Future:Media:Change

The End of Poverty was released in NYC cinemas this weekend and I attended a screening with director’s Q&A at the City Cinemas Village East. The movie, described by the Hollywood Reporter as “a sort of An Inconvenient Truth for global economics” opens with Martin Sheen’s comforting yet authoritative narration posing an important question: Why, in a world of so much wealth, is there still so much poverty?

To answer this question, director Philippe Diaz spent three years traveling the world interviewing experts including William Easterly, Susan George, Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz. No doubt an impressive list of pundits for those of us who live and breath these issues, but to be honest it sounds more like a great line-up for an academic conference than a blockbuster movie. And sadly, this is the impression I’m left with also after watching the movie. That said, this is an important film that everyone should see, but it likely won’t reach beyond the converted as The Hollywood Reporter explains:

Though the topic is unappealing as entertainment, “The End of Poverty?” does an excellent job of informing the viewer without exploiting its subjects or their cultures. Prospects for theatrical success may be dubious. The title won’t attract the unenlightened, but one hopes the film will make an impact over time.

A strength of the film is the voices we hear from people not mentioned on the ‘featured’ list above, but who experience poverty everyday in their lives from Kenya to Bolivia. Also, especially riveting – which perhaps warrants a feature movie of its own – are the confessions of former ‘economic hit man’ John Perkins. Mr Perkins reminds us that Western meddling in poor countries’ domestic affairs is not just a thing of the past (ask Eva Morales in Bolivia). During the Q&A Mr. Diaz, admitted that he had interviewed leaders like Lula, Hugo Chavez, and the Morales government, but felt including them would confuse the films message and give viewers license to ignore the message as leftist or socialist propaganda. However, I think the movie could have benefited from exploring in some depth at least one of these examples rather than assuming the viewer understands the complex issues at play. Such big revelations could’ve have been valuable in marketing the film. Like it or not, such explosive statements are needed to break through the noise — think the way Andre Agassi’s crystal meth disclosure has been used widely to sell his new book.

The filmmakers have great passion for the subject, although not always the clearest analysis. Their initial anti-capitalist rhetoric is not matched by some of their far more moderate (and sensible) solutions of national as well as global tax and land reform. The narration (and there is lots of it) is dry and jargon heavy – impenetrable to the (wo)man on the street and boring to the well versed. Complex global power relations are reduced to simplistic broad brushed phrases and the film leaves out any detailed discussion of the role and record of governments in overcoming poverty domestically, and the impact of China (and other fast emerging countries) on the world economy.

I’m sorry to say that the filmmakers fall short of making the ‘issue’ take absolute precedent over artistic expression. People go to see movies to be entertained, to be moved, to be told stories – not to be lectured. The amazing potential of films as a medium is the abundant number of story telling/audio/visual/graphic tools at hand to help explain and bring to life complex economic models or historical events (who doesn’t remember the history of America according to Southpark featured in “Bowling for Columbine”). So why not use them in this film!?

Danish journalist and fellow filmmaker Peter Keldorff raised this issue during the Q&A and I caught him after to hear his point of view.

---

Journalist Peter Keldorff talks about the movie The End of Poverty .

---

People need to know that ‘poverty is not an accident’ and therefore this is an important film that people should see and discuss. It is also no doubt that Mr Diaz has collected an impressive amount of extraordinary content. But if his goal is to reach the “people on the street,” as he said during the Q and A, I think he has made the wrong movie. In its current form I’m afraid it won’t reach much beyond the converted choir present at the East Village screening. Luckily all the interviews are also available in book form. But why stop there? In line with another solution presented in the film of “Returning the Commons’ the filmmakers should make all the video interviews publicly available. In this YouTube day and age there are no limits to what shoestring filmmakers and activists around the world can do with this material if made freely available. Perhaps, this ambitious film is not the final product, but the beginning — a wave of media inspiring new activists to tell the most important story of our time. Now, that is exciting!

---

The End Of Poverty? from Philippe Diaz on VimeoVimeo.