviewers' emotions and reactions). For example, as she instructs her father Michael on what to do, he replies: "It's not the normal way of doing this, is it?"

Here is a link that offers a short article on an artist's Self Portrait:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2014/02/seeing-themselves-photographers-self-portraits.html#slide_ss_0=1

               The fact that her documentary can relate to basically any human beings since it evokes many facts of life as discussed earlier, shows how the personal aspect of her film also corresponds to a universal aspect of life.

Silverlake Life: A View from Here by Tom Joslin and Peter Friedman, 1993, USA, 99 minutes

                  This documentary presents many issues that are present in society as a whole. The cause of AIDS which also relates to any type of diseases is definitely a subject that is universal. The fact that cures have not been found for this disease as it is for many other diseases made life seem as a "death sentence". However, it also engendered the concept of living to the fullest as if every day was your last day. Then, the concept of vitality was introduced as the filmmakers were searching for "witnesses" for their lives, making them feel more "alive" in their sickness. It gave them a way out of the misery they face every day due to their health conditions. Death was consequently presented in the documentary as well. Also, the fact that the two filmmakers, Tom and Mark, were a gay couple brought on the subject of homosexuality. They then shared the struggles they went through due to their sexual orientation; not being accepted as a person, not being understood and being looked down upon.

                As the documentary was personally filmed by Mark and Tom themselves, their story became even more personal to the viewers as it felt as if the nothing from "real life" was hidden, as if a part of the truth was presented through the film. The fact that the camera showed movement as Tom and Mark moved since they were filming by hand made the viewers feel as if they were right there beside them, feeling the same emotions as them and especially feeling empathy towards them. This "closeness" between the filmmakers and the audience is what made the documentary so special. The viewers could feel the purity behind Tom and Mark's emotions, facial expressions, reactions, etc. Also, the fact that the documentary presents the couple's private life in a way that their life seems universal, that their situation can relate to anyone whether it is by diseases, death, homosexuality and/or by feeling constricted and powerless. The filmmakers talked about subjects that are often avoided in society as they are generally associated to negative thoughts. However, they still managed to show how life is a cycle and that misery can be overcome when there is will.

            This documentary corresponds to a Self Portrait of the two filmmakers, Tom and Mark. However, even though their "self portrait" are personal to each one of them, they are still universal and relate to every single person. For example, Tom brings up the question "What's the Answer?" a few times during the documentary. However, at the end, after Mark repeats that same question, he responds "What's the Question?" This scene can relate to the meaning of truth and how it varies from people to people as the question is never the same therefore the answer is the never the same. Also, the fact that we still don't know what the question nor what the answer is demonstrates the ambiguity present in Truth. The authorship of the documentary is shared between Mark, Tom, their family and friends as their "stories" also help build the couple's story: the documentary itself. After all, their surroundings, their "witnesses to Life" are what confirms that they are alive.

 

For more interesting responses to the documentary Silverlake Life, don't hesitate to visit the website:

 http://www.pbs.org/pov/silverlakelife/

Our Personal Response

Through the two films, one being Stories We Tell that was viewed in class and the other Silverlake Life: A view from here that our group viewed together; there are things that we can learn about ourselves. Sometimes we are afraid to say who we really are based on society’s outlook but more importantly the opinions that we care most about are from our family and friends. This is shown in both films. In Stories We Tell, Diane Polley never reveals to her family about her love affair that resulted in the birth of Sarah, the filmmaker.  She told her close friends but never her family.  Diane had made the newspaper when she divorced her first husband and wasn’t going to make it known that she had a love affair while being with her second husband, Michael. We can assume that the main reason she didn’t tell her family was because she was afraid to hurt her husband, and her children that have grown up to see what their role models of marriage and family were like.  She was afraid to tell her family because she didn’t want them to judge her as well.  We can all relate to this because we never want the ones who are closest to us to judge us or look down upon us for something that we have done.

 Silverlake Life also corresponds to this because when both Mark and Tom were diagnosed with AIDS, Tom felt it was really difficult to tell his family of his diagnosis that would someday cost him his life.  It took Tom a long time to tell his family since both of his parents weren’t fond of the idea that he was with Mark who was of the same-sex as him, but they also weren’t very fond of Mark himself to begin with.  They eventually found out as Mark had been telling people he was diagnosed with AIDS, so  Tom decided he would tell them as well. What prolonged Tom in confiding in his family and finally telling them his diagnosis of AIDS, was the fear of how they would react and think of him, how they would judge him, similar to Diane’s story in Stories We Tell.

What we can learn about ourselves through these films is that our close and loved ones, although it might not seem like it at first, are the ones that are the most understanding and will accept us no matter what we’ve done or what tough conditions that we face in life.  And this can challenge our understanding of the world we live in since we often tend to distance ourselves from the ones we care about when we feel ashamed or when we are affected by something bigger than us such as diseases or even love. We can also relate the messages from these films to our lives, maybe on a smaller scale compared but we can certainly relate to what we have been shown in these films.  For example, going through the loss of a loved one, as in both Sarah’s family and, Mark and Tom’s family, is never easy for anyone. We can also relate to the fear of telling our loved ones something that we are afraid will hurt, affect or disappoint them; we all go through such situations in our lives.

