This is a well-intended (I infer) effort, that suffers from a disorganized approach. Viewers endure a confused mix of talking heads, public domain cartoons & video snippets, political & news snippets, and some narrated exposition. The juxtaposition of OLD film & video & cartoons with contemporary talking heads and news is fluffy and distracting. It suggests that the filmmakers were a bit confused and uncertain about what they were hoping to do here. What it does NOT do, is lay out the concepts clearly, then proceed through a coherent linear narrative, using experts who can talk about the history of the basic idea, details and nuances of how it's been proposed and implemented in several instances, and specifics of the how, why and who of various failures, successes, and obstacles.
Had the filmmakers taken a position more strongly, rather than taking a passive backseat passenger position, they could have presented with clarity. They've chosen to defer to too many talking heads without tying it all together. There is essentially no narrative flow; we simply see snippets of mostly contemporaneous news & events, without enough context or discussion of outcome or impact.
There are many small vignettes from around the developed and developing world, but no real stories. The filmmakers seem to assume that the best way to tell the overall story of the idea of a basic income ist to let several individuals talk from their own perspectives. Sure, its a bit interesting, but without an over-arching narrative (and narrator), viewers are left with piqued curiosity and probably moments of near outrage and a few "Aha!" Instances. But, one does not come away satisfied that much was learned of lasting substance.
Also: the use of the most dreadful music is baffling. I suspect there's some kind of passive-aggressive ironical intent, but it's only annoying and inherently unpleasant. Why do that?
Had the filmmakers taken a position more strongly, rather than taking a passive backseat passenger position, they could have presented with clarity. They've chosen to defer to too many talking heads without tying it all together. There is essentially no narrative flow; we simply see snippets of mostly contemporaneous news & events, without enough context or discussion of outcome or impact.
There are many small vignettes from around the developed and developing world, but no real stories. The filmmakers seem to assume that the best way to tell the overall story of the idea of a basic income ist to let several individuals talk from their own perspectives. Sure, its a bit interesting, but without an over-arching narrative (and narrator), viewers are left with piqued curiosity and probably moments of near outrage and a few "Aha!" Instances. But, one does not come away satisfied that much was learned of lasting substance.
Also: the use of the most dreadful music is baffling. I suspect there's some kind of passive-aggressive ironical intent, but it's only annoying and inherently unpleasant. Why do that?
