Yesterday, at a sparsely-attended film festival in Kuwait (there were some impressive young Kuwaiti scientists and ecological volunteers there today; here are some of them at kuwaitturtles.com), I saw Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s film Home.
Arthus-Bertrand was the man behind La terre vue du ciel (1999), Earth from Above, first a book, but also a film. His new film is not for profit and has no copyright restrictions attached to it. It is also shot from the air. He wants it to be seen by as many people as possible in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen.
The main criticism I have is that it’s too beautiful. I railed against this kind of thing in relation to a historical documentary. I’m not taking that post back. (I have a stodgy pre-postmodern view of the difference between fact and fiction when it comes to this kind of film.) Does it matter here?
There was a sequence about the invention of agriculture from which I snapped the picture at the top of this post. The filter that has been applied to it looks shop-bought and is probably called “Van Gogh”. Rather childish in this context.
There are photographers’ ethics, based on what the equipment is and how they use it, that can define, at any given moment in technological history, what a real photograph is, relative as these realities must be. I’d make a rougher film. But roughness ends up being an act of will too. And this film is beautiful.
On Dubai: “Nothing seems further from Nature than Dubai, although nothing depends on Nature more than Dubai. Dubai is [...] the culmination of the Western model.”
Toynbee did not see the problem in the scientific terms in which we see it, but he knew what was coming. Warren Buffett (Fortune, November 10 2003), quoting Herb Stein: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
One can find serious faults with this film, but it has a cumulative power. Some people in the audience sat texting as its message was given to them. If I were painting a crucifixion, I’d have the soldiers texting.
Here is the film.
October 30, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Sorry, it’s a pretentious Junior High School script (“the earth is a miracle and life remains a mystery”; too true). The photoshopping of every single image is unbearable (though perhaps less so on a big screen). Sure, this may be the only way to reach large numbers of people — I don’t know — but it makes me want to grab my mobile and text message, too. Instead, I’ll surf a bit.
October 30, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Sure, this may be the only way to reach large numbers of people unquote
That is why I was not harsher on it. It does have power for many. I was being too polite, true. Perhaps compensating for being so rude about Mr Wood. I conceded the word beautiful with misgivings. Do you think Al Gore’s film is that good? Or Leonardo di Caprio’s? Do we accuse even Attenborough of fake beauty? Gore and Di Caprio go for alarmism rather than seduction.
October 30, 2009 at 5:41 pm
And even if it has power, it does a poor job at recommending actions or specific changes in behaviour.
October 30, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Exactly.
October 31, 2009 at 8:42 pm
[...] Home [...]
November 2, 2009 at 5:02 am
Other eco movies of 2009:
Robery Murray’s The End of the Line
Franny Armstrong’s The Age of Stupid
Disney’s Earth
Laura Gabbert’s and Justin Schein’s No Impact Man
Robert Stone’s Earth Days
Bill and Laurie Benenson’s and Gene Rosow’s Dirt! The Movie
John Maringouin’s Big River Man
November 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The more I see that image at the top the more I detest it.