McNeilFilmAnnotation5

Title: Blind Spot Director: Adolfo Doring Release year: 2008


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film //Blind Spot// directed by Adolfo Doring is an interesting film that brings to light that our main energy sources, fossil fuels, is going to run out. Due to this dilemma the film’s creator suggest that we have put ourselves at a crossroad which offers two paths, both with dire consequences. If we continue to burn fossil fuels we will choke the life out of the planet, and if we don’t our way of life will collapse.


 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film //Blind Spot// has very little presented scientific evidence. There are many individuals such as politicians, engineers, and professors dispersing their knowledge on how well developed societies in the past have been wasteful, and how in the past we will have to curb our energy consumption as well as deal with other immense problems like the world population or the decaying planet. The film does succeed in shocking and aweing you into being scared for the future generations of this planet. It does this by combing many related problems such as over consumption, and the inherent lack of autonomy in our culture. For example Matt Savinar states “you’ve got an entire generation that has been brought up in a completely artificial environment where there beliefs have been shaped by television” This is not a scientific fact by any mean, but Savinar is making the point that people are blissfully ignorant to the long term problems facing the world and rather face these problems they would rather occupy themselves with celebrities and reality television.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

The decline of oil is a problem that individuals need to learn to cope with by reducing their energy consumption. However, there are many other facets of life that are related to, and dependent on energy. For example much of agricultural production is dependent on the availability of energy. If for some reason the price of fuel increased we would see broad impacts in the market. The farmer would need to make more money to cover the cost of running the farm. The freight company transporting the food would need to cover their cost as well. Therefor the cost that the consumer would pay for the food would see a dramatic increase. This would have many ramifications in society and would essentially end the way that we have becomes used to living.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I found the most persuasive argument of the movie was when Terry Tamminen explained how the automobile and oil companies have spent 186 million dollars on campaign contribution on the federal level. And for every dollar they’ve invested they’ve received a thousand dollars in tax breaks and other subsidies. He also described how automobile manufactures formed the automobile alliance to convey the image that they would work together to engineer any air pollutants produced by their products out of their current designs. In fact that was a lie and they whole point of the automobile alliance was to lie to the public to conceal the true harms of their products and to stifle the development of other technologies. I found this portion of the film to be the most disturbing since large cooperation’s yield so much power in society, and they could easily lie to billions of people, all while still selling their product. We like to think that government officials are looking out for the best interest of the public, but according to Tamminen the political officials were only looking out for their own good, while large automobile companies made an exorbitant amount of money, and polluted the air we breathe.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I wasn’t compelled by any of the film. Blind Spot is just one of many peak oil films produced in the last decade. My sense is that peak oil films, especially if they are to differentiate themselves from those that have preceded them, need to tell a powerful story or need to uplift and inspire with possibilities, all while presenting a fresh perspective. This film does none of that. Although this film was supposed to be about the overzealous energy I felt like it was going back and forth between many different topics that plague society. Even though this was labeled a peak oil film I was left struggling to work out what kind of film it wanted to be.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

I would have really liked to see more scientific evidence presented in this film. As I mentioned before it had a wide variety of experts in their respected fields but there was no hard evidence presented to the viewer about the consequences of a declining supply of oil. This could be due to the fact that there are so many facets in our culture that are dependent on oil it’s nearly impossible to make any predications or claims of what would happen. Also, I felt like there was a lack of remedies. For instances they could have discussed how Europe copes with their high fuel prices and what they, as a continent, have done to lessen their dependency.


 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

Our dependency on oil is a massive problem and one lone solution will not change the way we view the problem. I feel for this problem to be fully resolved long term goals of newer forms of energy such as nuclear fusion or hydrogen power will need to be developed. These forms have the potential to replace oil as the world’s primary source of energy. As for short term goals that we can start implementing today, I would suggest examining Europe, and how they cope with their lack of oil, using public transportation and bicycles to commute.


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

I’m interested to what Europe has done to improve their high fuels prices that average 2.3 times the national average here in the states. This increase is only due to a sharp influx of taxes imposed by the European governments. The theory is that by hindering people to drive they will reduce the carbon emissions in the continent. This is putting many individuals in difficulty, especially those who make their living by means of transportation. It seems to be a real difficult problem in Europe and individuals are trying to lobby for tax cuts to make it more economical to commute. Prehaps high fuel prices aren’t the best way to eliminate carbon emissions. []

Another article that I read was related to nuclear fusion, the old joke that nuclear fusion is 30 years away and has been for the last 30 years is still true to this day. Researchers today are confident in their ability to produce a safe, abundant, and clean fuel sources. The main problem with fusion power is the science behind it had to be developed from scratch and it takes decades to train scientist and engineers to understand the theory, and even longer to develop working prototypes []