After watching When the Levies Broke, I realized that Louisiana was not only consumed by chaos after Katrina but also by hopelessness. The greatest problem was the lack of information and the contrasting news. Some people claimed that the city was full of thugs and danger lurked everywhere while the government officials consistently denied this. Those in the positions of power and those actually experiencing the tragedy could never agree. The politicians were not worried about the people; rather, they focused on protecting the businesses and hosting the president when he finally showed up. Even in the time of devastation, those in power could not get along because they could not let go of past offences like voting for an opposing candidate. Bush even claimed he had not heard about Katrina until days later. It was this repeated denial of the tragedy and lack of response that led to the ultimate hopelessness. Yes, chaos was always present, but the original chaos was quickly diminished as people lost their beliefs in being saved.
Personally, watching the film made me angry. I could not trust anything the politicians said because they kept changing their opinions and demeanors. In one clip, they were devastated and mourning with the people, and in the next, they were blaming everyone but themselves for the failed response to Katrina. I felt that the true stories came from the citizens, those experiencing the storm first hand. These stories explained the true devastation caused by the storm and by the government with their inaction. Katrina was devastating, but it did not have to be as tragic as it was. The government failed in its response leading to a quickly spreading sense of hopelessness among the Louisiana citizens.
I appreciate this film a lot. It is informative and gives a view from inside the city and the chaos. But more than just the information, I appreciate how it was presented. There are many viewpoints, from politicians to people who have been on the street waiting for buses for five days. There are interviews with people who had a lot of information and people who had no information.
This is a good way to present the story because of how scattered the information really is. You can’t know anyone’s experiences other than your own unless you had the experience with them. And, of course, pathos was employed. That is a staple when talking about such a tragedy. However, the way it came across was refreshing.
When I watched When the Levees Broke, I felt a very strong mixture of emotions. One of the most effective parts of the documentary was the personal accounts from the residents of New Orleans. The raw emotions in their speech made me feel connected to them in a way that could not have been possible by just reading facts or watching news reports about Hurricane Katrina. There was one part of the documentary that has really stuck with me. A woman told about how her young daughter was a much stronger swimmer than both her and her husband. She had to tell her daughter that if the storm water were to sweep them away, she needed to swim on without them in order to save herself. I think this really emphasized the fact that this storm tore so many families apart. Another aspect of the film that was very affective was the way that they contrasted the upbeat jazz music with the images of devastations. I think this was a great way to show how sad it is that one of the most culturally rich areas in America was destroyed by this storm. Watching this movie was a good way to remind ourselves that the people in this area are still suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, and we should not forget them.
I think that we knew that there was devastation in the Gulf Coast in the months and years after Katrina, but we didn't really understand quite how much. Even after reading Egger's Zeitoun, we were more aware of the problems that they faced and angry about it, but we didn't truly understand the scale of devastation that took place. The biggest thing that we didn't understand was the emotions that took place before and after Katrina and the levee failure. We saw pictures of the devastation and we knew that a hurricane had caused the damage but we had no idea of what was actually happening at the time.
The documentary captured the fear and awe at the weather in the account of Eddie Compass about weather's true power and the description of the wind sounding like a tornado in the account to follow. We saw as the SuperDome started being torn apart and heard the terror in the voices as people in the Lower 9th Ward heard the explosion of the levee breaking. The people lived in fear, cut off from the world, left to fend for themselves in the flood waters with not much help from the federal government until days after the storm had hit. They were terrified and jumped to conclusions that the levee was blown up like in Hurricane Betsy. And we saw all of it. We heard their stories of screaming for help and waving flags only to be passed over. Of the Coast Guard working overtime to help and the police being stretched to their limits trying to keep the city safe. We heard everything and saw real people with real emotions and real families and real lives. We saw people desperate for help.
We saw something that was real and began to understand a tiny part of the anger and the feelings of betrayal that they experienced. We started to see this because they had faces and stories of their own. The documentary gave them that and we were able to immerse ourselves in their lives for the hours that we watched it. We could slip into their world for a little while and during that time it became real.
