crudow

[crudow]

In the embedded link in the title above you will find a youtube trailer  to the award winning documentary film "Bidder 70" about a man named Tim DeChristopher who participated in civil disobedience in order to protect plots of redrock land from being  bought by potential oil and gas collectors. He bidded on 14 plots of land for a total of 1.8 million dollars, which he could not pay, and was sent to prison for 21 months for doing so.

The film's call to action is split into two separate calls to action (in my point of view). In one, the film is calling out to the protection of land and nature for human's sake (as Tim DeChristopher stated (paraphrased), it is not for the polar bears or nature, it is for the people). The other call to action however is the stand against the government through civil disobedience to show that we the people care about the changes that are being made, and that we will not remain silent when one of us is sent to prison.

The film goes a step further than just reminding the audience about things we already know exist. We are aware that the government has a strong power and that civil disobedience happens everyday. The film Bidder 70 takes a specific case with a personal viewpoint on Tim DeChristopher's experience through the process of committing a crime through civil disobedience and being processed through the system because of it, even though the opposing side (the Bureau of Land Management) was found at fault by the system as well.

Tim DeChristopher is an example of how the government uses one person to silence us all. One action to keep us in the dark, in fear. They trapped Tim DeChristopher in the courtroom without any of his supporters to make him feel alone. To punish him as an example of their power of the people.

However like Tim DeChristopher said (paraphrased), he is not one lonely finger, he is a finger connected to a fist (his supporters), a fist rising up against the government's power.

Want to learn more? Check out these links!

http://www.bidder70film.com/

https://www.facebook.com/bidder70

http://www.bidder70film.com/#!take_action/c1ke2

[crudow]

Over 700 miles to put dinner on the table

Before reading please take the time to watch this short trailer about the film "Eating Alabama":   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sSh7OnsT1c

If you haven't already seen "Eating Alabama" directed by Andrew Beck Grace you should sit down with the family and enjoy this homely documentary about why food matters. 

In the film Andrew talks about his family history and the history of Alabama, and questioned where all the farmers had gone over time. What had convinced some of his family members to leave the farm and pursue business careers? Andrew wanted to know what it was like to eat like his ancestors had, locally from farms in Alabama. With this goal in mind he and his wife Rashmi Grace committed to only eating local foods from the state of Alabama. 

This quest was not an easy one to complete. Andrew and Rashmi drove over 700+ miles over Alabama on their first local shopping trip. It was difficult to find a variety of locally grown and produced food, however this did not stop the Grace's. They grew their own garden, and visited several farms for meat from livestock such as pigs and chickens, and bought  collard greens and vegetables. 

However as the story progresses, their challenge to only eat locally grows into something more, a story about the past, and how things have changed over the years. 

What has changed over the years? When did farming become a factory run business with chemicals? And why did people leave farms? 

The film poses all these questions, on a global and personal level with Andrew. He and his wife returned to their birth state to get back to their roots, but their actions led to a thought provoking deeper meaning. 

Even though they were not able to live exactly as their ancestors had, living the farm lifestyle, Andrew and Rashmi were able to entwine themselves within a tightly knit community in Alabama and enjoy the fruits of their labor. 

They were also able to learn about how difficult it was to live locally and compare it to the factory-style corporations that produce food. Even talking to a chicken farmer who doesn't even have to interact with the chickens he raises because there was an automated system that controlled everything for him. 

Knowing this, I hope this blog has inspired you to learn more by watching Eating Alabama, a film that makes you question how food near you is produced. Are there still farms where you're from? Or have they disappeared along with the farmers, replaced by machinery, factories and corporations? Do you care either way? Do you work on a farm or in a factory? Does food matter to YOU?

For more information check out these links below!:

http://www.eatingalabama.com/

http://www.eatingalabama.com/blog/

[crudow]

Disregarding Nature

Before reading any further please watch this trailer for the Documentary "Shored Up" Directed by Ben Kalina: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ztsv8rc6c

Shored Up directed by Ben Kalina addresses issues with sea level rise and construction on shorelines. Focusing on Long Beach Island, New Jersey. The documentary is fairly divided between people who believe colonization and construction on shorelines should have never happened, and people who want to restore the shoreline at the taxpayer's and government's expense to preserve the beaches that everyone loves. The 'call to action' is really to address the issue and make people around the world think, most likely people who also live on the coast. 

So, why DO people live on the coast? Because of the warm waters, nice sand and open space. Beaches are a hot-spot for family outings and get-togethers with friends. Parties, surfing, sand castle building, swimming, boating, you name it. Not to mention the beautiful scenery. However there is a price for all this beauty and fun. Nature has ways of telling mankind that they need to 'get out of the way'. 

