I went with a friend to see the movie Thirst today. The privatization of water is an important global issue, and for that reason alone I think it deserves the good review, but as a documentary, it really disappointed. Maybe The Corporation has raised the bar on documentaries, but the failings of "Thirst" as a documentary were pretty palpable.

In fact, "The Corporation" touched on the issue and had more of an impact than "Thirst". "Thirst" basically posits the privatization of water as bad, and then just repeats that over and over again without going into details or substantive issues. What it did well was show grassroots workings in Rajasthan, India and Stockton, California; that political problems are about people acting out.

"Thirst" doesn't really go into the mechanics of how and why privatization of water is bad in Stockton and Rajasthan. It was like they assumed their audience would knee-jerk equate privatization, globalization, and corporatization with "bad". And that's probably true, but limits the audience of the movie.

What was the issue with water in Stockton prior to privatization? What came out of the Kyoto Water Forum? What are farther reaching implications of privatization of water and water rights, aside from that one worker who voluntarily quit? What was the context in Rajasthan and who specifically were they fighting against? What are the suggested solutions aside from "act locally"? What is the bigger picture? That's what "The Corporation" did right. Both films covered the evil, San Francisco-based Bechtel Corporation's attempt to privatize water in Bolivia, but whereas "The Corporation" put it into a global context of corporatization, "Thirst" just posits it as an issue, and that "people power" succeeded in that one case.

Anyway, it looks from the official website that "Thirst" is getting a PBS airing, so that's just another reason not to see it in theaters.