DaleDirt!TheMovie

Jacob Dale Annotation #2, 10/30/10 Dirt! The Movie

1. Title, director and release year?

The film titled __Dirt! The Movie__ is a documentary that was released in 2009 and was directed by Bill Benenson and Gene Rosow.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The main message of the film is that humans and the world are intimately linked to dirt. Dirt has even a religious connection to us. We are all made of the same elements of the earth. Even though dirt is taken for granted as always being there, it is a bit more than a substance that is found everywhere. Dirt is vital to keeping our biosphere healthy, and it contains more information than the turf of all the known planets out there. Dirt purifies and cleans the system that sustains us. We learn all this from the documentary through the perspectives of farmers, biologists, prisoners, wine experts, and ordinary citizens.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film draws out numerous sustainability problems. One of the first problems discussed is how we view and treat dirt as a capitalist society. Many treat it as trash by hauling it away and disposing of it. We dispose of it to search for natural resources we deem more valuable such as oil. Mountain top removal is one of the ways we go about doing this. Mountain top removal does not allow for vegetation support and it brings chemicals into the water shed. While we dispose of dirt, so many other places are in need of dirt to prevent runoff which happens in Los Angeles. According to the film, LA spends close to a billion dollars a year to bring in water from other states. Besides this, the film also goes into the agricultural practices developed after the industrial world took over. It mentions how the U.S. Dust Bowl was caused by bad agricultural practices and that one-third of our top soil was lost in the last 100 years due to our bad practices. These bad practices stem from monocultures. Monocultures deplete soil since they have to be replanted year to year, and this leads them to be very vulnerable to pests. To combat this we use pesticides and these chemicals are harmful to our health. They also release nitrogen to streams and other water sources besides killing aquatic life. The nitrous oxide then flows to the atmosphere aiding global warming. The next big sustainability problem discussed was the relationship between governments and corporations. Governments like the U.S. subsidize the corn industry allowing for these bad practices to continue. Consolidation in the industry has resulted in companies such as Monsanto being the dominant source of our food and running out farmers. Farmers are constantly losing land to agribusinesses and are saddled with debt. Some have committed suicide and in places like Indian over 200,000 chose this fate. So, human and environmental degradation is linked. Industrial agriculture has failed us leading to soil depletion and hunger.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

Most of the film was pretty compelling to me due to its informative connection and use of emotion to draw the viewer in. The film went out of its way to take the viewer around the world meeting experts and ordinary people to show the relationship individuals have with dirt. It is so vital for our ecosystem and our way of life whether it is for food, water, or mining for resources. I would say the agribusiness portion was the most compelling for me. This is most likely due to me already knowing the dominant nature of companies such as Monsanto. The film mentioned how industrial agriculture has failed us due to soil depletion and hunger. I totally agree with this. Companies such as Monsanto make it so small town farmers cannot compete and in the end swallow the farmer often basically owning the farm. Farmers often have to make upgrades to the farm to compete such as poultry house which cost upwards of $300,000 to upgrade (I knew this from Food Inc.). This causes farmers to borrow money and be in debt to these agribusinesses. After doing a presentation on annual grains, I know that we are quite dependent on them for our survival despite the potential to rely on the counterpart to these known as perennial grains. Due to the nature of monocultures, they require extensive use of pesticides which harm our health and destroy the environment. Not only this, but we are running out of land to feed our population. The very nature of capitalism makes it so that only those who can afford food are able to buy it which feeds the pocketbooks of these corporations. Not only this, but in many cases the government subsidizes these companies. Bringing home the point of the destructive nature of agribusinesses was when the film mentioned the 200,000 suicides committed in India due to agricultural debt.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I was unconvinced with the spirituality aspect mentioned in the film. Being Catholic, I do not have a sense of connection with dirt. I do value it because I do recognize its importance for our world, but spiritually I am connected solely to God. Prisoners were brought up as an example as well as African children. The video showcased prisoners working on gardens and doing cleanup work. I feel the connection they had with the environment was solely the peaceful nature of being outdoors and not being locked up in a prison cell. By being outdoors, the prisoners felt a sense of freedom and felt as if they had control over their lives. I truly believe it was this rather than just feeling a connection with dirt. The film didn’t really focus on the spirituality aspect much, so I feel it didn’t have a really compelling case for it. Also, I feel like the African children just enjoyed dirt. American children have their toys and video games which leaves them too busy to play outdoors. Why would they play with dirt if they have better options? I feel as if the African children would quickly move on to other alternatives if given an option. Dirt to me is important due to its value, but I am not sure about a spiritual connection. I might be missing the message conveyed in the film or maybe my definition of spirituality is just simply different from what the film used.