                The filmmakers were very successful at communicating their ideas to their audience through the techniques that they used; their documentaries were created in a way that felt personal to each and every one of us. In Stories We Tell, Sarah interviews, or more precisely, interrogates everybody who was close to her mother Diane in order to get their sides of her mother's story since she wasn’t able to be there to tell it herself.  Her technique of getting her father, Michael, to read his version of her story as Sarah was growing up thinking Michael was her father, and when she found out that Harry, the man her mother had an affair with actually was her biological father, was impactful for the audience as it was unexpected. At this point, we learn that even if Harry is Sarah's biological father, Michael will always remain her father for her. In Silverlake Life, Tom had originally been the filmmaker and started the filming himself, but after he passed away due to his disease, Mark fulfilled his promise by finishing the film for Tom. Mark definitely touched the audience through his act of love. In the film, like Stories We Tell, we see many points of view from family members and friends but also Tom and Mark themselves.  The most powerful way that Tom and Mark communicated their ideas was when they showed the real effects that AIDS had on their everyday lives, so they filmed their everyday lives. “What a way to live, what a way to die.” as Tom said one day when he had to take a break from shopping because he was exhausted.  This is one of the many examples in the film that show the difficulties and hardship that Mark and Tom, but also of all the others diagnosed with AIDS, go through and how the simplest everyday tasks can seem or become unattainable. At the ending, Tom plays a footage of Mark and him healthy, dancing and saying: "What is the Answer? What is the Question?" The fact that they bring up these interrogations reaches the viewers as those same questions are often asked by each and every one of us...but never mentioned at loud.

Here's an interesting article about life:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-happy-life-may-not-be-a-meaningful-life/

              Ultimately, the two documentaries Stories We Tell and Silverlake Life: A View from Here not only correspond to a Self Portrait of the filmmakers themselves, but also imply to the rest of the world as the concepts they present: sickness (or diseases), family, love, truth, questioning and society are definitely applicable to any human being. Through these films we have been able to learn many things about life and ourselves as these two unique stories' filmmakers really did challenge our understanding of the world through the communication of their ideas. However, even if they did address the questions of Who We Are, they did not give precise answers. They only showed that life's purpose is searching for answers. The question remains: Who Are We after all?

10 - No Impact Man & Surviving Progress

by Megan, Brianna and Liiwir

Introduction

We live in a society of consumers, where we always want more. We live to buy, and buy to live. “If everybody else does it, why shouldn’t we?” Everyday, garbage is thrown out, cars are driving, planes are flying, lights are on, fridges are cold, most of what should be recycled or thrown in a compost, isn’t; we are over-polluting the environment. The issue is profound, yet ignored by nearly everybody.

We think that when we throw something away, it just disappears, and no one cares after that. With no severe visual impact, most people fail to understand the consequences of their actions. We use excessive amounts of energy, overproduce waste and over consume.  Advertising and marketing target the consumers, making them feel a sense of entitlement to certain products, as though they are no longer something they want, but rather a necessity.

No Impact Man, Laura Gabbert & Justin Schein, 2009, USA, 93 min


 “No Impact Man” directed by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein follows Colin Beavan, along with his family, on their journey to save our planet and raise awareness. Colin didn’t want to wait for others to make a difference; he wished to be the change he wanted to see in the world. The Beavans lived a year, creating no “or very minimal” impact on the environment. They stopped using electricity (fridge, lights, etc.), relied on bikes for transportation, only bought local, unpackaged produce, used a cloth diaper for Isabella and did not use toilet paper. Colin and his family also refused to use laundry detergent, plastic bottles, cosmetics and the elevator. They composted, reduce the amount of clothes in their closets and did not eat out or have take out.

Though the challenge brought to attention their differences, as they often disagree during the film, it forced Colin and his wife Michelle to appreciate what they have and discover places to entertain themselves and their little girl, Isabella, in other ways than on a computer or by watching TV. Michelle mentions, “The days seem to just last forever.” They use their time efficiently, while exploring the outdoors and getting exercise.

Is the project realistic?

The family faced harsh, worldwide criticism. The media and Colin’s surroundings believed that his project was for attention and that he, alone, could not and will not make a difference in society. Others simply considered the family to be “dirty” or “crazy.” Many disagreed with Colin’s choices because it made them look bad and feel guilty.

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/

He understood and accepted that it was virtually impossible to get everyone to live the way he did, making such extreme and significant changes to his life. Instead, his plan and goal was to inspire and educate. He hoped to fight ignorance and become a positive influence for the generations to come.

