Links to film:
Albatross: https://vimeo.com/264508490
Waste Land : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnfGI1aHFoA
2 paragraph discussion:
Reflect and write approximately 2 paragraphs about at least 3 of the following prompts:
the techniques this film uses to blur the boundary between human and bird, land and sea, history and the present.
In this film does island of Midway (Pihemanu) appear as an island lost in the sea or as part of “a sea of islands, as Hau’ofa puts it?
Jordan’s film includes US military and imperial history as ruins that life is re-occupying. Compare this with Hau’ofa’s argument that US imperialism and military interests in the Pacific are not things of the past but continue to have effects in the present. You might also want to think about the following: The quote from the poem at the beginning of the film refers to the imperial explorations of the Pacific in the 18th century and to English romantic poetry. The birds-eye shots of the map are controlling ways of seeing, linked to what film scholars have called a colonial or imperial gaze. These shots introduce the film even though they contrast with the eye-level close-ups of the Albatrosses.
Reflect on the way this film forces “witnessing” the agony of birds dying. Describe the anthropomorphizing strategies (e.g. use of close-ups, narrative, voice-over, Jordan’s presence in the film, the length of takes and the use of soundtrack). Even though this film is very slow, the last scenes invite a strong emotional response from us. Do you experience this as an emotional manipulation or as a useful way of inviting us (as viewers) to experience a connection between the human and the non-human?
Anything else you want to say?
4 paragraph reflection paper:
Write approximately 4 paragraphs responding to the following prompt:
Compare in how far the films Waste Land and Albatross invite viewers to reflect on the growing realization that the conceptual (western, scientific, epistemological) separation between human and non-human life may not only be partially responsible for ecological catastrophe but also linked to colonial racism, capitalism, and dispossession. Where do they fall short/what do they – in your opinion and in contrast with the readings – fail to address? Explain your opinion.