One note: I encourage you to, like the posts so far, analyze not just what the documentary says but how it presents it. Documentaries are fundamentally stories; they are crafted texts intending to convey a message and often an emotion. Try to consider Spike Lee's overall approach.
I really liked how this documentary really got the common man’s view of the disaster. It focused more on how Hurricane Katrina affected the lower class. These people really had no way to get out. The officials said get out of the city, but what about the people who have no transportation? I was really frustrated at how slow our ability to respond to this crisis was. The documentary triggered this frustration for the viewers by showing how many officials were just out doing recreational activities while the victims of the Hurricane were thirsty and starving.
Overall, this documentary was really effective in making me feel as if I was there witnessing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I felt sad for the people going through this, and I felt frustrated at our government for its slow response.
This documentary was effective in its portrayal of the damage of Hurricane Katrina through strong pathos. The interviews with common people helped me understand the damage more. When the hurricanes hit, I was unable to understand the depth of the damage because I had never been to New Orleans. In the interview with the man who said he understood the damage when he saw the destroyed grocery store, I was able to better understand the damage through a frame of reference: a town grocery store. The interviews used emotional appeal to make the audience understand the feelings of the survivors and the hurricane’s damage. However, I am frustrated with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Massive amounts of money have been given to New Orleans, yet there has not been as much relief given to hurricane victims as I would like. An article from CNN states that “Congress had allocated more than $110 billion to rebuild the region, but state and local officials have complained that the funds are not reaching residents who are trying to rebuild homes and businesses” (CNN). After all of the emphasis that the media has placed on the hurricane, it is frustrating to learn that the money that has been raised has not reached where it should be.
“New Orleans Mayor: Where is the promised money?” CNN News. 29 January 2007. Web. 9 May 2011.
One of the aspects of this documentary that I found most interesting was the use of the different music. Right from the beginning, Spike Lee ironically used an up-beat tune in order to introduce a documentary about a tragic story. Louis Armstrong’s famous song “Do you know what it means to Miss New Orleans” was used while the screen showed clips of both people celebrating and dancing years ago, and recent clips of the suffering that occurred during Katrina. The usage of upbeat music, being played while scenes of people being airlifted from their underwater homes, cleverly brought fourth the feeling of surrealism. Before the hurricane even hit, so many people felt that it wasn’t real. They felt as if it wasn’t a real threat and that they didn’t need to evacuate. While the music was playing, it seemed as if the hurricane didn’t even happen…how could it of when such happy sounding music was playing? Halfway into Act I, more solemn, quiet, soft music played when the people of New Orleans (and all around the country) finally realized what this storm meant. As footage played of the damage that happened after the levees broke, the music again brought the correct mood and feelings of the documentary – people had finally realized what this storm meant for them, and it wasn’t good.
This documentary was especially touching to us at this time because of the tornadoes that have recently hit and the disasters that are surrounding us in our own home town. Another reason why it was especially touching was because of the way that it was presented. The music played was melancholy the entire time and all of the stories told were one s of sadness. There were screen shots of people screaming for help and of dead floating bodies and old women on stretchers. The documentary really showed me many parts of Katrina that I did not know about. I know it is naive of me, but I did not know about all of the conspiracies and how people were potentially raping children in the superdome. The documentary did a great job of showing both sides of the money crisis and letting everyone that wished give their side of the story. People of high status also talked a lot like the Mayor. It was interesting to hear him give his side of the story and about what really happened via his point of view. Hearing the radio man cry about it seemed so human. If I had to pick one word to sum up the documentary I would choose human.
After watching When the Levees Broke, I realized that there was more to the story than the news said there was. Since we were so young with Katrina hit, we were pretty oblivious to what was going on around us. The people they interviewed had strong views and recollections of what happened in those few days. Some were yelling, some were crying, some were serious. It was full of so many emotions and feeling of despair. It really made me wonder what else I missed. I mean that was a lot of information to take in, but I wonder what other information I missed from the same event. For instance, what happened to the schools in that area? How did they do the whole year? I understand all the information was wiped away on computers and paper, but I wonder about peoples birth certificates and health records and such. This has encouraged me to look up more information (hopefully AFTER I finish school) and learn more about what happened.
