Should films about the Anthropocene tell their audiences a progressive (things a

Should films about the Anthropocene tell their audiences a progressive (things are generally getting better) or a declensionist (things are generally getting worse) story? Why do you think that? In an essay (1500 words), we are asking you to compare two documentaries about the Anthropocene and explain which documentary—in your view—offers a better interpretation of the Anthropocene:
1) David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet,directed by Alastair Fothergill, Jonathan Hughes, Keith Scholey
and
2) All That Breathes, directed by Shaunek Sen
You don’t need to do any outside research, but you need to read and respond carefully to the director Shaunek Sen’s interview with Amy Goodman and Jerrine Tan’s “Watching A Life on Our Planet”.
Please use the following prompt to write your essay.
-The essay must have 1500 words, about 5 pages (don’t worry if your word count goes over that number by ~200 words)
-Each paragraph is about 200 words. Each paragraph should discuss both documentaries (EXCEPT for the scene unpacked paragraph) AND clearly explain which doc does a better job with the paragraph prompt. 
Introductory paragraph:
-How should the Anthropocene be filmed—things are getting better or things are getting worse? Why do you think that?
-Explain which documentary—in your view—offers a better interpretation of the Anthropocene
-Paragraph 1 on Aesthetics (how the films are put together in terms of looks and sounds)
-Paragraph 2 on Telling a story (what is the narrative that the filmmakers created? Is it the best choice about beginning, middle, and end? Does the narrative have the best trajectory—things getting better or getting worse or hard to tell?)
-Paragraph 3 on Who exactly is the “we” in the story? Is it mostly a single person? A group of people? From a specific time or place? Why do you think the filmmakers made that particular choice?
-Paragraph 4 on how (if at all) do the filmmakers tell their audiences to do something political, economic, social, aesthetic, ecological, etc., about the Anthropocene? In other words, do you think film should be primarily an instrument for change in the world or is it enough to make something beautiful and/or provocative for viewers to experience?
-Paragraph 5 in the doc with the “better interpretation” pick one important five-minute segment (scene) from the documentary that you want to unpack in detail. You will explain what you think the filmmakers were trying to accomplish in the scene and how the scene itself “worked.” How did the choice of subject, shot selection and duration, framing within the shot, narration and interviews (or lack thereof), music, and/or editing come together to make the scene work together? Why does this scene capture the Anthro the best?
-Conclusion paragraph: Imagine what you might remember from this film in five years? What parts or take-aways do you hope to remember from watching and writing about these two films? Which piece—Sen interview or Tan review—made a bigger impression on you regarding the Anthropocene on film?
 
-In addition, your essay must be organized (what are the links among your insights, evaluations, or evidence? how does one paragraph lead to the second and so on?), well-written, proofread, and it must demonstrate your critical, thoughtful response to both films. Can use first-person pronouns like “I” or “We.” You should include a bibliography or works cited list or footnotes. Whatever citation style you use (Chicago, APA, etc.), just use the citation style consistently and correctly.