The End of Poverty?

Philippe Diaz didn't set out to direct a Hollywood blockbuster with The End of Poverty? He intended to initiate a sober, serious dialogue and suggest a solution rather than merely present an immediate palliative. The film isn't a visual refrain of "We Are the World," projecting a simple but stirring message that excites audiences' heartstrings with an emotive, escalating chorus and a promise of donated proceeds. The End of Poverty? prompts more disturbing emotions and requests greater sacrifices than purchasing a recording or ticket.

The film is a blistering probe into historical and enduring capitalistic manipulation and the type of systemic exploitation and subjugation that most Americans consider ancient past, predating abolition and the Emancipation Proclamation. Central to the film's thesis is an ingrained North/South economic model that Diaz and his experts present as an enduring and odious spillover from colonialism. As described in the film, wealthy American and European interests exploit natural resources, cheap labor and encourage high taxes on labor in the impoverished nations of South America and Africa even as fat cat capitalists are rewarded with subsidies and opportunistic contracts. In colonial times, European explorers came bearing weapons and religion. The film presents contemporary victors often brandishing loans, grants, gunboat diplomacy and a righteous attitude - still disguised as gifts to convert, civilize and exploit.

Assisted by facts, figures, expert opinions and Martin Sheen's narration, the film's abundant scholarship might seem didactic to some. Political prejudice might deter others. But the theme and images running throughout the film cut past any intellectual or political discord. The film has already drawn attacks from conservatives and praise from progressives. But the middle majority is the audience Diaz hopes to convince and spur into action.

In anticipation of the film's theatrical premiere on November 13 at the Village East Cinema in New York, Diaz spoke with me, eager to discuss the film's considerable success and aspirations (it has already appeared at numerous festivals, including Cannes). He is most excited about possibly creating a widespread awareness beyond the intelligentsia. Perhaps even spurring a grassroots effort to banish poverty on par with those committed to curbing global warming. After all, he explained, global poverty is a crisis that rivals global warming, and is equally devastating to the entire planet.

"It's a mathematical issue," Diaz stated. "Not political."

He proves the point by ticking off numbers not of people living in poverty as I expected, but figures more connected to average Americans. The world's population is currently consuming 30 per cent more of the planet's resources than it can replenish. The obvious dangers of poverty, such as fostering terrorism, are noted, but Diaz also offered an even more consuming fact. The earth cannot sustain that rate of consumption. Even more relevant to Americans are the following statistics. Our nation represents barely five per cent of the world's population but consumes greater than 25 per cent of global resources. Compounding our culpability, we are responsible for over 30 per cent of the earth's pollution.

While some Americans might feel stunned or shamed by the numbers revealing our national gluttony, others, as Diaz noted, might excuse the disparities by returning fire - blaming, for instance, high birth rates of third world nations. But, much like the global warming debate, philosophical, political and moral exchanges can't deny that the current economic circumstances is will not only tax but bankrupt the earth's finite resources. According to Diaz' projections, unless we can discover similar planets that are rich in resources and hospitable to life on earth, we are doomed.

Diaz offers no easy solutions. Personal change and commitment are good intentions. An individual can eat less meat, drive less frequently and change light bulbs more frequently. But the overarching problems burdening not only the world's poor, but the earth itself will remain undaunted and unchecked. Poverty's pervasiveness can be overwhelming and Diaz admits feeling powerless, asking, 'What can we do?" Individually, he said, we are without hope. The only possibility of a solution resides in collective shift or, as he said, "a real change in the system."

It's precisely that collective rearrangement of attitudes and awareness that The End of Poverty? attempts to accomplish. The film's title is punctuated by a question mark. Success certainly isn't a foregone conclusion; considering the ingrained mentality and established practices by those dominant political and economic powerhouses benefiting from a lopsided economic and social structure, any meaningful victory over endemic poverty would be more surprising than assured. The effort faces serious obstacles, not the least of which is gaining exposure to enough people to comprise a collective force. With the exception of intermittent sleepers like An Inconvenient Truth, serious documentaries don't ignite people's passions comparable to typical theatrical fare (however ephemeral).

However, the global economic crisis might ease - even amplify - the film's reception. Main Street's current suspicion and resentment of Wall Street machinations has introduced the mainstream, historically naïve and unbothered about macroeconomics principles and practices, into feeling that presence in their immediate lives. The recent economic meltdown awakened average Americans to the intricacies of high finance. Or, at least, some of the negative consequences of unchecked capitalism pursuing the immediate profit. Roused from apathy, the general population might be more receptive to the film's message. Diaz said that the film's experts weren't surprised by the economic fallout last year. Actually, he stated, they predicted it in advance even as the financial markets and ordinary citizens celebrated the boom with extravagant purchases and unrestrained consumption.

The film's greatest asset and liability is its shock value. The stark images of poverty and its accoutrements (hunger, illness and hopelessness) will distance some but Diaz hopes others will confront the problem with a sense of awareness and responsibility. His goal is to "provoke a reaction." And he's succeeding. Dropped mouths and audible gasps are often the audience response followed by exclamations like, "Oh, my God!" and "I had no idea." More encouraging to Diaz are those amazed responses that acknowledge complicity, even if as an unaware accessory. "To feel that I am responsible for that..." is a common comment.