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

I would say the film is addressing a very broad audience. It definitely has something for everyone since it has a worldwide focus and has scientists, prisoners, wine experts, and common individuals speak throughout the film. The film does a very nice job painting the whole story of dirt focusing on why it is important to us whether it is spiritually, for food, water, or finding energy sources. The film isn’t highly focused on statistics or complex climate issues that would be hard to understand for the average person. The film even attempts to draw in a younger audience through the use of an animated character that popped in once in a while. The film was meant to educate by being entertaining and engaging and not boring.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

Overall, the educational value is phenomenal. I was never aware LA had such a terrible water problem. The way the film showcased how concrete and the vast developed landscape of the city is the problem due to restricting runoff really was great. I would suggest adding a little more to the mountain top removal segment. The film briefly talked about it and moved on. To me, many people aren’t aware of this issue if they don’t live near West Virginia. It would have been nice if the film went into more detail about this. Also, I would say the film should have expanded its section on spirituality or done it in a slightly different manner. I would have focused on just the general connection people have with the outdoors and dirt rather than trying to paint a religious picture. Finally, I think the cartoon character was a bit unnecessary. The film was already engaging enough not to include the character. At times, I found it rather disruptive especially if the film was talking about how evil agribusiness was and then a cartoon character just popped up.

8. 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.

The film did a good job in this department. It had a whole set of solutions. One of the main solutions was simply to turn to perennials. By replanting and building agricultural systems that are based on this vegetation, soil erosion would be drastically reduced. Also, seed varieties could be collected and preserved. The next major topic discussed was community supported agriculture. By having communities involved in growing their own food, it would create a connection to dirt and citizens would be eating what they grow. In this way, our food would be more of a byproduct that is based on a relationship with us and the soil. Another big idea which I found rather cool was green roofs on homes and buildings. These would replace the traditional empty roofs many buildings have in the city while providing water conservation and power to the building. Finally, prisons and schools could have garden programs. This would reduce convictions, aggressiveness, and foster team work. Prisons are a great system to tap into in the United States. We incarcerate more people than anyone else in the world.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

This film made me seek out more information on green roofs and prison programs. I never really heard much about green roofs, and I feel the concept is interesting. It blends well with the environment and seems to be a feasible alternative to traditional roofs. Apparently, green roofs can partially or completely cover the roof of a building or home. They can support vegetation by having layers that provide a root barrier and drainage and irrigation systems. They are even beneficial to the building itself since they absorb rainfall, are a good source of insulation, can lower urban air temperatures (great for big cities), and of course can be a shelter for animals. There are a variety of different types of green roofs which can range in the amount of vegetation they can support. The more extensive types require thicker layers of soil, irrigation systems, and so on. They are heavier and require more maintenance as well. From what I know personally, roofs tend to last about 25 years on homes. Green roofs if managed can last a lifetime. Interestingly, they are very popular in the United States, but not as much in Europe. One would think it would be the opposite case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_roof

After seeing the film stress that prisons could benefit from gardening programs since they can reduce convictions and aggressiveness, I decided to investigate this a bit further. These programs would reduce convictions, aggressiveness, and foster team work according to the movie. One clear benefit for gardening programs is the nutritional value of the fruits and vegetables. Oxford University conducted a study on prison violence and nutritional intake. Young offenders that took nutritional supplements had a fall in violence of about 26% and serious violent offenses dropped 37%.

[]

Apparently, many prisons seem to believe in these benefits as San Quention Prison in California and several other prisons around the country are launching garden programs. The San Quention Prison has a 1,200 square foot garden and gives classes to the inmates on gardening, sustainability, and community care. Wisconsin has 28 prisons with gardening projects. Each of these facilities produces thousands of pounds of vegetables. One of the prisoners produces 75,000 pounds alone. So, there must be some merit to these programs.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/prison-gardens-growing-trend.html