Watermark, l'empreinte de l'eau

That tens of thousands of dollars were spent, film crew and equipment dragged across the entire planet, only to produce something as insubstantial as this piece of empty eye-candy is rather amazing. Especially when one considers that it pretends to address some of the most crucial environmental issues facing the world in the near future.

Hopping and skipping from one place to the next, cutting off stories and interviews right in the middle while never getting to the bottom of any single issue it raises, "Watermark" informs very little. The viewer is left still thirsty for something truly informative. Worse, it's actually boring after a while.

In the end, this is simply a watered-down slideshow. Which is a tragedy, really, considering how truly serious are all the issues involved.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to re-watch Baichwal and Burtynsky's 2006 film "Manufactured Landscapes," to decide if perhaps I was wrong to give it such a high rating.

I have recently watched two political documentaries. First, The Unknown Known. Second, Watermark.

The first one is about glorifying a psychopath. It tells of his exploits as he uses humanity as subjects of his experiments. Its only saving grace is its honesty as it is unquestionably political.

The second one is this one, Watermark, and it has absolutely none of this honesty. It is a documentary that uses the awesomeness of nature to disguise political propaganda. It is essentially babies and puppies. Cheap manipulation to sneak in an ideology.

A number of these "nature" documentaries is being made nowadays. Big, big, big money is being given to "friendly" folks in the movie industry. Pockets full of cash, they are taking their skills around the world (literally) and making visually high-quality films. Unfortunately, the price of this funding is a script that makes adults cringe.

Consequently, this kind of "nature" documentaries is meant to be played in mute. Mozart, Armstrong, (or Pink Floyd if that's your preference) are far superior material to listen to while enjoying the unspeakable magnificence of our planet.

Watermark is also boring at times. The political obsession coupled with a jejune understanding of society and culture compromises the choice of visual subject. If they cannot use as a weapon to hurl at you, they won't show it.

This movie showcases the cinematographer/director's beautiful eye. That's it. His ego is on display in the cinematography along with all of his indulgences. The images are beautiful, buy very bad storytelling. The opening of this file is interesting in that it gets your attention, but then quickly lost mine as I thought I was watching a silent film. This is not a documentary. The most dialogue happens around the 45 minute mark. I still don't know what their main point was for this movie. What is it about water that they are trying to get across? Basically, what I got of this movie is that they left it up to us to make our own conclusion about water. I watch movies so I don't have to come to my own conclusion. If I want only my own opinion then I don't need to watch a movie for that. That's an hour and half that I will never get back.

With the many documentaries that are coming out lately you are used to a high quality. Being because they are funny or because they are very interesting. Unfortunately this ticks neither of those boxes correctly. It seems to wander around like water would once you spill it ... no clear direction.

I think there is a very good movie hidden somewhere, but it will be tough for you to find it. It's a shame, because quite a lot of people would interested in more specifics rather just some "nature videos" and a couple of hints here and there, what goes wrong. Just when you think it is heading the right direction, it swerves and goes "wrong" again ... Shame

Watermark is a movie about water. It is film in a very choppy way and the narrative is not really structured in a way that allows the audience to understand what is going on, yet this movie seems to have something kind of special about it. I believe that the thinking process of the film-maker, to be unique to the film world, which is a positive thing. I believe this movie to be a stamp of the film makers consciousness in the sense of the fragmentation of the pictures, combined with the story. This approach forces the audience to individual the film experience and to piece together the essence of the movie.

Having lived in British Columbia, Canada and having lived near the Fraser River in Canada, I can understand the beauty that river water has. The natural flow of water is a profoundly spiritual sensation because of the beauty of flowing water combined with the sound of rushing water, on the other hand, river water can be very destructive out of her own nature, as when the mountain snows melt and dams break and houses and human lives get destroyed, there is a feeling of utter helpless and despair that goes hand and hand with the profound beauty of water. One of the main conflicts in human life is man against nature. And to me that is what this is movie is about.