DiluzjFilmAnnotation1

Film Annotation #1 //Blind Spot //, by Adolfo Doring, 2008

//Blind Spot // argues that through whatever callousness of the past half century befell us, we have set ourselves up for irradiation due to our huge dependency on fossil fuels. The author argues that our global society has come to take fossil fuel for granted, and have become so dependent that the changes that need to happen in order save ourselves, would require a drastic change in the way we all live. //Blind Spot// does well to argue that every aspect of our lives is currently dependent on an unsustainable energy source, and that energy source is quickly disappearing. The global energy crisis is just beginning, and the time for drastic changes has already come, and has almost gone. The opening argument of the film is an old commercial made by Shell Oil ®, in which the various uses of petroleum are displayed. The vast array of products and services, from manufacturing facilities, to plastics, to transportation, is a great opening argument for the film, as it quickly shines a bright light on the “blind spot” we have for our dependency on oil.  A large supporting assumption that this film makes is the assumption that peak oil will happen globally, and that the decline would be drastic. Many of the examples that the film gives are based on historical evidence. They cite previous civilizations collapsing due to energy consumption. Also the use of historical trends in energy consumption, population growth, oil production, and resource demand ,to prove that we are reaching a peak, and that we cannot sustain the growth we have seen in the past 50 years. The entire film leaves you with the feeling of hopelessness. In a way the film points out our greatest flaw as a civilization, and then spends an hour and a half driving home the point that it //will// destroy us. This technique has its pros and cons for a documentary. The method of scaring the viewer does a good job of getting the problem across. The viewer will find it difficult to deny the problem exists, however the scare tactic starts to backfire when no solutions are given. This film does a good job of showing the problem, however the end result is that the viewer is not motivated to go out and fix it, but rather, motivated to go curl up in a corner and wait for the end. Cultural and economic sustainability problems are the main focus of the film. The points of the film all focus around the idea that our very way of life is driving our extinction. Our culture needs to change drastically because it is currently based on the idea of continuous technological progress, which is taken as the measure of progress, and yet that continuous growth is unsustainable. Economically, the author stresses the fact that we cannot possibly sustain ourselves with a dwindling resource. Our complex systems are very costly, both an economic cost and a resource cost. The Roman Empire was given as an example as a society that grew so large, that it cost too much to sustain the status quo, and eventually collapsed. As an additional fact, the Roman Empire lasted 500 years, and in just 50 years, we have found ourselves facing the same sort of crisis.

The opening quote combined with the opening commercial did a wonderful job of showing the blind spot and putting the world oil crisis into the spot light. Not many of the films we have watched in class have shown the issue so immediately and shockingly. The film had many great quotes and shocking statistics given by several individuals that were very moving to me. To paraphrase one of them, from Rosco Bartlett PhD, we have peaked as a society. Our oil dependency has allowed us to grow beyond our means, and now with the decline in oil, we will have to live lives that are less grandiose and there will have to be less of us living. We cannot sustain our current population, and with decreasing resources, the difference of what we can sustain and what we are attempting to live with, becomes more and more severe. The various graphs and charts given that show the trends in human population growth and consumption rates, compared with the oil production trends and the resource production trends, do a very good job of showing that cannot sustain our current growth. This film did a good job of arguing the points it made, however it is focused only on the American population, and the American way of life. The film does not go into depth on the various solutions that can happen which have been proven to work in other nations of the world. There are nations in Europe that have managed to live much more sustainable lives, without giving up as much as this film would make us believe. Although their point that our current way of life is not sustainable, I do not feel that the change will be as drastic as they make it sound. With the various forms of sustainable energy, we can still power production plants, manufacturing machines, transportation, and our gadgets and gizmos, and all it would take is giving up of some of the more extravagant things, such as cruise ships, 2 cars per person, 3 TVs per person, a new phone every 2 years, a new pair of shoes every 2 months, and other such decadent things that Americans have gotten used to. The film seems to argue instead that we would have to give up all of the “progress” we have made since the 1950s, which simply does not seem to be true.

 This film’s audience is the average consumer. The main focus may be American consumers, however the various points it makes about the disconnect from the populous of a nation and the consequences of their consuming, translates well to the majority of the Western world. Proposed solutions, or perhaps case studies of how change can happen, would have drastically increased the educational value of this film, because of the way it leaves the viewer. The other films we have seen in class have offered up solutions at the end of the film, in a way of ending on a high note, however this film ends with thoughts of doom and gloom. The end result is that the viewer does not take this knowledge and do something constructive, but rather, many viewers will become overwhelmed and not act. This is perhaps the only flaw in the film; however it is a massive flaw, as it completely changes the impact of the film.

<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The film may not suggest them as corrective actions, because the film sees them as inevitable facts of life, but the decrease in consumption and the decrease in technological growth are very practical solutions to this problem, and can lead to an end result of the survival of the species. We have seen what happens, in 2011, when nations ignore the will of their people, and more and more, the will of the people is to live sustainably, because of films like this and other awareness movements. Massive revolts that arise from unrest in a population lead to the sudden change that this film eludes too. Massive culture shifts, which //are// happening right now, can be used as a solution to these problems. When a massive culture shift hits the United States, it would give a window of opportunity to solve these sustainability issues. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">When they introduce a new person, they also cite what their credentials are, and a few of those were websites. I followed up this film by looking up these websites, including [|www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net]. Additionally, I looked up more information on the Automobile Alliance, to check the facts that were shown in the film, and found the documentary //Who Killed the Electric Car?//, which talks about how the AA went through such extents to put us in the situation we are in now.