"Trouble the Water" was nothing new to me, as I had previously viewed it at Ebertfest. The combined presence of both directors, Kim's family, and film guru Roger Ebert created a different viewing experience for me than the one felt last Tuesday. It was undoubtedly a real treat to hear Kim and her husband sit alongside Carl Deal and Tia Lessin and further discuss the entire ordeal, but an unforeseen side affect may be that my opinions were somewhat skewed in their favor. To be honest, my knowledge of Hurricane Katrina was far too limited and Trouble the Water was the only film I had seen that gave me a more detailed account of what had transpired. It was a very personal documentary, an appealing quality not often seen in other works of the genre dealing with similar major historical events. However, the added political commentary (which seemed sparse) didn't seem to fit, and resulted in a biased representation of the events proceeding Katrina.
I'm not saying I didn't like the film. It powerfully portrayed the tribulations undergone by the Roberts family, and their story is a truly remarkable one. I took a particular shine to Kim, whose matriarchal prowess helped not only her family make through the endless ordeals, but just about anyone she found who was in need of assistance. Along with her husband, the two did their best to keep spirits up, and they never took their frustration out on anyone. When one considers their past, a story of reform is revealed. Both Kim and her husband admit to selling drugs and stealing as a means to scrape by, and the fact that they were able to give it up shows that change is possible, and that a way of life free of illegal activity can be achieved.
The Roberts' journey is nothing short of incredible, and their many impediments are not to be acknowledged lightly. It was difficult to leave their house after flooding, it was impossible to find shelter in an unused army housing complex, and it took several overdue months to receive their FEMA relief check. On top of this, Kim had to endure the emotional pain of her grandmother's passing (as well as several of her neighbors), and the red tape brought on by getting her brother out of jail in time for the funeral was no simple task. The Roberts' journey is a wonderful true-life account that instills many values, among them patience, persistence, courage, and faith.
Where the film seemed to err was how it failed to adequately support its political arguments. Because it decided to focus the majority of its attention on the Roberts family, it left little room for commentary on the whole event. Their disapproving views of the government's actions felt unjustified because the evidence for it was too few and too vague. The total footage of government action could not have exceeded 10 minutes, and I don't recall seeing many actual figures; rather, they were substituted for weasel words like "thousands" and "several". They neglected to interview any actual government officials, and rather filmed only a handful of soldiers and a ditzy travel agent.
The result is an unbalanced film. Their decision to tell the story of a single group of victims was a great one, and the Roberts were a model family to choose as the subjects, but this artistic choice does have its downsides. Proper attention could not be given to the issue at large, and the added political commentary seemed too much like a footnote. I don't mean to say that the entire movie should have had Kim incessantly in the spotlight, but because of the narrative style, she and her family had to have been included in the majority of the scenes. If the directors had stuck to telling her miraculous story and left out the insufficient and somewhat biased opinions, Trouble the Water would have been even better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very provocative (in a positive sense) comments, Eric -- they got me thinking about 2 issues. The first is viewing a film: you bring out how different it can be just seeing a film the 2nd (or 3rd, etc) time rather than the 1st (not to mention at Ebertfest with all of the personages available). There's a lot to be said there. The second issue is that of how much we can expect of any film (and here maybe I'm getting repetitive form other comments): we often ask a lot of films -- to entertain, inform, enlighten us; to do so in a visually stimulating way; to keep things narratively coherent and yet not too predictable; and to do all of this in an amount of time we don't mind spending in a movie theatre (for many people, this is 2.5 hours max). And by the way, I raise these issues as much for myself as for anyone: I'm thinking about how critical I can be so often of films...
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I also took a shine to the family's ability to admit their mistakes and try to make their lives better. It was refreshing to see people not take out their anger onto others. They did not project, the made use of it. They focused on the necessary, survival. They helped others out when they could have abandoned everyone around them. I liked that they admitted to selling drugs but stopped. I agree, it shows that change can happen and there is hope. This was a very heartwarming part of the film. They all stuck together through the devastation.
ReplyDeleteThats a great point Geber about the very "b-side" angle of the political commentary. I too noticed the heavy angle of Kim's struggle and (I agree) her remarkable reactions... but laced inbetween were abrupt scenes of political commentary. As I pointed out in my post, it seems to me that the directors do this on purpose. What I mean is that this is an instance where the audience must formulate their own opinions as based upon the "appetizer" of the film's message. In this sense, the fact that "Trouble the Water" has no concise (i.e. with significant evidence) political argument should be OK, as the audience will slightly morph their preheld notions with that of Kim's story.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, one can see a problem with this, as you have. Whenever I think of political commentary, my best example has to be "Fahrenheit 9/11" (good to know we will watch this next week)... Anyways, in that movie, we clearly notice Moore's political commentary, in that it is significantly researched, backed up, and stressed time and time again in the movie. "Trouble the Water" appears to have a slight Moore touch (very negative and critical opinions) but without the actual evidence, as you pointed out. Now that I think of it, the movie rarely showed specific figures and there were no points where I saw true analysis of the facts.
I can't agree more with the assessment that the film would have been even better with just a focus on Kim's story. Though they gave the overall message a more negative and serious undertone, the incomplete argument and lack of evidence prove it to be insufficient as a proper angle for the movie.
Just a note, I think we have to keep in mind the release date for this movie. Katrina... was Aug 2005. The movie was released in... Aug 2008. The fact that the film's release date coincides with the anniversary of Katrina is no fluke. For that reason alone, it can justify some of the political commentary, because at this point, 3 years after the event, the target audience is no longer one for sympathy, but rather one of critiquing the still ongoing (and failing) response systems (FEMA). In that sense, I can see one possible reason for the inclusion of the political commentary, for as when this was released, there was simply no need to "back up" every point made in the movie. The audience just didn't need it to affirm their own personal anger.