This documentary addresses profound themes about the way we live, our responsibilities to future generations, and the way our minds are ill-equipped to deal with our greatest problems. We hear from Texan farmers finding it ever harder to grow food as water becomes more scarce. We spend time with Hawaiians whose sustainable lifestyle and world-view are threatened by commercial short-term-ism. It's potentially revelatory, but bizarre editing sacrifices the story that could have been told.
The film is supposedly about climate change and the limits to growth, yet it says surprisingly little about them. "Breath of Life" assumes you're well-read on these issues, so it won't say much to the people who haven't. And for those of us who already know what the film's going to say, what was the point in seeing it?
There are many experts interviewed: admirable intellectuals with important things to say about ecology, psychology, economics, and more. Yet so much of what they say is edited down to tiny sound-bites. Often, the result is either the simplicity of a motivational poster, or a passing mention of complex ideas that need a lot of background knowledge to be understood. "The Anthropocene" is mentioned early on but not defined. Other documentaries and articles cover it, but this is why I say "Breath of Life" assumes a lot about its audience. Clive Hamilton's critique of geo-engineering is so hacked down the audience could be forgiven for thinking he supports it. A scientist's explanation of how plastic damages ocean life could have been the film's most powerful scene, but again so many of her words have been cut out it only barely makes sense.
The few facts and figures lack context. A huge number appears on screen representing world debt. If you know some economics, you'll know that means public debt. If, say, my parents were to see this, their reaction would be "*World* debt? Who is it owed to?" We're told that atmospheric carbon dioxide will reach 800ppm in a specific year: it's not presented as one scenario representing one set of political choices. Nuclear power and GMOs are mentioned: are they problems, solutions, or both? It's not explored: we get quick negative quotes and then move on. These are just some examples of the terminology and concepts thrown about that you're just expected to know. In a blink of an eye, we go from our precarious agricultural system to unsustainable national debt: the connection between the two issues isn't explored, nor is the existing debate about debt. If public debt is so bad, does that mean we need austerity? No time to answer, apparently.
Extensive footage of nature and human activity was created for this film, yet that doesn't save it from stock-footage clichés. If you anticipate lots of sped-up long-exposure shots of city lights at night, rolling expanses of parched soil, and the fragile Earth from space, you're entirely correct. It would be forgivable if each piece of footage related to the point currently being discussed, but the way it's used is often more like time-filling.
It's saddens me because the film's topics should be on everyone's lips, and the raw material is good. The responsible thing for the film- makers to do now would be to open-source all their footage and let other editors have a go (as happened with "RiP!", for example). A remixed documentary could convey fewer messages more clearly, provide narration or captions to divide the film into chapters, and give context for what each chapter is trying to say. I'm even optimistic that this could result in a film that I'd rate very highly and recommend to everyone.
The film is supposedly about climate change and the limits to growth, yet it says surprisingly little about them. "Breath of Life" assumes you're well-read on these issues, so it won't say much to the people who haven't. And for those of us who already know what the film's going to say, what was the point in seeing it?
There are many experts interviewed: admirable intellectuals with important things to say about ecology, psychology, economics, and more. Yet so much of what they say is edited down to tiny sound-bites. Often, the result is either the simplicity of a motivational poster, or a passing mention of complex ideas that need a lot of background knowledge to be understood. "The Anthropocene" is mentioned early on but not defined. Other documentaries and articles cover it, but this is why I say "Breath of Life" assumes a lot about its audience. Clive Hamilton's critique of geo-engineering is so hacked down the audience could be forgiven for thinking he supports it. A scientist's explanation of how plastic damages ocean life could have been the film's most powerful scene, but again so many of her words have been cut out it only barely makes sense.
The few facts and figures lack context. A huge number appears on screen representing world debt. If you know some economics, you'll know that means public debt. If, say, my parents were to see this, their reaction would be "*World* debt? Who is it owed to?" We're told that atmospheric carbon dioxide will reach 800ppm in a specific year: it's not presented as one scenario representing one set of political choices. Nuclear power and GMOs are mentioned: are they problems, solutions, or both? It's not explored: we get quick negative quotes and then move on. These are just some examples of the terminology and concepts thrown about that you're just expected to know. In a blink of an eye, we go from our precarious agricultural system to unsustainable national debt: the connection between the two issues isn't explored, nor is the existing debate about debt. If public debt is so bad, does that mean we need austerity? No time to answer, apparently.
Extensive footage of nature and human activity was created for this film, yet that doesn't save it from stock-footage clichés. If you anticipate lots of sped-up long-exposure shots of city lights at night, rolling expanses of parched soil, and the fragile Earth from space, you're entirely correct. It would be forgivable if each piece of footage related to the point currently being discussed, but the way it's used is often more like time-filling.
It's saddens me because the film's topics should be on everyone's lips, and the raw material is good. The responsible thing for the film- makers to do now would be to open-source all their footage and let other editors have a go (as happened with "RiP!", for example). A remixed documentary could convey fewer messages more clearly, provide narration or captions to divide the film into chapters, and give context for what each chapter is trying to say. I'm even optimistic that this could result in a film that I'd rate very highly and recommend to everyone.