The film targets the audience on a personal note. It suggests different ways that slowly, everybody can improve their habits and consumer lifestyles. Though realistic and for the most part, unbiased, the documentary took form of a reality TV show, at times, addressing the couple’s personal problems about having a second child.

 Colin mentions that if there were one thing that he and his viewers could take from his “no impact” experiment, and pursue, it would be volunteering and participating in communal, environmental groups and organizations. Together, we can make a difference. Colin visited schools of which followed in his footsteps, changing their habits for a week.

Habit plays a great role in the difficulty we face when attempting to adjust our behavior. We fear change and are stuck in our own ways of living. Are the modern “conveniences” that we take for granted really making us happier? Or are they just eating away all of our future.

Myths are tales of which serve as answers to questions such as: What are our values? Why do we act the way we do as individuals? What is our role on this planet and our aim in life? What is our world's current state and how can we make a difference? These questions are answered through Colin Beavan's experiment as he presents the daily challenges we face and the consequences that our actions have on the environment. Colin directs his audience toward simple solutions and changes we can make to improve our future for the generations to come. 

A utopia refers to the idea of perfection; a perfect world/place. Colin Beavan desired a greener, more environmentally aware Utopian society. He desperately wishes to inspire and deliver a message to the world with hopes that one day we can work as one to change the direction we are headed in terms of pollution and the environment.

Surviving Progress, Mathieu Roy, 2011, Canada, 86 min

The documentary film, “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy links the destruction of our planet to the over consumption of our natural resources for the manufacturing of short term disposable products in our global economic system. The filmmakers present interviews with credible experts

from different fields of study, documents areas and people directly affected by the destruction of the natural resources and uses images and music between interviews to reinforce the message of devastation and impending danger. The film’s message sends a strong warning to the viewers. The consequences of what the general public may believe is “progress” has led to an unforeseen environmental and economic disaster looming in our future. The earth’s natural resources and its ability to sustain life are limited and at risk. We cannot continue to hide our head in the sand.

The environmental crisis we are facing today is a direct result of what many experts describe as “progress traps”.  Ronald Wright, the best-selling author of, “ A Short History of Progress” whose book inspired the making of this film, describes how past civilizations were destroyed by "progress traps".  Progress traps are described as solutions to a problem that provide some short term benefit; they improve the quality of life in the short term but over time the progress leads to a dead-end. The long-term consequences of these progress traps are often disastrous.

The crisis we are facing today is a culmination of factors such as: the lack of understanding that our earth is a finite habitat and that its resources are limited, the limitations of the human mind to look at long-term consequences of short-term solutions also known as “progress traps”, the over-consumption of our natural resources for the purpose of manufacturing products, the effects of pollution created by manufacturing, the increase in demand for new and better products by the wealthier nations, excessive waste produced, the demands on resources due to over-population, demands on resources from China, whose middle class is increasing and is becoming a consumer like the West and Europe and finally the devastating effects of the financial power an oligarchy system that currently exist has over governments, legislation  as well as natural and human resources.

(Clip from Surviving Progress)

 Two specific example of how the theory presented in this film relates to an individual is presented with Chen Ming, a Chinese self-driving club tour guide in China and Raquel Taitso in Brazil.  Chen Ming describes how the quality of his life has improved within the last 20 years. With the changes in China’s economy he has developed a business driving the recently affluent Chinese on tours of their country. He describes that his selection of food he now enjoys is extensive and was not available 20 years ago.
Raquel Taitso, works in the environmental protection agency for Brazil. During the interview with Raquel, she explained the difficulties she faces with regards to protecting the forests from deforestation. The small farmer that is removing trees to farm for his family or a small logging company that is providing jobs to the community are fined or prevented from working, yet the government officials, who are often the wealthy land owners as well as international companies have the right to deforest acres of land for their own benefit with no consequences. The corruption within government and the control of international business in the natural resources of another country are clearly demonstrated.

The filmmaker demonstrated the impact to the environment by showing the devastation on a global scale. For example, the devastation to the Amazon Rainforest's can be seen from space, the destruction of large landmasses by mining is viewed from an airplane or helicopter shot and the unrest and rebellion in the Congo is demonstrates by panning the crowds from a distance. During the interviews, the filmmaker directs the camera directly at the people being interviewed. This gives the viewer the impression they are speaking directly to them. The filmmaker also uses music to emphasize an unspoken point. For example, circus music plays in the scene of the stock market, underlining the comparison that the stock market is like a circus. The count down of a street crossing emphasizes the count down of time remaining before it is too late to deal with the environmental crisis. The over consumption of products, the waste and pollution created, was clearly demonstrated throughout the film in the visual images presented between interviews. The image of mass production and packaging of products on an assembly line that just kept going spoke to the continual demand for new products.

