Kenzie Wells

September 25, 2018

LBST 2301 - TR 10:00-11:15
Professor Katsanos
FLOW: For Love of Water Documentary Critique
FLOW: For Love of Water is a Vail Film Festival award winning documentary released
on September 12, 2008. The film features multiple viewpoints from advocating individuals,
global citizens, to the corrupt CEOs of water privatization companies. The perspective of the
film showcases the lack of clean drinking water for much of the population of the world and the
anthropogenic factors that are causing that. If the audience were to follow the documentary’s
rationale, then they would recognize the impact of water pollution, privatization, and
commercialization on various global communities.
The film first establishes their narrative through the interviews of Former Senior Attorney
of the Natural Resources Defence Council, Erik D. Olson, and the author of The Holy Order of
Water, William E. Marks. Both credible individuals have worked first hand with the world’s
water situation. The water that people have access to: tap water, toilet water, etc., becomes
polluted with human waste, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, then gets cycled back to the water
system to come back as tap water. One major effect that gets emphasized is that fish exposed to
certain chemicals begin to change sex; males are rapidly declining and are becoming
demasculinized and feminized. This transitions to the detrimental health defects that chemicals
such as waste pollution and pesticides has on the human population. Birth defects, cancer, and
death rates rise around areas exposed to contaminated water. All reasons listed are
anthropogenic causes that the narrative of the film indicates can be avoided. This information
urges the audience to acknowledge the effects of contaminated water before witnessing from the
affected individuals themselves.
The viewers witness that poor citizens from Bolivia, Lesotho in Africa, and India are
catching the most immense effects of lack of access to clean drinking water. They already do not
have adequate funds to access healthy water, so when big water companies claim the water for
themselves and raise the prices, people have no choice but to resort to physically reconnecting
their water or settling for impure water. The audience sees a poor family from Lesotho talk
about the dilemma that is put upon the less fortunate in their community. To receive clean water,
one must pay; if one does not have the money for such an expense, the resort is to gather dirty
water and place a tablet in it that will purify it. On the contrary, the tablet costs additional
money that is not readily available to the family. This positive feedback cycle continues,
generating further disease and death. By using footage of actual interviews, the film uses first
hand documentation of this issue to enforce their main purpose. This technique was the most
defined segment that directly reflects the main idea. Many environmental activists including the
author of Blue Gold, Maude Barlow, and Gandhian leader, Siddharaj Dhadda, share the same
perspective that water is not someones to own or commercialize. Water is given from the Earth
for the people and the people give back to the Earth. This act of privatization and
commercialization water from poor communities is a highly emphasized issue in the
documentary when compared to others that focus on controversies such as fresh water shortage.
This issue also occurs in wealthier countries, such as the United States. Nestle has been
pumping incredulous amounts of freshwater from underground for bottling. This is reducing the
levels of naturally occuring freshwater in the affected areas. This further emphasizes the film’s
line of reasoning that water is not someone’s to own, rather it belongs to all humans and ideals
today have strayed from what was intended. The bottling of water gets touched on briefly
compared to other works that tend to give it more attention considering the amount of plastic that
get put into the bottles. Furthermore, tests done show that the components of bottled water and
tap water are indeed similar. This industry has more to do with first world nations and was not
delved as deeply into.
Another issue risen to light by the documentary is the displacement of people by dams
created for continual access to freshwater by big water companies. The audience witnesses
people from around the world, Africa to China, who have been living on the land for as long as
they can remember having to be relocated for the construction of a dam. A recurring theme is
how these corporate water companies are blatantly lying about their intentions and/or have
corrupt ideas towards the poor they are depriving of water. Claims that the water will be
reasonably accessible to the people are made; however, when taking into account the status of
the families, it is evident that this is not the case. Reporting this is Jim Olson, an environmental
attorney. The film uses people who are often involved in environmentalism/activism as well as
government/legal aspects. This increases credibility. People who are reporting as having gone
through the water hardships themselves are also credible resources due to the fact that they have
first hand experience.
In comparison to other works that confront similar issues, this film does not provide
much of a solution or alternative to assist with this issue that humanity is faced with. One
resolution is suggested at the end of the film. It is at the governmental level in which the Right
to Water has been petitioned to be added to the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 31 states, “Everyone has the right to clean and accessible water, adequate for the health
and well-being of the individual and family, and no one shall be deprived of such access or
quality of water due to individual economic circumstance.” (FLOW: For Love of Water, 2008).
This article summarizes the whole thesis of the documentary, focusing on social justice.
Although the petition does provide a way for the audience to get involved and take action, it does
so only at an institutional level. Other works provide alternative ways to get involved because
every single person matters in the grand scheme of things. Reducing bottled water consumption,
voting, foot marches, reducing waste, buying sustainably, donating, volunteering, reusing as
much as possible, and properly recycling are all ways that have the opportunity to have a positive
impact in keeping freshwater supply stable and accessible to all people as it should be.
The premise set by FLOW is that humans are their own worst enemy, from polluting
waters, claiming “ownership” of water, to disregarding lives affected by privatization and
commercialization. While solutions such as postponement or repealing of big water activities
and small scale water purification for those who are in need are mentioned throughout the film,
the only activism that is offered at the end is to sign a petition. The first hand documentation of
the various freshwater issues that humanity faces as a whole is clear and effective in getting the
main issues of lack of access to clean water and social injustice across to the viewers clearly.
This problem is what the film pushes to the forefront as a pressing issue that needs to be
addressed on a global scale.

Citations
Starr, Steven, et al. Flow: for Love of Water. 2008.