The central message is that the human race is committing suicide - and this is well communicated. I fully agree with that message but the film is unfocused and lacks a clear purpose. It switches between being judgemental and exploring topics for discussion to such an extent that I couldn't tell the difference. This is not poor editing, it is a lack of direction. It jumps between facts, implications and emotions without consolidating into either an open question or a conclusion.
If the director had focused on raising questions the film could have been really powerful. The airline story raised some challenging questions in my mind: if we can eliminate poverty now by increasing air traffic and contributing to the ultimate self-destruction of the human race, should we? would this really help to eliminate poverty? is there another way? I don't know the answers but I believe the intention of this story was to stimulate thought and discussion.
The wind farm story is a very well presented "look in the mirror" story. Many of us want to protect attractive views in the short term so much that the medium term costs are being ignored. We are each saying that the future of the human race is not my problem. The open question here is Why are we being so short-sighted and parochial?
The most disappointing aspect was the unsubtle associations between what appears to be all the worlds problems and Shell Oil. In one sequence, two young Iraqi children were shown playing and having fun in the back of a moving car. Then the car was shown driving past a Shell petrol station and immediately afterwards the children pretended to be dead. In another story, Shell had agreed to provide a medical centre for a village in Africa. The centre was shown unfinished and abandoned with the commentary something like "Shell claimed that they stopped working on it because of the dangers of violent raids". The implication was that this was an excuse; then a villager recounted a story of a violent raid on her village. I had no idea what that message was about but after repeatedly seeing Shell Oil signs after several unconnected sob stories I assume it is "I don't like Shell, you shouldn't either". This expression of emotion (whilst understandable) was allowed to dominate the film which distracted me from some very important themes.
The film also failed to raise the socio-Gaia question about multi-nationals which has taken over from the old fashioned activist view: As multi-nationals are ultimately driven by the consumers and the share holders (i.e. us) what choices do we have to avert impending doom? Is your pension fund/ investment account/ etc. being invested in companies which are destroying the future of the human race and would you change this if it meant you would get less of a return or a smaller pension? Do you buy products and services from these companies and would you pay more to buy from companies that had a more sustainable approach?
All in all, although parts were good, a lost opportunity.
If the director had focused on raising questions the film could have been really powerful. The airline story raised some challenging questions in my mind: if we can eliminate poverty now by increasing air traffic and contributing to the ultimate self-destruction of the human race, should we? would this really help to eliminate poverty? is there another way? I don't know the answers but I believe the intention of this story was to stimulate thought and discussion.
The wind farm story is a very well presented "look in the mirror" story. Many of us want to protect attractive views in the short term so much that the medium term costs are being ignored. We are each saying that the future of the human race is not my problem. The open question here is Why are we being so short-sighted and parochial?
The most disappointing aspect was the unsubtle associations between what appears to be all the worlds problems and Shell Oil. In one sequence, two young Iraqi children were shown playing and having fun in the back of a moving car. Then the car was shown driving past a Shell petrol station and immediately afterwards the children pretended to be dead. In another story, Shell had agreed to provide a medical centre for a village in Africa. The centre was shown unfinished and abandoned with the commentary something like "Shell claimed that they stopped working on it because of the dangers of violent raids". The implication was that this was an excuse; then a villager recounted a story of a violent raid on her village. I had no idea what that message was about but after repeatedly seeing Shell Oil signs after several unconnected sob stories I assume it is "I don't like Shell, you shouldn't either". This expression of emotion (whilst understandable) was allowed to dominate the film which distracted me from some very important themes.
The film also failed to raise the socio-Gaia question about multi-nationals which has taken over from the old fashioned activist view: As multi-nationals are ultimately driven by the consumers and the share holders (i.e. us) what choices do we have to avert impending doom? Is your pension fund/ investment account/ etc. being invested in companies which are destroying the future of the human race and would you change this if it meant you would get less of a return or a smaller pension? Do you buy products and services from these companies and would you pay more to buy from companies that had a more sustainable approach?
All in all, although parts were good, a lost opportunity.