KimFilmAnnotation6

Timothy Kim Annotation #6 12/14/2011 //Thirst // //Word Count: 1 ////137 //

//Thirst// was directed by Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman, and released in 2004.

The film reveals how the debate over water rights between communities and corporations can serve as a catalyst for explosive and steadfast resistance to globalization.1
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film focuses on four different parts of the world to present the water crisis. The film begins and ends with scenes from The 3rd World Water Forum hosted by Japan. The film mainly focuses on the stories from Bolivia, Stockton, California, and many parts of India. The film is a character-driven documentary with no narration.
 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

Through story of Stockton political, legal, economic, technological, media and Informational, organizational, educational, behavioral, cultural, ecological sustainability problems are well addressed. People with day job came together to help community and start grassroots movements. They were not social activists, but they believed that they were active citizens who are involved and engaged with community. From demonstrating with picket sign “Water for life not for profits” to collecting signature for petitions, they demonstrated how citizens can get together and form a group and practice their rights. Stockton Mayor, with strong business mind, argues that monopoly in government departments caused no incentive for improvement since there was no competition. He continues to argue that “the feds, back in 60s, helped cities build the infrastructure through grants. Those dollars aren’t there anymore and it’s several billion dollars’ worth of infrastructure that has to be replaced. And the feds now believe, under President Clinton and under President Bush, that by incorporating a partnership with the private sector, that this can be done for less dollars.” Although grassroots movements were defeated by 4:3 narrow votes, they continued to protect public employment and public employees, because they believe that the privatization is partially a way to get rid of public employment and public employees. Community leaders acknowledged that it is tough challenge and it’s not going to be easy, but never gave up.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

I was most compelled by the conversation with activist from Rajasthan, India. Since I visited Rajasthan last spring, I was able to engage with the problems that were presented in the film. When the activist argued that local control of water can save our communities and the world’s water, I was skeptical at first. After listening to his explanation on how historically many arid villages find their ways to collect water and sustain their lives, I began to support his argument. After witnessing a growing grassroots movement for local control of water opposes government plans to privatize rivers, streams and wells, I fully supported local communities movement. As more people are participating rainwater harvesting, more people realize that rainwater is more effective than huge and environmentally disruptive hydroelectric power projects run by faraway government. Rajendra Singh’s quotation below suggests how small change in our thinking can make global impacts. //What we are trying do is make the community self-reliant so it can stand on its own feet. These small ponds help to hold the rainwater. The water soaks into the ground and seeps downstream where it fills the village wells. And through that farming improves. Water flows into the heart of the earth. Spring births forth. Local action, small local action can change global thinking in a second. It influences global thinking in not time.//
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

Although I appreciated the fact that film was able to include a voice from the people who see water as an economic good, I was not convinced by John Briscoe who is a representative of private sector. He explains that the private sector can make money out of things like water supply services not water itself. He criticizes the people who are arguing that the private sector should never be in this business. He challenged those people by questing which institution should be responsible for providing the services. Up to this point, I was somewhat convinced by his argument. However, after he distinguished people who live there and activists who are outsider, I was not compelled by his argument at all. He argued that those activists were complaining because the outcome is not what they want. He specifically argues that activists complained about process not being appropriate in order to make up more complaints. The major reason I was not compelled by his arguments is that he viewed the world as a not perfect place. He doesn’t believe that water problem of small village can be a global problem. He accused the demands of activists are fantasy. While the industry is promoting better future, the industry is filled with pessimistic people who do not see positive hopes in water services.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film best address to people who believes water as a part of the global commons. The film was little biased and harsh toward the people who see water as an economic good.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I was challenged by the idea that “someone has to pay for it.” Although I strongly agree that water should not be an economic good, I questioned about people who are responsible for polluting water. People, as consumers, must share their responsibilities in polluting the water. If the film expands the responsibility, the film could enhance its environmental educational value.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film strongly suggests people to take actions and involved with grassroots movements. The film challenges the viewers by stating that “the people never won.”
 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective actions, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

//Flow: For Love of Water// was directed by Irena Salina and released in 2008. Unlike the film //Blue Gold// and //Thirst//, the film focused on the chemicals in the water. The film shows how chemicals affect human hormone. Especially, Atrazine, which is mainly used in pesticide (weed killer) in agriculture, can be found in many water sources. Chemicals designed and used for warfare and industry continue to pollute the water that there is lack of clean drinking water. The film further develops the case against the growing privatization of the world’s dwindling fresh water supply with an unflinching focus on politics, pollution, human rights, and the emergence of a domineering world water cartel.
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**


 * Reference **1. “Thirst”. BullfrogFillms. 2004. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. < http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/thirst.html>