Guillot_Annotation+3

Rachel Guillot 10_26_10   Film Annotation 3 The film Dirt! The Movie, was directed by Bill Benenson and Gene Rosow and released in the year 2009. Dirt’s main argument is a call to attention of one of Earth’s most overlooked natural resources. It gives a broad view of the qualities of dirt including what it is, how it is used, the problems associated with it, and options to solve these problems. The films focus tends to be on the connections individuals have physically and emotionally with dirt to bring the sustainability problem to a human, emotional, moral level. Dirt! The Movie brings up a matrix of problems associated with dirt beginning with deforestation. The lack of roots to hold the topsoil in place causes wind and water to wash away the topsoil and leave the ground with bare rock. The dirt is critical to purifying systems, water recycling, and decomposition. It is also home to a multitude of species that otherwise have no habitat. Different cultures have a different viewpoint from our own. In many 3rd world countries dirt is critical to the culture and traditions. It is especially crucial to construction especially used as plaster in India and to make adobo blocks in Nicaragua. A lack of dirt leads to a lack of good agriculture land and wars for fertile ground along with hunger. When these cultures no longer have dirt resources for agriculture, they immigrate to other places. In the demand for natural resources we have destroyed our dirt resource through mountaintop removal searching for coal, the mountaintops now support no life and the remaining dirt is polluted with heavy metals which with the ensuing rain are washed into the watershed. When we cover our cities and the dirt with blacktop we create heat islands that further discourage more life from growing. The lack of topsoil also leads to extended drought, crop failure, starvation, and micro-deserts. The film also suggests that the use of annual plants rather than perennial plants along with monoculture leads to more problems associated with dirt. Monoculture deteriorates the fertility of the soil and creates a dust bowl. Monoculture creates crops that are more susceptible to pests and thus more pesticides are used in the crops. When international corporations take over a piece of land, often they use it as a dumping ground and treat it as a dead system. An absence of dirt resources and environmental education along with extension agents to mediate between technological advances in the agriculture schools and the environment has further shown our lack of regard for this precious resource. A very interesting aspect of the film was the use of the cartoons to enhance and prove certain points. It was especially effective, in my opinion, to show that dirt is in fact made up of micro-organisms and is alive. I thought that it was also effective in lightening the mood of the film. The film attempted to not leave the viewer in a depressed, overwhelmed mood, but rather with vigor to go outside and play in the dirt. Another persuasive aspect of the film was the interviews that were taken with people of all different backgrounds and educational levels. It focused on the people with cultural backgrounds that tended to be different from the typical white American. Along the same lines, I found there to be a lack of scientific representation of facts and personas. The film focused on the entire matrix of sustainability problems also linking the problems to social and cultural problems. In addition, the imagery of dirt around the world and across cultural boundaries was effective in conveying its importance. Another strong aspect of the film was its use of sequencing and of using some the same sources across this sequence to tie all the pieces together. I was not convinced by all of the sources, that is to say, the people interviewed. I felt that there could be more scientific sources to strengthen the delivery of facts. Another unconvincing aspect was the use of subtitles for translation of some of the interviewees. I felt that this film could be directed toward a slightly younger audience but that the use of these subtitles discouraged that. It would be difficult for young students to read them as they are watching the movie/read that fast. In regards to appealing to an older audience the sources might be disregarded due to stereotypes on backgrounds, accents, and even the use of the comics. Throughout the film I tried to assess which audience would benefit most from the film “Dirt”. Though my conclusion shifted slightly during the movie, I concluded that the audience best addressed would be that of a 4th/5th to 9th grade audience. The film did not describe in enough detail the sustainability problems and much of the matrix of problems that were described are problems that elder audiences have been introduced to. The film did bring up a matrix of problems that are not often mentioned in other films. This film touches the surface of many problems and can be a starting point for more research into them. The comedic aspects of the film are also critical as it is difficult to present young children with an index of problems while still keeping their attentiveness and interest. This film could become a very good educational resource especially for the above mentioned group of people. The age/point in the education of those students is the time when the focus if scientific research and educational work and research is begun to be based off scientific facts and research they perform. Thus, in order for this film to more deeply tie into the education they are receiving, it would be helpful for there to be more scientists as sources and focusing more upon the facts. In order to combat the matrix of problems associated with dirt, the film proposes a few interventions. The first and most stressed of these interventions is to play in the dirt and get our hands dirty. They suggest that if one has a tie to the dirt and to the land, they are much more likely to take care of it. The film strongly encourages us to “do the best we can”. Another intervention suggested is that of using agro-ecology. This suggestion encompasses using scientific knowledge with traditional wisdom in relation to farming, and building agriculture on the way the ecosystem works. One example of this is planting perennial plants rather than annual ones because they have deeper roots and more root diversity allowing them to combat soil erosion and protecting the top soil. Composting, increasing biodiversity, organic farming, community supported agriculture, harnessing energy from bio-fuel cycles and creating green roofs that have energy conservation, clean the air, and collect storm water runoff, are among a few of the solutions mentioned. The last intervention mentioned was in using prisoners to help “green” the cities. The method is two-fold, one in using inexpensive/free labor to perform tasks that will help the city to clean its air and hold its soil better, and two, that the emotions of the prisoners will affected; that through their works they will gain an appreciation of dirt and a responsibility of themselves and will continue the work when they get out and with the skills they learned, have a job that they can be paid for and contribute to society. This film prompted me to search for more information on prisoner “green” programs. At the [|Tree Hugger] site I found that there is a [|Sustainable Moss Harvesting] program at Cedar Creek Corrections Facility in Washington. The objectives are to develop a method of growing moss to be used for the horticultural trade, have the prisoners develop valued-products and build vocational skills, and communicate the necessity of these products to the larger community. Mosses don’t require sharp implements to be harvested thus lending themselves to the prison environment. Also found at the same Tree Hugger site was an article on the first [|“ecological prison”]. This prison in Norway is powered by solar energy and puts the inmates to work with recycling and food production tasks. The hope is that this program will instill a sense of responsibility in the inmates and prepare them for an eco-conscious lifestyle upon release. I also began to look into primary school curriculums and whether there was any focus on dirt or the environment in primary education. I found the general curriculum of an Ireland based education system and one thing they mentioned under the geography heading was: “//Environment // Geography has always been concerned with the inter-relationship of humans and the Earth. At first, geographers tended to concentrate on explaining how physical and natural environments determined aspects of the lives of people, for example how climate influenced homes and clothing. They also examined the ways in which humans used the Earth's resources. Subsequently, geographers have become increasingly concerned with the effect of human activity on the Earth. They were among the first to alert us to the potentially serious impact of our actions on the environment, not only in natural environments but in towns and other built environments and in local, regional and global contexts. The interdependence of peoples and their environments is a major theme of geography. Consequently, geography is concerned with fostering an informed appreciation of environments, a sense of personal and community responsibility for environmental care and the notion of people as custodians of the Earth for future generations.” -[|Curriculum Online] This curriculum seemed to be an exception to the norm. The book __Powerful Learning Environments: Unraveling Basic Components and Dimensions__ by Erik De Corte points out that “For a range of very important objectives we have no effective instructional means and therefore must rely on environmental immersion.” And goes on to argue the point that in order to children to gain an appreciation for dirt, they must have a strong physical and emotional connection to it that can be achieved through the act of playing in it and working with it.