Diaz has reason to be satisfied with the film. The production is impeccable and he managed to backdrop several centuries worth of misdeeds and assorted acts of oppression against today's global economic structure, showing that colonialism died in name only; the ambitions of conquistadors and colonialists endure among global powerhouses in more subtle but equally insidious expressions and practices. Weaving the seemingly disparate eras into a cohesive and cogent explanation of within a 103-minute film is an amazing feat by itself. Facts and figures highlight the theme rather than belabor it. And even the somewhat jarring juxtaposition of erudite Nobel laureates and undernourished, uneducated ghetto and barrio tenants serve to reinforce the film's message. Stated in different vernaculars and languages, the message is the same - deep-seated global economics is perpetuating poverty. Nothing short of widespread awareness and effort on the part of people, both poor and comfortable, will alleviate, let alone end, it. The major motivator today is that, unlike colonial times, the entire world is at risk.

With America embroiled in a national health care debate and at odds over government intervention to alleviate the aftermath of unrestrained capitalism, The End of Poverty? presents the flipside. Third world nations saw resources and services privatized and the wait for medical assistance is often lethal and prices for food and even water prohibitive. Diaz hopes for a Congressional screening of The End of Poverty?, stressing that he will rush to Capital Hill and assume all related expenses for the chance to command lawmakers' attention, even if only for a few hours. Perhaps the time is apropos, as Congress attempts to resolve the health care debate with a bill, for that body to take Diaz' offer seriously. But if that doesn't happen, Diaz will still get the opportunity to screen the film at the United Nations on November 10. And, of course, there is the New York theatrical debut this Friday, followed by Los Angeles and subsequent national release later this month, which will likely abet Diaz' goal of amplify awareness and activism to a problem he equates to global warming - and equally as urgent.

For more information on "The End of Poverty?" visit www.theendofpoverty.com.

 

Follow Wayne Trujillo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/latinoescritor

Comments

[lvtfan]

We need to look at structures. We live with a black-box poverty machine whose inner workings most of us don't understand. Our position so far has been along the lines of "I think it works for me."

But increasingly we are becoming aware of our fellow human beings in the other 5/6 of our planet, and that the effects of that machine on their lives, and on the lives of all of our children and grandchildren, are neither sustainable nor just.

One of the first American thinkers to look at structures -- though he wasn't particularly globally oriented -- was Henry George. I encourage you to take the time to get to know his ideas, and to think about whether and how they fit into what you observe around you in 2009. You might start with http://henrygeorge.org/ or http://wealthandwant.com/ (the URL is from the subtitle to his first and most famous book, "Progress & Poverty" -- available online at http://progressandpoverty.org/). If you want a quick read, look for these pieces:

Speeches: "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "The Crime of Poverty"
Essay (Bob Andelson): "Henry George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism"

George did devote some attention to absentee ownership of property, and a great deal of attention to free trade.

[selenasade]

Having less children is not a solution. The only solution is to distribute the wealth equitably. As long as the system is organized in the way it is currently organized, there will always be far too many people living in squalid conditions. How can we encourage a peaceful shake-up of the system? Talk is cheap!

[dsws]

Who says resources have to be on planets? The solar system is full of metals, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Unlike metal ores on earth, much of the metal in asteroids is already in metallic form. And there are no species that would be threatened or people who would be displaced or impoverished by exploiting those resources.

Eventually, within a historical timescale rather than a geological or astronomical one, we will have to bring our rate of population growth down essentially to zero. No matter what technologies we might develop, in a relativistic universe Mathus will catch up: an exponentially growing population expands, in a few thousand years, faster than a sphere expanding at light-speed; long before that inescapable limit closes in, some specific resources will limit our growth. But resources per se are not now scarce, and will not become scarce on a timescale of decades.

[the evil zargos]

can you say Buckminster Fuller??

[edejan]

One of the "simplest" solutions is TO HAVE LESS CHILDREN. The Zero Population Growth movement was a big deal several decades ago, but the message never reached 99% of the world. I know there are cultural, political, financial, etc., reasons to have as many children as possible, but the fact is that the world, and we, will not survive the massive explosion of the human population. If there is ever to be "one world" then humanity as a whole must learn to work together to actually REDUCE population, pushing aside all the selfish, nationalistic, cultural and political "crap" reasons that will be used as excuses.

[Wayne Trujillo - Huffpost Blogger]

While family planning is an important part of solvency and improved lives, the simple fact is that most people in impoverished countries lack quality education, decent shelter and simple life necessities. If these people are laboring in poverty, afflicted by disease, hunger, thirst, dismal living conditions and largely uneducated, how are they to be informed about such matters as family planning? It will take, as Diaz mentioned, a collective shift in attitudes and action. Whether its addressing overpopulation or eradicating poverty, individuals and small groups can help, but they won’t be able to solve the problems. It will take wide-spread and wide-scale action. There are no simple solutions to either overpopulation or poverty.

[singermuse]

This is a film I will want to see, and to recommend to everyone I know. We live on this precious, and truly abundant planet, with more than we could ever need, if we all lived simply and sustainably.The problem is the inequitable distribution of resources and wealth. One person can't change much, but add more to that one, and sooner or later change happens. But we can't be complacent. We don't have time to be. If each one of us did just a little, it would add up. But seeing how greedy and stubborn and hateful the repugnicans are in congress, not wanting to even allow people to have decent health care, fearful that they might have to part with on iota of their vast, unbalanced, and bloated wealth. It can be daunting, discouraging. But we must not give up.