Radiant City

Yet another disjunctive 'documentary' about the 'horrible evils' of suburbia, even tho millions of people want to live there.

One 'expert' says, James Howard Kunstler: "Eighty percent of everything ever built in North America has been built in the last 50 years. And most of it is brutal, ugly, depressing, unhealthy, and spiritually degrading."

Um...he is talking about cities.

Let see cities...crowding, rat like feelings, noise, pollution, crime, high cost of condos, poor schools, constant construction noise why would you ever leave?

Oh, the burbs, nice yard, garage, garden, wholesome activities, clean environment, no noise, birds, squirrels, deer and a closer touch with nature, more bedrooms for kids, better schools, and no high rise Soviet style urban housing.

If you think kids taking gymnastics is funny, try having them on the street shooting each other and lingering on corners selling drugs. How is that for your cityscape.

In a funny ironic twist - this clone of other 'documentaries' is a carbon copy to the same worn out theory - suburbs bad, city good. Give me a break. And the same 'experts' with their pet theories on human behavior. Ever ride the subway in NYC? No one and I mean no one looks or talks to each other - they know better. They might get shot. So much for their bogus 'community theories' that are fantasy.

I figured this would be a run of the mill documentary with lots of talking heads, stock news reel footage and a point of view that's negative at first but ends with a positive outlook. I was right for the most part. The movie follows a "typical" suburban family who move out to the suburbs and do everything that everyone else is doing in the suburbs. It's an interesting fly-on-the-wall examination of life in the suburbs.

Then there's the "twist" and it definitely knocks the movie down a notch or two. What's the point? The explanation is that the filmmaker thought no one would want to watch a straight film about the suburbs and a family. He's wrong. Basically he underestimates his audience and gives us a bogus epilogue. I've seen a lot more dry topics like genetically modified food in "The Future Of Food" done without relying on the technique of fictional elements. I think it's a poor slight of hand. I recommend the movie for the interviews with real experts but I think the fictional parts don't belong in the movie. It also confuses some people and leads them to believe the experts are also actors.

The pros and cons of the type of suburban sprawl that characterizes the second half of the XXth century, the exodus of the inner-city dwellers to the homes and low-rises of the suburbs, and the consequence of this form of urbanism on communities and people. Those are the primary topics of this needling documentary. By means of (1) following a family of sorts as they cope with the pluses and minuses of living on one of the residential pods of modern car-based urbanism, (2) fascinating statistics, and (3) interviews with academics, urban planners and critics, the film paints a mixed view, though the bias is obviously against that form of social organization. Some of the interviews are trenchant and humorous, especially those of James Howard Kunstler. Just those are worth the price of admission.

The film has a surprise in store, but even after the cat is out of the bag, the main points are not in the least affected.

There's a surprise, 'trick' ending to this documentary, but it doesn't really matter. We are given a revealing close-up of life in suburbia, those densely populated, manufactured wastelands that may have been obsolete 20 years ago.

The film was made in and around Calgary, Alberta, Canada, but, given the physical sameness of suburbia, it could have been made anywhere in Canada or the U.S. We see endless streets with almost identical homes, 'permanent' construction resembling war zones, no trees, no natural parks, no sidewalks, no people. But we DO see masses of vehicles, and super-duper shopping malls that have everything a human being will ever need in war or peace, feast or famine.

The inner city evolved 'organically' (according to one observer in the film). Conversely, the suburbs are pre-packaged 'communities' where all buyers need is an ample wallet and at least two gas-guzzling vehicles (one MUST be an SUV, apparently). A sense of 'togetherness,' as generally understood, is artificially imposed or flat-out illusory. Like secreted apartment dwellers in big cities, single-family suburban dwellers often barely know their neighbours.

Public transit, walking, cycling, etc. are simply non-starters when suburbanites live two hours from their jobs. According to the film, they spend an average of 55 DAYS (!!) a year on the roads, mostly commuting back and forth to work.

(Late Note: In March 2008, 'Radiant City' won the Genie Award --often called Canada's version of the Academy Awards -- for best Canadian documentary film.)

I saw this movie this week-end at the True/False film festival in Columbia, MO. I'm a young architect and I spent a lot of time studying sprawl and the effects of sprawl while I was in school. This film was a satirical look at sprawl and the effect that is has not only on the appearance of our neighborhoods, but also of our family life. This film has commentaries from professionals that are highly regarded in the field. James Howard Kuntsler gives his opinions on sprawl. If you are familiar with his work, "Home from Nowhere" and "Geography from know where", this adds another level on his opinion of sprawl. It was absolutely hilarious. I would strongly recommend that if you get a chance to see this movie, you must take it!