If you are looking for socially relevant movies featuring likable heroes and heroines in dramatically exciting situations, your only recourse nowadays is the documentary. Fortunately, two of the better documentaries, both involving environmental activism, can be seen in New York City theaters–one playing now and the other debuting on September 9th. The first is “The Cove”, a story that pits Rick O’Barry, formerly one of the world’s leading dolphin trainers, against Japanese fishermen and their government sponsors who are determined to block any efforts aimed to save this highly intelligent creature. The other is “Crude”, a documentary about the movement in Ecuador led by attorney Pablo Fajardo to force Chevron Oil to pay 27 billion dollars in damages to the mostly indigenous peoples whose water resources and health have been ruined by Texaco, a rapacious company that was bought by Chevron in 2001.
Rick O’Barry, now 70 years old and bearing a striking resemblance to Richard Widmark, trained dolphins for a living in his youth. So good was he at it that he landed a job with the 1960s “Flipper” television show that featured a number of dolphins playing the lead role, just as multiple collies played Lassie on a kindred show. Before long O’Barry discovered that dolphins hated being in captivity despite their outward exuberance at places like Seaworld, so much so that they often committed suicide. Unlike human beings, dolphins and porpoises breathe each breath as a willful act so the decision to stop breathing can lead to death. The dolphin Kathy, who was one of the animals that played “Flipper” died in O’Barry’s arms one day in an act that he could only interpret as suicidal. From that moment on, he devoted himself to freeing dolphins from captivity no matter the risk.
O’Barry won the support of documentary film maker Louie Psihoyos who assembled a kind of guerrilla band of film technicians and divers to accompany him to Taiji, Japan, a city with a seaquarium and host to some of the inhumane treatment of dolphins anywhere in the world. As we learn from this highly informative documentary, these seaquariums are a living hell for the dolphins that are fed Maalox in order to counteract the stress-related indigestion living in close quarters induces. As one of the animal kingdom’s freer spirits, they are fond of going on 40-mile jaunts in a kind of aquatic version of a joy ride.
Psihoyos is a co-founder of the Oceanic Preservation Society with Silicon Valley visionary Jim Clark who was a principal at Silicon Graphics and Netscape. Making this movie with O’Barry was seen as a way to put pressure on a Japanese government and unscrupulous fishermen. While it is in the spirit of a “Sixty Minutes” segment, the action will remind you more of “Oceans Eleven”, as Rick O’Barry points out in one scene as they try to sneak their gear past the Taiji cops.
The authorities at Taiji have been warding off photographers and activists ever since the coastal waters became a killing ground. Local fishermen discovered that they could stampede dolphins into a cove and kill thousands of dolphins at a time, saving just a few animals for export to seaquariums around the world, including Seaworld, at $150,000 per head. Those that are slaughtered end up in Japanese supermarkets labeled as whale meat. Technically, this is true since dolphins are small whales. But the meat is hazardous to one’s health. Laced with mercury, an inevitable by-product of factory emissions, they can potentially cripple or kill you.
The bad guys in this movie are the Japanese authorities, including a truly sleazy representative to the feckless International Whaling Commission, which allows this criminal enterprise to continue. Just as they resisted any encroachments on the industrial fishing of whales in years past, they now fight any attempt to limit the killing of dolphins, all in the name of “preserving national culture”.
The movie shows the secret filming of the slaughter, facilitated by cameras concealed in fake rocks on the hillside surrounding the cove made by special effects artists from the film industry who are part of O’Barry and Psihoyos’s courageous crew. I should stress the word courageous since there have already been incidents of environmental activists being killed in the act of defending some of nature’s noblest creatures.
Official film website: http://thecovemovie.com/
****
“Crude”, which opens September 9th at the IFC Center in N.Y. and elsewhere around the country later in the month (screening information), is a David and Goliath story which pits an Ecuadoran attorney and his American partners against Chevron, a company that has dug in its heels against paying a single penny to the mostly indigenous victims of toxic waste. When Texaco, now part of Chevron, operated in Ecuador, it allowed the byproducts of drilling to run off into the rivers and wells of tribal land, thus leading to an epidemic of cancer, birth defects and other illnesses that were calculated by Texaco as necessary collateral damage in the pursuit of profit. The movie claims that the environmental destruction wrought by Texaco was thirty times as great as the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.
