sample+film+annotation,+Blave+Wave,+annotated+for+Oil+Politics

=sample film annotation, Black Wave, annotated for Oil Politics=

Jennifer Loftin Annotation #3, Oil Politics Word count: 1742


 * Title: **Black Wave
 * Director: **Robert Cornellier
 * Release year: **2008

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

This film is about one of the worst environmental disasters in the Northeast; the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This event was a tragedy for the environment, the fishing industry, and the local community. The cause was negligence by the ship captain and the Exxon Corporation. The ship captain steered way off course and was likely intoxicated at the time of the accident. The worse part about it though, was Exxon’s lack of caution, followed by lies after the incident. The clean-up crew described their experiences as if they were in a “war zone.” After the disaster a class-action lawsuit involving around 32,000 people was brought against Exxon and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff for $5 billion. It wasn’t until 18 years of court battles later that the award was dropped to a tenth of its original value, which Exxon has yet to pay out. As Riki Ott explains, this story, in a lot of ways, mirrors that of global warming; corporations can get away with murder.


 * Who are the key social actors and stakeholders in the film? **

The key stakeholders in this film are everyone and everything surrounding the spill. This includes the wildlife, fishermen, and all other community members. The wildlife was hit the hardest by the disaster and much of which has not recovered to this day. The fishermen, who hold an important (almost sacred) position in this society, were also hit hard. Many people lost their jobs, their dreams, and their way of life because of the spill. This had a ripple effect that has nearly brought the entire Cordova community to ruin. Other key social actors include the Exxon Corporation and the local, state and national government. The Exxon Corporation was ultimately the cause of what happened and should have been held accountable for their actions by the government, but in the end got off nearly scot free.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil? **

This film does not directly address any of the factors that contribute to our dependence on oil, but there are some important implications. Most notably, the reason that oil is seen as such an important source of energy is our ignorance of the associated problems and risks. Most people don’t understand or ignore the incredible amount of danger that oil extraction puts us in. The American society believes that the government will protect us if anything disparaging should happen, but this couldn’t be anything farther from the truth, as this film shows. Many people’s lives were completely ruined by what happened at Valdez, but the government didn’t protect them. Instead it watched out for the corporation’s best interests, like not even requiring double hull tankers. If everyone knew the true price of our addiction, there would be a much different story.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil? **

This entire film is about one of the major problems of our dependence on oil; what can go wrong. The movie details many of the effects of this problem. The most obvious effect of something going wrong is that a pristine natural habitat can be turned into ruin in an instant. An extraordinary amount of the environment was killed by PAH and other toxic chemicals in the oil spill. Among this was the large fish population in the area, most of which suffered from an outbreak of VHS and as a result gave birth to deformed offspring. This collapsed many of the fisheries and most of the ecosystem. Everyone drastically underestimated the effect of the PAH and other toxics, however. Especially the effects they would have on humans. Many people got sick from airborne oil particles that were part of the cleanup effort. The even harder effects to account for are the effects that the disaster had on the Cordova community. There was a huge amount of social capital in the town before the disaster and most of it was lost because of the disaster. A sociologist in the film described people’s stress level post disaster as similar to that of a rape victim. Additionally, the crime rates have increased as well as alcohol consumption and suicide levels. Even the mayor of the city was driven to this end by the effects of the disaster. An even bigger slap in the face came when the courts completely dismissed all cases of health claims against Exxon’s own workers helping to clean up the spill.

Another problem caused by our dependence on oil is the out of control corporate power that surrounds us today. This point is not specifically addressed in the film, but it is an important theme. Oil is a key natural resource that nearly every aspect of our current society relies upon. As soon as it became so important, oil monopolies started springing up and trying to take control. Today we can clearly see the affects of this. Large corporations, such as Exxon, can get away with an immense amount of destruction at little to no cost to them. In no way is this equal justice. This is exactly what the film showed.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil? **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">The film didn’t specifically address what exactly would happen if a shift away from oil was made, but there are some conclusions that can be drawn. Most obviously, if the shift was made we would not have to worry about the looming environmental destruction that can be caused by oil production. The Exxon-Valdez oil spill was certainly not the first of its kind, nor has it been the last. Unless we shift away from our dependence on oil these disasters will likely be a regular part of our future. The film also mentions that in order for a shift like this to happen we will need to make significant improvements to our court system, so that disasters like this are handled in a better fashion.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">The most persuasive and compelling part about this film is how it used an excellent combination of pathos and ethos to really tell the full story of the oil spill. The director did an excellent job of communicating how it felt to have your life affected by the oil spill in such a devastating way. I actually felt quite afraid of what had happened after seeing this movie. I don’t believe scare tactics are the best form of environmental communication, but for a movie like this it really did get the point across. The emotion was certainly there, yet it wasn’t without many details about what happened before and after the spill. This combination made for a very effective film.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">I was not compelled of convinced very much by the film’s conclusion. Such a powerful film could of made a much more powerful statement. The director, for the most part, only focused on this one specific incident, which is the point of the movie, but he could have made connections to the many other oil spills and other environmental disasters caused by corporations. The movie also didn’t suggest much about the how this disaster could have implications for the future. This certainly wasn’t the last big oil spill that we would see and we could have done a much better job learning from it. The problem is really much larger than Cordova, Alaska.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">This film did not suggest very much in the way of corrective action, but there are definitely a number of things that we can take away from it. It’s not surprising for a film of this nature to not suggest very much in the way of solutions, simply because the problem is so incredibly tough. What the director did make clear is that everyone should know the full story about what happened at Valdez so that we can learn some lessons. The major lesson is that our current judicial system and most of government has been corrupted by corporate power. It is our responsibility as citizens to take control of the government and ensure a fair legal system. Only then can corporations be held as truly beneficial to society. Another important lesson is we should require corporations be more careful about what they are doing. As the film points out, a number of people knew that there were not correct safety procedures in place and that a disaster was imminent and still it was not prevented.


 * <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">This film did an excellent job of covering the disaster in detail, so what I was compelled to seek out is the status of the region and its cleanup efforts today, over 20 years later. I found that even though there were some improvements to the region, it is nowhere near clean. The area may look clean and pristine to tourists now and Exxon claims that it has shown a full recovery, but many scientists disagree. According to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council there is still estimated to be around 20,000 gallons of oil still present in the environment causing some places to be "nearly as toxic as it was the first few weeks after the spill." The council lists only 10 of the 31 injured resources and services they monitor as "recovered" and state that the "Exxon Valdez oil is decreasing at a rate of 0-4 percent per year. At this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely." []

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">Another article I found told a much brighter side of the story []. Apparently one marine biologist is refusing to let the Exxon corporation off the hook and has found a special section tucked into the original 1991 agreement over the spill that may cost the company about $100 million more in clean up costs. Just this month a federal court judge has agreed to preside of a hearing of the case. Despite Exxon’s wishes, this disaster has not been completely forgotten!