Friday, December 19, 2014

Yangtze Drift (2014) and Audience





Readings of John Rash's documentary Yangtze Drift (2014) depend on the audience viewing this non-narrative documentary. An audience familiar with the history and context of the river and the Three Gorges Dam will view the film differently than will an audience unfamiliar with that context or observing it only from the outside.

For us, this beautiful documentary short broaches issues explored in Up the Yangtze (2007), which showcases lives transformed by the Three Gorges Dam, the biggest hydroelectric dam in history. Yangtze Drift provides a seemingly objective view of the river environment and its people, but it also left us with multiple questions:
·      What does the audience think about the environmental consequences to the Yangtze now that the dam is complete?
·      Is this river now placid because of this result?
·      How would an outside audience understand the changes created by the dam?
·      Do local audiences who watch it accept these changes as natural? How does the rhetoric differ for this audinence?
·      Do they accept the new eco-system created by the dam as something that remains unquestioned?
·      What changes have occurred off screen?




From an outsider perspective, waving weeds open and close Yangtze Drift and serve as both an introduction to the drifting river and a frame for this direct cinema poem.

After an overhead shot of the river, we hear singing before the film fades to black and changes scenes to another overhead shot on shore of buildings, trees, and ruined skyscrapers.

The shot pans past this part of the city to a highway near the shore. Shots of cars seem to roll into images boats and the river. From above the Yangtze looks silent and flat, but as the camera moves closer, we see ripples. As if peering through tourists’ lenses, we see flowing shore grasses and a smaller boat passing by.

A man rows and sings. Other rippled surfaces reflect the water—an old woman’s face, shadows of waves on a wall where the river seems to have flooded up to a door.

Other scenes show people looking out windows at the river. One takes pictures. A boat floats by.

When rain begins, ripples in geometric shapes form in wash basins and large noodle pots. Shot in low angle, the flow of water seems to transform a street into a stream. The rain continues in the widening river, forming works of abstract art on the water.



Tourists on board a tour boat photograph the river and shore under umbrellas. Here the river is surrounded by cliffs. A small motorboat goes by the larger tour boat, revealing the lack of diegetic sound on board. We hear murmurings of voices, but the small boat’s loud engine stands out.

Back on shore at another spot on the river, people exercise on a beach. A fisherman drips his line in the water off some rocks.

Across the river, a city appears, and the camera shifts again to another overhead shot of skyscrapers lit for night. The pan of this city moves down to young people on steps beside the river listening to a band play “Let it Be” from the Beatles. A woman with a dog wades in the water. Vendors sell barbecue on sticks. Couples look out at lit skyscrapers. Cell phones are everywhere.

This pan transforms into part of what looks like a tourism film of the evolution of a mega city. On various screens, images of birds on the river appear. A poster advertises the Tribe of the Three Gorges, but includes pictures of women with machine guns, as well. A rapidly moving tour bus goes past, and then we are on board among the diverse tourists of various races and nationalities. The river is wide and deep. A tour guide points out various sites, including a dam under construction. Is it the Three Gorges Dam? The explanation of the huge mountains on both sides is in English.

But then it seems we are back to our opening setting. We hear thunder and watch the singing man row his boat. Shadows of water ripples replicate the river on the walls he passes. A note on a boat claims this is the number one water town in China. Pedestrians cross over a bridge. Crowds walk by the camera. Boats float on the water and birds float over grasses blowing in the breeze. The screen grows darker and the film ends.



When the title comes up, however, it shows a drawing of the bridge and the filmmaker’s name end the film, leaving us wondering if both the river environment and the human constructions around it are artificial. This view of the river is making a statement, but that statement differs according to the audience viewing it.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Fish Kill: The End of the Line

Fish Kill




Uncle Arnold got fat
that summer,

belly full
of potato candy

a sugar roll
bursting
with peanut butter

like pimples
Aunt Midge popped
on his back after work.

Uncle Arnold died 
at the bottom of an oil tank,

red, white, and blue
puffing him up,

painting his lungs

like fourth of July
beside the Ohio 



while Aunt Midge
drew fingers through
curly yellow locks,

knocked catfish off hooks
into bloody buckets

watching them
gasp and swell


under a rotting sun.


Saturday, November 8, 2014

Embarras Valley Film Festival Student Short Film Contest Official Selections


EVFF 2014 Student Short Film Contest Official Selections
A Problem, Dir. Zoe Tether
Birthday Boy, Dir. Josef Lorenzo
The Thief, Dir. Ali Aschman
Into the Glass , Dir. Grant Czadzeck
Hell! Visa, Dir. Junjie "Jake" Zhang
Passenger, Dir. Brendan Kirschbaum
Tough Case, Dir. Stefan Perez
Run. , Dir. Kevin Bauer
Overflowing, Dir. Royal Day, Aurora Gonzales
Splintered Heart, Dir. Yu Tin Ko
Dark Mechanism, Dir. Ihab Mardini
Melon Head, Dir. Andy Fortenbacher
POOP, Dir. Mitchell O'Hearn
937 MILES APART , Dir. Justin Escalona
'Tis the Season, Dir. Kirsten Stuck
Pretty Penny, Dir. Ellen Willis
BEAT, Dir. Inhye Lee
Mr. Bear, Dir. Andres Rosende
Fan, Dir. Alex Zajicek
WIND, Dir. Hunter Hopewell
Road Trip, Dir. Stacy Jill Calvert
Girly, Dir. Kira Bursky
Home Cooking, Dir. Elizabeth Herrick
Alicia's Vengeance, Dir. Char Vereen, Yusuf Al-Rahman

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Embarras Valley Film Festival, November 6-8, 2014!