This was my first day watching When The Levees Broke. It touched me more so than I thought. In my analysis of the floods, I mentioned the Red Cross’s donations not going where we thought they were. This seems to be the case with the president in the case of Hurricane Katrina. This shows how skewed the media’s representation of a cause can. As I was sitting at home watching coverage of the hurricane, I had no idea the extremes people were living in, as they tried to survive. We were only shown what made the government look good. This scares me. What else has been skewed so the public won’t turn against the government? If our government is so scared of looking like they screwed up, shouldn’t this change. Shouldn’t our government be honest with the people their choices are affecting- at least to some extent? If we’re never aware of the troubles going on, how can we help make it better? This scares me. It’s a scary thing to be aware you aren’t in the know. And eventually the truth always comes out.
This documentary showed the real Hurricane Katrina. From watching the news and reading articles when Hurricane Katrina hit, all I read and heard about was the number of deaths and the amount of destruction, just like with the recent tornadoes. But, this documentary made the hurricane personal by showing interviews with people who had been directly effected by the storm. By interviewing people from all different parts of New Orleans it made it possible to get different opinions and personal stories. Also, by interviewing and coming back to the same people it made it possible to get to know the people who were being interviewed a little bit. The use of multiple interviews with the same people and using people from different parts of New Orleans made the documentary more personal. I think Spike Lee's intention was to go past the headlines and into people's lives in order to get personal experiences and stories. The personal interviews showed the real devastation by moving past the physical and into the emotional devastation of the victim's lives before, during, and after the storm. Personally, I think the documentary was very successful in bringing out emotional responses. After watching it, I feel as if I am able to relate more because of the personal interviews with New Orleans citizens. I think those interviews made the documentary as powerful as it was and it would have lost some of it's power without them.
One of the most interesting things I found about this documentary was how soon it aired after the events of Hurricane Katrina. The documentary's production began only three months after the destruction had occurred. It then premiered on TV during August of 2006, one year after the hurricane. Most documentaries are created many years, even decades, after events. But the fact that this was created so soon after the hurricanes occurred is significant. With production being so soon after the hurricanes, emotions were still at their most extreme. Had the interviews of New Orleans locals been created even five years later the results would likely have been different. People's memories of the events would not have been as sharp. Also, their emotions were still strong, which helped increase the pathos of the video. It was soon enough after the event for them to recall exactly how they felt in the midst of the hurricane, making this documentary more realistic than many that are created years after the events they document.
I am one of those people who has a hard time keeping up with the news. When Katrina hit, I knew that it had happened, obviously, and I knew that it was a category 5 hurricane that had left New Orleans in ruins. However, I had no idea, which is pretty embarrassing, that federal aid wasn’t being distributed as quickly as it needed to. I was completely oblivious how the “black” people weren’t getting assistance and how some people even speculated that the levees has been breached intentionally to wipe out the projects. How I didn’t know this, I’m not sure. After watching this documentary, I felt overwhelmed because there were so many details that I didn’t know about. As a United States citizen, I am really ashamed to say that I was ignorant of that part of the whole situation. Also, it is overwhelming how a small part of what happened in New Orleans happened right here in Apison, Tennessee at Lydia Bowman’s house a few weeks ago. Her guesthouse is gone, and we finally found her horses, dead, about a quarter of a mile away from her house. She just got power back Friday night. Being out in Apison to help Lydia has allowed me to connect with this video even more. It is scary how this kind of stuff can truly happen in our lives. This stuff is real.
When I was watching the video, I couldn't help but note the mass amounts of contradictions. The stories of people who were there contradicted eachother and the politicians' stories of what had happened contradicted not only other politicians's stories but the also the other stories of people who were there. Everything seemed to switch from thugs and looters to just desperate people walking the streets. The story about the black man who was shot for being near a white man's house made me think that maybe the stories of looters and gansters may have been a little overestimated.
