Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

Thousands have lived without love, not one without water. - W.H. Auden


Water is something so many of us take for granted.  Even my perspective has changed on it in the last few years.  Growing up, I was always taught that underneath Long Island was an aquifer so large that if everyone on the Island turned on their tap and left it on, there would still be enough water for a thousand years.  I’d seen the Poland Spring commercials with the cute deer in the woods and thought how terrific it was at the time.  Once I moved here, my perspective became quite different as I learned of how a large corporation like Nestle (which owns Poland Spring) can strong-arm a town like Fryeburg, Maine with its high-powered expensive lawyers with which a small municipality cannot compete.  This allows them to basically come into any place they want and sink a well to draw off the natural resource with little regard for what it does to the surrounding neighbors.

This perspective is why I was so eager to see the film FLOW: For Love of Water when it came onto my radar.  I was hoping for a perspective about how our management of the water situation was bad in various ways, including the bottled water industry.  Unfortunately, what I got was an overly ambitious film that attempted to tackle so many different perspectives and issues that are connected to the water problem that none are given the depth they need.

Overwhelmingly, the film tackles the issue of the privatization of water, a natural resource.  Corporations seem intent on making a profit off of everything and it seems as if they could bottle and sell us the air we need to breathe, they would.  Water and water treatment is becoming privatized and owned by large corporations.  It doesn't even serve the purpose for which privatization was intended as people in the poorer countries are still being excluded from having a supply of water, despite the corporations assurances otherwise when they were allowed to come in and privatize the water supply.

The World Bank forced this privatization on Bolivia by threatening to cut off loans to develop the water supply if they didn't.  There eventually was a backlash against this by the citizens of the country which forced a reorganization of the water distribution.  I did get a better understanding of why there were so many protests against the World Bank a few years ago after viewing this.  FLOW: For Love of Water takes a lot of shots at the World Bank and their lending practices.  They fund dams because they are an easy way to spend a lot of money on a project, no matter whether building the dam is a good idea or not, the film alleges.  It’s easier to manage one project valued at $100 million than a hundred projects valued at $1 million, even if the hundred projects would be better in the long run.

South Africa also has issues with their water supply, especially in rural areas of the country.  In many places, there is clean water available, but they cannot afford to pay for it.  Clean water isn't free - citizens need a card to pay for what they consume.  So instead, they use the river water and end up falling ill, even dying.

FLOW: For Love of Water also delves into this as it gets into the quality of the water that is available to people.  More than two million people die each year from water-borne diseases.  Most of them are children younger than five years old.  The pollutants run the spectrum, from human and animal waste to agricultural run-off and drug products.

The vast majority of water in the world is used for agricultural products.  Add into that the use of pesticides and chemicals to enhance crops, and it's a mixture that's washing a lot of chemicals into our water supply.  Statistics are presented on how many diseases seem to be coming out of these areas where agriculture dominates. Prozac is being found in public drinking supplies in Texas.  Industrial toxins have been found in seals, whales, polar bears, and the breast milk of Intuit (Eskimo) mothers.

The most prevalent pesticide used in the U.S. is atrazine.  In lab tests, this has been found to cause male frogs to stop producing sperm and begin to produce eggs.  Atrazine contamination is also linked to prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer.  The European Union has banned atrazine.  It's still used in the U.S. and made by a Eurpoean country.

Back in Bolivia, a river needs to be covered because of how badly it smells.  The pollution is the product of slaughterhouses which are turning the water red as well as raw sewage.  The river dumps out into Lake Titicaca, a major water supply as well as fishing ground.

There’s a terrific interview with a man in India who came up with a way to safely and cheaply expose water to ultraviolet light to destroy the bacteria.  Of course, that’s not wanted for wide distribution as it would cut into the profits of the corporations intent on marketing clean water for profit.

