One of the aspects of Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi I loved the most was its unabashed ambiguity that highlights most of the film. While the grand images of nature in the opening of the film would seem to suggest a particular viewpoint, I often felt disoriented during this screening, as cityscapes were often filmed with the same sense of grandeur as nature. I couldn't tell if Reggio was celebrating our "progress", condemning it, or simply suggesting more moderation. Reggio's careful ambiguity makes viewing this film an intensely personal experience. For example, as I said in class, I was struck by the beauty of the moon rising behind a large skyscraper and really, for me, this one scene could be used to summarize my thoughts during most of the film. Thinking about it more, I was not so sure I was supposed to garner the sense of peace that I did from this image. Maybe I was supposed to be outraged at the skyscraper blocking the gorgeous moon. Is the skyscraper a blot on a beautiful scene of nature, or an integral part of the beauty? This realization made me question my initial satisfaction with the image-- have I already been ingratiated into the mentality that "progress" is necessary-- that we cannot exist without it, that the glowing moon cannot stand on its own? How did we get to such a point? Is our course irreversible, and should it be reversed? It's questions such as these that Reggio's ambiguity gives rise to. Skyscrapers and sand dunes are filmed with the same degree of care-- almost everything in this film appears beautiful; even the bustling urbanization. The viewer is forced to question their surroundings and the idea of progress. As Reggio said, "the question is the mother of the answer" and his often disorientating, but always beautiful film, has hopefully cleared the path for many answers.