Hurricanes like Super Storm Sandy pose a threat to coastal homes and establishments. Washing away sand and demolishing homes. Wealthy home owners on Long Beach Island believe they have found a solution to this though. Beach replenishment. What is beach replenishment? When tax payer's dollars are used to fund the pumping of sand and spreading that sand out to reform the beaches in front of wealthy home owner's buildings. 

With this being said, sit for a moment and think in a hypothetical sense (if you don't live on a coast) that you do live on a coastline. Do you believe it would be more beneficial or a waste of time to fund beach replenishment? What are the pros and cons? (Go ahead and make your own list, you don't have to stick to mine).

Pros:

Restores beaches.

Lengthens the beach's 'survival' time.

It helps protect buildings and people from storms like Hurricane Sandy. 

Cons: 

More often than not the restored beaches are only funded in very wealthy communities.

The restoration is temporary and must be maintained

The funding for beach replenishment is taken out of tax dollars and from the government.

Beach replenishment gives the construction companies  and wealthy community false hope that their buildings are safe, the beach continues to be extended so more buildings are being established, so more beach needs to be replenished. A continuous cycle. 

So you may be thinking, hey! What's so wrong with the funding for beach replenishment being taken out of the tax dollars? Well, the people who don't live on the coast don't believe they should have to pay taxes for wealthy people to build houses in a clearly dangerous area. 

In my opinion, buildings and civilization should never have been established on the coasts (or at least not so close). However it is too late to turn back, the government and the state cannot just demand that people leave their homes and their financial commitments. For now beach replenishment will continue on to buy the people on the coast more time. 

The film uses a very artistic and emotional appeal mixed with logical information and opinions through interviews. The music in the film is tropical and set low to give the film a calm feel, making the more dramatic moments with dramatic music more effective.

If you want to know the full story, watch the film! The film can be purchased on the Shored Up Website (link  below) and there is even a page listing upcoming screenings of the film. 

More info about the film can be found at these links:

Shored Up Website: http://shoredupmovie.com/

Shored Up Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShoredUp

Want to hear more about sea level rise?:

Ben Kalina TED Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez8iX2FDcJM

[crudow]

Uranium in the Minds of American Citizens

Before reading please watch the trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3xiMu6HgEk

“Uranium Drive in” is a film by Suzan Beraza about hardworking Americans in a struggling economy. The film's "call to action" is somewhat unclear. There are two very defined sides of an environmental and economical issue in the town of Nucla, Colorado. On one side there is a poverty stricken community that is struggling to survive and promotes the new Uranium mine being established, regardless of the health issues at hand. On the opposing side, the Sheep Mountain Alliance and other supporters oppose the new Uranium mine because of mistreatment by the company, loss of their down and serious health issues due to radiation. The film is very fair when providing information about both viewpoints, the film does not seem biased at all, rather it seems like an investigation into what other people thought.

The film does more than just pointing out problems we already know exist because it raises both the environmental and economical issues that are seen within the community and surrounding areas. No real solution was found, rather, the mine was delayed and the market for the mine went down. The town of Nucla attempted to support itself by re-establishing the drive-in movie theatre, starting small businesses and receiving aid from a nearby wealthy community.

The film has very creative angles and imagery paired with two good focus subjects for the film. The member of the Sheep Mountain Alliance represented her moral issues with building the mine and the woman living in Nucla represented her community very well. Instead of showing bitter arguments between the two opposing groups of people, the film focused on recording how the two groups understood each other. For example when both main characters sat down to talk about their beliefs on the subject respectfully and understand each other. Assumptions were cleared with actual information, and the Sheep Mountain Alliance became aware of what the Nucla Community thought about them.

If I were the director, I admit I would have been biased, so I would most likely leave the film as it was made. Because I am not skilled or educated in filming or what makes a good film, I’m not sure my suggestions or changes wouldn’t make the piece any better than it already was. I would rather appreciate the film for what it is because it was very well put together, it wasn’t too chaotic because it focused mainly on two groups of people rather than multiple groups (I’ve seen this done before in other documentaries, and all the groups focus on different environmental issues in one film and it is confusing).

Imagine having to make the choice between advocating for the uranium mine or protesting it. In one hand, you are promoting your town's economy, providing jobs to the low income families that truly need the money. In the other hand, protesting the uranium mine protects the health of the townspeople and the immediate organisms, environment and people in the area from nuclear radiation and health issues. However advocating for the mine puts people's health at risk, and protesting the mine prevents the townspeople from obtaining jobs. 

Which would you choose?

For more information check out these sites!:

Uranium Drive in Website: http://uraniumdrivein.com/

Uranium Drive in Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Uranium.Drive.In