I found Trouble the Water an extremely eye-opening and moving documentary. I won't lie, in the years between Katrina's devastating hit and now, I haven't really researched or sought out information, film, or opinion concerning the storm, its repercussions, or the way it was handled by the US government. Of course, since I'm not blind or deaf, I knew that most people in the country were appalled and upset by how things were handled. Honestly, I think I was just ignorant enough to think something so far away wouldn't affect or concern me, so I chose to let it go.
Watching this documentary, I was shocked by all aspects of it - the storm itself, the treatment of the helpless and impoverished during the storm, and the lack of control in its aftermath, even months later.
As I read the review of the film on The Onion, I was surprised to hear that Murray found the film's "lack of focus" frustrating, and thought that the lack of footage during the actual storm, and the abundance of it afterward was disappointing. I could not disagree more.
I feel like the film did contain a focus. In my eyes, the focus of the film was to emotionally pull the viewers heart strings and cause them to feel empathy and sympathy for the victims of Katrina and the situation. Granted, I've never really tried to analyze a film, and I may not even have the right idea for what a focus of a film should be, but in my own opinion, that was the focus, and they achieved what I thought they were aiming for. In terms of scene jumping or idea jumping, I thought that it was completely fine. It followed everything chronologically for the most part, and were clear about it when it skipped around. I think that mixing Kim's footage in with real news footage and the director's own footage explored different angles of the disaster, and filled the film out.
In the same review, I found it frustrating that Murray was disappointed with the film's in-storm content. I feel like Kim's footage was plentiful, and it definitely showed enough of the storm for the viewer to realize how chaotic New Orleans was, and how scary it must have been to be in the middle of it. As to the "bulk of the film" being post-emergency, I disagree in that I feel it was not overpowering to watch. I also feel like Murray may be seeing the film from more of an entertainment standpoint than a political or social awareness-raising standpoint. To me, the biggest deal about Hurricane Katrina was the aftermath, the post-emergency time. The devastation, the poor treatment of victims, the helplessness of the city, and the negligence of our government were the most shocking things, and I feel that the directors feel the same way, which is why they would structure the film as they did.
In the end I approve 100% of Trouble the Water as an effective and thought provoking film. Though Murray may have his (her?) own critiques, I find them faulty; however, everything is relative, and I supposed it's just a matter of opinion....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with many of your points, it was an emotionally charged film that lent itself to a moving story. Though I find it strange that you seem to think that it was not meant to be an entertaining film. I feel that no matter how informative a film may be it always is attempting to entertain someone, and if you weren't in some way entertained, be it in a more surface "that was fun way" or in a deeper more thought provoking, than perhaps it was a well made movie but not specifically a very good movie.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to say it wasn't meant to be an entertaining film. I simply meant that maybe Murray was looking at it from a more entertainment-based perspective - like there wasn't enough action or something, and I think more action was not necessary for the overall message of the film. Does that makes sense? I do believe all movies, no matter how artsy or politically-driven, are a form of entertainment, so I do agree with you there.
ReplyDeleteI know I have a hard time clarifying in words the ideas in my head, so I think that's what happened. Sorry for the misinterpretation!
You raise an interesting -- and tremendously important -- issue, Kelly: why is it so easy for us to forget about something like Katrina or to be just generally apathetic? Or perhaps we should ask the converse: how can we be expected to care a great deal about something that happens a thousand miles away from us? Isn't it human nature to have a hard time maintaining a caring attitude toward such a distant event?
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm commenting on Kelly's and Charles' post/comment. First I'd like to say that I also forgot about this event rather quickly. It was quite a long time ago and I was pretty young. Not too young to remember it, but an adolescent. I feel like kids that age don't really care about anything unless it's directly affecting them. Now that I'm older and I watched this documentary I felt a lot of compassion for these people. I wonder how other people around the country felt. Did they just feel sorry for them from a distance, or help? I'm not too sure!
ReplyDeleteI would also like to comment on your opinion of Murray. I completely agree. It brought us into the lives of people directly affected by the storm. They weren't just some statistic I was used to seeing. We actually saw them. The scenes may have jumped but they succeeded in gaining sympathy from the viewers!