Gist has reviews of 2 new movies about the oil industry - "Crude" and "Fuel" - Two new documentaries—‘Crude’ and ‘Fuel’—examine two sides of our petroleum problem.

Two new documentaries show the damaging effects of the world’s addiction to oil, each film from its own unique angle. Crude, which opened in New York on Sept. 9, traces the story of a lawsuit brought by 30,000 rural Ecuadorians against Chevron, which denies responsibility for turning their traditional rainforest home into a dumping ground for crude oil waste, sickening and killing generations of people. And Fuel, which opened in New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. on Sept. 18, follows director Josh Tickell on his quest to convert the world to biofuels, eliminating the need for oil and thus—hopefully—for lawsuits like the one in Ecuador.

oily water in CrudeOil pollutes the water sources of the Ecuadorians in Crude.Both films succeed in engaging viewers with compelling characters and stories—from the chipper Tickell driving his sunflower-painted, biodiesel-fueled Veggie Van across the country, to the earnest and dogged Ecuadorian lawyer Pablo Fajardo visiting the grave of his murdered brother. And both expose the utter stupidity and reality-denial of Big Oil, an industry unafraid to trample anything or anyone blocking its path to profit, even as the product still driving those profits grows ever more obviously obsolete.

“It’s overly simplistic to say these are greedy companies who want to make money at all costs,” Joe Berlinger, who directed Crude, told me on the phone the day after his film’s New York release. (His previous work includes Metallica: Some Kind of Monster). “But there’s an institutional blindness to the impact of their activities on other parts of the world.”

The latest Future Edition email from The Arlington Institute contained the usual tidings of impending doom, mixed in with some new age weirdness, the likes of which never ceases to remind me of Jon Ronson's book "The Men Who Stare At Goats".

Elliot Wave theorists say that there is an extraordinary confluence of historical waves showing up now that presages huge change. Assessments of historical cycles of "novelty" predict big shifts are coming. Many indigenous prophets and shamans say the big change that has been prophesied for centuries is now upon us. And then, if you want to really reach out in unconventional space there are many psychics and channels who point to October or some time later (but soon) for a very significant disruption.

Why even mention psychics and channels? Well, we are living in a time of unprecedented, exponential change. There is no question about this in terms of population growth, species depletion, science discoveries, natural resource usage, technological invention, and information and knowledge growth (among many other metrics). The size and metabolism of the system in which we live is getting far larger and more complex at such extraordinary rates that it is now beyond human ability to understand it. (In the financial arena alone, the honest experts will tell you that at a fundamental level they don't know exactly what they are doing in their manipulations of the national and global system because it is too complex to understand.)

So we have a system that is very rapidly growing and expanding in ways for which there is clearly no precedent. We do not have history or experience (or modeling) that will tell us how this platform that supports us all will behave and it is obvious that potential failure modes (because of size and interdependence) are far larger than ever before. There is far more risk.

I'd argue that in a situation like this, necessity should be the mother of invention - we need to be looking at every new and old (and unconventional) source and capability that we can find that might give us a fix on what might be on our horizon because if it changes in a hurry, the effects of the surprise will be exacerbated because we didn't see it coming and didn't do anything defensive. We also know from formerly highly classified programs that some of these intuitives have generated extraordinary and accurate intelligence for the U.S and Soviet governments in the past, i.e. it works. If it works, we should use it -- always being diligent about quality control.

Somewhat to my surprise, "Goats" has been made into a movie, due for release in November.

If its true to the book it should be entertaining - starting with the history of paranormal experiments by the US military duringthe 70's and 80's, then segueing forward to how these influenced War on Terror torture practices in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere before sliding back in time again to look at the infamous MK Ultra program - the sort of topics which can entertain and inform the tinfoil crowd forever.

Judging by the trailer, however, it looks like more of a comedy based on the psychic spying etc (first third) of the book, but who knows - maybe the full movie does go all the way...

JD at Peak Oil Debunked notes that ex-From The Wilderness proprietor Mike Ruppert is starring in a new movie called "Collapse". JD notes that Mike has made a few hasty and slightly incorrect predictions over the years, something I too have noticed (though I still think he did a good job on the Iran-Contra thing all those years ago - though maybe he was just riding on Gary Webb's coat-tails) - MIKE RUPPERT, THE "PROPHET" .

