When I first heard/read that we were watching a film called, "Manufactured Landscapes," I didn't think much of it. I didn't give much thought as to what "manufactured" might mean and as for "landscapes"? The word just brought to mind something scenic--vague, I know, but I wasn't thinking very deeply on the title.
That's why when the movie began I didn't have very many expectations. I remember the beginning shot, though (who wouldn't? it was an annoyingly long shot). As the camera moved through the factory in China, I kept on thinking, "When is this going to end already?!" Was the evocation of this emotion an accident or was that the purpose of the directors? And if it was purposeful, why would they choose to do that? To bring attention to the congruency of the working environment? Random thought: the Great Plains. Like how the Great Plains is (from my limited knowledge) grass for miles on end, it's the same way with the manufacturing factory? I really don't know. Maybe that was one of the "landscapes" they were going for? It would make sense since it was also a "manufacturing" plant. It'd be nice if someone could enlighten me with why they thought that they would use such a long first scene.
The other scene that caught my attention (and this one from actual interest instead of boredom!) was, as Crystal already mentioned in her post, the scene of the recycling... area. I don't really know what to call it, but this radically changed my view of what recycling is. In my mind, my image was that recycling was done in a plant... somehow. I never really worked out the details in my head. But to see people living in that industrial waste? It shocked me. The photo that shocked me the most was probably the one of the old woman sitting beside First World recyclables. My first thought was, "Did that stuff harm her health?" For all I know, it very well could have. It was just disturbing. Even though we're told all the time to recycle (especially her in Berkeley), looking at where our waste goes... is just disturbing.
Does recycling really make for a "better world"? Maybe. For our sphere of the world, at least, it takes away some of the guilt--but for the ones where these recyclables go to? I don't know... you could say that it helps their economy, but I just... really don't know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the opening shot may have served to show that awesomeness (not meant as in "cool" but more "grand") in our world doesn't always come from natural beauty. The factory really was humongous and, for lack of a better word, awesome. I do agree that the scene dragged on and on; however I think that it served an important purpose: to show humans are capable of making, manufacturing, these grand landscapes. Though the factory itself may not have been much too look at, it still says something about humankind that we can create things such as this factory.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the first scene was very long, but it really did capture your attention and force you to realize the enormity of the building. The landscape that was being portrayed was nothing shy of intense and enormous, which this shot captured very well, I believe. I agree with Andy in that it definitely served an important purpose. It proved that, like he said, that humans are capable of creation. It also made me think about the research I have been doing for my final paper on sustainable architecture and how this building clearly would not fit into this category of buildings. It really jumped out at me though that while mand kind can create such immense buildlings, we are consuming and destroying so much nature in order to do so.
ReplyDeleteWhat most striking to me when we watched the documentary was that we are inflicting so much harm on the people in developing countries in the process of satisfying our need to "recycle". As Jordan and Andy pointed out, the landscapes definitely invoke a sense of grandeur, but at the same time repulsion.
ReplyDelete