Bayley Aspinall's Padlet by Bayley Aspinall

3. Can you identify why the documentaries chosen in this module might be questioned regarding ethics?

The point of the film Gasland is to find out if the controversial process of fracking is actually safe. Unearthing a shocking story about a practice that is understudied and inadequately regulated, the film projects a harsh light on the classic story of corporation greed at the cost of environmental health and the health of the people it directly affects.

Planet of the Humans feels like a propaganda film to me. Released in 2020, one of the film’s first scenes are of the solar festival, the big moment or reason for this scene is that it starts to rain which renders the solar system ‘useless’, tying into the films main point that of renewable energy isn’t the future we think it is. The film doesn’t explain the fact however that this scene was filmed in 1996 which is the reason for the solar panels not being good enough as the technology was nowhere near where it is today and anyone that isn’t aware of the year walks away from the film thinking solar panels don’t work in the rain. The entire film is filled with half truths, straight up lies and conspiracy theorists pretending to be experts detailing what they believe certain companies devious plans are, which if one was to do a simple google search they would find that most of the heinous accusations made against companies turned out to be false and yet are still discussed as probabilities. Cherry picking whatever information from whatever time period and displaying it as factual information is once again border lining propaganda and has it’s own line of ethical questions to answer for rather than the ones it imposes.

4. Identify the style, does it work for you? Why?

The film Gasland is shocking and disturbing but it also contains some beautiful cinematography of nature at it's best in contrast. For the most part very informative and interesting however it gets a little slow paced at times and the way the information is delivered isn't usually in the most entertaining or engaging way possible as the editing it choppy and at times frustrating to watch, but it is educational none the less.

The Planet of the Humans doc was more enjoyable to watch from a cinematic perspective. A lot more modern day archival footage with a more overall modern feel was more familiar to the causal viewer. The roles of Interviewer and camera man made the experience of watching more accessible, clear cut and again familiar. establishing more of a relationship with the character of Jeff Gibbs also made it easier to follow along.

5. Did the story capture you emotionally? Where you called into action?

The story of the film Gasland did capture me emotionally in the sense that Josh did a good job at showing not only the harm fracking has caused and is continuously causing them, but it highlights how vulnerable most people are in the face of these big corporations with government interests, and it does a good job at making you feel sorry for and in some cases relate to these people.

The film Planet of the humans did emotionally capture me initially as I was fascinated by our past delusions and I was shocked at the ineffectiveness of these systems which I had been told to be an effective and sustainable way forward, however after doing my own research and discovering what this film actually is, my emotional response flipped from shock and awe to anger and disappointment.

I did not feel a call to action from either of these docs as I found it hard to get motivated to do something about issues that feel dated and so far away from me.

6. Who is speaking in each of these documentaries? What do they have to say?

In Gasland, the story is formed more from different groups of people affected by the fracking including Josh the narrator displaying a wider scope of opinion, facts and situations and Josh presents everything in a way that allows the viewer to make their own mind up about the issue. The language used is very factual based and definitely gives the feeling of an educational piece rather than one made for entertainment.

In PotH the main voice throughout the whole doc is that of the writer and director Micheal Moore and Jeff Gibbs the main character, interviewer and narrator. Not only through the things he is saying but the people he surrounds himself with and the situations he showcases in the film with all align with is own ideology. There is not a single point made for the other side of their argument and specifically crafts the documentary to create controversy for shock value, rather than educational purposes regarding actual environmental issues they claim to care so much about.

7. Comment on the ethics in Wolfpack and the ethics of documentary filmmaking article in The Conversation.