This film had a powerful message about human society and its impact on the Earth’s landscape. It used different images to compare what an uninhabited Earth looks like compared to an inhabited planet. The film consists primarily of slow motion and time-lapse footage of cities and many natural landscapes across the United States. There was a lack of narration and powerful music was played through out it. I am unsure how I felt about the lack of speech in the film. The music had a very large influence about how the viewer felt while watching the movie. At certain times I felt bored because I think the images duration were too long and I wanted to jump to the next scene. I think the time period of when the film was made was also a very important factor to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of its message to the viewer. It was made in the early 1980s in a time when everyone thought they were going to die in a nuclear explosion so it felt very real.

The filmmaker Godfrey Reggio said that the Qatsi films are intended to simply create an experience and that “it is up [to] the viewer to take for himself/herself what it is that [the film] means.” He also said that “these films have never been about the effect of technology, of industry on people. It’s been that everyone: politics, education, things of the financial structure, the nation state structure, language, the culture, religion, all of that exists within the host of technology. So it’s not the effect of, it’s that everything exists within [technology]. It’s not that we use technology, we live technology. Technology has become as ubiquitous as the air we breathe.” I really like that Reggio wanted everyone to take away whatever they wanted from the film. It allows the viewer to think their own opinions on the film even though Reggio is clearly trying to change people’s opinions of society. He shows no happy people singing at a birthday party, but rather the bad side of society like collapsing buildings and factories being torn down.

I have pondered the question “can art save the world?” many times. I think its important to consider the carbon footprint of every action we make and review the impact it makes. For example, in the EVST Capstone class we are building a Kiosk which is basically just an artistic tree that is supposed to represent how people have no idea where their resources come from. It is a tree covered in newspaper with little branches sticking out. It is a piece of art but most of the supplies to build it came from Walmart. By shopping at a store that is as unsustainable as Walmart to build our art, is our message really valid? This is what I wondered about while watching Koyaanisqatsi. These film makers traveled all over the world to film this film, being flown all over the world to continuously distribute more and more fossil fuels into the sky. The film was not filmed in such a way that is sustainable, so is its message still valid? I am still unsure if I am willing to say art can save the world, but maybe it can change people’s minds.