14 - The power of Art

By Keven and Liam

Introduction

Throughout the striking images of those people living in such a poor conditions the impact on the viewer can be shocking. The Power of Art as a great impact all around the world as we see it in Waste Land and Born in the Brothels where both of the main characters let go of their own lives to be able to better understand the living situation in Jardim Gramacho situated in Rio de Janeiro and in the brothel of Calcutta in India.

Part-1

Waste Land

--> The documentary Waste Land winner of 42 awards was filmed in Rio, directed by Lucy Walker and released in 2011, goes beyond looking and understanding how the pickers earn their living by gathering recyclable matters; it is also about Vik Muniz giving back. Ironically, he was very fortunate to have gotten shot because the person who shot him was a wealthy man. By being shot, he got the money to go study in the USA and become an artist. His goal: use what those pickers live off of to create art. Once completed, these pieces of art are then sold at auction. In the end, those pictures produced an amount of $250 000 U.S. This adventure was beneficial on both sides. The pickers were given the opportunity to leave the Gramacho’s  landfill and start a new beginning with the money gathered from their portraits. On the other side of the camera stood a wealthy man and one of the greatest artists alive; Vik Muniz, who was completely changed from experiencing 2 years of life with the catadores. At a first glimpse they all seem pretty happy on the outside; living an honest life and earning their money legally. Yet, as we enter their personal life as we follow them home we can se that on the inside most of them wished they could leave this place and have a better job. This is where this week’s course topic comes in; us and others. Sometimes we take action in order to help our surroundings yet it is upon us that the biggest impact occurs. After experiencing such a life-altering event, Vik Muniz now sees everything in a much simpler way. He now has everything: money, a house, a wealthy lifestyle and tons of superficial objects yet he says, “I’d rather want everything and have nothing than have everything and want nothing because at least when you want something your life has a meaning”. This is the second most powerful of two sentences that stayed embedded in my mind after watching this documentary, because everybody would like to get the new iPhone, or the latest summer clothes collection however once we will all be standing in the same position as Vik: owning all these meaningless object, what will we thrive for? Luckily for the pickers, Vik used his social position to raise awareness through the arts created with recyclable matter about Jardim Gramacho.
This cinéma vérité documentary has two rhetoric meanings, the first one being ethos, where right from the beginning the viewer is believing in the documentary due to the social position of Vik Muniz. The second one is pathos, as the film appeals to our emotions by showing piercing shots of people living with practically nothing. The power of art created by Vik Muniz’s creativity in this documentary has helped the workers by improving their lives and the ones of others, such as Tião. In expanding the ACAMJG, Zumbi finally opened a library with 15 computers and Magna is now working in a drugstore. Valter, this wise man, who did not even posses primary nor secondary education, is the one who said the most influential sentence that could be given to describe why so many people take part into picking up recyclable matters. In this man’s eyes we could see the passion and proudness he had in being a catadore and he said, “99 is not 100”. These people live with practically nothing yet through this short phrase this men shows he has lot more knowledge then many people from richer countries, Valter knows the importance of recycling because as he says that one can has a great important and if the catadores were not there, 200 tons of recyclable matters a day it would be buried with the garbage, pollute their rivers and clog their sewers. At the end of the documentary we see that Valter died shortly after meeting Vik, he his still missed and remembered for his contributions to the landfill and to the pickers.

Part-2

Born into Brothels 

“Born into Brothels” documents the story of a group of young children living in the red light district of Sonagchi, Calcutta. Directed by Zana Brisku, the 2004 documentary shows how difficult it is for any scrap of innocence that the children who are filmed have to survive, and how hard hoping for a better future can be for them. They are invited to learn about photography by Brisku, and immediately fall in love with it. They run around the dilapidated buildings and dirty streets finding beauty in every nook and cranny. The movie is interspersed with the pictures the children have actually taken, which shows the viewer how talented some of them are, without even knowing it in some cases. There are two children that are followed more closely than the others: the young boy, Avajit, and the adorable girl, Kochi. They show not only the most promise over the course of the film, and retain their hope for a better future, but are very well spoken and strong. Brisku tries desperately to get all the children in her documentary into schools, for she knows what will happen to them if they don’t. The boys will grow up to be just like their fathers, addicted to hash like Avajit’s, and the girls will be forced into prostitution and become callous and lose all innocence, just like their mothers. Brisku was a photographer who originally went to the red light district of Calcutta to photograph the prostitutes there, but when she saw the children living there, she became enthralled by them. The two themes of this week were “the Power of Art” and “Us and Them.” The power of art is clearly visible in this documentary, as it shows a group of otherwise hopeless children that anything is possible, and that beauty can be found in anything. Once given their cameras, these young ones realize, slowly at first, but at an exponential rate, that art can be found in anything. This realization is the fuel for their second epiphany: even they, poor daughters and sons of prostitutes, can do beautiful things. In terms of “us and them,” the lives of these children, who are insulted by their parents and don’t strive for anything other than the life in front of them, show us opportunistic our lives are, and how well off we are, just by being able to attend school.

http://www.lightstalkers.org/images/show/824481

Part-3

Our Opinion

 

Both “Waste Land” and “Born into Brothels” carry a strong message: that art, and the beauty born from art, can be found anywhere.

http://www.kids-with-cameras.org/kidsgallery/

Both films transport the viewer to a corner of the world known for its filthiness, and how alien the lifestyles of its inhabitants are. There is a moment in both films where we realize that our initial assumptions, whether they took place upon hearing the title “Born into Brothels,” or hearing Vik’s explanation of the part of Rio he is going to, are totally wrong. In Zana Brisku’s documentary about the children living among the prostitutes of Sonagchi, we realize how beautiful the minds of these children are the moment they first talk to the camera. They are well spoken, bright-eyed and full of hope, and it evokes an emotion in the viewer: you want to protect these kids. In “Waste Land,” we realize how wrong we were to assume all the pickers are drug addicts and broken people when Vik first arrives at the landfill. Everybody is smiling, and they all take pride in their jobs. This moment, in both movies, makes us realize how well off we are, and even all the way over here in North America, we can learn from the example of these people. The pickers show us that happiness does not have to directly relate to money or material possessions, and the children in Calcutta show us that even in the dirtiest places, where hope seems impossible, a dream can grow and thrive. The goal of both these films is to change our perception of what is the “right” way of life. Personally, I don’t think I am HALF as happy as Tiao is shown to be in “Waste Land,” and the man picks up garbage for a living. The same goes for Kochi, the small, sharp toungued girl in “Born into Brothels.” Kochi makes me feel like I am completely spoiled and don’t deserve anything I have ever been given, because she has more fun with a disposable camera taking pictures of dirty building than I do with my iPhone. The message in both films is a positive one, and is conveyed artfully by letting the people in the movie speak for themselves, instead of trying to show us what we should be seeing. 

