MayesFilmAnnotation3

Meredith Mayes Annotation #3 10/14/2011 The End of Suburbia 1,393 words

__The End of Suburbia__, which was written and directed by Gregory Greene in 2004, addresses the end of suburbia and its unsustainable dependence on oil. The documentary presents a wealth of information on peak oil, suburban living, and the issues that Americans will likely be facing in the years to come. This information is presented by authors and economists, a bold move, since all information was likely gleaned from other scientific sources rather than the scientific community itself. People were filmed in a variety of places, neighborhoods, sitting rooms, parks, near highways, all of which are highly present in suburban society. Furthermore, the narrator and interviewees were constantly using the word “we,” including themselves and their own lives as a part of the blame. While there is little emotional appeal in the conventional sense due to the lack of starving children or large scale riots, the film does tie in to the American desire to provide what is best for themselves and their children by playing on the potential apocalyptic scenarios which are looming on the horizon. In a final throwback, old promotions from the 1940s, ‘50s and ‘60s are interspersed through the film. These clips are used to reveal the ignorance behind the messages, as the viewer can see what was promised versus what the modern world looks like, and can recognize the damage and disconnection from reality that these claims encouraged.

There is a large matrix of issues behind the sustainability of suburbia, primarily in the cultural and educational aspects of American life, but also in the organizational, agricultural, political, media and economic issues outlined in the film. The largest cultural issue behind American life is the demonization of cities, which are often presented as dirty and low class, while also making the agricultural and small town lifestyle seems much too rudimentary to be appealing. Stereotypes pervade the American thoughts, with rednecks and large scale crimes, pushing people from both ends of the urban spectrum towards suburbia, painting it as the ideal living environment. The push towards suburbanization plays on the desire for ownership in the American subconscious, the need to own your own home, where you can safely care for your children. This cultural desire inhibits the population from seeing the unsustainability from such a dream, which is built on the availability of cheap gas to bus vans full of children to soccer games and strip malls, mothers and fathers in individual cars and SUVs to the grocery stores and restaurants. What makes the dream even harder to dispel is the education that many receive growing up that this is how life should be and what they should aspire to. And many of the most recent generation have no experience in handling downturns in the economy and how to adjust their lifestyles accordingly, especially those children whose earliest memories are founded in the economic boom of the 1990s. To these now-young adults, production is simply numbers on a screen, and there is total disconnect from the true quantity of resources used for every product in their life. The media does little to alleviate this crushing ignorance, focusing on individual problems such as a lower stock market index, the rising cost of gasoline and the war in Iraq without addressing the issues with the fundamental blocks of American society: rampant and uncontrolled consumerism. This is partially due to the fact that there is no way to spin such a story to the American people, who come full circle in this loop of ignorance by refusing to reconsider their way of life. Furthermore, the media can focus on economic issues and completely gloss over additional points in the matrix – that the global economy is unsustainable. The energy consumed in global trade increases dependence on foreign goods, which makes the recovery from the collapse of the energy system even harder to recover from. The economy can be terrible, but there is always the belief that it can recover, which is a fallacy. If the entire structure of global trade collapses, the economy will not recover, regardless of what a structurally unsound nation may think. The political decisions made in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s have tied the American economy to the oil and natural gas industry, even where agriculture is concerned. Gas is used in the production of pesticides, which boosts output and creating even local food supply to be dependent on the presence of cheap fuel. As fuel costs rise, so does that of our transportation costs, but also in hidden places such as our clothing, shelter and food. And nowhere is as susceptible as the American suburb, which relies on individuals and cheap goods to survive.

Overall, the film is persuasive by providing facts about suburbia which are both indisputable and clearly unsustainable. The most obvious example is the population density of suburbia creating an impractical environment for mass transit. Additionally, the economist who predicted the peak oil of the United States correctly was compelling because having one correct prediction in the past lends credibility to the current predictions on the impending oil peak. The third most compelling piece of the film was the coverage of the 2003 Toronto blackout. This was interesting to me because it showed the true effects of running out of oil and bountiful electricity in the small scale. Everything seemed to be at a standstill. Imagining that happening in my town is a sobering thought and an interesting wake-up call, because I know that people in my town, a suburb in New Jersey, would act just as terribly or worse in such a situation. This is because many natives of the suburb feel entitled to their way of life and in such a crisis, wouldn’t feel able to work outside the box and come up with reasonable solutions to such a standstill. Many wouldn’t attribute the problems in their life to the way of life, instead blaming the industry and politics around them. Although the majority of the film was convincing, one of the hardest pieces to accept was the fact that I was just as guilty as everyone else in suburbia. I love my town and my area, and it was very hard to accept that they weren’t good for the environment. It was in no way the film’s fault, but it was hard to take that final step and say I didn’t want to eventually live someplace similar to where I grew up. Another point in the movie that lacked conviction was the statement that the United States was only in the Middle East for oil. Regardless of the truth, which cannot be proven at this point in time, it smacks of conspiracy theory rather than sound political reasoning. This distrust largely stems from the lack of hard facts and mistrust that it is hard to take such a statement at face value.

This film targets the suburban population of America, and while the content of the film was well presented and cogent, more hard data would have been more convincing. The statistics pertaining to comparative gas consumption of America versus countries with low suburban populations, and some common chemicals which are specifically high oil demand would have aided in driving the point home. The film gave a good list of actions that could be made, such as working towards local networking and sustainability, consuming local food, create “walkable” towns and work towards implementing the New Urbanism movement.

In regards to new information, the US census published their 2010 information, found here: []. According to the United States Census Bureau, 65.1% of the United States population owns their own home, with an average of 2.65 people per home. This allots over 902 square feet per person in the United States out of people owning homes (figure calculated from here: []). Furthermore, these homes are often farther from the places of work, as Americans spends over 100 hours a year in their daily commute, which comes out to about 24.3 minutes. This doesn’t sound terrible until compared to the average of 80 hours a year taken for vacation. This commute crisis is not just limited to the suburbs. New York City is rated for the longest commute at 38.3 minutes. Much of this stress is compounded by people driving into the city. Further information can be found at this census bulletin, posted in 2005: [].