The theory presented by the experts was backed up with evidence from scientific experiments, historical evidence and personal life experiences. The conclusion: society needs to change our behavior. In a utopian world we would be conscious of our finite world, protective of our natural and human resources and diligent in preserving the vitality of the health of our planet. Up until 1980, as described by Ronald Wright, the world was able to live off the interest of the resources, the  “Natural Capital”, which refers to the clean air, water, good farmland, fish and minerals. Since 1980 we are now using up the “Capital”, this means the resources are depleting quickly and there is no means to add to the “Capital”. Myths as defined by a set of values and beliefs that guide our communities did not adjust to the changing market with regards to over consumption, over demand of products and the resulting pollution. People where of the belief that there was a continuous supply of what we would need to live a healthy life on this planet. Society did not consider that this myth of an endless supply of resources no longer held true. Society truly had its, “head in the sand”. We need to reduce consumption, produce products that last, protect our natural resources and the environment or suffer the consequences. We need to re-evaluate our economic system and find long-term solutions to global problems. Jim Thomas, activist/author, “The New Biomaster”, sums it up with his suggestion that “we as a culture need to say good bye to the model we have used for the last 200 hundred years because it is not working. We need to find an alternative model for the way we live so that we can live within the limits of our resources and create a safe and healthy planet”.  Margret Atwood, author of “Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth”, describes the “finite sum” of the world. She clearly demonstrates with the use of her hands that the world’s size is not greater than it is and makes the analogy of how we are using nature as an endless bank and using a credit card that we can’t just keep drawing on that it can only withstand so much because it is finite. We have lived with the myth that our resources were limitless, however we are slowly realizing that is not the case. We need to keep it safe for the future so that we can stay alive. She warns us that unless we keep the earth healthy and alive there will be no economy.

"The world will never be this big"

Robert Wright, journalist, suggests that the Internet provides society with a unified social brain. We must make moral progress so that we can move forward as a civilization, towards a utopian society. Human nature may be limited by its animal mind and way of thinking, however with discipline, determination and education man can become enlightened.  Man has the opportunity to remake and reform himself to meet a new set of values and beliefs that will guide our communities.

A Personal Reflection Of The Two Films 

These two documentary films, “No Impact Man” by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein, and, “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy, present the problems that society today is facing with regards

to sustainability of the planet and the depletion of Earth’s natural resources. In the documentary, “No Impact Man” Colin Beavan’s chronicles the day-to-day adjustments he and his family face in their decision to reduce their family’s carbon footprint for a year. In the documentary, “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy, the film looks at the sustainability of the planet from a global perspective.  Both films reflect that we as humans always want more, we over consume, we are conditioned by marketing and advertising to want the newest and the latest product and we are currently a disposable society. As a society we do not consider what is involved in producing a product and what happens to it when we are finished with it.

Our only concern is the use of it while we feel it has value. The long-term consequences to the survival of the human species as well as the planet due to the over consumption of products and natural resources is a problem that needs to be addressed.   

In the documentary, “No Impact Man” by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein, the filmmakers’ clearly depicted the difficulties faced by Colin and his wife as well as the negative media attention they received from Colin’s daily blog describing their day-to-day life. The film demonstrated to the viewer different ways to reduce their overall consumption of products, energy and waste. The only negative aspect of the documentary was that at times it felt like a reality television show. For example, the discussion between Colin and his wife regarding whether or not they should have another child did not seem to be appropriate for the purpose of the film.

In the documentary, “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy, the filmmaker clearly communicated to the viewer the risks regarding sustainability of our natural resources as well as the human and economic repercussions of continuing along the path that we are currently on. The use of credible experts in a variety of disciplines legitimized the content of the messages presented in the film. In addition, the use of background music, interviews and clips of the impact to the civilians in third world countries demonstrated the control of corporate giants and gave the viewers a sense of urgency that these problems need to be dealt with now. 

 The documentary, “No Impact Man” by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein, challenges our understanding of the world in that Colin displayed how one family’s over consumption of products, energy and excessive waste produced can be modified with changes first in attitude and then behavior. Each one of us can make a difference by making more environmentally informed choices. In addition, his efforts to show that changing your behavior does impact the environment, helps promote awareness of the environmental issues and at the same time encourages others to do the same, thereby creating a movement to change their behaviors regarding over consumption, excessive use of energy and over production of waste.

The documentary, “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy, challenges our understanding of the world in that experts warn us of an impending environmental and economic disaster that is looming in our future. Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have made tremendous gains in technologically, but the question regarding the pay-off of “progress” is up for debate. Have the advancements in technology, really improved the quality of life? Or have they created a series of more serious problems?  We humans need to think of the future and consider the ramifications of the choices we make. Ethical and moral questions need to be addressed.  The historians describe how Rome had suffered similar economic difficulties and over use of the land to the point that researchers believe it took a thousand years to recover. The oligarchy currently dictates laws and controls financial institutions, especially in third world countries, exploiting their natural and human resources. Our desire for progress, the newest and latest gadgets at the lowest prices further perpetuate this model. Unfortunately the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The earth’s natural resources cannot sustain this current economic growth because it is limited and over-consumed. Globalization will result in a catastrophic pit fall, and we either need to solve it or suffer the consequences.