Conclusion 

In both documentaries are showing what the power of art is. Throughout true shocking reality of living in poor conditions the two protagonist are resigned to bring some help. Vik Muniz was changed from this experience, he now sees things in a simpler way. Meeting all these catadores and thinking that if it wasn't from being shot he might have been a this very same place picking up recyclable matters for 20 U.S. dollars a day. Brisku the main character of Born in to Brothels, has tried to save these children lives through art. By taking photo's the young children were given the power to capture the moment and but they were also given an opportunity to change their lives. Both documentaries were meant to expose two different situations yet, we see those as devastating but they don't, at least from what was shown form the screenings. We have to start acting like them, enjoying the little things that are given to us in order to enjoy the bigger ones.

13 - Activism

Dy Devin, Parinaz, and Gustavo

Part 1: How to Survive a Plague  

   David France is a well known American author, reporter and filmmaker. In 2012 he released ''How to Survive a Plague'', a documentary about the early years of the AIDS epidemic. David received The John Schlesinger Award from the Provincetown International Film Festival for this documentary. This documentary follows the struggle of two coalitions, ACT-UP and TAG (Treatment Action Group). In order to develop effective HIV/AIDS medication, these two AIDS activist groups challenge the United States government and its medical establishment.

    

   In 1987, the gay activist organization ACT-UP was formed in New York. Shortly after, they forced the government and drug companies to develop new treatments and speed up their release into the market, as the AIDS epidemic was spreading amongst the gay population. The activist organization TAG ( Treatment Action Group) originated from ACT UP. In 1992, members of the Treatment and Data Committee of ACT UP left the group. They created TAG which was a non-profit organization that focused on accelerating the treatment research. TAG members collaborated with drug company researchers and U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials to speed up the development of new HIV therapies. AZT was the first drug approved for people with H.I.V. It appeared almost six years after the apparition of the illness that was killing gay people. A demonstration staged on Wall Street by ACT-UP protested the high cost of the drug. It cost roughly $10,000 a year, per patient. This demonstration eventually forced the company that manufactured it to lower the cost. It was one of the many victories that Act Up was going to accomplish.

  From the very beginning, these organizations used the media in order to get their message across. ACT-UP used very artistic and meaningful visuals to raise awareness of their cause. For example, their logo was the words “Silence = Death” printed below a pink triangle on a black background. This is a historical reference to Nazi Germany, where the pink triangle was used to single out the gays, who were killed in concentration camps.

  Furthermore, they protested at the National Institutes of Health, at the Food and Drug Administration, and at the St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The groups produced an influential report on the government's investment in the AIDS epidemic, which increased funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and furthered the national AIDS research effort. After the approval of several effective drugs, TAG pressed the government and the industries to conduct research to understand the long-term effects of the new drugs. In 1996, it was the arrival of protease inhibitors, a class of  antiviral drugs. It's effect is explained in the documentary by an animated segment. This allowed the death rate to slowly decrease. Increasing pharmaceutical drugs have since made AIDS a chronic yet manageable disease, for those who can afford the protocol. According to the film, seven companies manufacture the drugs today and they have helped save six million lives.

  

  This documentary is mostly made up of footage shot by regular people (31 videographers are credited) and told in their voices. Many of whom were the group’s leaders, H.I.V. positive men who faced imminent death. They taught us that global activism must be something that concerns us all. In many cases, it plays an important role in our lives, even though we do not participate in it. In class, we learnt that we must stand up for our beliefs and one way to do it is by taking control. We need to be well informed about what we are fighting for and understand the systems affecting the issue. We must fight for it, without weapons, because a shocking slogan can cause more damage than a weapon. The pink triangle is a good example of this. Also, courage is the key. We should never take ''no'' for an answer and not be afraid of fighting back, just like Peter Staley.  We also must stick together. We live in a society, therefore we need to create a community despite our individual beliefs and our different cultural backgrounds. Gays and heterosexuals stuck together to fight against the Aids. The success of Act Up can serve as an example for other movements.

Part 2: We Were Here

   

   The supplementary film for our group was "We Were Here", by David Weissman. The movie documents different aspects of the AIDS pandemic from the perspective of five people who lived in San Francisco during that time. The movie focuses on the social impact of AIDS, it's affect on the people and more specifically, how it affected five different individuals: Guy, Ed, Eileen, Daniel and Paul. They talk about the gay community and how there were a lot of free spirited gays. Additionally, they talk about how AIDS came very quickly and infected 50% of San Francisco's gay population, by 1976. Then followed the mass deaths, the homophobia, and the fear. As a solution, the government decided to shut down the "Tubs", known as places where gay men went to have sex. Targeting the centre of the gay community on Castro street, where most of these tubs were located.

   

  The pandemic had caused the lives of the interviewees to drastically change. Ed had joined the "Shanti" program, which taught him how to care for AIDS patients without family. Eileen was a nurse who had to start treating a lot of AIDS patients, who were otherwise constantly mistreated by medical professionals. Guy owned a flower shop in San Francisco. Many of his friends had died and when interviewed, he spoke about how he stopped asking who was still around, out of fear of finding out that they had AIDS and were going to die. Out of generosity and respect, he would give free flowers to people who wanted to bury their friends. Daniel is an artist, who had stopped working at the time because he was infected with AIDS. Him and his partner Steve got into one of the first experimental trials for AIDS drugs. However, he could not put up with the side effects and backed out. Everyone else in the trial died, including his partner. Paul had started a small AIDS group called mobilization of AIDS.

  

  The San Francisco gay community was very strong and they had a considerable impact on the AIDS pandemic. Their response to the AIDS pandemic was called "The San Francisco Model", because of how well they dealt with their precarious situation. Their care giving attitude changed people's outlook on the gay community. This movie is closely related to "How to survive a plague", which focused on the group ACTUP and their actions against AIDS. Activism is a strong theme in both these documentaries, but they also focus on what the people experienced and how they dealt with this pandemic. In general, there was very little violence in their actions and a lot more of people helping each other. In other words, the community was coming together to support one other. They created the steps for concrete activism: learn, fight,  and love. The gay community learned about the pandemic, the different ways it could potentially be treated, what caused it, and how to handle it. They fought against the closing of the tubs, they held meetings, and protested the lack of care that was given to them by the government. Most importantly, they loved each other, worked together, and took care of each other in those desperate times.