The movie follows lead attorney Pablo Fajardo around Ecuador as he argues his case before a judge. The trial included on-site investigations of oil spillage with both attorneys present. Chevron’s defense attorney, also an Ecuadoran, pleads with the judge, trying to convince him that the damage might have been done by PetroEcuador, the state-owned enterprise that assumed ownership of Chevron’s assets in 1992. He also argues that the government of Ecuador absolved Chevron/Texaco of all future responsibility for environmental destruction after it paid $40 million for a cleanup. Fajardo takes the film crew around to various sites that were supposedly cleaned up only to show that sludge remains beneath the surface. The closer native peoples live to the wells, the greater the incidence of illness. We meet a peasant woman whose teenage daughter has liver cancer. She attempts to raise chickens to pay for the medical bills, but the animals die from toxic waste long before they can be brought to market.
Now 35, Pablo Fajardo was born into a poor family in the very region that was destroyed by Texaco. At the age of 14, he began working in the oil fields as an unskilled laborer. Seeing the suffering of native peoples convinced him to devote his life to their defense. He studied hard and excelled in school, prompting the Catholic Church to pay for law school. Today he still lives in relative poverty, seeking nothing but justice for the victims of corporate greed.
Fajardo’s main legal partner is Steven Donziger, a bear of a figure who comes across as blunt, ambitious but totally committed to the ideals of social justice represented by this case. Since billions of dollars are riding on the outcome of this case, the Ecuadoran stooges of Chevron try to portray Donzinger and Fajardo as simply in it for the money. This is what Freudian psychologists call projection.
The documentary devotes ample time to allowing the Ecuadoran Indians to tell their story, particularly the Cofàn people who bore the brunt of the despoliation. They all recall the joyful existence they had before Texaco came, when fish and game were plentiful and when crops could be grown in fertile soil rather than toxic sludge.
Like the Japanese representative to the International Whaling Commission, “Crude” has a bona fide villain in Sara McMillan, who is Chevron’s Chief Environmental Scientist. Throughout the movie, she defends Chevron right down the line, just as you expect she would. The net effect is like watching Condoleezza Rice making the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Interestingly enough, the director decided not to explicitly frame the movie as an anti-Chevron work and allows both sides to present their case. Not only does it make for a more interesting film, it allows Chevron to hoist themselves on their own petard. Anybody watching McMillan or any of the other corporate mouthpieces, including one who we learn was convicted of fraud in the closing moments of the movie will feel that they are being conned.
There are other good guys in this movie besides the Fajardo-Donzinger team. It was being made when Rafael Correa assumed office in 2006. Unlike former presidents, Correa sided with the victims of oil pollution, not the giant American corporation that had bribed countless Ecuadoran officials. We see him being escorted through the affected region by Pablo Fajardo and speaking to indigenous peoples. It was his election that most certainly helped the Ecuadoran justice system decide in favor of the plaintiffs even though Chevron has plans to keep the case going on through litigation for decades if possible
We also meet rock musician Sting and his wife Trudy Skyler who are both very involved with the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon rainforest. Although the tendency of most radicals, including me most of the time, is to view celebrity activism somewhat cynically, I became convinced after watching “Crude” that their participation is essential. For the average American, Sting has a lot more name recognition than Noam Chomsky and therefore can play a much more significant role in forcing this scumbag corporation to pay restitution to the people whose lives it ruined.
Official film website: http://www.crudethemovie.com/
Excellent “Vanity Fair” article on the case: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/texaco200705
Thank you for the headsup on these and for the further information. They both look excellent.
Comment by macon d — August 30, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Go see Crude. It’s a great documentary! We need to spread the word and let everyone know about the mess Chevron left in Ecuador and does not want to take responsiblity for. So far Chevron offered no relief to people suffering from the contamination.
Read more here: http://www.thechevronpit.blogspot.com
Comment by Anna — August 31, 2009 @ 2:57 am
CRUDE is a great, must see film.
Speaking of slaughtering noble creatures, and Obama’s new role in it, here’s a good read from J. St. Clair on today’s CounterPunch site:
September 1, 2009
An August Afternoon in Yellowstone
The Wolf at Trout Creek
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
The bison are in rut at Alum Creek.
Two or three hundred of the shaggy beasts are crowded in the little valley. The bulls have left their normal bachelor groups and joined the big herds of cows and calves to parry each other for preferred mates. They are antsy, kicking up dust devils that swirl around them like brown mist.
