HeilmannCraigAnnotation12

Craig Heilmann, Film Annotations

1. Title, director, and release year? //The End of Suburbia//, Gregory Greene (2004)

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film focused mainly on suburbia and how it is not a sustainable means of organizing space. It is also quite a different concept than you see in most European cities, which are based on a populated city center, that being the place to be, with the less popular and often rural or more slum-like areas surrounding. Suburbs have become the desired choice of living for many Americans. It is a strain on the environment and all of its resources.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from an ecological standpoint. Like I just said, suburbs are and will continue to be an incredible strain on our environment and its resources. Being that the only convenient way to get around in a suburb is in a car (individual car), each individual is burning and over consuming gas at an incredible rate. This becomes a cultural and behavioral problem in that it is becoming the norm and desired choice to live in a suburb where you have space and a yard, bringing back the idea of the “American Dream.” This American Dream, much like the country it is founded on is anything but sustainable. We must reverse this way of thinking and return to a city-centered society that relies on proximity and efficiency to live. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The film pointed out our unwillingness to change. We as a society are comfortable with or suburban lives and will do anything we have to do to keep it that way, even elect officials that don’t threaten this way of life.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The whole film talked about how bad the suburbs are and the environmental implications there are with them. Instead of badmouthing them and not getting anywhere (because people don’t want to lose them) we should embrace them and somehow alter them to make them more sustainable. This could possibly be done by sort of meeting in the middle between city and suburb. It would be a step in the right direction instead of no step at all.

6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? What could be done to make suburbs more sustainable? They could be altered by injecting certain aspects of the city back into them to make them perform better.

7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This film was directed towards everyone really. It would be too easy to say that it was only directed towards people who live in suburbs because I really feel like there is something to suburbs that people like and could be altered to be made successful in a sustainability sense.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film would like to get rid of the suburb all together and get back to a more city-centered way of living. At least right now this is not feasible. American citizens are much to happy with the new development to drop it all together. We don’t have to infrastructure for such a movement either. There should be a way to bridge the gap between city and suburb to help the problems with sustainability.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? It would have been helpful to get a couple different viewpoints. Some analysis of the good aspects of the suburb would have helped to create a dialogue about how the alter them to make them more sustainable.