Crude, or how to make an eco-documentary tolerable
Crudeis the new documentary be relative big-shot Joe Berlinger. The film is eco-themed, dealing with the lawsuit of 30, 000 Ecuadorians against Chevron over contamination to Amazonian land and rivers. But dont hold that against it.*
The film succeeds partly because it assumes that if you are watching it, chances are you’ve made up your mind already concerning the case. Rather than spending too much time persuading the audience, Berlinger and his crew leverage their incredible access into the machinations of the lawsuit. Chevron’s PR spin feels especially cruel when contrasted with footage of soiled land and cancerous teenagers. Those segments alone could not have sustained the film, however. The most memorable scene comes when the pushy New York lawyer consulting on the lawsuit has an Amazonian tribesman practice his testimony in front of him in a hotel room. He doesnt like what he hears, and tells him he will write it. Later in the film, the lawyers behind the lawsuit enlist Sting’s wife to their cause (and score back-stage Live Nation tickets).
In the end, I walked away from the film partly incensed at Chevron (who do seem to be at fault) and heartbroken for the Ecuadorians, but mostly in awe of the enormity of the problem and scale os it’s implications. Crude operates under the assumption that the contamination’s source isn’t the interesting question, it’s how it seeps into history, politics, business and family.
*I’m kidding, of course. I believe nature, ecology and global warming are all relevant and interesting topics. Recently, however, I feel like the majority of nature documentaries fall into two groups: the nature docs with condescending and narrow-minded voiceovers and shrill lefty iceberg melters. The only thing worse than projecting human emotions and rituals onto animals (“Papa polar bear is giving Mama polar bear a snowball engagement ring!” etc) is the breathlessness with which some environmentalists have resorted when pleading their cause.
