AndersonFilmAnnotation2


 * Film Annotation #2**
 * Blue Gold: World Water Wars**
 * Word Count: 1177**

//Blue Gold: World Water Wars// was directed by Sam Bozzo and released in 2008.
 * 1.** **Title, Director, and Release Year?**

The central argument of the film is that clean water is becoming scarce. The film explained that the water cycle we’ve been taught since we were small children has some flaws. We think that water is a renewable resource and will never run out, but in reality pollution and contamination (from garbage and human waste) has made some water supplies unusable. The privatization of water is a huge problem and something needs to be done about these issues now.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The argument is made using powerful images. Interviews with scientists form a central part of the film. The opening scenes of the film detailed what it was like to live without water for a week, demonstrating how important water is to human survival. Real-world scenarios, such as water between the U.S. and Mexico border that is so contaminated that immigration officials would not go into the water to force the illegal immigrants to stay in Mexico, were scattered throughout the film. Speakers from different countries also pointed out the problems of neglecting the water crisis in their nation. The film pointed out multiple times that we’re all in this together. Everyone will be affected if clean water supplies become scarce. Not only is water important for survival, but when supplies become scarce, people will fight over it. The film argued that some of the conflicts in the Middle East have been about more than just religion; control of water supplies has also been a factor. While there has not been so much violence in the U.S., there certainly are water problems here, too. Los Angeles, for example, takes water that could have gone to farmers. Also, the amount of water available to Los Angeles is not enough to support the number of people who live there. At times throughout the film, words showing connections between bottled water corporations and where those water corporations are demonstrated how widespread privatization of water supplies is. While only a small part of the film actually discussed this, seeing those words across the screen really made me realize how much of a web or net water corporations have over the world.
 * 3.** **How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film draws out many different sustainability problems. I already knew some of the issues surrounding water privatization, but the film showed me that there are a lot more. Bottled water companies lobby governments to get what they want: to take people’s water away without paying much and sell it back to them for much more. The film even argued that it was like modern-day colonialism in some parts of developing countries, since people in developing countries might have no other source of clean water, so they have to buy bottled water instead. Many bottled water companies are large multinational corporations whose owners live in industrialized countries. These companies have many different names so they do not seem quite so widespread. Governments have at times been so adamant about letting those water companies take water that they have crushed people trying to protest them. //Blue Gold// pointed out that this doesn’t make sense, since the governments are killing and jailing their own citizens in order to protect the rights of a foreign company. Advertisements (paid for by those companies) tell us that bottled water is healthier than tap water. The film pointed out that this is not always true; some comparisons between bottled water and tap water show that tap water is actually more pure. Also, bottled water is sometimes just tap water in a bottle that the companies can then charge more for. Water corporations also tell us not to worry about water scarcity, since we can just desalinate the oceans; there’s plenty of water out there. The film pointed out that desalination is energy-intensive and energy is already a problem and going to more of one soon. Water is important to every living thing in the whole world, not just humans. The film focused on humans, but ecological concerns were discussed as well. One issue is large dams. One woman declared that rivers are like arteries in a human; blocking these arteries by damming them is similar to a heart attack. An ecological issue with bottled water itself is that the plastic bottles take a lot of water to make and then, after they are used, are often not recycled and instead are put in landfills or even littered. Another issue is that wetlands, which clean the water, are being destroyed, which further increases water scarcity. Even deforestation leads to water scarcity, since trees hold water in place, and, after they are gone, the water will just run off the land in a flash flood.
 * 4.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I found the whole film very interesting and persuasive. In particular, I found the idea of countries exporting water to be fascinating. A country that exports products containing water is basically exporting water. The film discussed how this is a problem even with Fair Trade. If the country already has a lower amount of water resources, then they should probably not grow water-intensive crops and export them. I had never thought of it that way before so this part of the film was especially compelling. As an interesting side note, and one that made the film even more interesting to me, was that I went to Fall Lake George for the weekend right after the class when we watch this film. I stayed on an island for about a day-and-a-half with no running water. My main difficulty was with my contacts; I feel that they are one thing where it is important to have my hands clean, since eyes are not something that you want to get bacteria and dirt in. Other than that, I washed my hands and feet in the lake (which is pretty clear and clean, so certainly not as bad as the water is for people in some countries) and filled my water bottle up using water that one of the RPI clubs had brought along. It was amazing to me how little water I needed to live, especially since I am a bit OCD about washing my hands and making sure that they aren’t the least bit sticky… Obviously, if the trip had been much longer, I would have wanted some way to bathe or shower, though I know that in many parts of the world, people just do that in lakes and streams.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I felt like the film demonized corporations a bit too much. While it is true that most of the large multinational corporations do are indeed not the most thoughtful when it comes to what is best for employees and consumers, the corporations are run by people, too. If these people could be convinced that what they’re doing is causing harm to the environment and other people (possibly including the corporation leaders’ children!), maybe they would do something about it. Most environmental films are like that. Perhaps they would be more effective overall if they also presented solutions that work with the corporations instead of just advocating for protest.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film probably best addresses an adult and young adult audience. Younger children would probably not have understood parts of the film. Also, the beginning of the film (which showed someone nearly dying of thirst) would have been a bit graphic for younger children. The film did not seem to be too technical for people who did not already know a lot about the environment. I felt like the film did a really good job of educating about the issues surrounding water privatization and water scarcity in general. While the film did a better job of presenting solutions and being more hopeful and inspiring than most environmental documentaries that I have seen, there could have been more solutions presented.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

One of the main solutions that the film stressed was that people should fight back and not let companies just privatize the world’s water. One of the speakers in the film asked, “If money is more important than water, then where are we?” A solution that I found interesting and potentially very effective was the idea of constitutional amendments for water rights of the people. This would keep companies from taking the water and re-selling it back to people at a higher price. Another solution that seemed simple and probably very useful is building wells in developing countries so that people can get clean water without having to pay for bottled water. Limiting development in areas without a lot of water supplies was another solution that was presented. Some places, such as Southern California, do not have enough water for the people who live there already. By not allowing these areas to develop further (and perhaps even provide incentives to people to move elsewhere), the pressure on water supplies will be diminished.
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

Something that caught my interest while watching //Blue Gold// were that Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, was once the president of Coca Cola. I fact-checked this and discovered an interesting [|interview] with Vicente Fox. In it, he confirms that he was president of Coca Cola. He also discusses his reasoning for believing that globalization and privatization would solve the country’s problems. According to the interview, Fox had to work his way up the ranks of Coca Cola. Personally, I feel like he was very biased by his time at Coca Cola. I also found a [|blog post] decrying Coca Cola’s presence in Mexico. This blog post discusses the negative impacts Coca Cola has had on Mexico, like “depriving them of water” through water privatization so that the citizens have to buy Coca Cola instead. I also found a [|BBC biography] of Vicente Fox; it described him as being a bit more privileged than the interview with him had made him sound. Overall, I felt that //Blue Gold// was very informative and well done, despite being perhaps a bit too dramatic at times. It really reinforced why water privatization is not harmless and perhaps even beneficial to communities as people might think.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

References [] [] []