I walk slowly up the creek to a group of five dark bison, three females and two males. One of the bulls looks ancient. His eyes are crusty, one of his black horns broken. He is large, but unsteady on his legs, which look too thin to support his bulk. He sucks breaths deeply and raggedly. His lower lip is extended and quivering as he approaches one of the young cows. He shakes his head, his tongue flicks repeatedly at the air, as if tasting the estrus.
As the old patriarch struggles to mount the cinnamon-colored female, a young bull rushes over, butts him in the side, nearly knocking him down. The young bull kicks at the ground, snorts aggressively. The old bull stands his ground for a moment, drool stringing from his mouth. Then finally he turns away from what will almost certainly be his last summer. He staggers downstream towards me, his head hung low, flies gathering at his eyes.
I am less than a mile from Yellowstone’s main road through the Hayden Valley, an artery thickly clogged with vans, mobile homes and the leather-and-chrome swarms of weekend motorcycle ganglets. There is no one else here in the pathway of the great herds. Even the metallic drone of the machines has faded so that I can hear the heavy breath of the bison in their annual ceremony of sexual potency.
Even bison, the very icon of the park, aren’t safe here in their last sanctuary. The shaggy bovines are victims of rancher panic and a gutless government. Like cattle and elk, bison can carry an infectious bacterium that leads to a disease called brucellosis which can, rarely, cause cows to abort fetuses. There’s no evidence that Yellowstone bison have transmitted the disease to Montana cattle, grazing cheaply on public lands near the park. But as a preventive strike, all bison that wander outside the boundaries of the park in search of forage during the deep snows of winter are confined in bison concentration camps, tested and either killed on site or shipped to slaughter-houses.
Not to worry. Ted Turner is coming to the rescue. I read in the morning paper that Turner is offering to liberate the bison quarantined at Corwin Springs, ship them to his 113,000 acre Flying D Ranch south of Bozeman, fatten them on his vast rangeland grasses and serve them up for $18 a plate at his restaurants.
The old patriarch. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair
Suddenly, the old bull turns my direction, angry and frustrated. He snorts, paws at hard dirt and feigns a charge.
I retreat and stumble south across the slope of stubborn sagebrush, over a rounded ridge and down into the Trout Creek valley, leaving the bison to settle their mating preferences in peace.
I’m leaking a little blood. The day before I took a nasty plunge down the mossy face of an andesite cliff at a beautiful waterfall in the Absaroka Mountains, ripping the nail off my big toe.
Each time my foot snags a rock an electric jolt stabs up my left leg. I stop at a at the crest of the ridge, find a spot clear of bison pies, and sit down. I ease off my boot and bloody sock, untwist the cap from a metal flask of icy water and pour it over my swollen toe, already turning an ugly black.
Even in late summer, the valley of Trout Creek is lush and green with tall grasses in striking contrast to the sere landscape of the ridges and the broad plain of the Hayden Valley. The creek itself is an object lesson in meander, circling itself like a loosely coiled rope on its reluctant path to the Yellowstone River. Once acclaimed for its cutthroat trout, the creek has been invaded by brookies, rainbows and brown trout—though these genetic intrusions are viewed with indifference by the great blue heron that is posing statuesquely in the reeds, waiting to strike.
Fifty years ago, Trout Creek was an entirely different kind of place. This valley was a dump, literally, and as such it was then thick with grizzly bears. The bears would assemble in the early evening, after the dump trucks had unloaded the day’s refuse from the migration of tourists to Fishing Bridge and Canyon and Tower Junction. Dozens of grizzlies would paw through the mounds of debris, becoming conditioned to the accidental kindness of an untrustworthy species.
The bears became concentrated at the dump sites and dependent on the food. This all came to a tragic end in 1968 when the Park Service decided to abruptly close the Trout Creek dump, despite warnings from bear biologists, Frank and John Craighead. Denied the easy pickings at the trash head that generations of bears had become habituated to, the Craigheads predicted that the grizzlies would begin wandering into campgrounds and developed sites in search of food. Such entanglements, the Craigheads warned, would prove fatal, mostly to the bears.
