Analyze

Mishuana Goeman in Mark My Words talks about remapping as a way of rethinking space and temporality, so the future is driving the study of the past and the past is interrogated for the future.

Goeman uses the fiction of Native women to push forth the idea that words don’t only represent reality, arguing that by using narrative “in (re)mapping, we as Native people have the power to rethink the way we engage with territory, with our relationships to one another, and with other Native nations and settler nations” (38–39).

So imagining spatial encounters and relationships is actually a way of mapping alternative relationships

Massey’s understanding of space is the “product of interrelations,” “spheres of possibility,” “and always under construction or a simultaneity of stories-so-far” (6-7), so space is a meeting of histories.

What histories are meeting now? Maybe more importantly, whose histories are meeting? I think this is where scalar analysis can come in to complement Massey’s thinking about space.. to start to tease out a bit these entangled encounter or meeting space, knowing it will never fully be disentangled.

Also, when think about Massey’s line of space as a meeting place, something always in transit, I’m thinking specifically of encounters. And space/place as encounter. And stay at home orders rethink the way many of us are encountering each other, also in certain contexts, especially for those with the privilege of staying at home, change encounters are being lost. The sort of tranistness of space is being lost.

More statistics could have been added to enhance the film's educational value and/or a plan of what the company or Japan would do about the future of nuclear power.

A child's perspective would increase the emotional aspect of the film.

More scientific data and perspectives from public health officials could be used to broaden the perspective of this film and change its purpose from being an emotional film to being a more educational film.

The interviews in the film suggested the government was acting improperly during the initial outbreak, interviews with officials in the government would greatly increase the educational value of the film as it would provide differing opinions and a more complete understanding of the situation.

More scientific data and interviews with government workers and health officials would have strengthened the argument of this film and turned it into more of an educational film, rather than a solely emotional one. Even providing the viewer with some information about ebola could have been helpful. 

I think that adding more evidentiary support such as data analysis r statistics would have enhanced this video's educational value. It would have shown the physical evidence and the magnitude of the disaster. I also believe that citing more government officials and getting statements from more hospital workers, doctors and first responders would have given this film a more well rounded and accurate depiction of all sides of the outbreak. 

More focus on the care, treatment, containment, and management of contagious diseases like Ebola would have increased its educational value, especially to first responders.

They could have discussed logistics on transport and mass treatments more, but overall they did a good job.

The film provided general facts about MSF and the conditions in Lieria and the Congo, but no detailed medical statisitics. There wasn't any comparison of the issues in this mission versus those on other missions. The film could have included more on the factors that contribute to the diseases themselves, rather than the barriers to treating them. The film also needed more on the exact amounts of supplies that were given relative to what one would have in a clinic elsewhere.