AliciaLin6

= **11th Hour** =
 * Title, director and release year?**
 * Title:** The 11th Hour
 * Director:** Nadia Conners, Leila Conners Petersen
 * Release Year:** 2007

This film confronts users with the possibility of human extinction if we continue to follow the path we’re currently on. Humans are leaving a massive footprint and this is leading to environmental catastrophe. The first half of the film concentrates on a wide variety of environmental issues from using too much fossil fuels and coal to ocean pollution. It also briefly covers the reason behind these environmental issues, such as corporate greed and bad public policy and what this means to humans if we don’t stop. The second half of the film is about what can be done to improve this circumstance. Some of these solutions include possible alternatives to these problems such to the energy crisis to what mushrooms can do for a polluted environment.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

There are many sustainability problems this film draws out, almost too many. Each problem is only given a few minutes of air time, but here are some problems that I thought were interesting and important were the following:
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

We don’t rely on sun energy anymore, because we can utilize fossil fuels and coals. This means we have the capacity to support 6 billion people. If we didn’t have these technologies, we could only support perhaps 2 billion people at most. So using unsustainable energy is causing problems because we’re using up natural resources and supporting a larger population than would otherwise be supported.

We are ruining our biodiversity. By using pesticides and herbicides and polluting the air, we are destroying the animal’s habitats. Additionally, we’re causing extinctions at a faster rate than ever before. 55,000 species a year become extinct because of humans.

Exposure to chemicals and other pollutants can lead to asthma, cancers, and disorders such as A.D.D.

Deforestation affects climate, agriculture, and rivers. Removing trees also promotes floods because trees can soak up water, which can prevent floods.

I thought the talking heads the film choose to discuss the issues were very compelling. Experts such as Stephen Hawkings and professionals who have obviously done extensive research in their fields, had very informational and intelligent things to say about the subject matter, thus it was easy to be persuaded that their cause was real and the problem was important.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

One of the talking heads mentioned that since we are the problem, we are also the foundation for the solution. I thought that was a positive way to look at the situation, and gave viewers hope for the future, unlike other films.

I feel like the way this film was edited changed topics too quickly. It was difficult to really grasp the problem, so it was difficult to be concerned by any one topic particularly. I didn’t particularly appreciate the scare tactics the film uses to get its point across. Understandably, scare tactics are used to make people think about what is happening, but after seeing so many environmental films, I wasn’t as compelled by the scare tactics and was rather bored because it was overused.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

It’s difficult to say exactly what information this film would compel me to seek out. This is because the film introduces so many problems, that it’s hard to remember exactly one issue I thought was more interesting than the others. But, one of the talking heads who was covering possible solutions, Paul Stamets, was certainly much more interesting to me than the others because he was raving about how fungi are the answer to a lot of our problems. He is right, fungi are an essential part of our ecosystem and are overlooked constantly. They can break down heavy metals, so in areas that are heavily polluted with radiation, planting fungi can reduce the amount of time the ecosystem can take to recover. Paul Stamets came to RPI last year to give a lecture, and he met with Ecovative Design. He’s a colorful character who certainly loves his mushrooms, and is doing a lot of research independently and with the U.S. government to see how mushrooms can help save the planet. I’ve yet to read “Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World” by Paul Stamets, so I believe that’s something I should accomplish in the near future.
 * What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

My interest in Paul Stamets stems from my work at Ecovative. After making thousands upon thousands of Greensulate samples, which is comprised of mycelium and agriculture waste, it was amazing hearing Paul Stamets talk about the most effective way to grow fungi and the potential it has, from curing diseases to cleaning up oil spills.

I feel like this film best addresses people who are semi-aware of these issues and have some source of knowledge of them before seeing this film because the film showed a wealth of sustainability problems without going into each one in full detail. I believe it fosters a kind of well rounded thinking in viewers, which I greatly appreciated because it almost forces you to think of how each issue ties together because there is no obvious distinction between topics, such as losing our biodiversity is linked to deforestation which is linked to corporations. This mindset gives a more holistic approach to the issues at hand, and I believe this gives viewers a well rounded idea of what the matrix of problems really are.
 * What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

There are many solutions the point advocates for, but in general, we need to rethink our culture. It’s difficult to form educated decisions and stay away from consumerism when we are continually bombarded with advertisements. There are 500 billion dollars of advertisements per year. We need to remake the way we live in our world.
 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

We should encourage cradle to cradle design. We have to design the capacity for sustainability. It is easier to design in isolation than designing on what already exists in nature.

Use more fungus!

I believe that perhaps that if the film narrowed its focus a little bit, it could have been more informational; however, I feel that the director purposely wanted to keep the viewers interested by giving them a plethora of information and a wide variety of environmental problems with shocking visuals in order to keep the viewer’s attention.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**