And so it came to pass. The dump-closure policy inaugurated a heinous decade of bear slaughter by the very agency charged with protecting the bruins. From 1968 to 1973, 190 grizzly bears in Yellowstone were killed by the Park Service, roughly a third of the known population. That’s the official tally. The real number may have been twice that amount, since the Park Service destroyed most of the bear incident reports from that era. Many bears died from tranquilizer overdoses and dozens of others were air-dropped outside the park boundaries only to be killed by state game officials.
The situation for the great bear has scarcely improved over the last forty years. There are more insidious ways to kill, mostly driven by the government’s continued lack of tolerance for the bear’s expansive nature. New park developments have fragmented its range, while cars, trashy campers, gun-totting tourists and back-country poachers rack up a grim toll. And now the climate itself is conspiring against the grizzly by inexorably burning out one of the bear’s main sources of seasonal protein, the whitebark pine.
Yellowstone is a closed system, a giant island. Genetic diversity is a real concern for Yellowstone’s isolated population of bears. So is the possibility of new diseases in a changing climate. The death rate of Yellowstone grizzlies has been climbing the last two years. The future is bleak. So, naturally, as one of its parting shots, the Bush administration delisted the Yellowstone population from the Endangered Species Act, stripping the bear of its last legal leverage against the forces of extinction. To date, the Obama administration has shown not the slightest inclination to reverse this travesty.
During the very week I was hobbling around Yellowstone one of Montana’s most famous grizzlies was found by a rancher, shot and killed on the Rocky Mountain Front near the small town of Augusta. He was a giant, non-confrontational bear who weighed more than 800 pounds and stood more than seven-and-a-half feet tall. He was beloved by grizzly watchers, who called him Maximus. His anonymous killer left his corpse to rot in a field of alfalfa in the August sun. The government exhibited only its routine apathy at this illegal and senseless slaying. Let us pray that the great bear’s DNA is widely disseminated across the Northern Rockies and that his killer meets with an even more painful and pitiless end.
I catch a flash of white circling above me. Osprey? Swainson’s hawk? I dig into my pack and extract my binoculars and am quickly distracted by a weird motion on the ridgeline across the valley. I glass the slope. Four legs are pawing frantically at the sky. It is a wolf, rolling vigorously on its back, coating its pelt in dirt, urine or shit. Something foul to us and irresistible to wild canids.
The wolf rolls over and shakes. Dust flies from his fur. He tilts his head, then rubs his neck and shoulders onto the ground. He shakes again, sits and scans the valley.
His coat is largely gray, but his chest is black streaked by a thin necklace of white fur. He presents the classic lean profile of the timber wolf. Perhaps he is a Yellowstone native. He was certainly born in the park. His neck is shackled by the tell-tale telemetry collar, a reminder that the wolves of Yellowstone are under constant surveillance by the federal wolf cops. He is a kind of cyber-wolf, on permanent parole, deprived of an essential element of wildness. The feds are charting nearly every step he takes. One false move, and he could, in the antiseptic language of the bureaucracy, be “removed,” as in erased, as in terminated.
This wolf is two, maybe three years old. His coat is thick, dark and shiny. There is no sign of the corrosive mange that is ravaging many of the Yellowstone packs, a disease, like distemper and the lethal parvo virus, vectoring into the park from domestic dogs.
Trout Creek. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair
It has been nearly fifteen years since thirty-one gray wolves were reintroduced into the park, under the Clinton administration’s camera-ready program. With great fanfare, Bruce Babbitt hand-delivered the Canadian timber wolves to their holding pens inside the high caldera. Of course, it was an open secret — vigorously denied by the Interior Department — that wolves had already returned to Yellowstone on their own—if, that is, they’d ever really vanished from the park despite the government’s ruthless eradication campaign that persisted for nearly a century.
These new wolves came with a fatal bureaucratic catch. Under Babbitt’s elastic interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, the wolves of Yellowstone were magically decreed to be a “non-essential, experimental population.” This sinister phrase means that the Yellowstone wolves were not to enjoy the full protections afforded to endangered species and could be harassed, drugged, transported or killed at the whim of federal wildlife bureaucrats. Deviously, this sanguinary rule was applied to all wolves in Yellowstone, even the natives.
The Yellowstone packs, both reintroduced and native, are doing well, but not well enough considering the lethal threats arrayed against them, even inside the supposedly sacrosanct perimeter of the park.