For anyone interested in this very informational and personal documentary, here it is:

Part 3: Personal Reflection

  

  Learn.Fight.Love. The simplicity of this slogan is contrasting to the true reality of the issues these movies portrayed. Despite the gravity of their situation, the gay communities of San Francisco and New York put their heart into making a change. Their courage, thoughtfulness and resourcefulness allowed them to succeed at what seemed like an impossible task. By doing so, they have set an example for years to come for all our communities. Any sort of global activism can use their work as a model of conduct.

   

   In general, our societies have lost their sense of communal togetherness. We tend to fear others and forget that we should promote working together as a group in order to achieve our goals as a society. Both these films portrayed how communities in vast cities such as New York and San Francisco managed to organize protests that allowed saving the lives of millions of people. It was interesting to see how far people will go in order to survive, when they were left to die. What was an even more relevant discovery was how people will do absolutely anything in their power just to help their community, even if they themselves have no chance of survival. When interviewed, most individuals in both movies claimed that they would die before a cure is found. However, their efforts did not falter because they hoped to save others. This is why their actions were selfless, extremely touching and also very surprising. In other words, when facing a common goal, people become apt to give, share and love one another. Although some people may be skeptical after having watched this movie, the major change they have made in the world is proof enough of the effectiveness of their methods.

   

   Another incredibly eye-opening idea to consider is the fact that even though the gay community was so discriminated against and completely shunned out of society, they still found innovative ways to get their message across in a peaceful manner. They used art and science to further their cause. With art they managed to spread awareness and with science they managed to give factual evidence, which helped convince those who were skeptical. Most people believe that violence is the only way to make their voice heard, but these AIDS activists managed to prove otherwise. They changed the general perspective from a stereotypical gay man to a dignified human being just like any other. It would've been interesting to see the same use of art in the Montreal student protests. The students could've been taken more seriously if they had taken more time in order to organize their movement. The following is a video that shows some of ACTUP's interesting modes of demonstration.

  

   

   Finally, we can not only take away their effective techniques of activism, but also the fact that a small group of individuals can still make a concrete difference in the world. This is often the case in many high schools and colleges in Montreal. For example, in College Beaubois, there is a program run by a few dedicated individuals and students that raises money for a school in Senegal.  Despite the odds, when there are at least a few people that are willing to do whatever it takes, change is bound to happen. We must not forget that nothing can possibly happen with inaction. More precisely, nothing gained, nothing ventured. As mentioned in the films, there is something liberating and fulfilling in helping others and making a positive change in the world.  Even a small a change as when volunteering at the hospital, has proven to me how this is indeed very true. Nowadays, we live in a primarily ethnocentric and egotistical society. This is why it has become very difficult for change to be made. Additionally, this also explains how the government is more empowered, when everyone is so dispersed.

  

12 - Portraits of the Self

By Étienne and Étienne

Introduction

If there is one thing that society as yet to really understand is "differences". In our present days, we are proud to say that we are more open than ever and that discrimination barely exist anymore. Sadly, the truth is far from that. Let's think about it. Whether it is an homeless person to whom nobody dare to look at or a kid at school that hardly makes any friend due to his cultural origins, we still judge people too quickly without knowing them properly. The two screenings we had to do this week offers us us a better understanding of two social groups that are judge unfairly by society: gleaners and homosexuals.

The Summary of the film: The Gleaners and I

The Gleaners and I is a wandering road documentary that describes how many people are either forced to glean or do it by choice and then compares that description the perception we, the more fortunate folk, have of the general act of gleaning. The purpose of the documentary is not only to raise awareness about the potential value of gleaning, but also to emphasize the ways that our perceptions of people and objects influence the portraits we create of them and of ourselves. Filmed and Directed by Agnes Varda in the year 2000, this documentary takes place across all of France and serves to create multiple portraits of both the people interviewed and the filmmaker herself.

Agnes Varda begins by taking us to see La glaneuse de Jules Breton, a painting that illustrates the how gleaning was once done only by women and strictly in a harvesting/Farming purpose. She then turns the camera on herself, illustrating her age but in a creative way. Much like the portraits we prematurely make of the gleaners we see, her age is superficial and independent of her values and motivations. The documentary then travels to "La Beauce Francaise" where one potato farm can have up to 25 tons of leftover potatoes a season due to the strict commercial criteria. It’s here that Agnes Varda interviews homeless men and women who rely on gleaning for basic nutrition; homeless men and women who are often perceived as idiots who spend their day trash collecting. In the same region, she interviews soup kitchen volunteers who collect about 300 kilos of potatoes a day to sell to restaurants and to feed the less fortunate. Some of the volunteers are also homeless people trying to make themselves useful. Varda also engages in the gleaning, filming with close attention the heart shaped potatoes, as if to express her unique perception and appreciation of the situation. This documentary demonstrates that you don’t have to be homeless to participate in gleaning. Even 2 star chefs like Edward Loupé obtain most of their ingredients from gleaning in vineyards and farms.

As the movie progresses we start to understand that gleaning isn't only material. For the filmmaker it’s a gleaning of images, facts and actions while for us viewers it’s a gleaning of knowledge and emotions. With each different type of gleaning illustrated, the different laws are explained. For muscles, grapes or apples located on farms, the gleaners are allowed before dawn and after dusk all while following the guidelines put in place by the owners. The same rules apply on the city, but the gleaning of food is more frowned upon by market owners, who sometimes bleach the left overs so they cannot be used. In the final section, Varda interviews a few gleaners from the city who aren't quite who they seem to be. She first interviews the man who always wears rubber boots. This man has a job, steady income, social security number and a residence, yet he gleans in an effort to reduce the excess waste created by modern society, that can harm nature and its creatures in so many ways. Later she encounters a band of gleaners who proceed in removing the copper wiring from T.Vs in order to sell it and have a minimum income. Finally she interacts progressively over many weeks with a young man named Alain. Alain has a Master’s degree in Chemistry and spends his time between selling papers and teaching French to immigrants. He gleans only for his survival, which to him isn’t the hardest life to live because he has food, friends and a shelter to stay in; all he needs.

