Movie Review: Crude and Chevron's Social Darwinism

I would have sworn that The Cove had the Oscar sewn up for best documentary this year. But Joe Berlinger's Crude, which opens next Wednesday (9.9.09), will be in the thick of the Oscar fight.

You've got to hand it to Berlinger for his even-handed work on Crude, a film that depicts immense sadness and stunning corporate villainy. Yet Berlinger offers a balanced look at the conflict. Chevron gets the chance to tell its story and Berlinger never pulls any sort of "gotcha" move on them. It's just that the facts are so damning, even given the full-bore public-relations disinformation campaign by Chevron.

The story Berlinger tells is about the callously deadly and widespread despoiling of the Ecuadorian rain forest by Texaco -- now owned by Chevron -- and Chevron's refusal to accept responsibility for it. It's infuriating, at the least, to look at and listen to evidence - and listen to Chevron's lawyers and spokespeople denying all the things they so obviously are guilty of.

But Berlinger tells the story calmly, carefully, offering both sides the opportunity to present a case. Yet it's obvious to anyone with eyes that Chevron is being disingenuous about its culpability for massive environmental crimes. It's just as obvious why Chevron is dead-set on tying the matter up in court until everyone involved has died of old age or the cancer caused by Chevron's toxic legacy.

For the rest of this review, click HERE to reach my website: www.hollywoodandfine.com.

Follow Marshall Fine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hollywoodnfine

Comments

[egdell]

You say the film tells the story about Chevron's refusal to accept responsibility (for the callously deadly and widespread despoiling of the Ecuadorian rain forest by Texaco -- now owned by Chevron). I've seen many so-called reviews of this movie, but I haven't seen anyone mention that the movie covers the fact that at the conclusion of the oil production concession between Texaco Petroleum (“Texpet,” a subsidiary of Texaco, which merged with a Chevron subsidiary in 2001) and the government of Ecuador in 1992, the parties conducted a full environmental audit, and Texpet performed a multi-year, $40 million remediation program proportionate to its minority ownership share of the Consortium. That program was approved by the government of Ecuador, which then granted Texpet and all related entities a full and complete release from any remaining environmental liability associated with the consortium’s operations. Does it?

[prgurublog]

Dow Jones News: "The Ecuadorean judge purportedly caught on videotape discussing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Chevron Corp. has recused himself from the on-going case, Judge Juan Nunez said Friday."

[bighat]

Why isn't Ecuador responsible? Why is it always an american company or America;s fault?

If Ecuador started a timber busines in America would the envoronmentalists make a movie to be released in Ecuador and stop there. Or possbily set up a protest against the timber company in Ecuador.

Hold those responsible that should be responsible. Unless Chevron has broken agreements with Ecuador then they should not be the subject of such articles

[quisp65]

There is alot of issues I don't think the film is fair, though I admit I've only seen the trailer. But they did paint Chevron in a negative light and I don't think "Big Oil" could really get fair treatment in Hollywood. So I won't be watching the film. I
A couple of issues.
1. How much of the pollution is from the current state run oil company.
2. Was the deaths & poor health all from Texacos dealings are was alot from just poor management of all Equadors enviromental issues on the governments part.
3. Since taking over a companys dealings such as Chevron does still make you liable for that companies former mistakes, how much can Equador also be held responsible since they also took over Texacos dealings. Both Equador and Chevron bought up Texacos proceeds from Equador. I guess unless they stole it like Chavez.
4. How much did Texaco agree on when it drilled for oil? Did it follow the laws?
Texaco may be at fault but I would not getting my information from Hollywood or Socialist Equador because that would be like getting my information about Obama from the clan. I'll wait till a US court passes judgement.

[bighat]

You are wise and just

[quisp65]

Another issue on this. When a company such as Chevron drills oil in Equador there is actually two oil companys, Chevron and Equador. Equador takes a certain percentage of the profits and makes agreements. Both Chevron and Equador have different responsibilties. Determining what Chevrons responsibilities where under a Chavez type court probably wasn't handled correctly. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in US court when Equador tries to collect its money.

[Paulpaz]

"probably wasn't handled correctly". Doesn't seem like you have much idea what you're talking about. And the damage Chevron is responsible for was done many years ago, by the way. Oh, and it's spelled ECUADOR.

[quisp65]

I'm not convinced that Chevron did all the wrong here. Equador is now a Chavez type government and the operation has been taken over by their state run oil company for some time. Their president was supporting a verdict against Chevron. I doubt this will win in a US court where Equador has to go to collect its money.

[Paulpaz]

Quisp, you clearly have not done much research on this issue. It already went to a US court and that court agreed with Chevron to move the case to Ecuador on the condition that any verdict is enforceable in the US. The completely overwhelming amount of evidence still sitting in the jungle where Texaco left it, is staring everyone in the face and can't be ignored. If you want to learn about it, you should watch the movie.

[quisp65]

Guess we'll see when Ecuador tries to collect its money by going to a US court. You can learn more from it just by doing searches than by watching a film. The film is bias because it has to sell itself to a public that doesn't like "big oil". I would not put no trust in it and choose to get my info from other sources. Mainly I'll accept whatever the US court says on appeal.