White people who were there talked about being scared of the gansters, black people talked about how the government wouldn't help them, and the government talked about how everything was under control. I left the video confused. I didn't know who to believe. The video gave all of them equal screen time and equal emphasis that they all seemed to make sense, except for the politicians. The way the video portrayed Bush's experience with Katrina was distant at best. That was how many of the Katrina survivors felt about his efforts aswell. He didn't have any information about Katrina and he tried to do as much as he could with what he had. The video downsized Bush, but I feel that he did try to help and he did do all he could with the information he was given.
I also heard different acounts of how much FEMA did for the people of New Orleans. There was a segment about them giving food and water to people and then there were accounts about how they were ignoring people and just flying above the wreckage in helicopters.
I only watched Part IV of “When the Levees Broke”, but after watching that small section of the film, I was filled with disappointment, disappointment for my country because of how poorly it handled the crisis in New Orleans and disappointment for myself for not knowing more about Katrina and efforts to help the people living there. The interviews with people who didn’t receive help or the man whose mother was found after a search team declared she was not in the house made me sick. I couldn’t believe that humans would allow other humans to go through such sorrow and pain all because of a lack of thorough investigating after the storm.
In the documentary, music plays throughout. To me, the heart of Louisiana beats to the rhythm of music. New Orleans was especially revived after Maris Gras. The bright colors and loud music and clapping from giant crowds covered up all the devastation in the city. To me, that was the symbol for hope among such sadness. The filming done on Mardi Gras was a complete change in scenery for the documentary. No longer were the gray and brown masses of debris covering the screen, instead people’s smiling faces filled it with happiness and hope. But the documentary wasn’t sugar coating it, it snaps back to the harsh reality that still lay on the grounds in Louisiana. After Mardi Gras, people had to go home to the destruction that awaited them. The vastness of the recovery was evident. People knew how big of an event Madi Gras was and how fast the city cleans that up, but they have no idea how long it would take the city to clean up an event as massive as Katrina.
After watching When the Levies Broke, I realized that Louisiana was not only consumed by chaos after Katrina but also by hopelessness. The greatest problem was the lack of information and the contrasting news. Some people claimed that the city was full of thugs and danger lurked everywhere while the government officials consistently denied this. Those in the positions of power and those actually experiencing the tragedy could never agree. The politicians were not worried about the people; rather, they focused on protecting the businesses and hosting the president when he finally showed up. Even in the time of devastation, those in power could not get along because they could not let go of past offences like voting for an opposing candidate. Bush even claimed he had not heard about Katrina until days later. It was this repeated denial of the tragedy and lack of response that led to the ultimate hopelessness. Yes, chaos was always present, but the original chaos was quickly diminished as people lost their beliefs in being saved.
ReplyDeletePersonally, watching the film made me angry. I could not trust anything the politicians said because they kept changing their opinions and demeanors. In one clip, they were devastated and mourning with the people, and in the next, they were blaming everyone but themselves for the failed response to Katrina. I felt that the true stories came from the citizens, those experiencing the storm first hand. These stories explained the true devastation caused by the storm and by the government with their inaction. Katrina was devastating, but it did not have to be as tragic as it was. The government failed in its response leading to a quickly spreading sense of hopelessness among the Louisiana citizens.
I appreciate this film a lot. It is informative and gives a view from inside the city and the chaos. But more than just the information, I appreciate how it was presented. There are many viewpoints, from politicians to people who have been on the street waiting for buses for five days. There are interviews with people who had a lot of information and people who had no information.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good way to present the story because of how scattered the information really is. You can’t know anyone’s experiences other than your own unless you had the experience with them. And, of course, pathos was employed. That is a staple when talking about such a tragedy. However, the way it came across was refreshing.
