Tonkel+FLOW

1. FLOW: For Love of Water was released in2008 and directed by Irena Salina. 2. The main issue this film addresses is that because of the way people abuse water, our planet is running out of clean drinkable water for its people and for all other forms of life. The film talks about pollution issues, money issues and lastly the general wastefulness many have towards the water in their everyday lives. 3. The film covers many sustainability problems, some of which are easily seen and others that are uncovered only as you look deeper. The film addresses economical and political sustainability through the privatization of water; it also addresses the issue of sustainable development and sustainable religion in cases like the Ganges River. I would also say the film covers sustainable consumption and sustainable use of resources. 4. The reason this film is so compelling is because water is the source or all life. People can survive without TV, clothes and homes but not without water. The idea of selling someone life is absolutely ridiculous. It should be a fundamental right to have access to clean water. And on top of that the film did a very good job at showing how water scarcity and pollution in water affects everyone, not just the poor in Africa or the poor in India or the poor in America, but that it affects everyone. There were excerpts about both the poor in India sitting in on Coca Cola’s plant and of families in Michigan fighting, marching and suing Nestle for its water bottling plant. It was great how the film connected two situations that for many seem worlds apart. 5. The only part of the documentary that I am not 100% convinced by is the fact that water privatization is awful. Yes, people almost always get screwed when big corporations are put in charge, but I believe that competition of companies does invoke progress technologically and helps to ensure quality service when companies are in fear of losing contracts. It is however very important that the governments in charge constantly monitor the companies and replace them as soon as faults are found. Contracts can also be made so that the government owns the piping system and the companies just control it and improve upon it. Lastly, these companies must have very limited profits if any at all. The water itself should be free, but as everyone knows it does cost money to make it travel. Since it is the responsibility of the government to get its people water I would agree that in most cases privatization is not the ideal choice. 6. The documentary leaves you with an idea of how wealthy these water companies are and the power they have in politics. I would like to find out more about where the CEO’s of these companies have their hands. It is would also be good to find out about what is in the water I am drinking now and how those chemicals got there. It seems like companies are so good at covering their pollution tracks that I don’t know who is still dumping chemicals and where they are dumping them. It seems so simple to me to just stop blatantly throwing chemicals into the surrounding waterways but apparently it is still happening and obviously has profound effects on the generations that are drinking it and of many future generations. 7. I think the film was primarily made to inform people in the United States and European Union about the scarcity of water. Most of the people in developed nations don’t even have to think about how they get their water; it just comes out of the faucet or shower head every morning. It’s sad but the opinions of these developed nations can often matter just as much if not more to a developing nation’s government than its own people. Because of the type of person this film addresses I hope that it will change the way they see all the water they encounter every day. Maybe even compel them to search out where their water is coming from, what toxins are in their water supply and how many companies “own” the water that surrounds their communities. 8. One of the best parts about this film was that it showed public action that actually was able to change the outcome of the problem. The ladies in India eventually got the removal of Cocoa Cola from their town, and the group in Michigan won the initial law suit against Nestle to get them to stop pumping water from the river. The idea of public opposition to these corporations is really the largest course of action someone can take against the problem. Sure its other suggestions like conservation and not buying bottled water are great ways individuals can help but forming a group and protesting send the greatest message to our government and to the companies. 9. I think the one thing that should have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value would be more history on how people used to get water for farming and drinking before industrialized society. Now people can live almost anywhere and still get, I would assume that a long time ago people had to live near a water source and therefore had to respect it highly. Adding how our plumbing systems work and the average distance water has to travel to a home would be interesting facts that would really get something thinking about the luxuries they have. Most people view TVs, fancy cars and lots of free time as luxuries but for many people in the world having plumbing and running water and even electricity are huge luxuries.