Hunt_Crude

//Crude: The Real Price of Oil,// Joe Berlinger, 2009
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

//Crude// tracks the struggle of rural Ecuadorians against oil corporation Texaco, and the environmental and health damages accrued after decades of oil companies in the country. The film shocks us with an investigative piece featuring the legal combat between the indigenous Ecuadorians and one of the world’s biggest oil companies. Texaco is being sued for compensation over the ecological harm it caused in Ecuador since it started drilling in the early 1960s. Texaco, now owned by Chevron, arrived in Ecuador and started drilling in one of the richest oil excavation sites, the Americas, in the Amazon rainforest area. Texaco partnered with the Ecuadorian national oil company (Petro Ecuador) and pumped over a billion barrels of oil for the next 23 years, while digging pits to dump the toxic oil waste around every well.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

In May of 2009, Chevron’s annual report boasted record profits for the fourth consecutive year, with ‘profits of $18.7 billion’, just as crude oil prices climbed to their highest levels in 26 years. //Crude// is more about Chevron’s costly efforts to screw people out of their basic human rights, in the most criminal way possible. Just imagine a landmark court battle between Chevron and the indigenous people of Ecuador, fought over oil drenched jungle soil, where thousands of people and animals have died, thanks to what’s been referred to as the ‘Amazonian Chernobyl.’

A great little trailer is available on this page: ([] )


 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * -Corporate Law: It’s pretty disturbing to watch all the well-paid Chevron representatives speak on behalf of the company in this movie. These people don’t bat an eye. Even when they’re exposed to the laundry list of human rights violations their company is responsible for, even when the evidence is completely obvious, these people still find a way to put the money where their mouths should be. Furthermore, the Ecuadorian leading the people is Pablo Fajardo, an Ecuadorian lawyer living in a two-room shack, still battling on behalf of the disadvantaged people of his country, even after thirteen years without a ruling from the courts. During those first few years, Pablo’s brother was murdered when the bad guys hired to kill Pablo got all mixed up, and tortured the wrong guy to death. Fighting against Mr. Fajardo, in the dark and slimy corner, is Chevron, with their endless scare tactics, resources, and spin campaigns, hiding behind their army of lawyers.
 * -Corporate Toxic Dumping: The high levels of toxic waste seriously harmed the ecological surroundings in north-eastern Ecuador, and it raised the number of cancer cases among children and adults, who, for lack of access to clean water, are forced to bathe in contaminated, oily waters. Chevron executives continually say that no contamination exists and all the effects on the Ecuadorian people stem from “poor sanitation and hygiene.” So, in effect, they are blamed for their situation. Drinking wells, sustenance animals and more are all poisoned by the residue of the oil.
 * -Third World Governments: I am curious to know about the role of the Ecuadorian government. Although the government does not have the resources to clean it all, they have cleaned up some of the damage. Moreover, in a fascinating turn, Ecuador has given constitutional rights to flora and fauna. However, I was angered to hear that the Ecuadorian government released Texaco/Chevron of any legal responsibility upon leaving Ecuador in the 1990s. (It should be noted that while the government released them, the Ecuadorians affected did not; that is how they are able to take the company to court.) Texaco/Chevron claims that PetroEcuador has caused several spills after Texaco/Chevron left the country and that they should be held accountable. I do not mean to diminish Texaco/Chevron’s role in this mess; the company should be held accountable for the damage they have caused. I am wondering whether or not the government conducted a thorough investigation to ensure that the transnational actually cleaned up before they signed this release. Did they know the extent of the damage before the community began to feel its effects?

I found the film, which was filmed on different continents and over many years, to be very good and definitely very engaging. In addition to timely coverage of a lamentable situation that is ultimately caused by worldwide addiction to oil and therefore touches us all, it used candid moments to focus the lens on various aspects of the case. Although certain personalities definitely stand out in the movie, I just noticed that Berlinger didn’t want to privilege any one voice. From the Amazonian indigenous woman who sings about the population’s plight in the beginning of this documentary through environmental philanthropist Sting singing “I’ll send an S.O.S. to the world” at the end, many voices have their say. Also extraordinarily compelling was the commitment and dedication of lead lawyer on the case Steven Donziger. As the founder of his law firm in New York, Donziger & Associates, Steven has doggedly pursued Texaco/Chevron in courts both in New York and in Ecuador for almost two decades. A Harvard Law grad and former Washington, D.C., public defender, Donziger is the lead U.S. lawyer for the 30,000 Ecuadoreans, a virtuous and extraordinary task in my opinion.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

What’s maybe the most disturbing thing about //Crude// though, is the fact that Berlinger worked on this film for three years, and there’s still been no verdict in the case, thanks in large part to the company’s efforts to stall proceedings at every turn. Tack those last three years on to the thirteen that Pablo and his friends have been fighting against Chevron, and you’ve got a total of sixteen years. Which begs the question: How many angry, dying, indigenous Ecuadorians does it take to prove that Chevron should clean up the enormous toxic mess they made? How many skin rashes, cancer cases, stomach infections, and dead relatives do these people have to suffer through to get justice?
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I am most interested in finding out what the final verdict of this case will be. I truly hope that the Ecuadorian people receive some sort of justice. A ruling in their favor might set a precedent that disavows the right for companies to abuse and pillage at risk developing countries.
 * 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

Shooting in dozens of locations on three continents and in multiple languages, Berlinger and his crew gained extraordinary access to players on all sides of the legal fight and beyond, capturing the drama as it unfolded while the case grew from a little-known legal story to an international drama. //Crude// is a ground-level view of one of the most extraordinary legal dramas of our time, one that has the potential of forever changing the way international business is conducted.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

//Crude// is another of those films that focuses on painting an emotional story in large brushstrokes. Little specific intervention is actually described as opposed to just the attempt by Berlinger to accurately describe the story of injustice and corporate irresponsibility led by Chevron. While the environmental impact of the consumption of fossil fuels has been increasingly documented in recent years, //Crude// focuses on the human cost of our addiction to oil and the increasingly difficult task of holding a major corporation accountable for its past deeds.
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

More precise points of intervention would have been useful to help the film. Again, its main purpose is certainly accomplished, however it mostly describes this isolated case without comparing other exploitative injustices in the world. Too much escape from this Ecuadorian story would have certainly distracted from the message, but maybe at the end of the film, a 5 minute discussion of intervention might have been useful.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

[] [] []
 * Citations:**