When I watched When the Levees Broke, I felt a very strong mixture of emotions. One of the most effective parts of the documentary was the personal accounts from the residents of New Orleans. The raw emotions in their speech made me feel connected to them in a way that could not have been possible by just reading facts or watching news reports about Hurricane Katrina. There was one part of the documentary that has really stuck with me. A woman told about how her young daughter was a much stronger swimmer than both her and her husband. She had to tell her daughter that if the storm water were to sweep them away, she needed to swim on without them in order to save herself. I think this really emphasized the fact that this storm tore so many families apart. Another aspect of the film that was very affective was the way that they contrasted the upbeat jazz music with the images of devastations. I think this was a great way to show how sad it is that one of the most culturally rich areas in America was destroyed by this storm. Watching this movie was a good way to remind ourselves that the people in this area are still suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, and we should not forget them.
ReplyDeleteI think that we knew that there was devastation in the Gulf Coast in the months and years after Katrina, but we didn't really understand quite how much. Even after reading Egger's Zeitoun, we were more aware of the problems that they faced and angry about it, but we didn't truly understand the scale of devastation that took place. The biggest thing that we didn't understand was the emotions that took place before and after Katrina and the levee failure. We saw pictures of the devastation and we knew that a hurricane had caused the damage but we had no idea of what was actually happening at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary captured the fear and awe at the weather in the account of Eddie Compass about weather's true power and the description of the wind sounding like a tornado in the account to follow. We saw as the SuperDome started being torn apart and heard the terror in the voices as people in the Lower 9th Ward heard the explosion of the levee breaking. The people lived in fear, cut off from the world, left to fend for themselves in the flood waters with not much help from the federal government until days after the storm had hit. They were terrified and jumped to conclusions that the levee was blown up like in Hurricane Betsy. And we saw all of it. We heard their stories of screaming for help and waving flags only to be passed over. Of the Coast Guard working overtime to help and the police being stretched to their limits trying to keep the city safe. We heard everything and saw real people with real emotions and real families and real lives. We saw people desperate for help.
We saw something that was real and began to understand a tiny part of the anger and the feelings of betrayal that they experienced. We started to see this because they had faces and stories of their own. The documentary gave them that and we were able to immerse ourselves in their lives for the hours that we watched it. We could slip into their world for a little while and during that time it became real.
Wow, beautiful posts so far. Keep it up, gang.
ReplyDeleteOne note: I encourage you to, like the posts so far, analyze not just what the documentary says but how it presents it. Documentaries are fundamentally stories; they are crafted texts intending to convey a message and often an emotion. Try to consider Spike Lee's overall approach.
I really liked how this documentary really got the common man’s view of the disaster. It focused more on how Hurricane Katrina affected the lower class. These people really had no way to get out. The officials said get out of the city, but what about the people who have no transportation? I was really frustrated at how slow our ability to respond to this crisis was. The documentary triggered this frustration for the viewers by showing how many officials were just out doing recreational activities while the victims of the Hurricane were thirsty and starving.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this documentary was really effective in making me feel as if I was there witnessing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I felt sad for the people going through this, and I felt frustrated at our government for its slow response.
This documentary was effective in its portrayal of the damage of Hurricane Katrina through strong pathos. The interviews with common people helped me understand the damage more. When the hurricanes hit, I was unable to understand the depth of the damage because I had never been to New Orleans. In the interview with the man who said he understood the damage when he saw the destroyed grocery store, I was able to better understand the damage through a frame of reference: a town grocery store. The interviews used emotional appeal to make the audience understand the feelings of the survivors and the hurricane’s damage.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am frustrated with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Massive amounts of money have been given to New Orleans, yet there has not been as much relief given to hurricane victims as I would like. An article from CNN states that “Congress had allocated more than $110 billion to rebuild the region, but state and local officials have complained that the funds are not reaching residents who are trying to rebuild homes and businesses” (CNN). After all of the emphasis that the media has placed on the hurricane, it is frustrating to learn that the money that has been raised has not reached where it should be.
“New Orleans Mayor: Where is the promised money?” CNN News. 29 January 2007. Web. 9 May 2011.
