The 2010 documentary “Bag It” criticizes the production and implementation of “needless” plastics in the modern age. Jeb Berrier takes the viewer around the world, following plastic waste from stores and homes to it’s final destination in growing landfills and open ocean waters. He strives for consumers to partake less in buying or using products with excessive plastics like toy containers, milk caps, and what he states as the worst offender, the plastic bag.
Iɴᴛʀᴏᴅᴜᴄᴛɪᴏɴ
This analysis will review the credibility of sources that have been cited, overview of the motive that drove the production of the film, evaluate the cinematography, and attempt to objectively deduce a credible argument from the information that is presented. Although, the value of appealing to a target audience …show more content…
At this point, I believe the documentary is approaching deceptiveness. Jeb states his opinion that a simple 20 cent tax per bag would be an acceptable deterrent, the tax is portrayed as a progressive compromise. On the contrary, residents of Seattle voted to reject the referendum to impose the 20 cent tax. The City of Seattle then conducted it’s own Survey where it found the tax to be grossly unpopular, a potentially important statement seemingly overlooked by the documentary. Directly after neglecting critical facts, they go on to demonize the A.C.C. for it’s involvement in the campaign against Seattle’s plastic bag tax. Subsequently, their request for a statement was declined, Jeb goes on to tell the audience the intentions of the A.C.C. “They are only acting in their own interest”, he claims, not referencing to any efforts put forth by the A.C.C. to promote reduced usage, reusing, and increased accessible recycling. It is evident, there is information being purposefully expunged from the documentary to support the arguments conveyed by the
Iɴᴛʀᴏᴅᴜᴄᴛɪᴏɴ
This analysis will review the credibility of sources that have been cited, overview of the motive that drove the production of the film, evaluate the cinematography, and attempt to objectively deduce a credible argument from the information that is presented. Although, the value of appealing to a target audience …show more content…
At this point, I believe the documentary is approaching deceptiveness. Jeb states his opinion that a simple 20 cent tax per bag would be an acceptable deterrent, the tax is portrayed as a progressive compromise. On the contrary, residents of Seattle voted to reject the referendum to impose the 20 cent tax. The City of Seattle then conducted it’s own Survey where it found the tax to be grossly unpopular, a potentially important statement seemingly overlooked by the documentary. Directly after neglecting critical facts, they go on to demonize the A.C.C. for it’s involvement in the campaign against Seattle’s plastic bag tax. Subsequently, their request for a statement was declined, Jeb goes on to tell the audience the intentions of the A.C.C. “They are only acting in their own interest”, he claims, not referencing to any efforts put forth by the A.C.C. to promote reduced usage, reusing, and increased accessible recycling. It is evident, there is information being purposefully expunged from the documentary to support the arguments conveyed by the