Down in the Dumps
In his book In Search of Melancholy Baby, Russian emigre
novelist Vassily Aksyonov discusses his move to America and his
various reactions to the country. He and his wife settle in
Washington D.C., and it is only a matter of time before he takes
note of the city's legendary rats. He writes, "At first we
refused to believe our eyes. Hefty rats running around the
capital of the United States of America? No, they must be pets
of some kind giant gerbils, perhaps. Then we found a dead
'gerbil' next to our car. A rat, no two ways about it.... In the
Soviet Union the situation would have been declared an emergency
by the municipal department of epidemiology, but in America no
one appears particularly put out" (76).
The final shot of D.C. filmmaker James M. Felter's Rats is a
visual equivalent to the first sentence quoted above. On the
Fourth of July, an enormous burst of fireworks turns the
Washington Monument and Capitol Building into beautiful
silhouettes and as the light fades, the camera pans right and
tilts down to a street, and after a beat, a rat scurries across
the street. Felter shares Akysonov's outrage and sense of irony,
but as a resident of D.C., he would disagree with the novelist's
observation that no one in America feels "put out." Felter feels
very "put out" by the rats. But more than that, as his film
makes plain, he sees them as an omnipresent symbol for problems
in the nation's capitol.
Felter's film focuses on Willard Street in Northwest D.C., a
respectable street in a city where many areas are run down, and
is divided into three sections, titled onscreen: "Life and Death
on Willard Street," "Where the Food Chain Collides," and
"Trashed." In part one, we see the rats eating and thriving off
trash, particularly in one dumpster. Residents complain about
the waste and a professional exterminator comes to poison the
area around the dumpster. Two guys shoot rats from their back
porch with pellet guns in the most amusing portion of the film
(they take this seriously: we even see one of the men buy a new
rifle later). Their self-consciously satirical "hunter" poses on
the porch are quite comical, as is their "you kill it you bag it"
policy with dead rats. In part two, we follow two homeless men
who not only must compete with the rats for food but must
literally live with them. And in part three, interviews with
trash collectors and a trash-transfer station official reveal
that trash from surrounding states is brought into D.C., and that
the huge piles of trash perversely provide environments conducive
to rats' continued existence and reproduction.
The film also covers more topics than Willard Street and the
three-part narrative structure outlined above. Viewers come away
with a fascinating look at those who live not only on Willard
Street but in the whole of D.C. For instance, one entertaining
woman at a recycling protest decides for no apparent reason
that she is going to break a bottle to show her displeasure with
D.C.'s ineffectual recycling programs. She picks out an empty
wine bottle and with a flourish throws it at a pillar... which
the bottle misses completely. She turns and laughs into the
camera, almost as though she knows her protest is as likely to
effect change as her bottle tossing would.
Then there is the spokeswoman for PETA who, in the middle of her
interview with Felter, requests that he stop because, she says,
"I think someone is drowning over there." She goes over to a
trash can, camera following, and we see a rat struggling to stay
afloat in water at the bottom of the barrel. She tips the can
over and tells us the rat is more scared of us than we are of
him, as the shivering rodent slowly wanders off to eat trash,
make babies, and spread disease. Her exaggerated, yet sincere,
concern is almost comic and provoked some laughter at the
screening I attended. After the screening, Felter and
producer/co-editor Tracy M. Cones were on hand to answer
questions and stated quite clearly that they believe with the
PETA spokeswoman in the "sanctity of all life." It is also
difficult to argue with the woman's action, since she notes that
to kill a rat in the current environment simply makes room for
another rat to live.
At the same time, one can hardly argue that one should let the
rats be, since Felter also mentioned during the Q&A, that he
might not have undertaken the project had he know in advance the
number of diseases that rats carry. Yet his film actually
manages to elicit concern for rats with two on-screen deaths. In
the first, a rat is caught and killed in a trap: its final
twitches elicited
gasps of concern from the audience. Later, a rat shot by the rat
snipers gasps its last breath while Felter provides several close
ups of its foot as it stops moving forever. Even more than the
first death, this one had audience members recoiling in horror
and sympathy. When asked about the scene, Felter revealed to the
audience that, when the sniper saw it, he put down his (new)
pellet gun and gave up sniping.
The director takes pride in this accomplishment, because he
recognizes and clearly presents the fact that change must occur
on the individual level: citizens must personally choose to,
among other things, be responsible for their refuse. The "a" in
the film's title logo is done up like the symbol for Anarchy, but
I can not say whether Felter professes to be an anarchist or a
libertarian (anarchist-lite) or what. He does make it clear that
government or other current authorities are not the answer to the
problems presented by his documentary. Felter and his camera join
a woman protesting for better recycling programs as she confronts
(then) D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. Mr. Barry is not very
communicative and seems indifferent to the problems of his city.
The film appears to hold Barry responsible for the government's
atrocious waste disposal system, but more importantly, it
demonstrates that the problem is not Barry's alone, and that a
society which looks to Barry (specifically, and generally) for
guidance, much less leadership, is in trouble.
The director observed after the screening that everyone in the
film blames someone else. A man who lives on Willard Street
blames a single house with a lot of trash around it. As the
camera follows the two homeless men down Willard Street's alley,
the two men stop and look at the trash cast all over the back
portion of the property and note that this trash loose and all
over the place draws rats to the area and gives them food and
places to live. The homeowner needs not only a proper waste
receptacle, but as well, the willingness to use it. But the
problem is no more this homeowner's fault than it is Mayor
Barry's, the trash collector's, or the animal lover's. The
problem is everyone's waste and how we all tend to it.
Rats raises the age-old question as to whether art can (or even
should try to) affect viewers' behavior. As I mentioned above,
Felter claims his film made a man quit shooting rats. He also
said the film resulted in a photo opportunity where city
officials visited Willard Street to revel in their quick fix
solution of poisoning the rats and pouring concrete. Cones added
that since making the film, she has taken to calling people out
when she sees them drop trash on the ground. She didn't hang
around after the screening to fuss at anyone in the audience,
however. I probably don't need to tell you that as I left the
theater, candy boxes and D.C. Film Fest ballots were strewn all
over the floor. I don't need to tell you because you already
know it and when you see the film, your theater will also be
littered with trash, as will the parking lot where your car sits.
I picked up a few of ballots off the floor to stuff the ballot
box ("vote early and often"), but I confess I did not pick up any
candy boxes. Somebody else will, right?