McMahonFIlmAnnotation3

Title: Blue Gold: World Water Wars Director: Sam Bozzo Release Year: 2008
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

The central argument of this film is that the current way that we treat water is wrong in two ways: the privatization robs native peoples of a natural resources and that we are disturbing the natural water cycle.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The films provides a large amount of scientific data such as interviews with experts talking about some simple solutions to the problems (digging holes), water table disruption, and the use of a child going over the water cycle changes. The use of a child adds an interesting emotional appeal. The use of riot footage from third words adds another bit of emotional depth.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? This sustainability problem mainly draws out problems of education, ecological impact, and politics while drawing into question the morality and legality of treating water as a commodity.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

I found the immense privatization of water to be one of the more compelling arguments made by this movie. I knew that water companies existed, but I thought that they had to go through some sort of legal process to access the national water sources. I was horrifically wrong. In fact, a handful of companies own most of the world’s water and continue to expand into developing countries. They see that one day water will in fact be more precious than gold. If all of the world’s water can be controlled, humanity will be on its knees since only 1% is drinkable in the world and of that we pollute most of it. People need water, so the companies can charge whatever they want for it. Even the Bush family sees this and has begun purchasing water-rich land in third world countries as well.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not completely convinced on the topic of world desertification. I am not saying that it is not happening, I know it is. I have seen multiple papers and articles on the topic and those have convinced me. On its own, this film did not do that. I didn’t see enough scientific evidence, although I know it is there, to prove to me that the deserts are expanding and new deserts are rising. Yes, the third grader walked me through the process, but all processes need hard facts to back them up. Much of the topics in the movie like this were much more theoretical.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I think that the film best addresses the middle and lower classes. The upper class has nothing to worry about with this problem. They are actually making it worse as seen with the Bush family. We need to follow by example of the revolutionaries in other countries and demand that our water be public again. There seems to be no advantage to the privatization of water besides profit for those involved, so I don’t know how things got this way. If they are not supplying the people with any product, what is the point?
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

More facts, plain and simple. Unfortunately, this would have made the movie much too long. In order to do so in an appropriate time, the movie would have had to cut down on the breadth of topics covered.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

There were three main ways of solving our water crisis. The first is to not allow the privatization of our natural water supplies. The second is to keep water local and as clean as possible so that communities don’t have to import water and further disrupt the water tables. The final point is to help restore the water tables by digging water containment ditches and halting the damning of rivers and tributaries.
 * 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.**

This film caused me to seek out more information on water privatization within America. I had heard vaguely of the Tennessee –Georgia crisis and was also interested in what companies really controlled American water. TN-GA: [] US Water Privitization: []
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**