Introduction
Groundswell is the final installment of a trilogy designed to give the audience hope that we can save the environment, and the answer is simple: save the soil under our feet. Kiss the Ground (2020) identifies the largest threat to the environment: carbon. The film introduces regenerative farming as a way to reduce carbon emissions into our atmosphere. Common Ground (2023) advances the case for soil restoration and shows the positive results from restorative farming. Groundswell looks at the way regenerative farming is being introduced and its results around the world.
So many documentaries about the environment have a depressing or hopeless tone, which fails to enthuse an audience to become more involved in activities or organizations working to protect the environment. From the first minute of “Groundswell’ the audience knows that it is not going to be that type of film. Instead, it provides a positive message that there is hope for the environment, and it is so simple that everyone can participate. In fact, the bigger the participant, the better.
Synopsis
Unlike its predecessor, Groundswell is not a rehash of Kiss the Ground. Instead, it focuses on the results of reclamation farming from countries around the world. Not only the small-scale individual farms, but entire countries. It’s that success that gives the movie its heart. The film works because it has the synergy of an easy-to-understand story, great narration, and fantastic technical work. It presents its case by keeping the explanations short and easy to understand.
Groundswell has so many things that require explanations: desertification, reclamation farming, the role that plants play in the reduction of carbon from the environment, and the models countries are using to encourage reclamation farming. However, by the time the film is over, the audience will understand all of those terms and ideas. The best part is that these explanations are so good that audiences from high school and beyond will be able to clearly follow the film.
In addition, the graphics and, in some cases, shots of soil, plants, and animals illustrate the point the film is trying to make better than technical explanations. Finally, the filmmakers found experts from each country the film visits who easily explain how they have introduced reclamation farming and its results, not just for the environment, but also economically and socially.
Discussion
The narration is clear and keeps the audience engaged. In addition, Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore are perfect choices for narrators. They are both recognizable celebrities who have spoken out on behalf of the environment many times, so narrating the film is not just a job to them. Woody Harrelson brings continuity to the trilogy because he was one of the narrators in the other two films. Demi Moore’s narration complements Harrelson and gives the film a new feel.
Moore also has the potential to bring a new audience to the films. Each of their voices works to create a film worth listening to and watching. Add to that a cast of carefully chosen experts: farmers, scientists, sociologists, economists, animal experts, and even politicians, each addressing the audience in an easy-to-understand way. The result is a successful film that people will watch and take seriously. To be clear, the PG-13 rating is appropriate because the subject does get a little technical. The film seems geared to an audience beginning at the high school level.
The film is also a technical achievement, visually, and in terms of sound and editing. The sound design is terrific. The sound team had to work in a lot of different environments, accents, and languages. That presents a problem for even the most experienced sound crew, but Groundswell sounds great. They capture some of the culture in each of the locations where the film was shot.
Further Analysis
Besides the sound, the soundtrack was another victory for the filmmakers. Each song and piece of original music fit the film, whether it was ‘Land Down Under’ in Australia or some of the more tribal sounding music when filming in the African countries. Everything works. The editing team creates a film that seamlessly allows the audience to take a trip around the world and see the positive effect of regenerative farming.
Where the editing team does its best work is in the locals. The cutting between the big picture and the small details is not only seamless, but also makes the film understandable. Add to that the pacing, and the film not only makes sense, but it’s not boring. Its best achievement is the cinematography. The DP uses different types of photography: time-lapse to capture plants growing, drones for beautiful overhead shots, and traditional cameras for interviews and wildlife. The Cinematographer captures side-by-side comparisons of traditional versus reclaimative farming. The shots are so clear that it does not take any explanation for the audience to see the best method.
Conclusion
Groundswell is worth taking the time to watch. It is easy to see why it was selected to play at Cannes. Each aspect of the film synergizes to create a documentary that is beautiful, informative, and entertaining. In the end, audiences will see an easy solution to save the environment with little effort. As the film says, it is hard to believe that we walk on the very thing that can save the planet.