http://noimpactproject.org

Both documentaries, “No Impact Man” by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein and “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy relate to all of us, as we are all inhabitants of this earth. Therefore, each one of us has the responsibility and the obligation to protect our resources, natural and human. “No Impact Man” relates to the viewer on a more personal level and, “Surviving Progress”, relates to the survival of the human race and the health of the planet, reflecting a more global perspective. Personally, I felt empowered by the little things that I could do to reduce my own carbon footprint and reduce the waste I personally produce. In addition, volunteering with community environmental groups is a great opportunity to work together and bring awareness, education and promote change in our attitudes and behavior. By personally living a greener life style, it impacts others to do the same. We can all make a difference if we work together towards the same goal, which is to protect our most precious resources, natural and human.

Conclusion

Both films, “Surviving Progress” by Mathieu Roy and “No Impact Man” by Colin Beavan address the environmental and global economic crisis facing civilization today. Our over-consumption of natural recourses to produce products that are either disposable of have a short life span in order to perpetuate the economy can only fail because we live on a finite planet with finite resources.

Colin Beavan looked at the problem from a personal perspective and demonstrated how he could change his life style to limit his consumption of products, limit waste and the use of energy on a day-to-day basis. His experiment demonstrates how one person’s choice to reduce consumption can influence others to do the same and that as a group the effect will produce a benefit. Surviving Progress, by Mathieu Roy looked at the same problem but on a global scale demonstrating the power of an oligarchy system to manipulate policy and deregulation for their own financial gain thereby  jeopardizing both the planet and the human race.

9 - "If a Tree Falls" and "L'Érreur Boréale"

by Shanaya, Nathan and Adam

There are many ways people view the world itself. Some act as if we have unlimited resources at our disposal and use those resources to make money. Others see our planet as a treasure that needs to be preserved, but unfortunately, few people listen to their pleas. In our world there are many forests that are nearly stripped of their trees. Trees that are hundreds of years old, gone, replaced with less remarkable trees that were meant to be farmed. Sure there is nothing wrong with making a living off the land itself, but there has to be a limit to what we do to the environment as there is a limit to the resources it gives us. The two films that we will be discussing will be "If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front" and "L'Érreur Boréale" which both deal with grave environmental issues that most people are unaware of.

The documentary "If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front", directed by Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman, revolves around the infamous extremist environmentalists called the Earth Liberation Front or E.L.F. for short. In December 2005, Daniel McGowan (one of the primary members of the E.L.F.) was arrested at his workplace by federal agents for being involved with what people claimed to be a "terrorist" group. After seeing all the wrong people have been causing for the environment, Daniel and the other group members decided to do something about it. They did not intend on starting small. One of their first acts of "eco-terrorism" was the destruction of a $12 million ski lodge in Vail, Colorado. They also continued to set fire to places like Lumber company buildings and SUV dealerships. Eventually one of the members, Jacob Ferguson decided that he had had enough and helped the police track down the other members of the E.L.F. by wearing a microphone and having him talk to the other members. At the end, after having caught the primary E.L.F. members, Jake Ferguson ended up walking free while many of the others received jail time including Daniel McGowan who spent 7 years in jail after his house arrest ended in 2007.

In this documentary the content was mostly biased towards the E.L.F. and environmentalists in general, but what the directors well is that they showed us the point of view of the environmentalists, the police/government, the media and the business owners. There were many scenes showing the means that the police took to rid the streets of the protesters. These means included spraying the protesters with pepper spray and throwing tear gas at them. Although they were peaceful the police still resorted to violence after warning them. In a way both parties here are right about their ideals. The environmentalists just want to preserve the limited resources of the planet, but the police are just doing their job and trying to protect other innocent citizens from the demonstrators that are disturbing the peace because there were in fact people there who were also destroying the property of others.

In our class discussion, we talked about John Locke's government (which was his idea of a good government). John Locke says that the right to fight applies to civil societies when: "The administration of the law is corrupt, or employed to commit violence or injury." This applies perfectly well to this documentary because the police were sent upon the non-violent protesters harming them with the weapons at their disposal. We also discussed ideologies and how they are critical tools for the interpretation of institutions, practices, and ways of thinking. In the documentary all parties have different views on the situation at hand. The environmentalists point of view is that they're trying to help the planet by raising awareness of foresting and other environmentally harming acts. The police and the media see them (specifically the E.L.F.) as criminals/terrorists who should be brought to justice and the business owners who are just trying to make a living off of cutting wood.

This is what Democracy Looks Like (128 minutes)

This is a documentary called "This Is What Democracy Looks Like" and it presents some similar issues brought upon us in "If a Tree Falls." This time we have protesters who are protesting against a new policy that the World Trade Organization (WTO) had recently come up with. This policy stated that they were able to use sanctions to deprive people all over the world from many of their safe working conditions and environmental standards. The issue that is similar to that of "If a Tree Falls" is the way the police treats the self-proclaimed peaceful protesters. In both films the police resorted to physical violence to control the crowd.