In this country, we take water for granted.  Even I do most of the time.  Knowing that, I still think it’s a bit alarmist to say we're "running out" of water.  The vast majority of water we consume goes back into the ground one way or another.  The statement probably should have been that we are running out of clean water; that it’s contaminated with waste and chemicals we ingest is the biggest issue.  I always get a laugh when I see tourists bringing in bottles of Poland Spring water - it’s getting returned to its source one way or another I suppose.

When FLOW: For Love of Water turns to the bottled water industry, I was sort of disappointed that when they chose to focus on Nestle and their bottling practices, they looked at Michigan rather than what went on right here in Fryeburg, Maine.  The question is if someone buys a piece of land, can they just pump water out from underneath it with no regard for how it affects the surrounding area?  They pump 218 gallons a minute (314,000 gallons per day) out of the ground and contribute nothing to the tax base.  The same exact complaints that we had here in Maine are raised by the citizens in Michigan.  The problem is, you have a corporation with deep pockets for a legal battle against small towns that have a small tax base.

During times of drought, or when it was proven that their pumping was adversely affecting others, they kept pumping with no regard for what it did, nor what promises they had made when they first came in to the area.

To top it off, bottled water is not regulated or tested, so no one has any idea what's really in it.  What’s coming from your tap might actually be better for you than what you’re buying in that plastic bottle.  You’re also contributing even more waste to the environment with the plastic that it comes in at the same time.

While the information here was good, I found that overall FLOW: For Love of Water raised questions but presented no solutions.  It would also make statements without providing backup for those statements.  I knew what they meant by the fact that water distribution should be done by a municipality.  Rather than being motivated by profit, it’s something that should be paid for just for the expenses to get it to the people rather than looked at as a source of revenue.  However, the film never really gets deep enough to explain all of this and instead seems to stay with corporations = bad, government = good which will unfortunately get it dismissed by a good deal of the population.  Just look at the health care debate on that one.

The DVD has some extras on it, such as audio commentary which really didn’t do anything to add more information to the topic at hand.  Rather, it just seemed to be the director and editor reminiscing about making the film.  The few deleted scenes and expanded interviews were interesting to those who were really interested in the film, but I fear it won’t really have the subject take root with people and will be dismissed much the same way the problems with oil or health care are.  People don’t seem to care about it until it directly affects them.

While I liked this film in many ways, it unfortunately could have worked better as a series of films giving more depth to any of these topics.  Although I know a lot about some of the issues surrounding drinking water, there was plenty here that surprised me as well.

Food for thought: if there were suddenly problems getting fresh water, what would happen?  Look at how we are fighting over oil, now imagine the same thing with fresh water.


SPECIAL FEATURES:

• Audio Commentary with Director Irena Salina & Editor Caitlin Dixon
• Deleted Scenes
• Expanded Interviews
• Call to Resistance
• Additional Clips


Links:

http://stopnestlewaters.org/communities/fryeburg-me

Trout Undergroud: http://bit.ly/LJYTz

Stop Corporate Abuse: http://bit.ly/1Oly9q



Other "political" movie reviews:
 
An Inconvenient Truth ~ The Big One ~ Blue Gold: World Water Wars ~ Born on the Fourth of July ~ Bowling For Columbine ~ Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy ~ A Crude Awakening ~ Democracy University: Volume One ~ The End of Suburbia ~ Fahrenheit 9/11 ~ Farmingville ~ The Ground Truth ~ Giuliani Time ~ Hacking Democracy ~ Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train ~ The Hunting of the President ~ The Insider ~ Iraq For Sale ~ Jesus Camp ~ J.F.K. ~ JFK: The Case for Conspiracy ~ Lake of Fire ~ The Laramie Project ~ The Murder of JFK ~ No End In Sight ~ Outfoxed ~ Outrage ~ Religulous ~ Roger and Me ~ Senator Obama Goes to Africa ~ Teddy Roosevelt: An American Lion ~ Terrorstorm ~ This Divided State ~ Truman ~ Truman: The 33rd President ~ The Unforeseen ~ War Feels Like War ~ War Made Easy ~ What Would Jesus Buy? ~ With God On Our Side



© 2009 Patti Aliventi

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: DVD