This week we are discussing Annie Leonard's film The Story of Stuff. The short film can be viewed here.
Like anything dealing with such a heavy topic as our nation's consumption habits, the film has sparked spirited debate. Read some of the debate here, here, and here to get some background info on our discussion this week.
Even if this is not your class assignment, please feel free to join in. We like our discussion like our food - organic. Click "comments" to see (or join) the discussion!
Quote of the week:
"It wasn't the Exxon Valdez captain's driving that caused the Alaskan oil spill. It was yours."
- Greenpeace Advertisement in the New York Times, February 25, 1990
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So the video we watched today was definitely a little intense I thought. But I agree with many of the video's good points that were mentioned in the Kaufman article. First of all, scare tactics definitely don't work. In fact, I would argue they generate intentional opposition if anything. So I think Annie Leonard was wise in making her film with the attitude and disposition she did. I also think it's great that it's much simpler and more appealing to kids, since children are the most malleable (aka able to be manipulate?)
ReplyDeleteThat can lead to a downside too however. In addressing her audience, Leonard distorts some facts and makes some misleading and oversimplified statements in her attempt to capture a younger audience. Also, I thought it was weird how Kaufman referred to Leonard as "self-educated on where waste goes". I don't know if she was trying to convey that Leonard had a lot of firsthand experience in the field or what, but it kind of made her seem illegitimate I thought. All in all, I think the film definitely made a positive contribution to the global environment debate, although its reform tactics seem a bit unrealistic.
I am in agreement with Alyssa – if any single word could describe The Story of Stuff, it would be “intense.” While Annie Leonard’s intentions in creating the film were good – a simple, positive aid to the environmental education lacking in America’s school system today – it is not executed in a way that is universally acceptable. First, let me state that I personally agree with Ms. Leonard’s statement, message, and purpose. However, even as a self-proclaimed “environmentalist”, I can see how The Story of Stuff occasionally falls victim to the great downfall of so many environmental messages – one-sided extremism.
ReplyDeleteThe film clearly lacks a counterpoint and is almost comically critical of capitalism. Decades-old Soviet propaganda posters immediately spring to mind upon seeing the bloated, overweight man emblazoned with a dollar sign having his shoes shined by a crude representation of Uncle Sam that is supposed to represent corporate America. This would likely not inflame those of a liberal bent – for example, anyone writing for The New York Times. However, this is a case of preaching to the choir. The individuals this film is most likely to offend are those that need to hear the message most, and like it states in the Times, “If you offend a student, they turn off the learning button and then you won’t get anywhere.”
It is interesting that Missoula County, Montana found the film to tread on academic freedom. For those who enjoy neat pieces of trivia, Montana State University offers the only degree program in the world on Natural History Filmmaking – a field that produces video content that tries to do much of what Ms. Leonard is attempting with The Story of Stuff. Maybe she should have signed up for some of their classes, as according to the Times, she is merely “self-educated on where waste goes.”
This leads to an even greater problem with the film – factual inaccuracy. Immediately after we viewed the film in class, a friend came up to me in the hallway and complained about a particular statistic cited by Leonard – that in the United States we only have 4% of our original forest cover left. Disturbed, he immediately checked the US Department of Agriculture, and found that according to them we have an estimated 46% of our original forest cover, and that this percentage has remained relatively steady since 1907. Not wanting to think that Ms. Leonard made up that statistic, I checked the annotated bibliography for the film, which can be found on its website. The sources she cites are vague, stating that between 95 and 98 percent of forests in the continental US have been essentially “tampered with.” Here she equates “tampering” with “total destruction”, which I would consider factually incorrect.
The truth is, however, that while she might not have been honest about the amount of trees left in the United States, there are nations that have only a tiny fraction of their original forest cover. For a great example take a look at Haiti on Google Maps, it’s striking. While I might not agree with The Heritage Foundation’s call to remove the film from all curricula, I would encourage The Story of Stuff to come with a small disclaimer. When it’s all boiled down, I am just happy that some environmental message is making its way to student’s ears. However what must be understood is the only way the changes to our consumption habits can be changed is slowly. Until then, I hope Rafael gets to play with his legos with a clean conscience.
