It's a documentary-promotional, and as such it's a success story as long as we don't ask for details.
There is little to discuss about the film's undeniable cinematic qualities.
The biological richness achieved is also remarkable.
The problem is that it is unachieved.
As such, it will satisfy a young audience, or an audience of naive adults, but does not satisfy the curiosity of an adult audience capable of critical thinking.
I do not deny the biological success achieved.
But I do believe that the authors owe the adult audience more transparency about the ins and outs of their project. Notably:
- What was the initial project as endorsed by the investors? Purely agricultural, or eco-tourism, or even cinematographic (this film being then the completion of the project, the farm itself being then only a by-product of the financial project)?
- what is the financial track record of the operation? In this balance sheet, what is the share of income from agriculture and what is the share of eco-tourism?
- what is the production (measured in tonnage per unit of area)? What is the balance sheet in man-work units?
In other words, what is the cost of success?
My question is not a sly one. Personally, I sincerely believe that this type of agriculture is bound to develop. But if we are serious about getting our fellow citizens interested in it, we must be honest about the consequences of the proposed changes.
The consequences are a larger farming population (a movement that is the opposite of the historical movement of mankind). Less calibrated agricultural products. Lower per capita yields.
None of this is embarrassing to me. I simply regret that the authors of this film preferred ease to pedagogy. By showing a little more transparency, they could have made an excellent movie from a simply good movie. 7/10
