1. What do you think the purpose of this movie is? Do you think it is successful? Is there any way it could be more effective, in your opinion?
2. What are some examples of bias you noticed in the movie? In what ways was it objective? Which approach is more effective?
3. What are some pros and cons of the Enbridge proposed pipeline/ Did the film affect your opinion at all?
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this movie was to inform people of the devastating effects that the Enbridge pipeline will have on our environment and our community. It is used to convince people that the Enbridge pipeline is not a safe practice, nor a benefit to our economy, unlike our government tells us. The makers of this movie explain and film factors of the Enbridge pipeline plan that make it seem a completely irresponsible investment to any human with common sense.
In their efforts to portray this message I believe they were quite successful. The filmmakers traveled along the exact path of the proposed pipeline to visually illustrate the natural hazards that will damage the pipeline and the coastal oil tankers- a very successful aspect of the film. I believe many people in favor of the pipeline have not considered the mountainous landscape of Northern BC and have simply not taken mudslides, avalanches, heavy snowfall, forest fires, lightning storms, and other hazards into their thoughts, their focus is economy. People living in cities who wish to economically benefit (corporations, CEO’s etc.) are not only money hungry, but are also living in concrete “paradises” where natural hazards don’t usually take destructive paths. Other city dwellers, with nothing to gain from the project, may also be indifferent because of their disconnect with the natural world and its ways. When the filmmakers cannot access parts of the proposed path because of slippery rocks and forest fires one must ask themselves, “How will repair men stop oil from devastating the natural habitat of BC if they cannot access the leak?”.
As they make their way through Alberta and BC the filmmakers interview individuals about the pipeline and ask for their opinions. The majority of people are opposed, even some that work in the oil industry for they know the damage that can be done by spills. Additionally, the filmmakers give their opinions on the subject as they reflect on everyones interviews in a fairly biased manner. They always reinforce those who oppose the pipeline, do not agree at all with those who see the benefits, and also interview each other, always stating negative aspects of the proposed project. This does emphasize the stupidity and irresponsibility of the Enbridge pipeline, however, I think they should have had more than one or two supporters. The filmmakers may have felt that pro-pipeline sentiments would make their video less effective, but in my opinion it would have shown the audience even more of the stupidity behind the project. Listening to the Enbridge supporters in contrast to the level headed critics would enhance the effectiveness of the film.
Additionally, the quality of the film could have been better. I would like pursue film with my interest in Visual Communication and from my perspective imagery is a very key component of a message. I will, however, applaud the filmmakers for being the first to do what they did, even if the quality was lacking. In being critical of the film quality I must also state that my opinion on the pipeline project has not changed, but has intensified, and therefore the film was, indeed, very effective.
( I listed cons throughout my comment- natural hazards, no employment benefits, environment etc. - and I just wanted to state that, in my opinion, there are no “pros”. )
Hey there everyone—
ReplyDeleteSorry about the serious delay in posting. I'm just getting a bit of catch up done right now and I'm excited to share my ideas on this film. I found it to be a fantastic film—it succeeded in grabbing my attention right from the get-go and didn't let it go right until the very end when we saw that the two 'voyageurs'—Frank and Todd—finally realize their goal of making it to sea. The film saw us laughing with the duo as they endured admittedly horrible and trying situations—from rain while riding bikes, to being obligated to 'portage' their canoes.
When I think back to this film, however, I do believe that I disagree with Sam's purpose. I don't think that the group of two were really looking at the issue from a specific political standpoint; I would argue that the purpose of the film was to take a long hard look at "What would happen if...?", and not necessarily, "This is bad because..." I would suggest that the film was more of a research project than an advancement of any particular political agenda. Despite the outcome of the film—to put it bluntly, that this pipeline would be nothing but destructive environmentally—I do believe that it was presented in a very neutral fashion. I applaud the production team who seemed to strive to present both sides of the issue. For example, we saw in one clip of the film how a certain gentleman would LOVE to have the pipeline go in because it would mean that he would be able to continue working in his profession and not have to confront the reality of a job hunt again. This was juxtaposed with the view of the First Nations Chief near the end of the film who suggested to the team that they would LOSE jobs if the pipeline were to go in, as it would pollute their rivers and force them to struggle for their livelihood.
