The makers of the documentary were not against the establishment of a city. They were against the destruction that was brought about by the unplanned city structures, the overpopulation and the pollution that made the city unsightly and unsafe to live in. They implied that there must be some way to live in the city without having to suffer the congestion and the pollution that generally comes with it. The documentary makers showed a comparison of the picturesque view of New England (02:35) and that of the industrialized but polluted city (07:45). The makers presented the comparison in order to allow the viewer to realize what has become of the serene communities during the 18th century with the coming of massive industrialization and progress that was typical in the modern city. Showing these evidences are important to induce awareness and reaction from the viewer, as well as to prompt the realization about how industrialization have brought considerable progress, yet they are also the cause of environmental damage.
The film makers were criticizing the city because it was unplanned, which eventually resulted in massive pollution, environmental destruction and health hazards. The business people and the government were too focused on the progress and development which are guaranteed by the rapid industrialization. The viewer can hear the narrator say: “Smoke makes prosperity, they tell you here, smoke makes prosperity no matter if you choke on it”, while showing a smoke-filled environment (08:55). The film makers used these phrases to show how people tended to accept the idea that there is nothing that can be done about the pollution and overcrowding in the city. The documentary criticizes the fact that most people have come to believe that pollution and unhealthy environment were an inherent part of progress. This is another significant aspect of the documentary because it wanted to convey a message about the need for a change, and the documentary was used as “a vehicle for generating public support for their program” (Gillette, 72).
The filmmakers are promoting a new kind of city that is industrialize yet it remains to be a place that is fit for living. The narrator implied that the people owe it to their children to prevent further environmental decay, and they narrator expressed about the need to “build a new city close to the soil” (06:08) They film makers wanted a city that remain green and unpolluted, a place that should not be allowed to grow until it is no longer fit to live in it. Further, they expressed the concept about putting men and machineries in their respective places, so that the machines can work to their full potential, while man can experience his full humanity.
The main point of the films is that despite the economic benefits, the rapid progress and development eventually resulted in the destruction of the environment, especially in the city. The significance of stressing this point is for the people, the business owners and the government to be more aware about the dangers associated with increased industrialization in the city. It calls for the need for better urban planning, so as to embrace industrialization and the associated progress and development, while seeing to it that the environment remain to be clean and the city is still fit to live in.
Works Cited
The City, Part I. Dir. Ralph Steiner, and Willard Van Dyke. Perf. Morris Carnovsky. American Documentary Film, 1939. Film.
The City, Part II. Dir. Ralph Steiner, and Willard Van Dyke. Perf. Morris Carnovsky. American Documentary Film, 1939. Film.
Gillette, Jr, Howard. Film as Artifact: The City (1939). N.p., 1. Print.
