Powaqqatsi

Don't worry: no spoilers here. I felt the need to rebut several of the negative reviews I have read about this film ( both here and, most notably, from critics Maltin and Ebert). This film follows a totally different concept from "Koyaanisqatsi," which concentrated on largely inanimate structures in the continental U.S. This is a film about people and lifestyles of the developing world, and for that I believe Reggio chose wisely not to utilize many specialty visual techniques (i.e. time-lapse and high-speed photography), and settle for a more low-key approach. Though the film cannot match the visceral gee-whiz impact the original 1983 audience must have felt with all the revolutionary visual stylistics of "Koyaanisqatsi," "Powaqqatsi" has greater thematic depth. Essentially, "Koyaanisqatsi" was best at impressing the audience, and this film is better at making the audience think. To tackle such a wide-ranging subject as globalization is a tricky task, yet I believe this film to be the best cinematic portrayal I have seen of the effects of modernity upon the 75% of the world that still lives much of its life the same way it did hundreds of years ago.

All of the shots of people working, carrying baskets on their heads, etc. show the immense effort required in the third world to carry on an industrial revolution one hundred years behind the West, and in a much shorter span of time. Essentially, the societies in the Periphery are being forced to play catch-up. The imagery of the fallen laborer being carried up a hill (the opening shots of the film which are later referenced at the end) represents the immense hard work and sacrifice necessary to build a modern society - an idea lost upon many in the First World, who protest the working conditions of societies on the Periphery, yet do not realize that their own Western industrial revolutions faced the exact same hazards, tribulations, and hardships one hundred years ago - yet did eventually manage to emerge successfully. Like "Koyaanisqatsi," "Powaqqatsi" is a film one can view multiple times and absorb new meanings upon each viewing.

The structure of the film is the same as that of "Koyaanisqatsi", which I believe is the most important consistency between this film and the first in Reggio's trilogy. Both films are divided into three distinct sections: primitive/archaic life, early industrial life, and finally full-fledged modern existence (lifestyle, or "-qatsi", being the connecting thread within and between the films). In addition, Philip Glass score is a superb accompaniment to the visual images. Otherwise, the films are not at all alike, and should not be unduly compared to one another. Both films show their American audience something they have not seen before: in "Koyaanisqatsi" it is simply themselves from a very different angle, and in "Powaqqatsi" it is the rest of the world.

My first impression agreed with the post above but it grows on you. Here are some reasons why.

Koyaanisqatsi was made by Americans, about America, for Americans.

The image style and content and the soundtrack (turn it up, even better by the 1998 rerecorded soundtrack and turn it up) are all familiar to American eyes and ears.

Poyaanisqatsi was made by a mixed team of nationalities about the countries of the Southern hemisphere. It goes places where we do not usually go, we face the unfamiliar. The soundtrack does the same thing. It uses rhythmical and melodic styles from the countries visited, once again unfamiliar to our American eyes and ears.

I enjoy Koyaanisqatsi for the awesome imagery including time scale effects a nd the unusual view it presents to us of what we live in everyday.

Both movies use picture with music but no words. The creators intended it to carry a message but left it to the viewer to create it. Here's a single example from the opening of K.

The visual shows the beginning of man's journey from Earth to moon, and the camera is put where we can see the rocket engines come to life close up. The soundtrack is completely contrary to the obvious visual idea. Instead of trumpet fanfares and explosions of sound we strain to hear deep solo voices chanting the title of the movie over and over as the dramatic rocket launch visual is slowed down so that 3 seconds ocupies 3 minutes. The result is a strange contrast between sound and vision which stands apart from conventional ideas. AS the rocket trembles in a shower of ice we are invited to ponder all the meanings that this event might possess and the space and time provided for our imagination to operate inside encourage the same contrary thoughts. The time distortion means that we no longer experience the explosive impulse created by man's mastery of metal, electricity and chemicals and let loose in a mighty roar when the clock counts ZERO.

Here there is no clock, the deep voice marks the passage of time and the picture we see is of some machine never seen before that can rise gently up into the air to the sound of chanting.

Poyaanisqatsi explores the more ancient ways still existing, outdoor manual labor rather than factories, seasonal activities, self sufficiency by sailing, fishing, digging, plowing, reaping and grinding the crop on small scales.

Less time is given over to time compression which was a strong feature of Koy'si. More time is given to time expansion, slow-motion cinematography and multiple exposure process. We spend time with the camera close up with people, individuality begins to become important as we are able to disriminate groups and individuals within groups.

The second half of 'P'begins to include material that may have a direct distressing affect on the viewer, perhaps only an uncomfortable feeling at first, which in my experience with repeated viewing, becomes stronger. There are a handful of moving images that for me have become outright disturbing, and more so each time I see them. There is sense of something dreadfully wrong going on, that we know about but are helpless and unable to name it and abolish it.

If anything the soundtrack of 'P' is superior to 'K' but again upon repeated listening. There is a piece of singing (at about 80 mins) that is in Muslim religious style and which blew my socks off with the combination of vocal strength and clarity, subtlety of melody, subtlety of rythmyic phrasing and powerful capability to attract attention.

I have no hesitation recommending 'K' to anyone including children. 'P' is more difficult, by the end you have seen some uncomfortable truths about the poor quality of life affecting a large proportion of the world population. How comfortable can we be on our sofas watching this tale be told to us?

This is a superb second film of a once planned trilogy that began with Koyaanisqatsi. While the first had effects that might be likened to video-game razzle-dazzle, and was entertaining in its own right, Powaqqatsi is a celebration of humanity and does not repeat the earlier images. Perhaps some were disappointed by this, but this film stands finely on its own terms. A moving and delightfully photographed tour of the world. I have often wondered what became of the third leg of these efforts.

Koyaanisqatsi, which is Powaq's predecessor and successor, is my all-time favorite film. It has the beautiful cinematography of Ron Fricke and Godfrey Reggio with the wonderfully-timed score of Philip Glass merged into an emotion-evoking, powerfully mindblowing cinematic experience, after which the viewer feels weak. But watching this, I appreciated the wonderful cinematography and the--ahem--interesting music, but it evoked no emotions inside me, and I felt I hadn't learned anything from it except the things we see in those "You, too, can sponsor a child" television ads. It's quite an experience, and I don't wholly denounce it or condemn it, but I wouldn't expect another Koyaanisqatsi. I hope Naqoyqatsi has "packs the same emotional wallop" of the original.

This film is, according to its director, a look at a "global culture"; a visual assessment of the response of the "third world" to the force of globalization and the pressure to modernize. He says there are both good points and bad points to be observed, and hopes to portray the creativity and industriousness with which people around the world respond to the demands of their environments.

I do not see this. I see a moving, and beautiful film, but not about this. I see the destructive effects of the ever-increasing commodification of nature, life, and labor, on people as they are forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods to nationalist projects and capital ventures. I see (to use Karl Polanyi's words) the uprooting of peoples and places, and the destructive forces of market enterprise disguised under tropes of progress and modernity.

Yes. Human beings are creative and industrious, and have dealt with these problems in unique and fascinating ways. But, rather than simply celebrating the Beauty of Human Life, in all it's glory, let this film be a call to recognize this beauty, and recognize its value as intrinsic, as part and parcel to the livelihoods of the people it is embodied within.