Keeping in mind the purpose that I outlined earlier, I believe that the two were VERY successful in accomplishing their purpose—in fact, I don't think they could have done anything better to accomplish this. The film, to me, wasn't about smacking you with a certain political ideology and beating the information into you until it's impossible to think the contrary, but it was about giving the audience something to think about. It was all about taking the audience of the film for a group of intelligent individuals and allowing them to form their own opinions by showing them the highlights of a project such as this, as well as the downsides-the most poignant being the environment.
I do, however, think that the film does have some inherent bias. As the movie started, and as the duo was in Alberta, I feel as if the film, at that point, was much more politically neutral. They were discussing with people the disadvantages of losing their fertile land to the pipeline, as well as the advantages to those who would be working in the manufacturing of the raw bitumen and thus being able to hold down a job. The "eco-friendly" stewardship point of view was always—shall I say, countered—by a "the-land-is-ours-to-expliot" point of view, and I appreciate that. The creators of the film really wanted us to see this issue as a double sided issue—an issue that wasn't simply black and white—and for a large portion of their voyage, both points of view were presented back to back. We were given one thing, as audience members, to think, and then another, contradictory idea was presented that made us think to ourselves, "Now wait a second, that's a very good point!" If that isn't the epitome of neutrality, I don't know what is.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteHowever, as the group made its way into Northern British Columbia, we saw the ecological point of view prevail, as they discussed the beauty of what would be destroyed should the pipeline be put into place, and the ecological balance that would be thrown askew. Both of these are important points, but I do believe that the film became a tad one sided at that point. Although—who can blame them? There's simply a higher concentration of one specific point of view in a certain place than another. Is that bias? Perhaps not—perhaps its simple irony. But the saturation of only one political point of view near the end took me away from the film's purpose that I outlined up above, which was to present both sides of the issue. I do think that the film, near the end, fell prey to the pathos of the two.
In terms of pros and cons, I wasn't affected at all by the film because I, to be quite honest, didn't have much of a point of view on the Northern Gateway Pipeline to begin with. What the film did, in terms of my opinion, was it gave me enough information at the end so that I could form my own opinion based on a neutral presentation of facts.
I must also disagree with Sam that there are definitely "pros" to this situation.
The Pros to such a project, I believe, are as follows:
The employment of those working in the industry
The potential tax revenue the government can gain from production of this that can then be funnelled into other public services
The export value of the oil
and, The fact that it is potentially "safer" to transport oil via pipeline than truck or train.
The Cons, however, are just as numerous:
Potential environmental destruction
Destruction of land should a pipeline spill, crack, or break
Danger towards animals
CO2 emissions that come from the simple extraction methods
The destruction of First Nations livelihood and culture
In my opinion, the purpose of this film was to show the potential environmental hazards and other issues involved with the pipeline. The opinion of the two travellers, was more biased toward the pipeline being a bad decision in many ways. The way they presented this bias opinion wasn’t very strong though, they tried to keep it as a more neutral opinion. The men showed both the positive and negative aspects that would come from the pipeline project.
ReplyDeletePros of the Pipeline
Employment opportunities
Less fuel spent on transportation than by truck or train.
Normally safer to transport than by truck or train.
Cons of the pipeline
Negative impact on the environment.
Loss of animal habitat or life.
Destruction of First Nation land.
The way they portrayed the issues of the pipeline was very impactful. If they had just showed us some pictures and given facts about what may happen the film would have been less attention grabbing. How they actually followed the proposed path for the pipeline and showed real people and how it would affect them, made it seem so much more real and interesting. I actually got to see the landscape and environment that would be destroyed.
As you can see, there are numerous pros and cons to the project, and the film did a nice job of displaying this. They didn’t try to make an opinion for you, they presented facts for both sides and gave you the opportunity to create your own opinion. Before watching this movie I had heard nothing about the Enbridge pipeline, so my opinion is solely based on the facts in this movie. My opinion is that even though the pipeline will provide jobs for some time, the overall impacts to the environment and animal habitat in the long run would not be worth it. I have always been someone who cares about the environment and about animals, so my opinion is based on those factors.
