BechtelDirt

**Director: **Bill Benenson and Gene Rosow **Release year: **2009
 * Title: ** Dirt! The Movie

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The central argument of the film is that nearly every life form on earth is dependent upon the soil. Just about every building block of life can be found in some concentration in the dirt. Soil is not only a structure for us to build on top of; it is a living and breathing arrangement of millions of different organisms. Dirt can purify and heal the many different systems we rely upon to survive. If we want to improve our sustainability we need to start by looking at our relationship with the most essential systems on the planet.

**What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

__Education __ The most fundamental sustainability problem which the film draws out is our lack of education about dirt. Did is absolutely essential to our lives, but still most people would rather has as little to do with it as possible. We would rather build on top of dirt than put it to use. The film argues that dirt is an excellent building material and we should instead build in and around it. In our contemporary culture, however, dirt is as something which is bad because filth and disease it has been associated with. The truth is that dirt is very healthy, especially for the environment. Even if we don’t want anything to do with it, we need it to survive and life healthy lifestyles. One of the most important implications of our misunderstanding is that parents are teaching their kids to not be near the dirt. Children should be encouraged to play in the dirt so that they can experience and find a connection with nature, but most of the time parenting does the opposite. Dirt is an integral part of the circle of life. Everything that we see today has come from the dirt and will eventually be returned to the dirt; including ourselves. To try and remove this crucial link from the system would certainly mean catastrophe.

__Disconnection __ Another important sustainability problem brought up by the movie is that much of society today has become almost completely disconnected from dirt and the environment. Traditionally dirt has been thought of as sacred to many cultures, but we try to hide it as much as possible. The movie argues that this is one of the reasons city life can be so gross and unfulfilling. By pushing away dirt from our environments we are also removing ourselves from nature. Dirt connects every single element in the biosphere and therefore it also connects all of the associated problems. Water shortage and global warming can both be connected to our interactions with the dirt.

__Destruction __ One of the worst problems we face today is how incredibly destructive our actions towards dirt are. These negative interactions have negative feedback loops which affect us and other parts of the environment. By killing the dirt we are only hurting ourselves. The clearest examples of this can be seen from our farming practices. Industrial monocultures are by far the most destructive practice. This type of farming sucks almost all of the minerals out of the soil needed to produce crops but doesn’t return any of it. Thus the land rapidly becomes infertile and turns into dessert. The most well known example of this occurred during the dust bowl. To make any sort of profit off of this land, farmers must use an enormous amount of fertilizers and pesticides to keep plants alive, which are, in turn, unhealthy for the soil. Also, a significant portion of these end up as runoff and end up polluting other areas. In order to get healthier farm land, the cheapest solution is to cut down entire forests. This has been done a huge amount in the past and still continues today. It only makes the problems worse, however. Killing trees destroys the entire root system that is in place underground, which is essential to providing structural support for the dirt. Having these plants also absorbs much of the rain water that otherwise becomes flood water. Without the forests much of the valuable soil is simply washed away. The ultimate consequence of our abusive treatment of the soil is the food riots. These are conflicts between native people and corporations over who has ownership of fertile land. Without rich soil people cannot grow enough food to even keep themselves alive. This conflict has already escalated to war in some cases and is predicted to become an even worse problem in the future as population continues to increase.

**What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I found the film very persuasive because it included a wealth of different viewpoints. The film showed experts as well as farmers and inmates and other people who understand the value of dirt. This created a message with a lot of diversity. I also was compelled by how many different examples the movie included for what was happening.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">There were several aspects of the movie that I was not compelled or convinced by. First, I didn’t like how slow the pace of the movie was. I felt like I was losing interest through some of the parts that were just too repetitive. A more important issue for me was that there was no opposing viewpoint to what was suggested in the film. This may just be because there is no opposition to anything in the film and everyone should agree on what is said, but I find this unlikely. The best way to educate someone is to present both sides and let the viewer make the right decision (which should clearly be in support!). Along these same lines, I felt like the movie intentionally tried to steer clear of any controversial topics. Again this could be a good tactic, but I almost feel cheated out of the real story. The solutions which the film suggested, for example, were all very small things that would not ultimately make a very significant change. There should have at least been a few “bigger picture” sort of ideas.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">There are aspects of this film that address very different audiences. The majority of it seemed to target a more mature audience, but several parts were the complete opposite. First off, the film drew connections to several other related problems, such as global warming, that it kind of expected the viewer to already know and understand. Furthermore, there were long sections where very ordinary people were on camera conveying the message in a friendly neighbor sort of way. Other segments, such as the little animated dirt clumps, seemed to target a much younger audience. These certainly didn’t add any educational value to the movie and were really only there for entertainment. This is something characteristic of a movie tailored to a younger age group. In the end, I would say this movie can fit a very general audience, but probably hits home best with somewhere in the mid to young age group.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This film really covers a lot and has excellent environmental educational value and really the only way it really could have been much better would be to provide more opposing viewpoints and stay more focused. It is interesting how wine flavors depend so sensitively on the soil condition, but it really doesn’t help the environmental educational value of the film. This movie seemed like it was almost trying to be closer to an entertaining piece than a strictly scientific documentary and albeit good for some audiences it kind of sacrifices some of the educational value of the film. There really wasn’t much of any hard science in the movie.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">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. **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The points of intervention suggested by this film are that people should become more closely connected with dirt in their everyday lives and should support healthier farm practices. The movie suggests that these connections can be made through cultural or spiritual reform or simply though greening one’s surroundings. Supporting better farming practices means becoming part of community support agriculture (CSA) or buying organic food. Large scale farms should also move away from the use of pesticides and fertilizers and instead use more diverse and sustainable techniques. The action suggested by the film is mostly urban greening. This includes everything from building green roofs, to using composting, and promoting more green schools and jails. There is clearly a lot of emphasis put on small scale, local action. The best thing that the movie suggests to help solve the problem is to simply get your hands messy and actually spend time working in the dirt.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">After seeing this film I was compelled to seek out a few different opposing viewpoints as to what paths should be taken to make farms more sustainable. The article I found was []. This piece suggests that the only reasonable way to try and improve the sustainability of agriculture is to integrate the large scale monoculture system. I don’t personally agree with this, there is some validity to the argument. On [] you can find information about the size of organic farms today. This site says that even though organic food production has been growing at a very high rate, it still only comprises 0.7% of US farmland. It also goes into some of the many challenges which organic growers face. The treehugger article suggests that better management and active conservation on large scale farms is the best way to improve sustainability. While this may lead to significant savings, the amount of energy required total is still so daunting that there is no way this could be considered sustainable. Unfortunately the article doesn’t include any actual figures about consumption or savings, which is a good sign that they aren’t as much as the author suggests.