SullivanPatrick3


 * Sullivan Patrick Portfolio

1. Title, director and release year?** The End of Suburbia, Gregory Greene, 2004

The culture and physicality of suburban life is not sustainable, and someday we will have to change our ways of living.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The way of surburban living is a very poor allocation of resources. The way suburbs are organized, the only efficient way to move around is through individual vehicles. The extreme use of the automobile will not be easy when oil start depleting. We allow ourselves to get to the peak of our energy usage and see what happens when we go over that and yet we continue to push that limit without making any serious changes to our energy use. People are not given reliable information on how much oil is left and how much longer we will be able to use it. The general public does not understand peak oil and so they think that as long as they can still buy oil, the oil must not be running out yet.
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

The film shows how the suburbs have all the disadvantages of the city and the country. There is high traffic and there is only a fake view of the country and cheap fake houses. It talks about how people are so afraid to acknowledge the fact that we are in a seriously problematic situation. People will keep electing officials who see the same way they do and keep us living the same way we are today. People are told and believe that technology like hydrogen will solve the problem for us, but do not know or realize that hydrogen is not a solution at all. I appreciated the idea that mcmansions may become the slums of the future.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The film mentions that one day we will not be able to get products from China, not because we will not have the oil to transport these goods, but because we will be at war with them over the remaining oil. I think that this issue should have been looked at in the simpler way of that we won’t be able to ship these goods.
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I want to find out how the suburbs were subsidized besides highways. I want to find a statistic of how far the average person lives from their work and of how far people live from a place of work, to see how inefficiently people are dispersed.
 * 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

This film best addresses people who live in suburbia far away from where they work and shop, especially people who drive hybrids and think they are doing good. This may show people that the efficiency with which they are using oil is not the problem; the problem is the way they live which causes them to use oil at all.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

This film suggests that people live in cities or very close to where they work and shop. We need to think about the whole effect of our actions and not just do things because we can. People should plan their car trips more efficiently so they have to drive less.
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

There could have been more information on how suburbs were first developed through the invention of the railroad and then the automobile. This film also could have given more information on pollution and other environmental effects of combustion engines.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**