HeilmannCraigAnnotation4

Craig Heilmann, Film Annotations

1. Title, director, and release year? // China Revs Up //, Chris Schmidt (2004) 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film focuses on China as an ever-growing country in a time when we as a world-community should be cutting back and thinking smaller. The world has become the way it is with threats of complete devastation due to over consumption and pollution without China being a main contributor. What would be the case if in fact they did? The country is so large that even the slightest shift could lead to catastrophic repercussions. The film also raises the question of is it really fair for countries like the United States to tell other countries they cannot grow and develop like we have been doing for centuries with the idea of the “American Dream.” 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from a technological standpoint. As we as a society become more advanced we have the responsibility to come up with sustainable means of designing and producing to reverse the trends of pollution and earth decay. This is a technological problem as well as a cultural one for the same reason. It is also political in that it is talking specifically about China. Government agencies must think about the greater picture to restore the planet so that it can be passed down to future generations. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I found the most compelling part of the film to be that about Kuznets’ Curve. It makes sense, but is interesting to see how as a country becomes more affluent its amount of pollution rises until it finally peaks and declines. This basically means that a country produces as much as it can, not really caring what it is doing to the environment until it is settled and then once it is, it then begins pulling back the reins to think about what they are doing environmentally. 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The part that was the least compelling was when the “environmentalist” family was trying to buy a car. They knew it was going to be harmful to the environment, but tried to convince themselves that it was okay, choosing convenience over then environment, which many people do. 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 would it take to regulate China’s production and subsequent rise to power? Is it possible or are they too big and too strong? 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? I feel that this film was indirectly meant for Americans to serve as a wakeup call. It tries to point out our own problems by exploiting someone else’s. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? We as a globe need to really take notice to what is happening in the world today. As more and more countries rise from third world status to the “American Dream” more pollution will be injected into our environment. This film is begging more experienced countries like the United States and Western European nations to be smarter and make a difference before it is too late. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? I speculated on the idea that this film was an indirect hit on American culture. I think if it was made a little more obvious that would get the attention of the viewers a little easier and definitely put forth a stronger message.