The purpose of this movie was to inform people about what is going to happen if the pipeline is built. I agree with Brogan, when he says it was kind of like a research project that helped inform people of the issue. I thought the film gave accurate information and was able to show the opinions of many different people. It was successful because the two men walked the entire distance of the pipeline. They didn’t just give facts and information, they went out and showed everything that was going to be affected. I like that about the movie, and because they travelled across Alberta and BC, I got a better understanding of the whole project. The travelling put things in a different perspective for me.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways they could have been more biased and pushed the issues, but because it was so subtle and watching it didn’t make you feel like your opinion was limited, it was effective. The two men wanted to give their audience both sides of the issue. This made it easier for someone watching, like me, to form their own opinions. Throughout the movie people were interviewed and able to share their thoughts about the pipeline. Hearing others opinions was also an effective way to inform someone about the pipeline project without being biased. Some things did start to get more bias by the end of the film, but not purposely. As the two men travelled closer to the ocean peoples thoughts changed and became more negative. This is because the pipeline will affect them more than anyone else. If the pipeline is built, it will change fishing patterns and resources in that area. In the eyes of the people living where fishing is the main industry, the pipeline is a major problem. We will probably see a lot of protest from people living near the ocean. Besides the bias at the end, I don’t think they would have to change anything to make the film more effective.
I have never thought that the pipeline is necessarily a bad thing, but I also didn’t know much about it at all. I always thought it would bring good opportunities for more jobs, and more wealth to Canada. It never affected me so I honestly didn’t care about what was happening. Being in Social Justice has made me more aware of everything going on in the world and the issues that Canada faces. I am glad I watched the film because it educated me and let me form an opinion about the pipeline. My opinion didn’t change much but the my knowledge, of the pipeline, did. I am aware of everything going on now. I think that the pipeline, in the long run, will bring more money into Canada and that can be good. Also if it is travelling through the pipe, gas emissions from vehicles transporting the oil will be gone. Either way, building or not building the pipeline, the environment is still greatly affected by the oil industry.
Pro’s of the pipeline:
-More job opportunities
-Easier and “safer” transportation of Oil
-More money flowing into the oil industry
Con’s of the pipeline:
-Damage to the environment
-Damage to the fishing industry
-Danger towards animals
-The Cost
-The long term effect one people and their health
There are many pro’s and con’s that come with the new pipeline. The con’s will have many negative affects and I don’t think the pro’s are worth the con’s. If I was someone who lived closer to the pipeline I would be opposed to the idea in many ways and the con’s would seem a lot worse and not worth the pro’s too.
I have to agree with the above posts. For the most part, I think it was the filmmakers intent to educate the audience on the potential damage the proposed pipeline would have on the surrounding environment and communities. Which in itself suggests a bias. But I also think that this film was cleverly made to pluck on the viewers heart strings, and hopefully provoke them into action. How can we not feel sympathetic to the plight of the two travellers? They were willing to tough out extreme conditions just to show their audience the raw route this pipeline would take. When I saw the all too familiar setting of mountains on screen, I felt pretty alarmed. They really plan on building through there!? The films real leverage is the fact that most of the viewers are going to be canadians, so the familiar landscapes of Alberta and British Columbia really put the proposed pipeline in perspective, and bring gravity for most of the viewers. Personally, I found the film to be successful in its purpose. Directly after watching it, I was online searching action plans (http://www.pacificwild.org/site/take_action/enbridge-tankers.html has some good ideas for a classroom Ms. Nelson.) Although, I think it also would have been effective to include more hard statistics and facts than they did, along with the numerous opinions.
ReplyDeleteFrank and Todd's humble journey along the proposed route introduced us to a few of the many people that would be affected by the pipeline. They were reasonably balanced, interviewing both people for and against the pipeline. Although, all things considered, the filmmakers were subtly biased against the pipeline. But I think that much is implied in the very nature of the filming. Throughout the whole movie they carefully introduce more and more of the negative aspects of building the pipeline, without really stating too much of an opinion. For example, when Frank and Todd reached the coast and gave the audience information on the supertankers. Stating the tankers would be making “hairpin” turns, they shook their heads and looked disappointed. The bias is subtle, but effective and objective. I would have to agree with you Denomie, they give you enough information and opinions from both sides to allow you to form your own opinions.
Pros
- Employment for workers in the industry, not necessarily local workers
- Short term lodging and food for income for community
- Safer than oil transport by train or truck
Cons
- Potential oil spill.
- No long term benefit employment wise to any affected communities.
- Potential damage to the fishing industry- If a big spill with one of the supertankers, ecosystems could be destroyed.
- Metis salmon runs are greatly affected.
- The list of environmental risks is extensive, and encompasses all areas the pipeline travels.
I found this film really educative and informative, and I have to say it has definitely helped me form opinions on the pipeline, and encouraged me to get involved. As I'm sure you will agree, the cons heavily outweigh the pros in every aspect.