AcocellaGarbageWarrior

1. Title: Garbage Warrior; Director: Oliver Hodge; Release Year: 2007

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film argues that we are running out of resources and that sustainable living is one way to help combat this issue. It is possible to build housing out of garbage- old tires, glass and plastic bottles, that is completely off the grid, providing its own power, water and sewage. The film explores the application of these housing options.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The obvious sustainability problem the film focuses on is that current living situations are very draining on the environment. We are completely dependent on resources from the earth- resources that are very quickly being depleted by our practices.

Another issue that the film hints at is the sustainability of sustainability. Michael Reynolds, the main architect and visionary for the sustainable living, is obsessed with his work as his wife points out. This can lead to problems in other parts of an activist’s life. Although the film did not go in depth into that aspect of Reynolds’ life, it did mention that after he was slapped with multiple lawsuits and forced to give up his architect’s license, he felt defeated and depressed and did not sketch or work on projects for an extended amount of time.

In addition, the film discussed how legislation can be one of the biggest opponents to sustainability. The legal process was so grueling and time consuming that it took three attempts and as many years for Reynolds to get his bill passed, giving him permission to set up experimental sustainable living communities.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Following Reynolds over a period of a few years was a good way to show an in depth story. More specifically, the section about the developing nations after natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes hit was particularly persuasive. The way the locals were so excited about the idea of sustainable living and how they were so eager to help and learn was really very interesting and encouraging. The mindset of people in a desperate situation as compared to that of people who are living comfortably has a major impact on those people’s actions and views toward obscure ideas.

I was also interested in hearing that Reynolds’ father was somewhat of a packrat but it had a positive influence on Reynolds’ himself as he used it to fuel his passion to save, recycle and reuse everything.

I was also very interested to read in the credits that the people putting the film together took action to be as environmentally friendly in the production of the film.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I am not convinced that these houses will work in all climates. Reynolds has made them work in the mid-west of the US and in the areas affected by the 2004 tsunami. However, there are many other factors to think about when developing housing in other areas of the planet.

6. What audience does this film best address? Why? I think this film was done well enough that it can be geared toward people that are both informed and uninformed about environmental issues. It addresses some key elements of climate change and irresponsible resource usage on a basic level but it also appeals to people who are already informed and interested in learning about new sustainability practices. I consider myself to be fairly well informed about environmental issues but had not yet heard about these new methods of living.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? I would have liked to see how the people in the developing country that Reynolds and his team helped fared after they left. Did they build more houses using his methods? How do the people like the houses? Are there improvements that were made? In addition, more information about why New Mexico Congressmen kept rejecting Reynolds’ bill would have enhanced the education value by explaining why there are people that do not regard the environment as an important issue or do not understand the issues that we are faced with.

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 strongly suggests the idea that people need to become more independent beings. We cannot rely on services that support degradation of the environment. We need to reuse “garbage” and in fact stop considering it garbage and start re-using it in creative ways.

9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references) After viewing the film, I decided to seek out information about sustainable living options that do not necessarily mean having a completely sustainable house. The link below gives a few examples of ways to “get off the grid” so to speak and provide your own electricity. []

In addition, the film made me think about ways to reduce energy use in every-day households because these completely self-sustaining houses are not very practical for most people. The link below gives a fairly comprehensive list of energy saving tips for the home. These are things that seem so obvious but many people just do not think about them and waste so much energy. []

Also, the link below for the EPA is a great tool for looking at energy emissions and waste from households and gives information about things everyone can do to cut down on unnecessary energy consumption. []