Crude is a professionally filmed documentary that arouses the utmost desire for justice in terms of legal issues and humanity as it is. No wonder people are getting so cruel nowadays, since even such a burning issue – earth and water contamination with petroleum – is being suppressed in media. Of course, there exist several opinions on what has actually happened since the indigenous tribes were forced to move to other places and build up new homes. However, my answer is yes – the events described in the film constitute a state/state-corporate crime.
This documentary clearly depicts Texaco’s actions that started their harmful impact on Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest in the 1960s. The need for remediation of thousands of miles is evident due to the nice work of the director of the movie. Undoubtedly, the movie makes us think about the planet we live on. It is of vital importance to realize that Earth needs sustaining because we are not the only ones who live on it. Moreover, there will be our children and grandchildren who may be paying off the contemporary mistakes and the consequences might be truly inauspicious. This is what the movie is about – a strong appeal to the nations of different parts of the world to think in advance about any consequences. Moreover, the documentary teaches that one should answer for the committed.
The most arrogant attitude towards the problem is the attitude of responsible officials, who denied their complicity in a crime against humanity. It is necessary to talk about the tribes living in those lands of petroleum accidents. Having their own heritage of unique culture, traditions, language and precious knowledge they are forced to change their location because of the contamination of the lands that subsequently leads to the health problems of future generations.
As such, the class-action suit against Texaco was filed being a failure deliberately, though the fights for human rights are still being argued by the lawyers and human rights activists. Whether it is efficient or not, another case has to be mentioned here. A case of fire in Hamlet constitutes a state-corporate crime due to mere neglect of basic safety requirements. Therefore, in order to define if the case described in Crude relates to the Hamlet fire, let me say that the petroleum output profit directly depends on the uninterrupted and continuous works. Hence, it is quite possible that the safety measures might be violated in order to get higher profits at a separately taken private company.
Since such cases like Hamlet fire and the petroleum contamination are huge and deserve professional attention, the two lawyers were drawn to the problem in Ecuador Amazon. The documentary shows their effective cooperation that leads to involving another concerned person in this affair – the rainforest activist Styler and her husband. This makes a good team of people who really care for the problem and are ready to do the utmost in order to save the homelands of many people from disaster or at least seek fairness.
This draws much public attention, though it is not enough to make guilty ones – one of the biggest corporations in the world – pay off. This is the main leitmotif of the documentary that the filmmaker Berlinger describes vividly. We can explicitly see how the fights for justice unroll, though the scenes somewhat wobble it only ensures the situation’s intractability.
While the outrageous issues are taking place in the rainforests of Amazon, the responsible company claims someone other to be blamed. This is supported by terrible picture shots of little kids having a tumor that definitely makes even the roughest heart and soul sympathize. The question is: do the officials have that sympathetic attitude towards the problem; and whether that sympathy is enough to admit the fault. This is probably the main controversial issue I have unearthed during watching the movie. Unfortunately, I have to admit that nowadays people fear accepting the fault, moreover, the money matters prevail over the human values.
The main idea I would like to express in terms of understanding the movie’s message is that the companies should avoid the issue of cutting costs and maximizing profits just like it happened at the crash of ValuJet Flight 592. This and other cases involving private companies that harm the environment and people’s lives have to be strictly punished no matter what. Of course, nowadays the law is extremely flexible, to my opinion, in order to follow the interests of victims, though we can still stand up and fight for justice to triumph over inequity.
Also, I have to admit that the modern world economy presupposes acting to its benefit disregarding the consequences that may occur. However, once more, we are responsible for health diseases that invaded our lives for the past hundred years. The responsibility for our own health lies on us. Besides, when watching such a movie as Crude one thinks subconsciously about people’s inadequacy, Why would anyone deny participation if the problem gains such seriousness as race extinction?
The movie is great evidence of how the trial was actually held. With enormous efforts, the lawyers manage to move the case from the US to Ecuador where finally the process starts its powerful history. The movie scenes describe how the trial didn’t remain in the actual courtroom. The evidence is seen right at the places of contamination with gathered onlookers.
Though the director is trying to stay unbiased it is not hard to understand whose side he is on. It is also evident that the entire movie has been released in order to move the case forward, not to mention the purpose of showing the actual horror aftermath of the oil poisoning.
Needless to say, people get terrified when seeing some scenes from the movie along with the peremptory tone of the officials trying to shift the blame onto other companies. It is hard not t sympathize with people undergoing such changes in their native nature, though the movie examines the situation from multiple opinions. The documentary combines legal actions thriller and the natural crisis, which people will have to experience for many years after. But what makes it so compelling is that the director does not state a firm opinion. The viewer has to make their own conclusion up to the point. Neither Berlinger represents an open message nor he forces you to think the way he does. All you have to do after watching this film is to stick to one objective opinion. Therefore, my opinion is that Chevron’s fault is evident and the case of state crime takes place.