YouTube are hosting, promoting and showing "Home", the documentary by Luc Besson about the environmental issues threatening our planet, they have recently announced on their blog.
I have just finished watching it, and I have mixed thoughts about it. On the one hand I think it's quite a bad production, and I have yet to understand why Luc received awards for it (maybe for the breadth of his research if nothing else). On the other hand, I do think that, given the current campaign to see it, a mass viewing would be beneficial.
Firstly, the film struck me as 'cheesy' - the narrator(ess) is trying to be inspiring and awe-inducing, but the result is something we've all seen and heard tens of times; and when it spans 90 minutes, it becomes really old really fast. Secondly, there are quite a few unsupported claims there, do listen to what she sais with both ears. And thirdly, the actual narrated text is gradeschool material (not necessarily in content, but in form) - the sentences are overly simple, repetitions and truisms abound ("Everything is linked" said a gazillion times), and if it weren't for the great images, the film could have been summarised in 5 minutes.
Now this is not to say that the message of the film ("We are threatening the Earth, and unless we change radically we are bound to endanger our existence; the first steps have been taken, but much more commitment is needed") is not a valid one (in fact, I believe in it quite a lot) or that the intentions of the producers are to brainwash people into doing something about the ecologic crisis (I would endorse that, to be honest). In fact, there were some moments in the film when I felt I had to spring to my feet and start doing something - and surely forget about the beef wrap I was eating, which was so blatantly contributing to deforestation of the Amazon rainforests. I do sincerely believe that the more people will see this film, the more "commitment" we will make as a species for living in sync with nature. But I also believe firmly that other such films (the only example I can think of right now is the very good documentary We Feed The World), were they equally promoted, would induce a much bigger change. I just feel a lot of people will see "Home" as propagandistic (which it is) and will also disregard the actual issues underlying its creation (or not watch it in the first place).
And now comes the philosophico-ethical question - is it 'right' to promote material which you regard as inappropriate in itself in order to further a goal which you believe in, just because you think that particular material has the greatest chance of making an impact through quantitative access to it, rather than through its quality? What about the law of unintended consequences?
I will answer 'yes' to this one, and I urge you to see "Home" and discuss it (and be quick, it is up there only until the 14th of June).
What would you answer?
No comments:
Post a Comment