This movie is reputably known for its use of the handheld camera and the unusual camera angles and techniques that come with. A few times Agnes Varda uses her camera to film herself filming, symbolizing her reflection onto her actions.  Later, Varda forgets to turn off her camera. As the camera hangs to her side filming, the viewer can see the shifting ground and the dangling lens cap with a jazz music background. Varda calls this shot "The Dance of the Lens Cap". This shows the diversity in the filming techniques. Throughout the movie, Varda films herself, using these techniques, combing her newly discovered gray hair, and there are many visuals of her aging hands, of which she realizes she portrays without completely understanding them. She frequently "catches" trucks on the freeway, making a circle with her hand in front of the camera framing the truck and then closing her hand as she drives past them.

As all the scenes are woven into this documentary, gleaning becomes illustrated as an act with purpose. Whether it is to feed yourself and your family, reduce waste or simply to acquire knowledge, emotions and ideas like Agnes Varda has done, gleaning has a goal that is unique to each individual and isn’t always for the strict necessities.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/19299550/central-virginians-take-part-in-commonwealth-day-of-gleaning

The Concepts

With this week’s topic being Portraits of the Self, Agnes Varda's methods for her interviews allow for the best and the truth of her subject to come out to the camera. Agnes Varda takes the time get to know her subjects and gives them the freedom of expression. Much like with Alain, the one who had a master’s degree, she went to see him for a few short minutes for a few weeks before he felt comfortable enough to reveal what he does and why he does it. She does the same with others like Salomon and the homeless men who gleaned the potatoes at the beginning of the movie. She first began by speaking with them while they were gleaning and subsequently they should her and explained how they lived. Agnes Varda interacted with her subjects without judgement or preconceived notion in mind and without applying any exterior pressure. As a result the subjects felt at ease and confident enough to reveal the complete and honest truth about themselves. Her interviewing techniques allow for the creation of complete Candid (Honest, truthful) portraits of herself, her topic and of her subjects.

Our understanding of the concept of waste is often questioned in this documentary. Why is it that what most of us call trash, both food and material, is often taken to be somebody else’s treasure? When we throw out potatoes that are too big, broken televisions or potentially (according to the wrapper) post-dated food, we often do it in neglect of not only the consequences but the potential that this "waste" still carries for others. It takes someone who has nothing to appreciate the value of something he doesn't have while we viewers often forget what value certain objects can have. It’s a matter of habit, where we are surrounded by something for so long that we almost forget its significance, that it even exists.

If we combine these 2 concepts we realize that filming the other, is figuratively filming the self. This is when we define the self to be built through intense self-reflection, and the other to be built by a series of portraits. When Agnes Varda filmed and documented the reality of the gleaners, both rural and urban, it pushed both her and us, the viewers, to reflect on the reality we live in and on whom we are as individuals. Her film, composed of only candid portraits, allows for a concrete comparison between us as viewers and them as gleaners and witnesses to a different reality of living. As spectators we glean these images in order to produce a meaning and questions for us to reflect on. We could say that a documentary film can be used as a mirror for the spectator to observe and reflect on.

We as spectators, as gleaners, often compare ourselves to those presented in documentaries or movies. We try to understand the portraits filmmakers make of their subjects in order to make our own portraits, both of them and of ourselves. This allows us to establish relationships between us and concepts such as waste, consumption, art, humanity, etc, as well as relationships with the people featured in documentaries. It becomes essential that documentaries take the role of true portraits of humanity if it is ever to change and improve.

Small steps are being taken:

http://www.cuesa.org/article/get-out-and-glean

Additional Film: Silverlake Life

The additional screening we did was the movie Silverlake Life. Published in 1993 in the United States, this 100 minutes documentary, directed by Tom Joslin, shows how his life changed when he and his lover Mark Massi were both diagnosed with AIDS. At that time, the number of death related to that disease was enormous. In fact, 1993 marked the highest point of AIDS with more than 80 000 cases in the United States only (Centers for Disease Control statistics). Therefore, it is without great surprise that many films related to HIV, AIDS and homosexuality were released at that time like Philadelphia (featuring Tom Hanks) and And the Band Played On.

Despite the fact that the movies mentioned above were highly acclaimed by the public, they were nothing more than fiction movies and that’s what makes them less touching and realistic than the documentary Silverlake Life.

This film shows the principal struggles and difficulties that the couple must face as they live their final moments before an inevitable death.  The disease they must live with drains them completely from their energy and this becomes more and more visible as the film progresses. Simple tasks quickly become nearly insurmountable. For example, at some point we see Joslin trying to go shopping but he must always take breaks and go lie down in his car because, for him, the amount of work required to accomplish this task is too important. However, this documentary is not necessarily depressing and macabre. In fact, it delivers a fantastic message of courage, compassion and true love. In the couple’s daily life, we see that they take care of each other and they learn how to appreciate every moment together despite the fact that it is far from easy. It shows to the world a whole different aspect of gay couple in society and it proves that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. As a matter of fact, one of the important messages of the film is that love has no frontiers, whether it is gender or illness.

Sadly, the world they live in has yet to understand this fact. Even though the film doesn't show political facts, we clearly see that, at that time, homosexuals were left alone facing this “gay cancer”. For example, Mark Massi gets ask to put on a shirt when he swims at a public pool because the manager is afraid that the marks on his back might scare the clients. He finds it pretty insulting because he doesn't see his body as disgusting. This kind of emotion is visible at few occasions throughout the movie and it is interesting and eye-opening to see how the couple reacts to it. Also, at one point of the movie, the couple visits Joslin’s family and we see that it is hard for them to accept Massi in the life of their son. They tend to judge him because of his sexual orientation and his disease.

The structure of the documentary is very interesting. It is a "point of view" kind a movie filmed with a handheld camera by the couple itself. No third parties are asked to emit an opinion on the subject and this helps the audience to get an intimate bound with Joslin and Massi.

Also, in the montage, the syntagmatic axis is very well done. One of the best links that are shown is when the couple go see a marathon in their village and they talk to one of the runners. When she gets ask if she thinks she will make it all the way, she replies: "With all the wonderful people and entertainment, even if it is long, I'll make it all the way". I found it very interesting because this simple answer resumed perfectly the combat that the couple was facing and the that fact that they were there to take care of eachother was what was helping them to survive all the way.

