The Unforeseen

The Unforeseen is a 2008 documentary directed by Laura Dunn. It deals with the attempted development of the Barton Springs area of Austin, TX. So it hits pretty close to home. It reminded me a lot of an attempted development project in Nashville, where a company tried to build up a previously undeveloped area of land that was only a few miles from downtown Nashville. Like what happened in Barton Springs, a groundswell of public support arose and the development stalled. So the beginning of this documentary kept bringing that to mind for me, and it made the issue easier to understand.
As far as the actual documentary goes, I was a little disappointed. Unlike any of the other films we have watched for class, there was no narration in this film. Instead, it moves from clip to clip, including interviews and historical filmed portions to make its point. As such, it doesn't feel particularly articulate. It lacks any sense of cohesion, and seems to jump randomly from issue to issue with the loose theme of urban development and property rights. This is a shame, because there are a lot of important points that can be made about urban development in the U.S. But The Unforeseen never really takes the time to make them. The cinematography is wonderful, with lots of sweeping overhead shots of Austin and developments in progress around the city, and these frames make as strong a point as anything anyone in the film says. Unfortunately, that alone isn't enough, and the movie just feels lacking. I believe the film would have benefited from a narrator to tie the themes together into more of a narrative, instead of the mix of interviews and shots of Austin that it ended up being. The Unforeseen ultimately gives the viewer a great taste of what the overall feeling is in Austin towards development, but that's all it is: a taste. For examining the issues behind development and getting a fair look at both sides' views, one is probably better off looking elsewhere.

Harlan County, USA

Harlan County, USA is a 1976 documentary by Barbara Kopple that deals with a strike by mine workers in the early 1970s. Kopple films the strike from the miners' point of view, attending union meetings and actual picket lines, where much of the film's action occurs. That is what was so interesting about this film to me. Despite the fact that it is a documentary, it seems to have elements of drama and action that get you to really care about the miners' plight and want them to succeed against the almost too-evil Duke Power Company. This story could have easily been adapted to a Hollywood vehicle, and it would have made perfect sense.
Kopple's main tactic in the film is using interviews with miners to establish their plight and create feelings of sympathy within the audience. Once you've heard the fifth story about how someone was injured in the mines due to terrible safety standards, it's very easy to agree that the miners deserve a pay raise. And once the strike-breakers show up brandishing weapons and trying to get the miners to disperse through intimidation, the viewer is left practically cheering for the miners to persevere.
Another thing I loved about this film was the soundtrack. Some of the songs in the film were actually sung on-camera by residents of Harlan County. Others were written by locals, and this adds an air authenticity to the work. When tales of miners' hardships are segued by mournful country and bluegrass music (the real deal, not the polished Nashville country that's all over the radio), it combines for an effect that is very powerful.
Overall, the film works very well. The inherent drama in the story makes for a very compelling documentary. However, the end of the film is somewhat ambiguous, with the miners' demands being met, only for another strike to be called by the union the next year. I suppose this shows the tenuous balance that companies and unions fight each other to maintain, but it was somewhat of a confusing message after the initial strike had finally ended (due in large part to the murder of a striking miner). Regardless, the film was very good, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone (who does not run a power company).

Sicko

Michael Moore's documentary Sicko deals with the health care industry in America, and particularly how it compares to the systems of other first-world countries. I feel like Moore did a great job with this documentary in showing both the way health care systems work in other countries and the way America's health care system doesn't work. His confrontational style works better in this film than it did in Fahrenheit 9/11 when he made hefty accusations about President Bush. While his stance there alienated plenty of viewers, his stance here, that people should be cared for and should not go broke just because they get sick, is much easier to rally behind. In fact, Roger Friedman of Fox News, typically an antagonist of Moore's work, lauded the film as "brilliant and uplifting" in his review. When Michael Moore and Fox News agree on something, it's safe to assume that it fits into the category of a valence issue.
Moore uses juxtaposition to make most of his argument, by showing the failures of the American health care system to cover its citizens and then contrasting that with the relatively easy and inexpensive access to health care in nations like the U.K. and Canada. Moore's ultimate argument is that the United States should move to a system like the ones employed in these countries if it hopes to provide the best care to the most people.
I would be remiss in writing my assessment of this film if I didn't at least take a moment to clarify my beliefs on the issue at hand. Sicko is opposed mainly by those who prefer to keep the American health care system at status quo. Conversely, I agree with pretty much everything Moore said in this documentary. I don't believe that people's right to live healthily should depend on the kind of insurance or medical care they can afford. This merely reinforces the class discrepancies that America has worked so hard to move away from. Very few people will argue with the statement that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, but a surprising number of people will go against that very ideal when they oppose a health care system that will help give that opportunity to everyone. If someone needs a surgery and can't afford it, he or she essentially has two options under the current American health care system: don't get the surgery and risk whatever that entails, or get the surgery and go into debt, ruining any financial plans he or she may have made. I don't believe that this is acceptable in any advanced country, particularly not in the "leader of the free world."
Okay, I'm climbing down from the soapbox. All that said, I really enjoyed this film. I think it speaks volumes about what we as a country can do better to help everyone. It also speaks volumes that the health care industry has been so opposed to the film. If the health care industry really cared about helping people, it would embrace some of the changes that Moore has suggested to insure that more people are, well, insured. Instead, because it is an industry, it cares chiefly about profits, which it fears this film could deflate. Overall, the reactions to this film are just as enlightening as the film itself.