Oh my goodness, it's reading conservative pieces like the Heritage Foundations that make me realize just how liberal I might be. I felt Steve Cohan's article was a fair assessment recognizing both the flaws and merits of the film. Did any of you read the comments at the bottom of the Heritage Foundation's piece? Holy crap Americans can be infuriating, it seems glaringly apparent that those commenter's have never lived in a developing country or given a critical examination of American lifestyles. And what's all the hype about "propaganda"? Like Cohen said, Leonard did skew some of the facts but the central ideas are clearly and accurately displayed. In short...WE HAVE TOO MUCH STUFF. It is not necessary to our happiness and does a whole lot more harm than good so if this knowledge makes a 9 year old question whether he needs a new set of Lego's I think that is absolutely fantastic. Truth is he probably doesn't, maybe he could go outside and play in the woods or more appropriately these days, play in his 10 foot plot of suburban lawn. This short film made me seriously look at my "stuff", in fact i went home after that class and counted my clothes...I'm not going shopping for quite some time. I give my full support to those teachers who choose to show the film in their schools. I'm sending the link to my mother- a high school history and civics teacher. As Josh mentioned, I too am happy that "some environmental messgae is making its way to student's ears".
ReplyDeleteMary- you and I are on the same page. And Josh and Alyssa too, but I just meant especially towards the ridiculuos commentary found on the heritage site. I felt as if that piece of writing was so hypocritical because it is criticizing on perspective ont eh environment and will promoting another in its argument, clearly of a more politically conservative approach. The author's used the film to oen up a debate about politics in the U.S. and lifestyles of citizens. I think that even if there are some exaggerations or undertones in teh film that it is not prevelant enough to switch the topic from the environment to politics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not see the big deal about showing the film in a classroom, which is a controlled setting. The teacher is there to point out important parts and address any fallacies. Otherwise, I think that this film is a great basis for people who know nothing about environmental issues. The heritage pieces makes it seem as if this is a scholarly piece targeting environmentalists in the field, but it is just meant to informative for those looking for a base to start at.
Which brings me to the Cohen piece, which made me relax and think there are intellectual people in the world. He brought out the downsides to the film, but not in an overbearing way. He remained a calm collected writer, acknowledging the overall message of the film, and its merit in jump starting the thinking of our youth.
Mary and Laura, I can tell that you guys are *really* not too fond of The Heritage Foundation piece. While it may come across as both overly impassioned and politically charged, I think it exposes a major issue with the film. Sadly, the folks at The Heritage Foundation and their reader base are the ones that need the message contained in The Story of Stuff the most - and it's clear they're not getting it because the film is overloaded with far-left political messages.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be some middle ground as far as environmental education goes so that particularly affluent or conservative (and the two are not mutually exclusive) viewers don't "turn off the learning button" and resort to the finger-pointing rhetoric seen in The Heritage Foundation's piece.
I saw on another group's blog one person lamenting about how the responses to the film were so politicized. It's clear that un-politicizing this issue isn't realistic. The science behind environmentalism is there - it's been done, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment has been written - and it's hard to argue with that empirical data. The problem now is making it a salient political issue, and while The Story of Stuff has a clear, concise and (in my opinion) necessary message, it's not being conveyed in the proper way with this film.
Just my two cents.
I think that the video was enlightening, but as any simplified explanation of something so extraordinarily complex, it had its flaws. The video is a story about how the production cycle and consumerism affect America, a story that sometimes presents biases or opinions as fact. Of course, part of this is the product of the gross generalization needed to complete a discussion on this topic in 20 minutes, but still it is advisable to take some of its messages with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteOne particular idea that stuck with me was the absurdity of “planned obsolescence” and “perceived obsolescence” and how true that really is. You might think of yourself as someone who is reasonable when making purchases, but even if your ipod breaks, what are you going to do? Probably buy a new one. It frustrates me that companies would use this tactic to get consumers to spend more money. They are constantly researching ways to fit more memory into smaller spaces and making it cheaper, but they should really spend some time developing something that is durable.