MovieChat Forums > When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006) Discussion > Why This Was Disappointing

Why This Was Disappointing

posted 17 years ago by sonOfDan
24 replies | jump to latest

Going into this documentary, I knew it would lean to the left; after all, it was coming from Spike Lee. But I have always liked Lee, and despite my differences with some of his politics, I have always found him to be fair and accurate, not to mention very talented.

My problem with this work was that it was more or less the SAME THING for six hours (if you include Act V). After Act III, I got the point. I enjoyed it for a while and sympathized with the people and how poorly they were treated. However, I don't see how anyone wouldn't get tired of the monotonous format after that long. I felt the the talent of its director was wasted.

I think this would have been much better if Lee had cut it down to two or three hours, using the most poignant stories. Make it two acts--the first being the storm and its immediate aftermath and the second being the long-term effects. I think it would have been much more powerful and perhaps could have even seen theatrical release, reaching a far wider audience.

[–] barrynworlns 17 years ago

<<Going into this documentary, I knew it would lean to the left; after all, it was coming from Spike Lee. But I have always liked Lee, and despite my differences with some of his politics, I have always found him to be fair and accurate, not to mention very talented.

My problem with this work was that it was more or less the SAME THING for six hours (if you include Act V). After Act III, I got the point. I enjoyed it for a while and sympathized with the people and how poorly they were treated. However, I don't see how anyone wouldn't get tired of the monotonous format after that long. I felt the the talent of its director was wasted.

I think this would have been much better if Lee had cut it down to two or three hours, using the most poignant stories. Make it two acts--the first being the storm and its immediate aftermath and the second being the long-term effects. I think it would have been much more powerful and perhaps could have even seen theatrical release, reaching a far wider audience. >>

You've made a lot of valid points. As a survior of the storm and a New Orleans native, I can tell you that is was a very acuarite depiction of the Katrina experience.(With the exception of that "Government blowing the levees" bit. That was just a little to "X-Files.)

The biggest problem I have with it is the fact that it's rather exploitive. Was it really necessary to show those images of the the dead bodies, that little girl's funeral and her mother's raw grief?

[–] firequeen136 17 years ago

It's necessary if it creates a reaction. Not that that was the point. But to make you think and feel for the person. If they just said, "yeah, all these people died and a lot of people were sad" it doesn't mean as much as if you see it.

X-Files is aliens.

[–] barrynworlns 17 years ago

<<It's necessary if it creates a reaction. Not that that was the point. But to make you think and feel for the person. If they just said, "yeah, all these people died and a lot of people were sad" it doesn't mean as much as if you see it. >>

I see your point. Maybe it's just not a good idea for anyone who lived through the storm to see this film.

<<X-Files is aliens. >>

Yeah, but the overall theme was govenment conspiracy.

[–] Mackie_Shilstone 16 years ago

I hear you Barry. Spike wanted reactions from people, but what an ass. Think if you saw your family floating dead in the streets in this movie just so Spike Lee can make money and get applauded at some independent film festival by a bunch of rich, snooty fools who know nothing of New Orleans. And the whole conspiracy aspect, complete garbage, why even have this in the movie? It accomplished nothing.

[–] InNeedofaLife 16 years ago

The most glaring mistake to me was the total lack of objectivity.

Scores of local emergency people at city, state, parish, who were never interviewed.

Did I miss it, or were the people never asked why they weren't preparing themselves with bottled water, canned food, and basic emergency supplies?

I do this each time we are threatened with ice and/or snow, and during tornado season.

[–] elmuhfuh 16 years ago

i live in arkansas. if we get an icestorm thats going to last 2 days our supermarkets are sold out, and we are talking about a category 5 hurricane. we will see if things play out any differently now that gustav seems to be heading there.

i agree about the documentary as well. it was tilted far to much for me to call it informative. i had rental property that i tried to open up for refugees from new orleans. they said my property was too run down to let people live in for free, but not too run down to rent it.

not to start a flame war or anything, but before someone corrects me on my use of the term refugee. its a term used to describe people who seek refuge, it doesnt describe a persons place of origin. americans can still be refugees.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] elmuhfuh 15 years ago

funny how you omitted the one that applied. you source was http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refugee

the definition before you butchered it. take note of the real number 3. pretty sure this applies with what we are talking about. notice how 3 doesnt say anything about a foreign country?

1. A person seeking refuge in a foreign country out of fear of political persecution or the prospect of such persecution in his home country, i.e., a person seeking a political asylum.
2. A person seeking refuge in a foreign country due to poverty and no prospect of overcoming said poverty in his home country, i.e., a person seeking an economic asylum.
3. A person seeking refuge due to a natural disaster.
4. A person formally granted a political or economic asylum by a country other than his home country.

[–] rattlerorbust 16 years ago

I agree that it's probably not a good thing for survivors to see. but I can tell you what I got from it. I think the entire first half of Act I was an eye-opener. whether you agree with what the people in the film said about intentional bombing, it still gave a glimpse into the mind-set of what some of the lower ninth residents were/are feeling. Doesn't mean "intentional" bombing existed, but the possibility obviously cropped into some residents minds. I didn't know about Hurricane Betsy. I was one of those ignorant people watching the television saying why don't they just leave already --not the area...because being a Florida native,I've ridden out my share of hurricanes --but I was wondering why not leave the Dome or the Convention Center. I understand now. It definitely sparked a huge conversation in our family about heritage, generational customs and economics in society. don't think I'd consider it long, we soaked it all in. One-sided or not, it was informative. which says alot coming from me, can't say I've enjoyed many of Spike's films. We all have minds to process information and come away with our own conclusions...and do our part.