The documentary  “L’erreur Boréale” is another example of people who really wish to see change in how the environment (and more specifically, the trees) are treated and dealt with. In “L’erreur Boréale” , Richard Desjardins questions the Québec’s population’s responsibility for the clear cutting of the forest. He brings light to the fact that industrialization and deforestation are hand in hand and that because of this there may not be forest for decades to come.

               This movie is made in Québec and is talking specifically about this area. That is why this movie may come as more of an eye opener for people around here than “If a Tree Falls”. Due to the simple fact that it is here, we see that clear cutting and deforestation isn’t just a problem in other places—it’s right in our back yard, too.

               Governments and businesses swear that the forest will be preserved for future generations to come, but this movie is really looking into that statement and seeing if it is in fact the truth. As a consequence of this movie questioning government and big businesses, this movie raised a lot of debate that involved people with many different opinions.

               The beginning of the film shows us a forest in the morning with the natural sounds that come with it (like the birds and the water, etc). The end of the movie, we move into the city life and in corporate offices and finally close with scenes of trees being ripped down on a cloudy, ugly day. Every movie was edited and placed in a certain way, and that contrast was something that subconsciously raised the questions and debates that Richard Desjardins was trying to bring up.

               One person that this movie introduces to us is Gilles Lemieux, a researcher at L’Université Laval. He basically talks about how when trees are cut down, there isn’t 100% of a chance that they can be replanted, because the natural beings of that land that remain (such as insects) still feed off the soil and it’s nutrients. Therefore, there are many different factors to deforestation and we can’t always assume that when a tree is cut down, it’s as simple as planting another one.

               Another person that we’re presented to is Gaston Dery. He is a representative for the wood companies of Québec. He talks about how it’s always been mandatory to consult the public before doing something to the trees/nature and it’s practically the law. He, however, questions why they would need to that if they know what they are doing and are professionals.

               There are many different opinions when it comes to deforestation and the protection of natural habitat. Ultimately, this movie was created just to present the opinions and information. It was released to let people decide for themselves where to go from what has been done and what continues to be done to nature and to forest. 

                        Richard Preston: The Mysterious Lives of Giant Trees. (20 minutes)

The clip above is a Ted talk about a rain forest in the United States that has been almost wiped out. The speaker in this clip, Richard Preston, talks about how incredibly old they are, how magnificently huge they are and also how important it is to protect these trees.

Both these movies related very nicely to one another. They are different extremes of activism against the destruction of nature. We have two groups of activists in the states, radical activists and those who protest peacefully on the streets. In Quebec, there are no public demonstrations being done to stop the madness. "L’Erreur Boréale" showed us that no one is doing anything to stop companies from throwing away our natural forests.

                                           

From watching "l’Erreur Boréale", we have come to the realization that the destruction of forests isn’t only happening elsewhere such as rainforests or places in the United States, they are also happening right here in Québec and our economy is dependent on it. The clear cutting of our forests is bringing in 10 billion dollars in exports and many jobs, but is it really worth it?

As a group, we really admire nature. We found that a group of organisms that coexist tens of thousands of years very impressive.  We also found it that we are letting people destroy these age old forests. The destruction of these forests affects more than just the trees themselves. The first and most important is the local wildlife. When they cut down these huge patches of forest, they just say the animals will go elsewhere.  However, the truth is we are running out of places for the animals to flee their homes to.  We found this exceptionally disrespectful to our land because it is extremely cruel to be constantly evicting animals without notice and expecting them to make due somewhere else. Another group it affects is the aboriginals, who would otherwise be using these territories as hunting grounds. One more group that the deforestation affects is the people who have cottages or campgrounds. Many people have a culture of going to their cabin or campground in the middle of nowhere to relax and enjoy nature. By ripping out the trees from all around their campsites, they lose the magic of camping or having a cottage in a forest. Instead of being on a lake with trees surrounding the region, you have the perimeter of a lake covered in trees and a clear cut as far as the eye see. Being a group of people that enjoys nature, we would be disgusted if we returned to our cabin or campground to find that the land surrounding it had been replaced with a logging companies’ land fill, full of broken branches roots and maybe some weak looking saplings here and there. 

These two films show us that depending on how you were brought up and where you are from, you will have completely different ideologies. For example, a lumber worker would think that cutting down trees is a good thing because he was taught that they were a good source of wealth. Whereas someone who is having their backyard destroyed by deforestation will think of lumberjacks as heartless demons who are exploiting nature and it's resources. There is also the neutral point of view. Typically these people will think that what lumberjacks are doing is wrong, but drastic measures to stand against them should never be taken.

