People's Republic of Mallacoota

I do not agree at all with the negative review written here. First, a disclaimer, I was doing a PhD in community-centred climate adaptation discussions when this series was released on the ABC TV. 'People's Republic' gave me hope that community-driven conversations and novel approaches to the horrifying weather and climatic events in Australia were possible. I am glad that the viewer was not exposed to the horrifying events of Black Summer, the trauma was evident through the beautiful photographs by the local artist, and flashbacks depicted in the series. I am not sure I wanted to sit through the fires again! I found the community members interesting enough to sustain six episodes but then again, I am a Social Researcher and people are my business. The series focuses on the elections and decision-making that followed the fires, in a community with a history of conflict. I loved the context provided at the beginning of the series, which introduced a community of fishers, artists, and environmentalists in Mallacoota. The only thing missing for me was the lack of conflict in the process, I wondered if the series brushed over the difficult issues that may have arisen over the details. I found the show extremely moving and evocative.

Poorly structured, poorly edited, overly bloated, and distractingly so.

The takeaways:

> Did they spend two years filming and simply feel compelled to make a six-parter when two, or at most, three parts would have sufficed?

> The show lacks a proper introduction to the town and its surrounds. History and imagery are only peppered into the episodes in a haphazard fashion.

> The viewer is never allowed to truly appreciate the harrowing events of the fires as footage and accounts only appear as fleeting cutaways.

> The editing is extremely repetitive. Why are the same interview clips recycled again and again as if we'd already forgotten? There's no faith in the viewer's intelligence. Why are they so often afraid to linger on one individual's story, and instead cut between multiple talking heads in rapid succession? It's not as if they've cleverly woven them together. In some ways, the editing reminds me of a mystery or true crime show, where new information is presented between excessive recaps.

> A sense of chronology is lacking. The episodes are strongest when they get to the point and stick to one story at a time, instead of flip-flopping between disconnected events. The show doesn't sharpen its focus until the third episode.

> Show, don't tell! This documentary relies on its talking heads to explain everything to the audience over and over, when it could efficiently convey the point by >documenting< their activities and struggles, with said talking heads providing their own personal viewpoints, not just summarising the situation. This isn't the fault of the interviewees.

> This doesn't do justice to the people of Mallacoota and their situation. The documentary's shortcomings actually interfere with feeling empathy towards them and that's a real shame.

> I just know that critics are scared to appear insensitive towards the victims of the fires by appearing negative towards this. The dazzling reviews I've seen are so far off the mark.