Spartz+Annotation+1

Annotation #1 9/03/12 //Blind Spot// The movie //Blind Spot//, directed by Adolfo Doring, was released in 2008. It was about the energy crisis and the United States’ overwhelming dependence on oil. The argument was that the average American seems to assume that fossil fuels are an unlimited resource. The political system, commercialization, and the quality of life that Americans have become accustomed to are all contributors to this major misconception. While there were some numbers to back up the claims, it seemed to me that a majority of the graphs were generalized to give the viewer a very basic idea of the concepts being presented rather than presenting the raw data. This is one of the reasons I felt that the movie was directed towards an audience that did not have a clear image of the scale of the oil problem. The other was that all of the “facts” were defending the idea that there is a major problem with the American way of thinking and the process for making decisions as to how the country should move forward. In order for a film to be truly educational, it has to represent both sides of the argument. There are ways to successfully do that while clearly defending one side, but it was clear that this was not the goal of the film. The images throughout the movie were designed to appeal to a viewer’s sense of compassion. However, I felt that some of the images, like that last clip of the film with the dead bird, were over dramatized to a point where I couldn’t really take some of the things being said seriously.

The idea that Americans are depending too much on oil is a complex one. Many people do not fully understand the scale of the situation which makes it difficult to pick and choose the most important topics to present to an under educated audience. The major factors contributing to this problem that the film drew out involved politics, cultural ideals, and economics. The majority of the speakers in the movie seemed to place most of the blame on the politicians. Their main reasoning behind this was that either the politicians didn’t know that this was going on or that they were so focused on keeping their careers that they would continue telling the public what they wanted to hear. Either way, this causes problems of misinformation and mistrust that are very difficult to correct. This issue is quite common since people tend to hear what they want to hear according to the movie. I tend to agree with this assessment about American culture. More recently I think that people’s expectations on the whole have shifted a little bit and they now have a better understanding that more than one source of information is required to actually create a basis for an opinion. However, I still think that most people are looking for what they want to hear to confirm what they already believe. The movie also goes on to discuss how closely intertwined American culture and the economic interests of everyone involved are. The culture of our society says that there will always be more of the resources we depend on in order to keep with the “status quo” of the commercialized society that we are accustomed to. The problem with this way of thinking is that oil is not a renewable resource and the costs to maintain a standard of living are increasing. The solutions to these problems proposed in the movie were not too promising and very vague. It was stated that the problem is complex, therefore the solution will be complex too and complexity is expensive. They also said that the fundamental way of thinking, a commercialized way of thinking, must be changed in order for the current working and decision making processes to be changed. Those processes need to be changed drastically in order for changes in the environment to occur. Both of these ideas are not really action plans, more of goals that must be reached before the problem can be fixed.

The most compelling argument that I felt the film addressed was that when discussing the economic interests of Americans someone pointed out that there is no “we” anymore. I thought that the comment, “different interests, different benefits, different costs” was intriguing. There will always be some people who are more invested in a problem than others and I have understood that before now, but I had never heard it worded in that way before. Pretty much everyone in the U.S. is a stakeholder in this problem, but most don’t fully understand their involvement in the situation. This was shown in the movie when it stated that Americans are victims of the advertising industry and that they think of growth as normal. This has allowed Americans to gloss over the amount of oil used in the creation and distribution of the products they are used to having around. Since people have so many different stakes in the oil industry, it is impossible to fix the problem in a way that will be good for everyone. One of the least compelling arguments that I found was comparison of our situation to that of the Holocaust. I don’t believe that we are in a no win situation. While there may be struggles ahead, I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare this to a situation where death was the only outcome. If people are willing to make the change, I think the necessary changes will be successful. I also did not like the fact that the people speaking said that those in positions of power were clueless as to what was happening. I was much more convinced by the idea that they had at least some suspicions, but they were like many other Americans and chose ignore what they didn’t want to hear.

The film caused me to question a few things as well. The first was: what does the Wallace Global Fund do? As the group that funded the movie, clearly they have some sort of significant stake in this crisis, and are desperate to get their voices heard. According to their website, their mission is to “promote an informed and engaged citizenry, to fight injustice, and to protect the diversity of nature and the natural systems upon which all life depends.” This makes it clear that the group is solely trying to convince people that restoring “natural systems” is the best thing to do. The other question that came up was: what proof is there that car companies are conspiring against sustainability? I agree that most companies, not just the automotive industry, are worried about the bottom line and just the fact that they want to sell their product results in a non-sustainable situation. If this were the case, why is conspiring necessary? These companies will always be working to sell more of their product. Now that it is possible to sell based on the fact that something is more sustainable, more innovated processes are being created to include sustainability. If anything, I would be more worried about the proprietary arrangements that prevent other companies from using the most sustainable practices. If a company can keep the edge of the sustainable processes, they are more likely to sell their product under that label, but the way to do that is not by sharing information that will allow someone else to do it for cheaper. This became obvious when looking at the websites for Ford and General Motors. They kept their sustainable goals vague: we want to lower emissions and lessen the dependence on petroleum. GM was willing to expand on how their facilities were becoming greener, but they didn’t discuss their actual business practices. I understand keeping company secrets a secret, but mitigating problems becomes difficult without access to the best practices. I don’t foresee a point in the near future where they will be prevented from selling their product entirely, but they should at least be encouraged to pass around some of their knowledge.

References: Wallace Global Fund. Accessed: 03 September 2012. <[]>. “Our Strategy”. Ford. Accessed: 04 September 2012. Published: 2011. <[]>. “About GM: GM Sustainability”. General Motors. Accessed: 04 September 2012. Published: 2012. <[]>. “Environment: Our Commitment”. General Motors. Accessed: 04 September 2012. Published: 2012. <[]>.