NickLawFilmAnnotations2

Nicholas Lawrence Blue Gold

1. Blue Gold, 2010

2. The central argument of this film is that our management of water is ineffective and morally wrong. Water should be a public right and can’t be owned or bought. Fresh water is a finite resource and we pollute it, overuse it and restrict its use.

3. The narrative is sustained in this documentary by a disembodied narrator. The information provided was very informative. I found the montage of pictures of cities with who owned their water supply overlaid to be very interesting. Especially the ones of US cities. When you think of Suez you think France or Africa, not the US. It helps to show even the US isn’t safe from water privatization. The film has great emotional appeal. Water is something everyone needs to live. To see anyone deprived of it hits home with us because we all know what it’s like to be thirsty. Also the way the documentary framed the issue gave it more emotional appeal. Right in the beginning they said that this isn’t a sustainability or environmental problem, it’s a survival problem. This frames the problem as a direct threat to human survival.

4. The film draws out a number of sustainability problems: environmental inequality, corporate responsibility, political influence, manufacturing of goods. All these issues affect the use and access to water.

5. One scene I found rather compelling was the river on the US/Mexico border. This river was so diseased that the US workers had to have a whole handful of shots just to work there. If you fell in you would get a disease. Another part of the film I found compelling was that in Bolivia it became illegal to collect rainwater. That’s just absurd. Rain water belongs to no one. Might as well say that you own the clouds. Rain is something that falls from the sky and falls everywhere. That is pretty much the definition of free. To think that a company could lay claim to it is ridiculous.

6. One thing I found lacking was the film didn’t address where water usage could be preserved. They showed how much water it took to make certain products and said that we’re using up our water reserves faster than they can be replenished. This is all saying that we need to reduce our water usage as a society but they never addressed that reducing our water usage to sustainable levels is going to require major economic and social change.

7. The film addresses anyone really. Water is something we all need; a fact the film makes note of. However I think it was made for people in modernized countries. What makes me say this is the part at the end where they outline ways for us to help. They say turn the faucet off while we brush our teeth and get a low flow shower head. These are solutions for people who can freely access water and can worry about such things as buying a low flow shower head. These aren’t things people in Africa are worrying about. So while the film can have emotional appeal to anyone the target audience is people who already have access to water, or have the economic power to actually do something about water inequality.

8. The film to enhance its environmental education value could’ve focused more on the environmental effects of our water usage. The film shows some sinkholes from aquifer depletion and makes note of desertification. However they don’t go into any other environmental effects. They for one could’ve have given more screen time and data on desertification. They also could’ve focused more on water pollution. But like the film said at the beginning this isn’t a environmental problem, it’s a survival problem.

9. The film basically says conserve your water use. Don’t leave the faucet on when you can just turn it off. Buy a low flow shower head. Don’t buy bottled water, EVER. Also look up the name of your local aquifer. Or basically know where you water comes from. These are all little things and they all will help. But these are all passive measures. They just make the problem better instead of getting rid of the problem. But what else could the film have suggested? Write angry letters to Poland Springs? Possibly one thing they could’ve suggested is oppose the construction of bottling plants near where you live. And maybe the film could’ve suggested an organized boycott of bottled water.

10. I’m for one, going to look up the name of the local aquifer/ water supply of my home in Massachusetts and here in Troy. I also found this interesting website called Water Politics. It’s not a website all about water inequality and usage but rather it’s a website for a company called Water Politics. Water Politics Limited is one of the world’s leading water related geopolitical risk advisory and consulting firms. They monitor and assess the impact of water on regional stability and economics.

My watershed near my town []

My watershed in Troy []

Water Politics Limited []