[–] violiner2000 12 years ago

I had a friend recommend it to me because I was in BR for the duration of Katrina and really went through the repercussions. Plus, I went down to the 9th Ward and St. Bernard's Parish in 2006. Now that you've said people who weathered the storm shouldn't see it, I'm curious if maybe I shouldn't. But I want to! I feel like Katrina completely redefined me and really tied me to my love of Louisiana and New Orleans. Hm.

Paganini- music's original sex symbol

[–] whatever94401 15 years ago

barrynworlus,

Can I ask, did you evacuate before the storm? If not, why not?
I'm glad you survived that experience, and hope you are doing well now despite what happened to your city.

[–] InNeedofaLife 16 years ago

>>>i don't think Lee should've tried to be more objective.<<

Okay, why did I bother to even read more of this post after that thought.

But, it gets worse...

>>(Not even trying to put Moore down, i admire what he does.)<<

Yes, have to admire people who twist and edit the truth and pass it off as a documentary.

>> He obviously picked & chose what to put into the film, but a lot of people said the same thing.<<

There you go.
"A lot of people said it too."
That makes it official.

Nothing like picking and choosing the truth...

>> And a lot of it was factual--you can't argue on whether Condoleezza Rice was shoe shopping during the storm or not.<<

Really?
What difference does it make?
Do we have a breakdown of what Spike Lee was doing with his time during the storm?

How about a breakdown of what all the state and local emergency crews in Louisiana were doing...or the 275 cops who walked off the job.

Anyway, I'd hope "a lot of it was factual," since it's supposed to be a documentary.

I hope a "lot of my school textbooks were factual."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InNeedofaLife 16 years ago

>>Wow...okay. I don't even really know why i'm bothering to respond to this. But since you took the time to quote my statement and pick it apart, I might as well defend myself.

This film shows an opinion. You might not agree with said opinion, but that doesn't mean it's not well-argued, well-shot, or well-edited. It's a work of art. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being one-sided to get your point across. Sometimes it's the only way to bring light to an issue you care strongly about.<<

While it's swell we can turn a natural disaster into a "work of art," what was really needed was a professionally produced movie that would be more critical of what was done at the local level, and what could have been done locally to prevent another one.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InNeedofaLife 16 years ago

>>"And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being one-sided to get your point across."
There is absolutely something wrong with that, especially in a documentary. These kinds of things shape the way people think. "Truth" should be the top priority of documentaries. "Agenda" should never enter it.<<<

Yes, that statement scared the hell out of me...and it's why the Spike Lees and Michael Moores of the world are doing so well.

What we're seeing are "filmmakers" who have the financial resources available to produce a movie without having to answer to anyone.

I believe it was Dan Rather who when doing a report on Nixon back in the early 70's, had used inaccurate information.

Rather hated Nixon, and had a personal vendetta to destroy him.

When Rather was asked about his inaccuracies, he said, "Whatever it takes."

It came as absolutely no surprise to people who knew him, when Rather was fired for using a fictitious document pertaining to Bush's Viet Nam military record.

[–] film_professor 15 years ago

This documentary is only disapointing to whites who refuse to own up to the real truth.

[–] sonOfDan 15 years ago

It's unfortunate that you are unable to separate your perceptions of race with critique of filmmaking. A noble subject does not always make a great film.

[–] Spencer-Monica 15 years ago

I agree 100 PERCENT redhibernation.

[–] InNeedofaLife 15 years ago

>>This documentary is only disapointing to whites who refuse to own up to the real truth.,,,

The "real truth" is simply the fact that a city, parrish, and state in which a large proportion of government employees are black did not have an evacuation plan in place for an area with a large proportion of black citizens.

The black mayor, Nagin, did not follow an evacuation plan that had been drawn up, and tried to make himself out to be a hero about trying to get federal aid AFTER the disaster.

Foremost, the citizens who did not evacuate are to blame the most.

If blacks have to blame whites for their basic failure to avoid a flood, then you're basically saying that the black citizens need to be cared for by whites.

Personally, I don't belive that, but Redhibernation sure seems to.

[–] Mackie_Shilstone 15 years ago

""This documentary is only disapointing to whites who refuse to own up to the real truth.""

I know one thing, if there is a real truth to anything, a rube like redhibernation would know nothing about it.

[–] dangus 15 years ago

I was disappointed that nobody pointed out the insanity of letting people live in neighborhoods that are BELOW sea level. A sensible government would buy out every property that lies below a certain elevation, and restore the land to marshes or sell it to industrial users that are willing to build it up to safe levels.

The same goes for those areas further north (like Manitoba) that are threatened by flooding every year. Don't waste money rebuilding where it's just going to happen again.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ibbi 13 years ago

I don't know, I think they covered all the different stages without ever overdoing it. I mean obviously the impact it had on peoples lives was the key to the whole thing, but they went through the whole experience bit by bit from the build up, the event itself, the aftermath, and rebuilding.

Agent Mulder believes we are not alone