Spencer: Film about water is too dry

The documentary One Water was screened at the School of Law on Oct. 10, as part of the Inauguration Week 2011 events. I assumed that this was chosen to exemplify the "Learning to Bridge the World" university motto, which made the movie a good fit, I have to say. As such, it is also the per­fect idea for the inauguration. Yet, if only they could have chosen a better film to embody that motto ….

This is a docu­mentary about water. That is all it is about, and it is all that anyone in the film talks about. Now granted, water is pretty important, but it is something that the people in the movie emphasize and reemphasize endlessly. Despite the film only being an hour long, it feels like ninety min­utes –and that is not a good thing.

The film starts off with an old woman being given a glass of water. Her face is almost skeletal, with protruding teeth, and wrinkleless skin. I was actually startled by such a stark introduction to the film, and thought that this might actually be an interesting and compelling look into the issue of water deprivation. The film then tries to stretch this tech­nique and effect over an hour and eight minutes. After the first two or three montages, the effect is considerably dimin­ished, making the film lose the emotional impact of that first scene.

In addition, that opening sequence implied a deep, intimate look at the issues of water shortage while following a small group of people over the entire film. The fact that it focuses on the issue all over the world is a double-edged sword. It makes clear the fact that it is a worldwide issue in need of solution. However, that removes any potential emo­tional connection that me, or anyone in the audience, could have formed.

The film relies heavily on shock value. After the first five or so images that were clearly made to surprise and horrify, the gimmick wears wafer thin, and then breaks under its own weight. Like most modern hor­ror films, the filmmakers failed to grasp this concept. However, there is one point, near the end of the movie that was so horrifying, so heinous, that I hesitate to speak of it here. Suffice it to say that it shocked me back into paying attention to the film again. However, this and the beginning were the only parts of the movie that really demanded attention, as well as being emotionally jarring.

The movie's point seems to be that the majority of the world's water supply is being contaminated, privatized, or misused. To its credit, the film actually did a pretty good job of convincing me of this, and of how unavoidably true it is. There are many shots of Las Ve­gas fountains, bottling lines, and brown rivers, which sell the prospect perfectly. The film overall does competently send the message that water shortage is a dis­tinct possibility at the rate it's expanding. It effectively spreads the message that water is a hu­man resource, not something to be bought or sold. And it shows that there are people in the world that are dying of dehydration and water-borne diseases, as you've now read this review.

However, we all knew this in­formation already. There is not a single tidbit that the movie handed me that I was not al­ready aware of. This, more than anything, was the downfall of this film. The film fights a good battle, but loses the war.