rsampron

Since childhood, I've been a fan of folk music. Before the Beatles, I was not a rock-n-roller. I was a folkie. So the documentary, "Pete Seeger: The Power of Music," was a must-see film.

This film was every bit as good as I thought it would be. It covers both Seeger's music and the politics that both inspired and was inspired by it.

Being a lefty, I am sympathetic to Seeger's humanistic politics. But the music, oh the music, is so wonderful. The film reminds us why Pete was as important to twentieth-century music as the Tin Pan Alley composers and musicians (the Gershwins, Cole Porter, Duke Ellington, et al), the R&B/rockers (Little Richard, Elvis, Buddy Holly, The Beatles, et al), and all the folkies he inspired (Bob Dylan; Peter, Paul, and Mary; the Kingston Trio, et al).

If this film comes to your town, go and see it. Something magical is likely to happen when you do. You will suddenly hear people in the audience do something unheard of in a movie theater. You will hear them singing along. And rather than being annoying, the gentle harmonies will embrace you like your favorite warm jammies on a cold winter night.

Enjoy! (9.5 out of 10)

What a shame. This is the most important issue of all time. It's too bad the film spoke ten miles over the heads of its audience.

I know about the environmental movement, the issues, and the players. I thought Al Gore's film and book were outstanding. But after ten minutes with this film, I was lost. I was lost because I was pelted by experts with expert-speak. This is absolutely NOT how to reach an audience if that audience is non-experts.

My college work is in political science, sociology, and technical writing and editing. If you want to make an impact on an audience, you must target the message to the audience, like Al Gore did. You cannot bludgeon a non-tech savvy audience with techno babble. Talking about the abstract concept we call "the environment" won't work. You have to tell people both how these separate facets are affecting them now, sometimes in ways they don't realize, and how they will likely affect them in five years, ten years, twenty years, etc.

The good news is, this was attempted several times in the film. When it was, it reached me. One example was when an interviewee spoke about the growth of asthma among school children. That was good. Because I am the uncle of three children under 11 years of age, that had a direct connection to my life. If the film had been at least half of this, it would be much more successful in delivering the message. Instead, the noise killed the message.

Leo, I really appreciate what you tried to do. But you lost me. May I suggest you pick up a classic book on environmental rhetoric. It is "Green Culture," by Herndl and Brown. Pay attention to the essay "Saving the Great Lakes." It will show you how to reach both your audience and the powers that be by recounting the real-life impact this environmental devastation is having on our lives.

The next thing I'd like to see is a weekly television series on Sundance Channel, or perhaps in syndication, that shows the daily impact of catastrophic climate change on the average person. It would be an environmental version of Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" series. I believe it's impact would be profound.

I like this gentle show. First of all, I love animals. Second, I like fish-out-of-water stories. Third, the acting is excellent. I am a fan of Stephen Thompkinson, ever since first seeing him in Ballykissangel.

For some, the sentimental nature of the stories is worthy of a roll of the eyes or feigned disgust. Me? I love sentimental stories. They tend to get to the emotional nitty gritty that most of us do not want explored, either in others or ourselves. If we did, we would have no need of therapists, right? And so we denigrate those who explore this psychological ground, using symbols and story lines to tell us something about ourselves. That makes sentimental pieces invaluable, I think. So, I enjoy the emotional region the program explores, and especially the difficulty in having the two families assimilate into one. You see, their difficulties parallel of the overall difficulty in assimilating into the African lifestyle. That makes the story lines a touch more sophisticated than the eye rollers give it credit for.

The episode where everybody comes down with an illness (won't spoil it for you) is genuinely well done and kept me riveted.

I am dreading the US version, though I like the idea that Rutger Hauer will play the Afrikkaner, Du Plessis.

Go ahead and watch. It won't bite. But it will entertain.