Crude: Review

Jan. 12
Crude
Directed by Joe Berlinger

You know how I said that people should see a movie like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans? Well they should, but that's more to see movies that are different from your everyday Hollywood shitefactory product. A movie like Crude is a movie everyone should see, but for different reasons.

For those who say art doesn't matter, see Crude. Documentaries are art just as much as traditional, "written" movies. They have to be well constructed, and compelling or the audience will be lost no matter how important the story. In many ways, though, putting together a great documentary sometimes means getting out of the way. When the story is so important and pulls us in, then just step back and let the facts flow.

If you follow the news at all, then you're probably aware that oil companies are one of the most evil influences on the planet. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq, and it wasn't for "freedom" and it wasn't in retaliation for 9/11, and it wasn't to bring democracy to the Middle East; it was for oil. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. Now, I'm going off on a tangent here, because Crude isn't about the Iraq War, it's about how oil companies are pathologically evil in yet another way.

In this particular instance it's Texaco/Chevron that has brought destruction down, and in this case, it's the indigenous people of Ecuador who are suffering. A group of Ecuadorians, together with some human rights lawyers from the States have taken Texaco/Chevron to court over the environmental damage done to their homeland in one of the most sensitive and ecologically important areas of the world, the Amazon. T/C have fought the lawsuit by not fighting it. First, they managed to delay the case for nine years by requesting that it not be tried in the U.S.; they wanted it moved to Ecuador, where they assumed it would be easier to buy off officials, or judges. However, a new president has been elected in Ecuador, and it hasn't been as easy as they hoped. When an independent environmental damage assessment (that T/C at first agreed to) concluded that T/C was at fault and should pay out $27 billion in damages, they then managed to keep delaying the trial. As of the viewing of the documentary, the case still has not gone to trial. T/C's strategy of course, is to delay the trial for decades until the people suing them finally run out of resources, stamina, conviction, or all of the above. It is a tactic used by corporations consistently, since they have the resources to outlast nearly anyone. A good (though horrible) example is Exxon, who was found guilty and ordered to pay millions to the people living in a tiny fishing village that was decimated by the spill of the Valdez. Exxon lost, it was nearly twenty years ago, and they still haven't paid a cent. They are arguing not whether they are guilty, but how much they should have to pay. I imagine they will keep arguing as long as the court will let them.

Crude allows the Texaco/Chevron team to have their say. It's fascinating to watch them argue that actually, there is no environmental damage at all, cancer rates have not gone up, disease is a result of untreated waste and that by golly, they'd do something about it if there was any mess at all--and then argue the complete opposite. They do this by saying there has been devastating environmental damage done to the people of Ecuador, they are suffering, their situation is horrible, but it's not T/C's fault! They sold off, or more accurately "merged" with an Ecuadorian oil company years ago, so those are the guys who are doing the bad stuff, not them. A frustrating, Orwellian strategy: there is no damage, if there is damage, it wasn't us. It's a losing case, the independent assessor ruled against them, and their only hope is to keep it from going to trial, which is what they've been doing for nearly 15 years.

The movie shows us the real impact upon the people living there. It also shows us how they are doing their best to get the world's attention, and in some ways they have succeeded. A large write-up in Vanity Fair, a CNN "hero" award for the local Ecuadorian who educated himself so that he could represent his people in this fight, despite his brother being murdered in an assassination that was meant for him. It also shows the involvement of other charity and environmental groups, as well as celebrities such as Trudie Styler and her more famous husband Sting.

Now some people get their back up when a "celebrity" gets involved in a cause. This has always confused me. Why shouldn't they get involved in causes they believe in? Why shouldn't they fight for something they think is just? I remember for years Michael Jordan was criticized by some for not getting more involved in the black community and speaking out for certain causes. So, that's the double standard for celebrities? If they do nothing and keep their views to themselves, then they are lucky, selfish babies who aren't giving back to the community; they're not using their celebrity for good when they have the abundant opportunity to do so. However, when celebrities do get involved, they are accused of doing it only for selfish reasons; and who are they anyway, some actor or singer telling me what to think. It's a lose/lose proposition for celebrities to use their fame for what they perceive to be the public good--in the case of the people of Ecuador vs. T/C, it's very much in the public good.

If we can't join the cause, then we can at least be aware, check out the website: crudethemovie.com. If you didn't see the movie, rent it when you get a chance. It's important for people to know the true cost of oil. The movie itself is exceptionally well done and has won well over a dozen awards.

Point of interest: At one point a lawyer says, this would never happen in the States. The argument being that a large corporation couldn't get away with such catastrophic environmental damage in the States (it's estimated that the damage done in Ecuador covers an area the size of Rhode Island). However, we in Canada are doing much better than that. The complete and utter devastation happening in the oil sands in Alberta right now is already visible from space and could cut a toxic wound the size of Florida within years. Several independent studies have shown that our indigenous people are being poisoned and killed by cancer at an absurdly high rate. The provincial and federal governments have responded to this disaster by literally appointing oil industry executives as watchdogs, ignoring or attacking every independent environmental study, and by trying to fire the doctor who raised the alarm bells over the unnaturally high rates of disease in the surrounding Native communities. I strongly urge everyone to read the book, Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (and Doesn't Seem to Care). If you can't bear to read a book, then try to see the movie H2Oil, perhaps the Bloor could play it soon. As Canadians, we need to know about this.