A 15-minute documentary culled from 25 hours of footage and interviews with hoteliers, refugees and activists in Sri Lanka — called “2006 Sri Lanka: Business, Relief, and Water after the Tsunami,” was a project of University of Iowa professor Dr. Paul Greenough, UI cinema major Swarnavel Eswaranpillai and Harish Naraindas of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The documentary was edited by Soheil Rezayazdi.Greenough was in Sri Lanka studying the island nation’s health care system on Dec. 26, 2004, the day almost a quarter million people were killed by a tsunami caused by an underwater earthquake. Millions were displaced and left homeless in 11 countries.

As the huge waves rolled along the shores of Sri Lanka, Greenough was on high ground, about 60 miles inland. Today he uses the experience to illustrate some of his history class discussions on disaster response and public health.

When he returned two years later to examine drinking water in Sri Lanka and document the situation, Greenough brought along Eswaranpillai, who was armed with a video camera.

They traveled with Naraindas to interview survivors and document the state of Sri Lanka’s drinking water and disaster and recovery efforts.

The 15-minute documentary is split into two videos, but has three parts: “Coastal Business,” “Relief, Recovery,” and “Modern Water, From Wells to Towers.”

Rezayazdi, a graduate student in journalism and mass communications, edited the footage this year; it will be a companion piece for an article in International Accents, a University of Iowa International Programs journal published twice yearly.

In an interview with the Iowa Independent, Rezayazdi answered some questions about editing the short documentary.

Iowa Independent: What was your goal with this video?

In reviewing the footage, I was on the lookout for themes, patterns — both in the interviews and visually. I wanted the project to avoid looking like a slipshod assortment of someone else’s footage, so I gravitated toward anything that could give the project a sense of cohesion (Example: the film starts and ends with a tracking shot from a car, the opening title graphically complements the shot immediately following it, etc.).

This also led me to break the film up into the three major themes I saw in the footage: issues of water privatization, relief aid, and the destruction of coastal (re: tourist-driven) businesses … in all, the goal was to make a cohesive, aesthetically appealing, informative documentary short about Sri Lanka post-tsunami.

II: Who is the audience for the video? Can you give me a preview of your article?

The video is going to accompany an article I wrote for International Accents, a University of Iowa-based magazine … The article began as a piece on Professor Greenough’s research in Sri Lanka, but, as I interviewed more sources and read more background material, I became interested in the issue of water privatization. I watched Thirst, a fascinating and infuriating documentary, and became certain that I wanted to write a story about this issue.

So the story turned into a piece on water privatization, with an emphasis on research and activist measures conducted by University of Iowa professors about the issue. The piece is the cover story for the spring/summer issue, and it is just under 1,000 words.

II: Was there an aesthetic decision made to have hard cuts and long sequences with no dialogue/text? Can you talk about those decisions?

I’m not sure if those were conscious decisions or just a result of my innate editing preferences.

In general, I like long stretches of no dialogue and I like hard cuts. The two working together create an interesting tension, at least when done right. With this project, I leaned toward aesthetics over information, although I still sought a balance between the two.

I wanted the film to be image-driven, but not so much so that it approached self-indulgence. When you mention long sequences in your question, I assume you’re largely referring to the two boys riding their bikes to the well. That is my favorite moment in the film, certainly. That is something I could have never captured in my magazine article.

As for hard cuts, I used those to help give the documentary somewhat of a sloppy, street-level feel. I didn’t want the project to seem overly formal. Plus, in general, I like the way they look.

Perhaps I’ve seen one too many Godard movies.

Paul [Greenough], in general, pushed the video in a more conservative direction. More text, more information. In other words, less cinematic.

Because I wasn’t making a Powerpoint presentation on Sri Lanka and the tsunami, I only partially used those suggestions. This ended up working well, I think.

The product is tighter and better organized because of Paul’s ideas, but, I should hope, no one would accuse it of being little more than a Powerpoint presentation on Sri Lanka.

The project was funded from a $30,000 grant from the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research (CGRER) at the University of Iowa.