The films have also shown us the true face of the lumber industry. They have shown us the wildlife that it affects, the people it affects and even the people fighting back. The film also shows us that different people, depending on where they stand, will have completely different ideologies. We have come to the realization that perhaps burning down someone’s work place is not the best way to shut them down, although it is effective. However, burning down someone’s workplace is a terrible thing to do.  Peaceful protest is the safest option for all parties. In essence, if you don’t agree with someone, discuss it by writing to the government, starting a webpage addressing the situation or publicly demonstrate to make people hear what you have to say. Don’t jump to Molotov cocktails.

8 - History through Motion Pictures

History through Motion Pictures

by Romandeep, Ruo Chen & Victoria

Many documentaries created throughout the world have not shown much propaganda as of looking at other Cultures around the world. Documentaries have been formed around the uses of history and memory. The two films viewed in class were a combination of History, Memory and Propaganda the most subtle and extreme forms.

The ways Governments work come in all different shapes and forms. Many of the governments in modern day are democratic, but it once was a complete way of thinking. The four movies that deal with Government and the different ways it runs are: “Night and Fog.”, “Triumph of the Will.”, “Comfort and Indifference.”, “Action: The October Crisis.”

Night and Fog

(Alain Resnais, 1955, France, 32 minutes.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wx3wkgZuf0

“Night and Fog” showed us the end result of World War Two a and the horrible things that the Nazis did to their prisoners. The person in charge of this was Adolf Hitler who was the leader of the Nazi party of Germany. "Night and Fog" was a documentary film about how Hitler used his power to distort the German populations' minds and how he assumed Germans to be a superior race. The film was structured as being a short documentary film with a lot of Impact, in the sense that what we see is what actually happed and what people fear to think about today. The documentary showed actual prison camps and how people were brutally tortured and responsibility was foreign to the Germans. The story told in this documentary was of how when people asked who was in charge of causing this chaos and terror, nobody would say they were responsible. The images used in this movie were in color and black and white. It was a combination of the present and past and emphasized how there were not many remains of the camps and how something so horrible could still be overpowered by nature.

Triumph of the Will

(Leni Riefenstahl, 1935, Germany, 114 minutes.)

“Triumph of the Will” was completely different than “Night and Fog" where they showed all the positives reasons for following the Nazi Party and associating with them. Every person that was not part of this part did not have an income and therefore could not support a family. The director of this documentary emphasized on how powerful the German population was and how they needed to prove their strength to the world. "Triumph of the Will" showed us how Hitler used his child camps to seem like a “fun” place for other teenagers to go when in reality it was a camp to train them to become like all of the other Nazis. The camps and advertisements for the camps were trying to prove how friendly and role-model like, Hitler was.

The main issues presented in the films are; the use of Collective memory, and propaganda. These issues are represented in the film for one instance in the negative use of propaganda, Hitler was viewed as this tall strong father liked figure, with people cheering and loving him and having this big army. It made him seem larger than life and almost someone in which you would fear. The use of collective memory was shown in "Night and Fog" when they go to the prison camps and show how much it has changed from the holocaust and how many lives were lost. The innocent people kept fighting for their lives because, they remember the moments they had with loved ones and wanted to one day create new memories with them. In “Night and fog” the imagery was one of the best documented and graphic films in the explanation and experience of what had really happened at that time. It was almost cruel in how it was real It was because nothing was edited or acted and it was a horrible truth we have to face. In “Triumph and the Will” its message was very easy to understand. It showed that Hitler was this kind ruler that smiled and loved his country, and everyone loves him including the youth with their “fun” camps. The message also came across as a threat to anyone one who watched it that may have been against him showing his big army and supporters. The main concepts shown throughout the films were consisting of collective memory. The two films showed how having one bad memory can set someone off, which potentially happened to Hitler. He was reminded of how Germany lost WWI and how he wanted to prove everyone wrong and show dominance in the world.

Both films give the next generation a better view of the WWII and the memories lost within. If we separate theses film and watch only one of them, we will be only able to understand one side of it. But the second film and other knowledge, we can see different side of that part.

The two extra screenings explained another story about how memory and how French is the language of Quebec. It explained many things that our generation learned only from book. It seems that everything was peaceful. But actually it’s not that beautiful then we thought. It’s like a river; calm on the surface but dangerous if you go deeper.

On the two other film about our country,

Action: The October Crisis of 1970

(Robin Spry, 1973, Canada, 87 minutes)

“Action: The October Crisis of 1970” is a documentary film about a series of events that were triggered from the discontent of French-speaking Canadians who were not getting equal right and opportunities as the English and demanded justice. An unofficial political party called Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) decided to take make the choices sovereignist's wanted to see even after all of the rioting and protests that occurred. After the first time that the PQ participated the vote gain 24%of the total votes has only a few seats in Parliament. The FLQ uses terrorism act to spread his message to the government.  The members of the FLQ decided to kidnap the British Trade commissioner of Montreal, James Cross and Pierre Laporte. The FLQ is a political organization that was for separating and not being associated with the rest of Canada. The film was structured in a chronological order, going from when French-speaking Quebecers wanted their own rights and lasted until the choices for Quebec were made. The main events encountered in the film were the riots and press conferences that occurred in October and the kidnappings of James Cross and Pierre Laporte.