The film ends with the death of Tom Joslin. The editing was left to Peter Friedman. He did an excellent job in delivering a product that is both thought provoking and interesting. He truly understood what the couple was trying to accomplish by doing this film and a result allows the public the view them under a new, positive light. Friedman had a strong bond with them and the respect he had towards them is visible in the structure of the film for it is a truly candid portrait of both Tom Joslin and Mark Massi

In this short interview, co-director Peter Friedman sums up the nature of Tom Joslin and Mark Massi:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/silverlakelife/video-interview.php#.UYQamqJSiAg

After the release, Silverlake Life won many awards and forced many people to change their opinion on homosexuality. This documentary film was a major tool in the fight against homophobia and the lack of knowledge regarding AIDS. In a way, their deaths were not in vain.

The Personal Response

We live in a world where we tend to judge people without knowing them. The two films presented separate groups of people discriminated by society for being different on multiple levels. However, when we see them through honest, candid portraits, we are able to compare and find resemblance with them and their lifestyle. The opinion we made of them is then based on facts and testimonies instead of popular opinion and preconceived ideas.

When we see the world through their eyes, it forces us to have a second look on the world we live in and how we react to difference. For example, in Silverlake Life, we quickly have a sense of attachment with Joslin and Massi. We see their relationship as something completely normal and it is hard to understand why their family cannot see it this way. It forces us to think on how society as a whole can judge them if their close ones can hardly accept them. In The Gleaners and I, the gleaners are seen and treated as filthy, homeless outcasts only because they pick up and reuse what we see as trash. However, as an over consuming society, we throw a lot away only because we don’t want it and not because it isn’t useful anymore. While society takes its wealth for granted, gleaners act responsibly and evaluate the consequences before they act. Yet we place them in a degraded, separate social class.

Its movies like this that make us realize how we take things for granted and also create opinions on subjects we aren't necessarily properly informed about. I for one learned that forming an opinion based on rumor and biased ideals makes me less objective. During last year’s student strike, I wasn't informed on the arguments and points up for debate and as a result I portrayed the Quebec government as an abusive force of power. I later found I was wrong. The actors in these movies were misunderstood and degraded just the same as African American’s were in the 20^th century, just the same as Chinese immigrants in the 1800’s and so on (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/ChineseImmigration). These documentaries are meant to teach us and allow us to reflect on our attitude and approach to people and concepts we don’t quite understand. Therefor they are critical to our society’s proper development.

Conclusion

It will take a while before every form of discrimination and unfounded believes about different social groups stop. As humans, "difference" is something hard to accept. However, the situation keeps on getting better. If we learn to open our mind and learn from people before judging them, maybe that someday the problem will be solved. However, to acheive such a goal, every person counts.

11- Alanis Obomsawin

Entry written by Jacklyn, Serena, and Philippe

Introduction

The three films we will present (Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, The People of Kattawapiskak River and Le Peuple Invisible) are all about the lives of First Nations in Canada and how each community feels invisible in the eyes of the government. They each show in their own way how isolation to rights have impacted their lives and how little they get in retrospect to the average Canadian. One would think that in light of being the first people to discover and live in Canada, these communities would at least be treated equally in comparison to other Canadians . However, as shown in the three films, this is most definitely not the case.

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance (1993,119 min 15s, Canada) is a film about a native community’s struggle with rights to their land. Directed by Alanis Obomsawin, this film brings light on the issues that many native communities struggle with throughout our country. The film documents the Oka crisis that occurred in 1990 where a Mohawk community fought for the land that the town of Oka attempted to claim for developmental plans where the Mohawks pines and burial grounds were located. Before the Oka crisis occurred, the Mohawk community attempted to legally claim the pines and the graveyard but the town refused. Which explains how the town of Oka was able to expand the golf course in the first place.  There was also no democracy involved in making the decision to invade the pines and the Mohawks had no say in the choices made. There was no answers or explanations given from the mayor of Oka and he was not open to hearing what the Mohawks had to say. Obviously, this way of governing a town is not subsequent to the idea of democracy. It is very hard to say, in light of the issue, that people (mainly the town council) are viewing the Native community as equals.

The film shows mainly the native community’s experience with slight glimpses at the town councils, the media’s and the military’s perspectives. Alanis Obomsawin narrates the film and follows the native community while capturing their opinions and emotional responses throughout the crisis . We see shocking scenes in the film like the Canadian military and the Mohawk’s men being forceful and intimidating towards one another. One can see great opposition between the two especially when the Mohawks blockade the bridge and the pines. The most shocking scenes are seeing the harm that this dispute caused to the community. We see children and women being aggressively handled by the SQ, as well as seeing a middle aged man suffer such serious physical harm from military soldiers that he’s rushed to the hospital. The film also shows home owners of the town being detained by police officers due to speaking out about the unjust decisions they are faced with. The film shows a very subjective view towards the indigenous people by making the authoritative figures (military commanders and SQ officers) seem ignorant and impractical. This film documents many signs of discrimination towards the Mohawk community by the military and SQ forces, such as having no rights to contact a lawyer, not allowing them to have access to medication unless they surrender and by damaging the Mohawks food that is delivered by the military. All of these scenes allow the audience to further comprehend how unfair it is for the native community to have to go to such extremes to have their rights protected and even in these extremes, they are not treated as equals regardless.

        The movement resulted in many Mohawks being detained by the SQ and with the town of Oka dropping the golf course expansion. This rebellion was one of the most publicized First Nations disputes to occur in the 20th century. Thus sparking many other native communities to end this “270 years of resistance”. Meaning it influenced other first nation communities to take a stand and give themselves a voice. One can say that governments throughout history have viewed native people with much ethnocentricity, meaning they have viewed their lives in terms of their own. This 270 years of resistance refers to many years of an attitude towards the indigenous people that included little respect and understanding of their rights as first nations.

The People of Kattawapiskak River

In The People of the Kattawapiskak River (Alanis Obomsawin 2012, 78 min Canada), the community reached out to the government because many were living in tents, trailer and temporary shelters (for example sheds). Attempts to get assistance in their community were dismissed by the governments and these attempts go as far back as 2007. By 2011, the First Nations chief Theresa Spence had already called three times Kattawapiskak as in a state of emergency. It is only in 2012 that new trailers were rushed to the community and needs were beginning to be met. The time it took for the federal government only further proves the discrimination that the Native community is still facing, even on a legal level. It is devastating to see how long the government took to handle the housing crisis up North. Furthermore, the First Nation’s community was criticized for spending a large sum of money on a new Zamboni. To many youth, the local arena was a safe refuge both emotionally and physically. In The People of Kattawapiskak, the criticism about buying a new Zamboni was not justified in this situation. In fact, the high suicide rates in the First Nation communities are just as important to resolve and consider as the poor living conditions.