This young wolf might well be a member of the Canyon pack, a gregarious gang of four wolves frequently sighted at Mammoth Hot Springs on Yellowstone’s northern fringe, where they dine liberally on the elk that hang around the Inn, cabins and Park Headquarters. This close-up view of predation-in-action agitated the tourists and when the tourists are upset, the Park Service responds with a vengeance. The federal wolf cops were dispatched to deal with the happy marauders. When the wolves began stalking the elk, Park Service biologists lobbed cracker grenade shells at them and shot at the wolves with rubber bullets. Finally, the small pack left Mammoth for less hostile terrain, showing up this summer in the Hayden Valley, throbbing with elk and bison.
But the non-lethal warfare waged on the Canyon pack wolves came with a bloody price. The wolves lost their litter of pups, a troubling trend in Yellowstone these days. Pup mortality in Yellowstone is on the rise. Last year, on the northern range of the Park only eight pups survived. Several packs, including the Canyon and Leopold packs, produced no pups. Over the last two years, the wolf population inside the Park has dropped by 30 per cent. Even so, the Bush administration decided to strip the wolf of its meager protections under the Endangered Species Act in Montana and Idaho, opening the door for wolf hunting seasons in both states. Then Judge Donald Molloy, a no-nonsense Vietnam Vet, placed an injunction on the hunts and overturned the Bush administration delisting order.
Revoltingly, this spring, the Obama administration redrafted the Bush wolf-killing plan and again stripped the wolf of its protections under the Endangered Species Act. So now both Montana and Idaho are set to killing hundreds of wolves in state authorized hunts—unless Judge Molloy once again intervenes to halt the killing. Both states have brazenly threatened to defy the court if Judge Molloy rules in favor of the wolf. The putatively progressive governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, has been especially bellicose on the matter, vowing: “If some old judge says we can’t hunt wolves, we’ll take it back to another judge.”
In Idaho, the state plans to allow 220 wolves to be killed in its annual hunt and more than 6,000 wolf gunners have bought tags for the opportunity to participate in the slaughter. Up near Fairflied, Idaho rancher vigilantes are taking matters into their own hands. Last week, six wolves from the Solider Mountain pack in the wilds of central Idaho were killed, probably from eating a carcass laced with poison. Don’t expect justice for these wolves. Rex Rammell, a Republican candidate for governor of Idaho, has placed wolf eradication at the top of his agenda. He has also made repeated quips about getting a hunting tag for Obama. After catching some heat for this boast, Rammell sent out a clarifying Tweet: “Anyone who understands the law, knows I was just joking, because Idaho has no jurisdiction to issue hunting tags in Washington, D.C.” Welcome to Idaho, where Sarah Palin got educated.
Across the valley, the wolf is standing rigid, his ears pricked by the bickering of a group of ravens below him on the far bank of Trout Creek. He moves slowly down the slope, stepping gingerly through the sagebrush. He stops at one of the looping meanders, wades into the water and swims downstream. He slides into the tall grass and then playfully leaps out, startling the ravens, who have been busy gleaning a bison carcass. Earlier in the morning a mother grizzly and two cubs had feasted here, I later learned from a Park biologist. Perhaps the Canyon wolves had made the kill, only to be driven away by a persuasive bear. Perhaps it was an old bull, killed during the rut.
The wolf raises his leg and pisses on the grass near the kill site. He sniffs the ground and paces around the remains. Then he rolls again, twisting his body violently in mud near the bison hide and bones. The ravens return, pestering and chiding the wolf. He dismisses their antics and grabs a bone in his mouth.
I lurch down the hillside for a better view, bang my aching foot on a shard of basalt and squeal, “Fuck!”
The wolf’s ears stiffen again. He stares at me, bares his teeth, growls and sprints up and over the ridge, his mouth still clamped tightly on the prized bone, and down into the Alum valley, where he disappears into the dancing dust of mating bison.
[Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book, Born Under a Bad Sky, is just out from AK Press / CounterPunch books. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net. ]
Comment by Karl Friedrich — September 1, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
[…] but in other articles I have written over the years, including reviews of “The Whale” and “The Cove”. But I must insist that Watson was wrong to campaign against the Makah, as I will explain below […]
Pingback by In response to Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — May 16, 2015 @ 6:29 pm
[…] over six years ago I reviewed “The Cove”, a documentary by Louie Psihoyos that exposed the slaughter of dolphins in Taiji, Japan. The […]
Pingback by Racing Extinction | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist — October 23, 2015 @ 6:14 pm