Powaqqatsi

Koyannisqatsi wasn't a copy of anything, so why would anyone expect Powaqqatsi to be a copy of it? Fortunately, I saw this film on the big screen without seeing its predecessor, and I was delighted. The movie begins with a shot of an African diamond mine. You see a miner ascending a ladder in slow-motion, carrying a bag of mud on shoulders, accompanied by a heavy, pounding music. The effects and the music work together to highlight the miner's tiredness and strain. Other images follow, most of them from the "third world." In each case the focus is not a thing, but a quality.

Powaqqatsi revolutionized my concept of the world -- Go ahead and laugh! The film shows a vastness and variety and energy in the world that was beyond anything I could have imagined when I went into the theater. Everything is presented for what it is; there's no Western narrator to reassure you and tell you what everything means. There is perhaps no higher praise for a film than saying it changed the way I think, and Powaqqatsi deserves that praise.

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 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.

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.

Powaqqatsi may not be the fast passed time lapse world of Koyaanisqatsi and there is nothing wrong with that. This movie is a counter point to Koyaanisqatsi. Reggios's plan was for a three part series I believe the new movie is almost done. This is not North America. Just think of the time envoled in this shoot, the locations, the stunning cinematograghy. This is the real world. A world where many people still live with out electricity, still hold onto the past, work on the land or sea, work hard for very little. This is movie of world culture. Anyway one who puts this movie down is truly living in a bubble. This is not a movie that gets backing money easily this is a movie of sweat and toil. I commend the filmmaker for taking a risk and creating a visual feast of the developing world that we are destroying.