The most touching parts of the documentary are the interviews where Ms. Obomsawin reaches out to the people of the community. Through these individual stories, we are made aware of the crisis on a very up close and personal level. Ms. Obomsawin films them in their homes doing simple everyday activities such as taking care of their children. As a member of the First Nations community, Ms. Obomsawin was able to create a bridge of trust and sincerity between herself those she was interviewing.  Thus she was able to share with us true and first-hand experiences of what happened during the housing crisis.  One of the interviewee’s houses looked to be in third world conditions; unequipped to handle the sub-arctic weather of northern Ontario.  In some instances it was seen that over 90 people were staying in one mobile trailer with only few bathrooms.  These trailers were hand-me downs from a neighboring industrial plant.  This trailer was not even the worst of its kind; there were some homes with holes in the floors and ceilings.  The community was not receiving proper housing seeing that the government sent in quick fixes, with mobile homes. Do to the arctic weather, these homes could not withstand freezing and defrosting and were literally falling apart at the seams.

When Alanis Obomsawim spoke, everybody listened. It is amazing to think that despite her easygoing and level tone, she projected so much passion about what she was talking about. Ms. Obomsawin told of her travels to various Native reserves and how they are always happy and willing to see and speak with her. Essentially she brings their stories and struggles to the general public’s attention. It is really interesting to note that she said that the best way we could help the cause was to write letters to the government. By saying this, it reinforces the fact that the situation the Native community faced and is still facing is extremely serious; serious enough that the only way to make a difference is to appeal to the government. 

Le Peuple Invisible

“Once so vast, the land of the Quebec Algonquin has shrunk dramatically. This hard-hitting documentary provides a sympathetic glimpse of a nation of 9,000 people who suffer in silence as the rest of us look the other way.” –National Film Board of Canada

Le Peuple Invisible, directed by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie (2007, 93 min 19 sec, Canada) is a documentary that explains how Algonquians have been treated since the beginning of their colonization. In the beginning, the First Nations were allied with the French colonists. Iroquoians were allied with English colonists from New York. Between these two big clans, there was a total war zone for the control of the fur trade. The English were greater in number than the French and consequently won the war. The British King decided to split the colony into three regions: the first one being the English colonies, the second one was the colony of Quebec and the last one was the Natives’ territory. No one was allowed to cross into the Natives’ territory, unless the person who wished to go through it had been granted special permission from the authorities. However, after a couple of years, the King decided to take the Natives and put them all together, thus, the first reserves were established. At this time, they did not know that they lived in a new country, Canada. Their lands was property of the province of Quebec, as well as the property of federal government. Every time they tried to extend their territory, the government refused. The province of Quebec reduced the territory allotted for the reserves numerous times. The First Nations were treated like animals; they were not given the rights to do anything on the land unless the government approved it. It remained that way until today.

The First Nations are still living in small reserves such as Kanawhake and Kanehsatake. Their life conditions are horrible. In some reserves they do not have running water. Instead they have to take use a boiler and go to the river if they want to drink and wash themselves. In Grand Lac Victoria's reserve, the community is very little and isolated. 90% of children living in this village are cousins because they are so few people who immigrate to these places, therefore there isn’t any new blood in the village, and they simply marry each other. The community does not know how long they will be able to live like this because of the consanguinity in the reserve. Furthermore, 80 % to 85% of people are living on welfare and 60% of them are the youth of the community. Many couples have children because they like to continue the tradition of having a large family. A lot of young men would like to go to Cégep or University but they do not have enough money to pay for their studies, thus they abandon their ambitions for education and depend on welfare. They know that their prospects for the future are not bright and it brings down their strive for ambition and confidence in their lives. They begin to use drugs and alcohol much younger than Caucasians would on average. In Rapid Lake's reserve, it is easier to find cocaine, cigarettes and weapons than flour and it is not the only reserve like this, there are many in similar situations. All these things lead young people to commit suicide. Half of the young boys in almost each reserve try at least once to commit suicide because they feel they do not have any future.

The Canadian government doesn’t offer assistance for their situation. Each time the First Nations ask for a subvention, they are refused. Subventions would help to construct decent schools and create jobs, which would contribute to a healthier development for the community. People outside the Native community complain when a protest occurs but what these people do not comprehend is they have really valid reasons to doing so, because even prisoners are treated much better than they are. 

A Reflection

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, The People of Kattawapiskak River and Le Peuple Invisible are each proper examples of how a democratic country that is known for being multicultural and diverse, is not fully abiding by its own policies which instate freedom and especially equality. 

We know from meeting with Alanis Obomsawin, that her goal is to get people's stories heard. She is much more in tuned with the sound, story and voice rather than the image itself.  In this short interview, we again get to see and understand how important vocalizing people's perspectives are to Alanis Obomsawin. She speaks about how the National Film Board of Canada allows her to films to be very open and diverse, rather than being limited or having boundaries. 

In both documentaries, it became obvious that the First Nations communities were being discriminated against. In Kanehsatake, the land clearly belonged to the Natives; in fact it was their burial ground and therefore already being used. It is terrible to think that the mayor of Oka was so ignorant as to think that this was not a good enough reason to not use the land. Currently, years after Europeans have immigrated to North America these First Nations are still being treated the way they are. Unfortunately, it was only in the 1980s that they even became recognized as citizens of Canada. It’s unnerving to think that in a liberated country like Canada we could be taking one-step forward but two steps back. In The People of Kattawapiskak, the criticism about buying a new Zamboni was not justified in this situation. In fact, the high suicide rates in the First Nation communities are just as important to resolve and consider as the poor living conditions.

We know from in doing the third assignment that there is a charter which claims: “by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.” We also know after viewing these films that very little of claims are being respected. Especially the part of the resolution that states that every State has the duty to the respect that right in accordance with the Charter. It truly appears that the Canadian government is doing the complete polar opposite of what this Resolution demands. I personally feel that these means are not being met for the native communities because it is easy to ignore the people who (because of us) have much poverty, mental illnesses and basically no power. When the government holds and controls the money and our countries institutions. Luckily, the native communities have tons of integrity, strength and intelligence to not let this reality of being pushed away go on any longer.