One of the aspects of this documentary that I found most interesting was the use of the different music. Right from the beginning, Spike Lee ironically used an up-beat tune in order to introduce a documentary about a tragic story. Louis Armstrong’s famous song “Do you know what it means to Miss New Orleans” was used while the screen showed clips of both people celebrating and dancing years ago, and recent clips of the suffering that occurred during Katrina. The usage of upbeat music, being played while scenes of people being airlifted from their underwater homes, cleverly brought fourth the feeling of surrealism. Before the hurricane even hit, so many people felt that it wasn’t real. They felt as if it wasn’t a real threat and that they didn’t need to evacuate. While the music was playing, it seemed as if the hurricane didn’t even happen…how could it of when such happy sounding music was playing? Halfway into Act I, more solemn, quiet, soft music played when the people of New Orleans (and all around the country) finally realized what this storm meant. As footage played of the damage that happened after the levees broke, the music again brought the correct mood and feelings of the documentary – people had finally realized what this storm meant for them, and it wasn’t good.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary was especially touching to us at this time because of the tornadoes that have recently hit and the disasters that are surrounding us in our own home town. Another reason why it was especially touching was because of the way that it was presented. The music played was melancholy the entire time and all of the stories told were one s of sadness. There were screen shots of people screaming for help and of dead floating bodies and old women on stretchers.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary really showed me many parts of Katrina that I did not know about. I know it is naive of me, but I did not know about all of the conspiracies and how people were potentially raping children in the superdome. The documentary did a great job of showing both sides of the money crisis and letting everyone that wished give their side of the story. People of high status also talked a lot like the Mayor. It was interesting to hear him give his side of the story and about what really happened via his point of view. Hearing the radio man cry about it seemed so human. If I had to pick one word to sum up the documentary I would choose human.
After watching When the Levees Broke, I realized that there was more to the story than the news said there was. Since we were so young with Katrina hit, we were pretty oblivious to what was going on around us. The people they interviewed had strong views and recollections of what happened in those few days. Some were yelling, some were crying, some were serious. It was full of so many emotions and feeling of despair. It really made me wonder what else I missed. I mean that was a lot of information to take in, but I wonder what other information I missed from the same event. For instance, what happened to the schools in that area? How did they do the whole year? I understand all the information was wiped away on computers and paper, but I wonder about peoples birth certificates and health records and such. This has encouraged me to look up more information (hopefully AFTER I finish school) and learn more about what happened.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first day watching When The Levees Broke. It touched me more so than I thought. In my analysis of the floods, I mentioned the Red Cross’s donations not going where we thought they were. This seems to be the case with the president in the case of Hurricane Katrina. This shows how skewed the media’s representation of a cause can. As I was sitting at home watching coverage of the hurricane, I had no idea the extremes people were living in, as they tried to survive. We were only shown what made the government look good. This scares me. What else has been skewed so the public won’t turn against the government? If our government is so scared of looking like they screwed up, shouldn’t this change. Shouldn’t our government be honest with the people their choices are affecting- at least to some extent? If we’re never aware of the troubles going on, how can we help make it better? This scares me. It’s a scary thing to be aware you aren’t in the know. And eventually the truth always comes out.
ReplyDeleteThis documentary showed the real Hurricane Katrina. From watching the news and reading articles when Hurricane Katrina hit, all I read and heard about was the number of deaths and the amount of destruction, just like with the recent tornadoes. But, this documentary made the hurricane personal by showing interviews with people who had been directly effected by the storm. By interviewing people from all different parts of New Orleans it made it possible to get different opinions and personal stories. Also, by interviewing and coming back to the same people it made it possible to get to know the people who were being interviewed a little bit. The use of multiple interviews with the same people and using people from different parts of New Orleans made the documentary more personal. I think Spike Lee's intention was to go past the headlines and into people's lives in order to get personal experiences and stories. The personal interviews showed the real devastation by moving past the physical and into the emotional devastation of the victim's lives before, during, and after the storm.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the documentary was very successful in bringing out emotional responses. After watching it, I feel as if I am able to relate more because of the personal interviews with New Orleans citizens. I think those interviews made the documentary as powerful as it was and it would have lost some of it's power without them.
