Annotation_10_The_Age_of_Stupid

Annotation #10 Word count: 911


 * 1. Title, director and release year?**
 * Title: “**The Age of Stupid”
 * Director:** Franny Armstrong
 * Release Year:** 2009

This film is made in a futuristic way and portrays future climate events based on mainstream scientific projections. The main argument is that we can still get us out of potential ecological disaster but we are not doing it.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The argument is sustained by showing stories of different people some of which try hard make the change and others don’t do anything. One of the main stories is the one about a European family in which the father tries to install a new wind energy plant in an open area but ultimately fails because local people thought it would ruin the view. Another story is about an Indian business person who started a new airline company and labeled it “green” even though airplanes industry is known for having the highest rating carbon dioxide emission. All stories together show that we are not well equipped to deal rationally with long term problems like global warming.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

Many problems have been touched in this film. One of which is cultural but in this case more on a global scale. The film basically says that we, as humans, know how to profit but not how to protect. Although we clearly see that the Earth’s temperature is rising and polar ice caps are melting we are still not taking adequate enough measures to prevent the crisis. We know that oil is essentially a stored energy from the sunlight yet we are still burning hundreds of years worth of that sunlight each year. Politically, many lawmakers in our government are deeply related to oil companies, which is why actions are not being taken to prevent the growth of greenhouse gas emission. When it comes to media, it is being manipulated to disprove the strong believe that global warming is a serious issue. Finally, technologically we have other technologies that could replace oil over time but they are not being implemented because oil industry is so dominant.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?****Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?****Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

I liked how global climate changes were linked to the higher temperature of the Earth. If the temperature is increasing the intensity of such phenomena of nature as hurricanes will also increase. This is why we started seeing such disasters as hurricane Katrina.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

One of the environmental activists presented in the film had a wind turbine in his backyard but later in the film he was shown driving a BMW which is considered to be a very fuel inefficient vehicle that wastes a lot of fuel to show off its engine power. Although it may be being somewhat picky but it’s just something I noticed and I thought it was ironic.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I think it addresses us all and gives us a glimpse of what will happen unless we do something. By showing stories of different people and relating those to the overall picture writers of the film are basically telling us no matter who you are and what you do you are a part of this problem. They show that historically wars have been fought for resources. In the past it was about gold and land but in our generation it is about oil. Also, paradoxically, oil findings in third world countries lead to a poorer life because the money is concentrated in the hands of a few. Therefore, oil conceptually represents inequality for all people.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I think this film was very well made and a lot of thought had been put into it. It is a different approach to making documentaries of such type. It puts things in a new perspective and shows the probable future that we tend to not think about based on our actions. The only thing that could be added is some reference to ongoing environmental movements. On the other hand, however, writers may thought that this is something that viewer would have to do.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

It suggests that we all should take actions against the current oil practices. Also, we should look at how much energy we spend individually and try to cut that. The film also implies that there will be no actions from the government because oil companies are the government and unless we come together and protest it we will lead ourselves to extinction and there will be no “us”.
 * 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.**

I looked at individual greenhouse gas emission levels and how to calculate it for myself. [] Also, I looked at emission regulations for harmful air pollutions for the oil and natural gas industry. []
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**