A Final Thought

As a society, we have the moral responsibility to keep ourselves informed about social crises and be aware of what we can do to help. During this specific crisis, Idle No More, a campaign dedicated to “calling on all people to join in a revolution which honors and fulfills Indigenous sovereignty which protects the land and water” was started. It is campaigns like this that will truly make a difference to social injustices everywhere.

10 - Myth and Utopia

Myth, Utopia and "No Impact Man"

by Marc-André, Katherine and Shashi

Introduction

This week’s topic is about myths and utopia, and how to reach perfection through collectivity and actions that could be considered as belonging to myths.  So this blog is dedicated to the summary of the two screenings No Impact Man and Surviving Progress, which are related to the topic of the week, and also what do these two documentaries can teach to viewers.

Part 1: First screening

“No Impact Man,” an American documentary directed by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein in 2009, is an interesting look at saving the planet. It shows the measures taken by the Beaven family to try and go for a year without negatively impacting the environment.  The family consists of Colin Beaven, a writer, Michelle, his wife and their toddler daughter Isabella. The purpose of the project was to see what things they really didn’t need to live normally in New York City. To see what things they could plausibly give up, not to necessarily live that way for the rest of their lives. The point was to see what changes they could make.

Their project was done in stages, and the stages got progressively extreme and difficult. Some of the first things they did included eating only local  foods, not buying anything new (used things or borrowed were okay), using only self-propelled transportation (no elevators), getting rid of their television and using a worm bin to compost. The later phases of their project included getting rid of things they didn’t need by donating them to second hand stores, making their own soaps, detergents and other cleaning products, learning how to grow vegetables in the city, volunteering with environmental groups and, for the last six months of their experiment, going without electricity. During their project, they were faced with much criticism. Other environmentalists said that it was this type of extreme action that gave them a bad name. The media made their project into a kind of joke by not focusing on the truly important or good things from their project. Co-workers began to think of them as dirty, refusing to even shake hands because they would not buy toilet paper. 

This film highlights individual actions in a big community, which makes it special. Often, individual action is seen as something that is pointless, because there are so many individuals in a community and you can’t force everybody to take the same actions and make the same changes in their lives. Often, people believe that they have to wait for governments and organizations to take action. While this is discussed and validated in the film, it is also shown that individual action is not something to be disregarded. The actions of one individual can inspire other individuals to act in a certain way, slowly changing the ways we live. This is really brought home when we see Colin talking to large groups about his experiment.

The topic discussed in class this week was utopia and myths. This film shows us a hero’s quest, the sender being that Colin Beaven wanted to write a new book, the subject being the Beaven family, the object being the project. There were also helpers and oppositions, the helpers being those who lent them things such as the solar panel, and the opposition being those who criticized the project. In the end, the receiver was the Beaven family themselves as well as the environment, because they grew closer as a family and became healthier overall. This was a myth based on an idea of utopia. A utopia is basically a perfect world. The term utopia was first used by Thomas More. A utopia is a world that is too good to be true. Such a world can never truly exist because utopia depends on an individual’s vision of the world. With so many individuals, not everyone will have the same vision of what a utopian world would look like; therefore in reality it is unattainable. The link below is to a video that expands on the idea of utopia.

The project presented in “No Impact Man” is based on a utopia. During their one year experiment, the Beavens take measures that even they decide not to take after that year, things like going without electricity and the worm bin. Very few people would be willing to change their lifestyles so dramatically, as we are all afraid of change even when the change is beneficial to us and our environment. We will always have some impact on our environment, so the idea of making no impact is utopian. It would be ideal, but it is in reality unachievable.

Part 2: Additional Screening

Firstly, the additional screening released in 2011, and lasting about 86 minutes in length, called Surviving Progress, accompanies the main documentary, No Impact Man. The filmmakers, Harold Crook and Mathieu Roy, say that their inspiration for creating this compelling interactive documentary came from Ronald Wright’s best-seller of 2004, A Short History of Progress, in which the author claimed that civilization is in an experimental stage as much as the human beings from the Stone Age were then. But in this film, viewers that are trying to know what the main theme of the documentary is only have to look at the title, because “survival” is the central idea for this movie. Viewers are presented with different opinions from a number of economists, scientists, and authors, in which they describe what probably caused civilization to reach the point where it has to worry about its survival, and what can it do to prevent its destruction. After a few minutes in the documentary, Ronald Wright presents to viewers a term that he uses to define the current situation of civilization called progress trap, which corresponds to human behaviours that seem to be good things to provide benefits in a short term, but which actually leads to disaster and unsustainability. By looking at his definition of what a progress trap is, viewers can easily make the link between this, and the current problems of overconsumption, overpopulation, and the refusal of dramatic changes because people think that they are already contributing to a good environment. Another example of denial and scepticism is the critic of this documentary, written by Michael O’Sullivan of The Washington Post, who wrote that “99 percent” of viewers “probably won’t like what the movie has to say”. Now, one might wonder if this movie critic is implying that members of society simply do not care about change, or that they are already discouraged by the steps to take because they feel guilty. Basically, the whole documentary was about how humanity always strives for progress, but what humans see as progress, are not necessarily positively changing the world.

Secondly, the documentary being an interactive one is composed of many interesting interviews of experts, where the viewers can have their personal opinions of how the world is, how it got to this point, and how it can be fixed. For example, Michael Hudson, an economic historian and former Wall Street economist, claims that 2000 years ago, it was normal for countries to cancel their debt when it was too large, so that society can renew. But he adds that Rome became a powerful and rich empire by going to war against other countries before the kings could cancel their debt, and stripped them from their economic power to prevent equality. Basically, the gap between the rich and the poor may well have been caused because of this manoeuvre by the Romans, and could explain the current situation. Another memorable moment is the interview of Margaret Atwood, author of Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, gives the perfect argument against capitalism by saying: “Unless we conserve the planet, there is no economy.” At one point, Kambale Musavuli, spokesman of the organisation Friends of the Congo, makes a very interesting remark on debts by saying that the people are working to give the money they earn to someone else. This surely makes viewers uneasy, because of course Mr. Musavuli talks about the population of Congo, but isn’t it the situation in which every member of society find themselves into? Although, probably the most intelligent, simple, and jaw-dropping comment of Surviving Progress must be when Vaclav Smil, a population scientist, says that the solution to contribute to the environment and society in general, is that humans have to use less. This could fix the overconsumption, environment problems, but by fixing these, it could save humanity from its progress trap. So, if readers look at the examples given, they might notice that their words act like myths, because their words are the vehicle of their metaphysical insights, meaning that they convey words of wisdom concerning the values that society should acquire, or keep.

