Sicko

I was really looking forward to Sicko. I enjoyed Fahrenheit 9/11 and the sarcasm Moore used. I knew Sicko would have that element too. I did however, like any other viewer who has seen Moore's films, watch the film well aware of the fact that Moore's comments and views are significantly biased. Nevertheless I still enjoyed it. Moore's argument in this case is that the U.S. health care system in comparison to other countries' system is flawed. Moore attacks the U.S. healthcare system by analyzing anything from personal stories, doctors' waiting areas, the type of treatment patients get (or don't get), insurance agencies, doctors themselves, and the government's role on the issue.

One of the things that really got me thinking after watching sicko was the personal stories Moore included. More specifically, the man who could only get one of his fingers sown back together because the insurance company did not pay for both of the fingers. The man's story haunted me for a couple of days. I could not get rid of the black and white picture of his two incomplete fingers with the detached parts pictured above them. It was just unbelievable that our healthcare system couldn't provide and be flexible for the needs of America while Guantanamo Bay got all the medical treatments and all the medications without restraints.

I guess this film did make me a little angry at times, especially when Moore talked about insurance companies either taking long to respond or try to find flaws on patient's files to keep them from authorizing treatments or medications for patients. Or the part where Moore addresses the issue of lines during doctor visits. These issues hit very very close to home.

One of the things I did not like about the film at all was that Moore presented other countries' healthcare systems as completely flawless. As a member of an audience who knows every issue has pros and cons, I would have appreciated if the film addressed some the things that don't work in a socialized healthcare system. It is great that doctors in Canada and France can live a good comfortable life and are even encouraged by the government to better the health of patients. That is great. But where are the negative things? I feel this takes away from Moore's credibility as a person who can present an issue along with his explicit opinion and at the same time give the public the two sides.

"The Unforeseen"

This documentary by Laura Dunn prompted me to be a very analytical viewer. I watched it very carefully. I even replayed some of the parts a couple of times. Part of the reason why was that I had to write a paper on it. I felt watching closely was a positive thing because I focused on Dunn's rhetorical argumentation. The overall argument was that urban development- in this case in Austin, TX- at the expense of modifying or tearing down nature is ruthless. Dunn also suggested the decisions and actions taken to develop will create friction between the party who presses it forward and the party who opposes it.

One of the aspects I really liked about the film was that it was not polarized. Most documentaries are created to argue an opinion and support it with different types of rhetorical argumentation. The way in which directors voice their point of view is very direct and explicit to the point where the viewer is aware of the documentary's agenda: to persuade you to think the same way the director does. Dunn however, expresses her point of view more subtly. She does this by including the opinions of both sides of the issue. She included for instance interviews with the big guys like Gary Bradley, the developer who proposed and began development. Dunn also includes clips and interviews with environmentalist and citizens. It's until after the film portrays both points of view that Dunn expresses her opinion. Overall, I think showing both sides adds to her credibility. It also encourages the audience to pay more attention to the topic and the documentary itself. Audiences are smart and know an issue has to have both sides. There are many people who appreciate being exposed to both and then make a decision as to where they stand on the issue. Or... I could just be speaking for myself.

Another thing that caught my attention was Dunn's use of imagery. Some of the scenes are great- nature, kids, water, turtles, spider webs, sunlight- all presented very artistically. More specifically, towards the end of the documentary Dunn includes footage showing a bird flock flying in the lucid blue sky. Dunn also shows a close-up of a butterfly serenely getting out of its cocoon to begin its journey, then an image of a spider web lit up by rays of sun that reflect on Austin's springs, then a blurry shot of beautiful little girls dressed in their ballerina attire that later gains its clarity. The director ends the footage with images of children climbing trees. The footage portrays the connection humans have with nature. It begins with nature as if implying it is the source of life’s enjoyment.

Overall, The Unforeseen was a good documentary. I did feel though it was a little long and that it could have benefited from a bit of clever humor.