One of the most interesting things I found about this documentary was how soon it aired after the events of Hurricane Katrina. The documentary's production began only three months after the destruction had occurred. It then premiered on TV during August of 2006, one year after the hurricane. Most documentaries are created many years, even decades, after events. But the fact that this was created so soon after the hurricanes occurred is significant.
ReplyDeleteWith production being so soon after the hurricanes, emotions were still at their most extreme. Had the interviews of New Orleans locals been created even five years later the results would likely have been different. People's memories of the events would not have been as sharp. Also, their emotions were still strong, which helped increase the pathos of the video. It was soon enough after the event for them to recall exactly how they felt in the midst of the hurricane, making this documentary more realistic than many that are created years after the events they document.
I am one of those people who has a hard time keeping up with the news. When Katrina hit, I knew that it had happened, obviously, and I knew that it was a category 5 hurricane that had left New Orleans in ruins. However, I had no idea, which is pretty embarrassing, that federal aid wasn’t being distributed as quickly as it needed to. I was completely oblivious how the “black” people weren’t getting assistance and how some people even speculated that the levees has been breached intentionally to wipe out the projects. How I didn’t know this, I’m not sure. After watching this documentary, I felt overwhelmed because there were so many details that I didn’t know about. As a United States citizen, I am really ashamed to say that I was ignorant of that part of the whole situation. Also, it is overwhelming how a small part of what happened in New Orleans happened right here in Apison, Tennessee at Lydia Bowman’s house a few weeks ago. Her guesthouse is gone, and we finally found her horses, dead, about a quarter of a mile away from her house. She just got power back Friday night. Being out in Apison to help Lydia has allowed me to connect with this video even more. It is scary how this kind of stuff can truly happen in our lives. This stuff is real.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching the video, I couldn't help but note the mass amounts of contradictions. The stories of people who were there contradicted eachother and the politicians' stories of what had happened contradicted not only other politicians's stories but the also the other stories of people who were there. Everything seemed to switch from thugs and looters to just desperate people walking the streets. The story about the black man who was shot for being near a white man's house made me think that maybe the stories of looters and gansters may have been a little overestimated.
ReplyDeleteWhite people who were there talked about being scared of the gansters, black people talked about how the government wouldn't help them, and the government talked about how everything was under control. I left the video confused. I didn't know who to believe. The video gave all of them equal screen time and equal emphasis that they all seemed to make sense, except for the politicians.
The way the video portrayed Bush's experience with Katrina was distant at best. That was how many of the Katrina survivors felt about his efforts aswell. He didn't have any information about Katrina and he tried to do as much as he could with what he had. The video downsized Bush, but I feel that he did try to help and he did do all he could with the information he was given.
I also heard different acounts of how much FEMA did for the people of New Orleans. There was a segment about them giving food and water to people and then there were accounts about how they were ignoring people and just flying above the wreckage in helicopters.
I only watched Part IV of “When the Levees Broke”, but after watching that small section of the film, I was filled with disappointment, disappointment for my country because of how poorly it handled the crisis in New Orleans and disappointment for myself for not knowing more about Katrina and efforts to help the people living there. The interviews with people who didn’t receive help or the man whose mother was found after a search team declared she was not in the house made me sick. I couldn’t believe that humans would allow other humans to go through such sorrow and pain all because of a lack of thorough investigating after the storm.
ReplyDeleteIn the documentary, music plays throughout. To me, the heart of Louisiana beats to the rhythm of music. New Orleans was especially revived after Maris Gras. The bright colors and loud music and clapping from giant crowds covered up all the devastation in the city. To me, that was the symbol for hope among such sadness. The filming done on Mardi Gras was a complete change in scenery for the documentary. No longer were the gray and brown masses of debris covering the screen, instead people’s smiling faces filled it with happiness and hope. But the documentary wasn’t sugar coating it, it snaps back to the harsh reality that still lay on the grounds in Louisiana. After Mardi Gras, people had to go home to the destruction that awaited them. The vastness of the recovery was evident. People knew how big of an event Madi Gras was and how fast the city cleans that up, but they have no idea how long it would take the city to clean up an event as massive as Katrina.