AcocellaThe11thHour

1. Title: The 11th Hour; Director: Nada Connors and Leila Connors Peterson; Release Year: 2007

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film explores some of the major issues facing our planet such as global climate change and the effects it will have on our future.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film describes what will happen if we continue to let the earth’s temperature rise. Melting ice caps, huge natural disasters, changes in rainfall patterns and droughts are all very real possibilities if this continues. It also discusses the problems with our water supplies. Carbon is collecting in the oceans, harming marine life. Pesticides and fertilizers leak into streams and rivers, polluting drinking water for the locals, and flow into larger bodies. There is a large dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that is caused by pollution in the Mississippi. The film also talks about globalism and consumerism as sustainability problems.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I thought the film had a good variety of experts talking about global warming. It definitely legitimized the issue. They brought scientific facts to the audience which I think was done well. Not only did the film bring in experts that were scientists, but it also interviewed experts in sustainability which also helped the film establish a well rounded argument.

I thought one of the points from one of the experts interviewed was well made. He said that really, the biggest problem is our issues in leadership. Historically, when leaders are motivated to make something happen, it happens. The example given was that during WWII when our leaders were motivated to stop Germany, Italy and Japan, it happened and it happened quickly. Why then is it taking so long to implement measures to help save the environment?

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I honestly did not think the film told me anything I didn’t already know. The whole thing seemed over dramatic. Of course global climate change is a very important issue that needs to be addressed but I personally felt the film went over the top in trying to be dramatic, which kind of made me discount what it had to say. I thought the images and music in the opening were especially unnecessary.

6. What audience does this film best address? Why? The film is meant to address the average American that is uninformed about climate issues. It uses scare tactics and images to shock the viewer into realizing that global warming is a real and pressing issue. It did not present much more information to the viewer than any other basic global climate change film would.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? I think if the film had focused on fewer topics but went into more detail on them it would have been a better educational tool. For example, the film merely mentioned the problems with water pollution and carbon retention in the ocean. It also touched on the fact that corporate globalization and consumerism are sustainability issues. These topics are huge nodes on the matrix and need much more time devoted to them for people to fully understand them.

8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective? The film points out that we need to find more efficient means of transportation and heating for buildings. We need to implement renewable sources of energy. It suggests perhaps implementing a carbon tax for use of fossil fuels. It also suggests we take personal action in being aware of our carbon output, using compact fluorescent light bulbs as a way to be more energy efficient, keep tire pressure at the right level, vote with our wallets, and raise awareness of the issues.

The film also mentioned a method of using fungi as a way of cleaning up the environment. Fungi are nature’s way of cleaning itself up. I do however wish the film had gone into more detail about this process.

9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references) One of the experts interviewed for this film was Ray Anderson, a carpet manufacturer who has become dedicated to making his process sustainable. We have seen him in a few films already and I have been interested in looking up more information about him. After having an epiphany while researching for a speech to a task force in his company on the environment, Anderson has become one of the leaders in sustainability practices for businesses. He now gives over 100 speeches each year about his company as a model. An interesting thing I found was that Anderson takes into account that he travels a lot for his talks. His carbon footprint is calculated every year and trees are planted to offset the emissions. []

Another point the film made that inspired me to do some research was the idea that we can use mushrooms to clean up the environment. I found that there are even attempts to use mushrooms to clean up the BP oil spill. “Fungi can actually thrive on hydrocarbon deposits and break them down into harmless deposits in a short time.” They are very robust and have a lot of potential to help undo some of the damage we have done to the planet. [] []