Comments

Great job on the film. I have a couple of comments some of which were addressed last night. First, I think the three stories in the film need a since of place. It’s very confusing when you cut between the stories. Second, I also wanted to here more from the developers (Dominion, World Bank, etc). I think it will better round out the film. And finally, in the scene where the community is celebrating the dam, I felt very confused because I had not heard from any people in the community who were positive about the dam. I think it’s important to include their perspective if you are going to include that celebration in the film.

Posted on August 21, 2008 10:53 AM by marneeme

I felt that the film was frontloaded with some intense philosophical ideas about colonialism and post-colonialism that weren’t necessarily played out in the film. It might make sense to introduce each of the 3 sections with its own philosophical/historical intro or to eliminate the heavy-duty philosophical intro altogether and let the stories speak for themselves. In other words, the opening sets us up for a very rigorous analytical kind of film but the three sections are actually much more verité, reflecting the complexities of real life, which I actually found more compelling. Not sure if this is helpful or clear…

Posted on August 21, 2008 11:34 AM by dcanonymous

I agree with the previous comment, that each section should be introduced with more background and more clarity. Better transitions between stories would help as well, but as one viewer said last night, the chaotic effect of each story gave a real sense of life in Kenya. I would also like to see some clarification in the story of the fisherman and his wives; I was never quite sure about what was going on and if it was his wife who left and his wife who was diagnosed with HIV. Amazing film, though. Incredibly promising. Good luck!

Posted on August 21, 2008 11:42 AM by isabelgrace

I was disappointed that the filmmakers didn’t address the question posed to them about heading a section of their film as “Christianity.” An audience member made an astute point that it wasn’t Islam that caused the destruction of the World Trade Center, nor is it Judaism that causes injustice to Palestinians. Likewise, it seems unfair to blame Christianity for the problems detailed in the documentary.

Posted on August 21, 2008 3:07 PM by dcanonymous

No, it wasn’t the filmmakers who declined to address the question about heading a section of their film as “Christianity.” It was the moderator who apparently felt the question was unimportant. She immediately called on someone else in the audience who posed a different question.

Posted on August 21, 2008 3:38 PM by sfmonty

I was the person called on after dcanonymous’ comment. At the time, I pointed out that since the American corporation was using the name “Dominion”, which has Biblical connotations, and the workers were working under a twenty-foot cross, then the Christian connection was present. If Dominion did not have a Christian connection, the name would be different and there would be no cross. I perceived a connection with both colonialism and Christianity because of Dominion’s name and use of religious symbolism.

I did suggest that the backround of the Dominion corporation should be addressed. I was interested in how the corporation owner earned his money and how he persuaded the Kenyan government to lease him 17,000 acres of trust land.

A little more backround on Dominion and some subtitles would help clarify some of the confusion.

Posted on August 21, 2008 11:21 PM by tmantrone