Comfort and indifference

(Denys Arcand, 1982, Canada, 109 minutes)

    

“Comfort and indifference” made in 1982 is a documentary film about the sovereignty movement in the 1980’s and the referendum that happened in 1980. The documentary went in-depth into what the politicians said, what promises they wanted to make if they won and what the overall attitude of the population was towards this topic. The film directors wanted to show how the population wanted to stay together as a province, but at the same time wanted to not have anything to do with the rest of Canada. René Lévesque was the main politician at this time who favored Quebec not being part of Canada and for having a referendum to separate. The votes showed that 59.56% of people wanted Quebec to stay a part of Canada and 40.44% wanted to be independent.

The main issues raised in the film were history and collective memory and how it shapes us as a whole. The documentaries show the conflicts that happened between the English and French speaking parts and the actions taken by the FLQ, but they have brought both languages together as much as they have separated them

Both these films were very special, because they showed how much of a culturally diverse place it is and how it is a good place for children to grow up in. They show in the streets how people would all dress similarly but have their own unique style at the same time. The documentaries really emphasized on what the intentions of Quebecers were and what kind of people would be ruling and what kind way police would act. The documentaries showed raw footage of how making Quebec separate would change everything for the people living inside Quebec. Many questions were brought up while watching this film such as, if Quebec did separate how would the political justice system work differently from the rest of Canada? How economically advanced would Quebec be? What currency would be made after it separates? Both films had many eye opening scenes but among the most controversial was René Lévesque saying "If I've understood you well, you're telling me 'until next time'." This quote can imply that perhaps the French speaking population of Quebec is rising and maybe one day it will separate. These two films help to create our sense of history collective memory because; they both show us how life used to be and how it has brought us all closer together as a community. The October crisis was heavily involved with collective memory and history b and zan ecause it focuses on how we were a predominantly French speaking Province and we are losing touch with this side, yet we stay strong. The extreme extents to the film should not have been taken, because we can all work together and we have included, both the French and English language and lifestyle Into our everyday lives

Why these films?

From the four documentaries, they have shown collective memory and how history can be interpreted in completely differently ways. In the movie “Comfort and indifference” The people who would choose for Quebec to separate have the same problems of the people who want Quebec to stay a part of Canada, but because of similar values and perceptions, they form the community of Quebec. So by having background and the culture, the story is different. All stories will be then different. But no matter how you look at these stories, there’s a definite version.

Then apply this in a movie. What we watch is the perception of the movie maker or the producer. No matter how we think or look at all images, if we don’t know other “versions” of the story, we won’t be able to see the views of the director. That’s the importance of collective memories. By having different story tellers plus our own analysis the story will be complete.

The movie “Comfort and indifference”, the director added an extra player in the movie, Niccolo Machiavelli to introduce Machiavellianism in this specific part of Quebec history. By introducing quotes of this man’s view, it gives a definition of all movements of the government and of the population. It’s a good way to show the audience that we all might have a different past, but we can shape our future and there isn't just one side to every story. At each different quote, it gives some examples from the speeches in the movie as well. What can be interpreted from Niccolo Machiavelli is that regardless of the differences that occurred with the French and English sides, we can work together and make both languages a part of our history to come. 

We can learn a lot about our heritage as Quebecers and we can learn a lot about the Holocaust and WWII. Many of the ideas brought up in the four movies were that we all have a history and past, whether we chose to accept it or deny it. We can all work together and let bad-blood wash away or we can solve our problems with words and non-violence. We can learn that Germany might have had a bad past but one person doesn't form an entire history, it's who else choses to contribute and make their country sought out to what they want it to be. These four films can challenge our vision on the world in many negative ways, but we can also look at in in the sense that, without everyone putting in effort to stop someone from ruling the world, or even making a province separate, we would not have learned the true meaning of effort and how a bad memory can make a positive future. The documentary directors used many good strategies to make the viewer more involved and some of the more predominant were; the use of archival footage to show proof towards what they tried to prove and how they tried to use propaganda to carry a certain message. These movies can relate to almost all of our lives because, fear was shown to almost everyone that was involved with these time periods and it is very similar to the Quebec federal elections. The movies brought up many questions and it put fear into the viewers because, what if there was a referendum and Quebec did change, how would we have reacted and felt and how would we have been able to change that? 

At the end, these documentary films, or these stories are part of our past and we have had many good memories and bad memories from our past. It is only up to the generations to come to learn from the mistakes that happened In the past and to observe the different events that took place In history to make the world a better place to live for the future generations to come. The past has had many inspirational leaders and many fearful dictators, but without having the experience of it happening in the past, it was bound to happen in the future and It does, but not to the same extremes as it once did.