Watermark (2014)

Film: Watermark (2014)
Directors: Jennifer Baichwal and Edward Burtynsky
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

I am a complete and total sucker for nature films.  This is partially because I think I have an adventurer's spirit-I love adventures stories, and will read and re-read about the likes of Thor Heyerdahl and John Glenn and basically anyone who sets out into the unknown.  I also grew up in Northern Minnesota, and some of my favorite memories as a child were of going out into the fields of my grandparents' farm, bundled up because of the bitter cold and seeing the stars and Northern Lights come alive.  And of course, I'm a pretty fervent environmentalist who borders onto "that guy" when it comes to recycling, sorting your garbage, and renewable resources.

All of this was why I thought that Watermark would intrigue me.  Like so many films that end up on my Netflix account, this was a movie that I saw a trailer for at my local Landmark Theater (there should be a way to politely write down the trailers you want to see during a movie, particularly at an independent cinema), and I thought the principle photography was arresting.  In many ways it reminded me of Chasing Ice from a few years back, a movie that combined a relevant message with a truly stunning array of photographs of nature from angles you wouldn't necessarily expect.  Glaciers looked less like icy caverns and more like something out of a Lord of the Rings film, full of energy and vitality and color.  And so as I fervently work to finish up the films of 2014, I figured this intriguing picture couldn't go unseen before I decided my favorites of the year.

I will say that I was half right.  The photography in the film is indeed spectacular.  While it never quite reaches the splendor of Chasing Ice (a movie I'd probably have nominated for a Cinematography Oscar), it's breathtaking to look at the ways that water forms the world.  There are scenes in rice paddies and dams and in cool, bizarre water farms that leave you trying to catch your breath.  The film almost didn't need sound-it could have been a series of terrific shots careening one right after the other, like the cinematic equivalent of a coffee table book.

Unfortunately for me, though, the film does indeed add sound, and that's where the problems start.  I frequently talk about the difficulty of grading documentaries (because you always are kinder to the films whose message you agree with), but here it's easy to grade because the film lacks a coherent message.  Is the film about the way that we're all connected by water, or is it about water preservation, or is it about the countless shapes that water creates, or is it about the history of water?  It doesn't really know, and tries to be all of them without succeeding in being any.  Just when you think that you've entered the point of the film (which seems to be, at least from the directors toward the end, that global warming is coming and we need to start paying attention to it in order to survive) where you've discovered what the director is trying to accomplish, they spend ten minutes on people bathing in the Ganges.  The movie clearly has great intentions, but it doesn't succeed in any of them except for looking pretty, which isn't enough to warrant watching a nature documentary, a cinematic subgenre whose raison d'etre is to look beautiful.

Those are my thoughts on this very tiny (it made less than $100k at the Box Office) documentary.  I'm not going to pretend you've seen this movie (though if you have, head into the comments), but I will invite you to discuss your thoughts on nature documentaries in general, and the way that documentaries desperately need a decent editor to engage the audience.  The comments are there for the taking!