Thirdly, readers of this blog might try to find a link between this documentary, and the theme of the course, but should clearly see that they both treat of the same concept: Utopia. While Sylvain Duguay’s PowerPoint presentation Myths and Utopia: Imagining a Different World defines what is Utopia, the film illustrates an almost utopian vision of the world when the people interviewed, consisting of Stephen Hawking, Jane Goodall, David Suzuki, and many more, present their solution or vision of how to make the world a better place. Viewers might see a sense of collectivity, primarily because humanity is strongly connected to the Earth, but also, because of the challenge that humanity, as a whole, has to face. Another interesting subject that this documentary touched is the quest for answers. Daniel Povinelli, a cognitive psychologist that was interviewed, says in the documentary: “Humans are constantly probing for unobservable phenomenon to explain the observable”. So, it is easy to see that the fact that this documentary serves to warn viewers of the consequences of civilization’s actions, which is a quest of its own, but another is the quest that viewers are urged to undertake. Viewers may see many links between the film and the course, but there are also many between the first and second screening. One of the most significant links that viewers can make between the two screenings, would obviously be the fact that Colin Beaven, in No Impact Man, takes an enormous task as an individual, but finds himself against society and its criticism, while in Surviving Progress, society as a whole has to confront some challenges. This certainly leads to say that a person can make great changes in his life, but only if society cooperates and acts like a whole, can the world be change for the greater good.

Review of Surviving Progress:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/surviving-progress,1224566/critic-review.html

Part 3: Personal Reflection of the two Screenings

From watching the documentaries Surviving Progress and No Impact Man, there is a common subject that is emphasized from the two documentaries which is change and progress. Humans are capable of great change but the changes we make in society aren’t enough to be considered as “change”, instead it is referred to as progress. But as human beings we don’t realise that we are progressing too quickly as a species, so quickly, that the changes and progress we make could threaten the very existence of humanity, basically a progress trap (as Ronald Wright would call it)!

  In No Impact Man, the film taught us that as humans, we have the capability of making great changes to help better the world for the tomorrow to come as seen with Colin and his family, which consists to live a “no impact towards the environment” lifestyle for one year, in New York City. His idea was successful but really, there is one question that we should ask ourselves, if one man and his family could do it, why not the rest us? Is it because humans are afraid of change, or that we simply don’t care? Right now, we are living in a society in which our way of living is harming our nature our very habitat. We are polluting, extracting, using up all of our natural resources, and destroying habitats for our personal needs. We need paper so we cut trees; we need land to build homes so we destroy forests etc…  Our actions always have consequences and as consequence for our actions we are committing towards the earth, we are slowly progressing to lose nature itself. Forests, animals, natural resources, all would disappear if we continue in this path but when people begin to realize about the harm we are causing, we take small actions (example: recycling, living a no impact lifestyle etc…) to better ourselves and Earth and hope that this will eventually progress into a big change but sometimes the progress we make to help better ourselves and the world isn’t quite helpful at all.

From the documentary Surviving Progress, it seems the documentary emphasizes the idea of how sometimes, progress isn’t that perfect. As humans, we strive to make change, but yet we don’t realize that the human race is something that affects our planet. We are growing in numbers so our demand increases and affects our nature etc… “Humans are the most intellectual creatures to walk on planet Earth yet us intellectual beings are destroying are only home” (Jane Goodall). We are problem solvers, if there is something wrong, we will work it out but when the topic involves change in our habits, or ourselves, we merely ignore the problem or we simply don’t do anything. For example, when people discuss about the environment, usually you’ll have people who talk “big” but in the end you don’t do anything, because you’ll still drive your car, still throw garbage, consume natural resources, and etc…    

Both Surviving Progress and No Impact Man teach us that we live in a very small world and that rather than taking care of our planet, most people do the opposite, even if “The world is small and it can’t grow or be big” (Margret Atwood).  Earth is not a humongous planet with an infinite amount of natural resources. It is small. The only thing that is enormous is our population. Almost seven billion people live on planet earth and the number will continue to rise throughout the years but that’s not the only variable changing, year after year our natural resources are diminishing to a point that eventually, we’ll have nothing left. Why you ask? Because of consumerism, earth provides us with what you will call “Natural Capital”, (water, oxygen, forests, minerals, oil etc…) all of these resources that Mother Nature has provided to us, is used as capital because for humans, everything is about money. Eventually our situation will progress to a point where (as said by Stephen Hawking in the film Surviving Progress) the human race would have to leave earth and venture out into space to find a new planet to live on search for new resources (like in a science-fiction movie), because our instinct as a species is to explore, possess and consume. 

Films like No Impact Man and Surviving Progress were created to transform our vision of the world by showing us the consequences of our actions and emphasize on them so that we can change our ways just like how Colin Beavan did. Surviving Progress showed us that our world is dying and we are killing it. We are making progress so that our earth can live on but the progress we make isn’t enough or that the progress we make isn’t making a difference we’re just making it worse. While No Impact Man has proved to us that it is possible to make change by fixing our lifestyle and habits, humans have the capability of making the world a better, environmental friendly place by taking small progressive steps in order to make a change. This is something that society has to learn because if society doesn’t learn that the things we do on earth is merely killing it and we have the capability of change then who will? This is something we have to learn and this is what is considered as real progress.   

Reviews of Surviving Progress and No Impact Man:

http://www.theboulderstand.org/2012/02/20/surviving-progress-asks-deep-questions-but-fails-to-provide-answers/

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/movies/11impact.html?_r=0

Conclusion

After watching the two documentaries and making links between the two of them, it is easy to present to readers of this blog things that the team learned. Although, these films show viewers how they can act to make tomorrow a better world, but the filmmakers did not go to the extent of showing these solutions as actions that will lead humanity to the point where it has finally reached Utopia. Readers of this blog might have their own opinion and are invited to contribute by commenting about what they have thought of the blog, and other subjects or details of the documentaries.