Annotation_1_Blind_Spot

Annotation #1 Word count: 975 The main focus of the film is energy crisis which comes from overconsumption of natural resources. The narrators in the film highlight the fact that fossil fuels are finite and other potential renewable energy sources have to be explored. Statements from various people were presented. Effectiveness of most arguments is certainly questionable since most of the comments were opinions and not scientific facts. Many of the interviewed people were not experts in sustainability and were just sharing their opinions. If I walked up to a stranger and asked a question about nuclear fusion would I be able to get an expert answer? Probably not, same goes for most parts of this film. Credibility is highly questionable. Also, the film predominantly talked about problems in a gloomy fashion without presenting any solutions which leaves you thinking that it’s all bad and people are hopeless. The film touched on many of the mentioned aspects. It did a good job presenting links between economic, ecological and behavioral issues. In one part of the movie they presented the fact that it is a lot cheaper to use oil for the production of goods which explains why so many world economies depend on it. When it comes to ecological problems, significant part of the movie was devoted to going over the global warming problem. A great difficulty with this issue is based on the fact that if you agree to this notion then you have to fire many people who are involved in businesses that produce CO2. This is why countries like China and India that vastly rely on coal in their economies will never agree that global warming is a serious issue. Finally, the behavioral aspect was addressed throughout the entire film and many of the interviewed people kept saying that even though many stakeholders (companies and regular citizens) are aware of the sustainability issues not that many of them are actually doing something about it. I think the most persuasive part of the film was how politics related to sustainability issues. One of the interviewed individuals said, “We are missing a leader in the White House who can say “Hey this is real””, which made sense since we don’t live in dark ages and many people today have access to news that state we have serious sustainability issues that need to be addressed. However, since so many politicians are sponsored by companies that are responsible for ecological and social mistreats it is hard to make that change. Overall tone of this film was not too great. It was too dramatic and lacked facts. It was stated many times throughout the movie that energy crisis is inevitable which I completely disagree with. Also, authors of the film coined a new term for the generation that’s clearly depends on oil. It was stressed that people will just sit and wait till all the natural resources run out. This is clearly an uneducated opinion since there are many researches that focus on renewable energy sources. We already see efficient electric cars on the market and I am sure that soon enough efficiency and affordability of solar cells and wind turbines will get to the point where average consumer will be able to effort it. I would say it addresses people that are not involved nor have any idea of actual situation of scientific sector that is focused on dealing with renewable energy. Something positive that follows from this movie is that people may start recycling and maybe looking at labels before buying a certain product which is certainly a great start. This film would certainly benefit from having more facts and solutions to presented issues. Very little to no solutions were presented which makes you think that our society is too ignorant to care about solving these problems. I think interviewing a few professors focused on power generation would do wonders to this film. Quite honestly, without expert opinions it looks like bunch of hippies talking about things they know nothing about. Without presenting any solutions this film looks like a protest for the sake of protesting instead of a protest for the sake of change. To be perfectly honest, unlike many other documentaries this film did not compel me to seek out any additional information since it misrepresented so many facts to a point where it was almost offensive since I am myself an Electrical Engineer. However, I will provide some resources which highlight some of the great things that are being done in our RPI community. First, Engineers for a Sustainable World project that allows undergraduate engineering students to make great things on the sustainability landscape: [] Second, Smart Lighting Research Center that has many programs that promote clean energy and also focused on creating low power LEDs to decrease energy consumption. []
 * 1.Title, director and release year?**
 * Title: “**Blind Spot”
 * Director:** Adolfo Doring
 * Release Year:** 2008
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * 3.** **How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**
 * 4.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out?****Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational** **Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * 6.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? Why?**
 * 8.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**
 * 9.** **What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**
 * 10.** **What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**