10th Annual Embarras Valley Film Festival
November 6-8, 2014
Films of Dick Van Dyke



Schedule of Events with Synopses


Thursday, November 6

3:30-5:30pm             Film screening of Divorce American Style (1967) with introduction by Robin Murray, Coleman Hall Auditorium, Room 1255




After seventeen years of marriage, affluent Los Angeles suburban
couple Richard Harmon (Van Dyke) and his wife Barbara (Reynolds)
seem to have it all, but when they discover they can no longer
communicate, even to argue, they file for a divorce that grows
worse than their marriage.

7:00-9:00pm Student-Produced Short Film Contest, Lecture Hall,
Doudna Fine Arts Center


Friday, November 7

Doudna Fine Arts Center Lecture Hall

7:00pm          The Comic (1969) with introduction by Chuck Koplinski



A fictionalized account of the rise and fall of a silent film comic, Billy Bright, played by Dick Van Dyke, The Comic (1969) is also loosely based on the life of Buster Keaton. Beginning with Bright’s funeral, as he speaks from beyond the grave in a bitter tone about his fate, the film takes us through Bright’s fame, his ruin, and his fall, as a lonely, bitter old man unable to reconcile his life's disappointments.


Saturday, November 8

Tarble Arts Center Atrium, 2010 9th Street
           
2:00pm          Mary Poppins (1964) Family Matinee Movie


           
A spoiled and bored upper crust Edwardian English family, the Banks, has their world turned upside down by a magical nanny (Mary Poppins) and her friend Bert (Dick Van Dyke) who teach them how to enjoy life. As a live action and animation musical, Mary Poppins has both comedy and pathos and showcases imaginative scenes that are wonderful for adults and children alike. Audiences will be singing along in no time..."in the most delightful way!"

7:00pm          Cold Turkey (1971) with introduction by Dann Gire 



Hoping for positive publicity, a tobacco company offers $25 million to any American town that quits smoking for 30 days. Amidst a media frenzy, Eagle Rock, Iowa and its spiritual leader, Reverend Clayton Brooks (Dick Van Dyke) accept the challenge while the company's PR man tries to sabotage the effort.
           


castle.eiu.edu/~evff/





Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Water Rights and A Civil Action (1998): A Riparian Dilemma

Water Rights and A Civil Action  (1998): A Riparian Dilemma



Water has been considered a natural right around in the world and treated as a usufructary right for thousands of years. Such a right gives temporary possession and enjoyment to those who use water, as long as that use does not cause damage or change it. According to this perspective, water can be used but not owned. The Riparian Doctrine clarifies this natural right.  As economist Zachary Donohew explains, because water is typically seen as a usufructary right, rivers and streams cannot be owned but their water can be accessed by those who live and work beside their banks (90). Although current riparian principles draw on private ownership to define reasonable water use, the doctrine primarily applies to public riparian lands, as activist Vandana Shiva notes in her discussion of communal water use in Colorado’s Rio Grande Valley (27).  The Riparian Doctrine still prevails in much of the Eastern United States because water is much more abundant there than in the Western states, but it also serves as a guiding principle for community rights and water democracies in India (Shiva 29), which hold that “Water is a commons…. It cannot be owned as private property and sold as a commodity” (36).



Both fictional features and documentaries with water at their center draw on the tenets of the Riparian Doctrine. Westerns such as The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970) emphasize riparian principles, especially in relation to the Desert Land Act, but contemporary feature films also draw on riparian ideals, which, in these cases, are in conflict with the Clean Water Act and its roots in human approaches to ecology. In A Civil Action (1998), for example, “reasonable use” is under question. The film explores whether or not those who used the same water source as does a leather tanning company were adversely affected by the company’s water use. Although the film primarily centers on Jan Schlichtmann’s (John Travolta) failed attempts to sue both Beatrice and W.R. Grace, he ultimately proves that the tannery these companies manage dumped silicone and trichloroethylene (TCE), toxic waste that contaminated a town’s water supply and caused multiple cancers in its townspeople.


           
In A Civil Action, attorney Schlichtmann investigates a case that revolves around a woman whose son had died of leukemia two years before, along with more than a dozen other townspeople, and the city’s drinking water is blamed. The townspeople seem unaware of the source of this water pollution, but Schlichtmann discovers a tannery connected with W.R. Grace is dumping toxins into the river beside the factory. He meets representatives of Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace, and since they have big pockets, the lawsuit begins. Schlichtmann’s investigation is meant to determine that silicone and trichloroethylene (TCE) were dumped into the water supply by the tannery and causing the cancers in townspeople. Ultimately, Schlictmann and his law firm settle with both Grace and Beatrice, but Schlichtmann also sends his case files to the EPA, including a report from a worker who witnessed the cleanup that proves toxic waste had been dumped in the city’s water supply, and the EPA forces both Grace and Beatrice to pay 69.4 million dollars in cleanup costs because both companies violated the Clean Water Act.



According to a summary of the Clean Water Act from the EPA,the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters,” but not groundwater sources. Based on this 1972 Clean Water Act, the EPA “has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry” and “set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters,” making it illegal to “discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.” The Clean Water Act helps control one important element of the riparian doctrine, ensuring that downstream water uses are not adversely affected by those upstream. The Clean Water Act and the EPA monitoring it become integral agents in A Civil Action and the actual court case it inspired.