Just when you thought you'd he'd checked himself into a good psychiatric facility....

Mike Ruppert roars back as the star of a new feature film "Collapse".

Owen Glieberman posts a rave review from the Toronto Film Festival:

I said in my first post from Toronto that you could feel the anxiety of the economic crisis in any number of the films here. Yet even as I wrote that, I could never have guessed I’d end up seeing a movie that would tap into those anxieties with the power and terror of Collapse. It’s one of the few true buzz films of the festival (by the time I got to it, I’d heard a dozen people talking it up), yet the movie, which is 82 minutes long, consists of nothing more than an on-camera interview with Michael Ruppert, a former Los Angeles police officer who became a rogue investigative reporter and author.

A bluntly unassuming and rather plain-looking man in his late fifties, Ruppert sits in what looks like a brick bunker and talks about where he thinks the United States is now headed. It is not a pretty picture, but it’s not a naive one, either. Ruppert has more than a perception — he has a welter of facts, a restless and skeptical intelligence, a grasp of history that is professorial in the best sense, and an ability to slice and dice the platitudes of mainstream media. He’s like Noam Chomsky as a gripping pundit of doom. The drama of the movie, and it’s intense, is that even if you want to argue with him (and you will, since he’s predicting very bad things), you can’t dismiss what he’s saying.

He starts out with a trump card of credibility. In 2006, Ruppert predicted the economic crisis — I mean, he really saw it coming. We’re shown clips of him from that year, and there’s nothing vague or abstract about his statements. He glimpsed the whole house of cards in prophetic detail: the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the inevitable breakdown of a system built, like a gold-leaf castle in the air, on leverage. His astonishingly acute foresight seizes your attention, and so you’d better believe that you’re sitting up and listening as he starts to talk about “peak oil,” the term that’s used to describe the fact that the majority of oil reserves on the planet have, in all likelihood, already been depleted, and that the remaining supply will now perpetually be in decline. (He cites reports that the Saudis have resorted to off-shore drilling — infinitely more costly than on-shore — as evidence that they’ve begun to see the bottom of their wells.)

Now for the reality check...

While I had serious doubts about America's ability to recover from Katrina, I am certain that - barring divine intervention - the United States is finished; not only as a superpower, but possibly even as a single, unified nation with the arrival of Hurricane Rita.
-- Mike Ruppert, September 21, 2005

...

The Guardian has a look at the near-invisible slate of anti-war movies dealing with the Iraq war (via Idleworm)

Brian De Palma, Nick Broomfield and Paul Haggis have been called traitors and villains, their films branded 'Bin Laden cinema'. They are desperate to tell the truth about what is going on in Iraq. But there seems little appetite for war films right now.

It's 2006, and Brian De Palma can't believe his luck. Dotcom billionaire and aspiring film producer Mark Cuban offers him $5m to make a movie. About anything. The only proviso is that it has to be shot in hi-definition. Of course, De Palma jumps at the chance. He tells Cuban he'd like to make a film about the war in Iraq, Cuban hands over the $5m, deal done, everybody is happy.

Fast-forward two years: Redacted has won the prestigious Silver Lion at the Venice Film Festival, websites such as BoycottRedacted.com are encouraging people not to see it and De Palma has been labelled a traitor. Oh, and De Palma and Cuban have fallen out, the film-maker accusing his producer of censorship.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, De Palma has spent much of the past 40 years inflaming public opinion. He has always loved to play Contrary Mary, and seems to take pleasure in offending. He has been called a misogynist (feminists were infuriated by 1980's Dressed To Kill and its conflation of stilettos, sluts and slashing) and a plagiarist (for borrowing from, or paying homage to, heroes such as Hitchcock). He has even been called a traitor before - his 1989 film Casualties Of War also showed soldiers raping and murdering, back in Vietnam. But this time it's different. In a less liberal America, his fellow countrymen seem to have had enough of him. Scan the internet and lap up the bile. One blogger writes: "This guy should be held accountable for each American death after the release of this filth. He is a treasonist, and should be stripped of his citizenship, and expelled from this country as penniless as he came into it in birth." Fox anchor Bill O'Reilly called De Palma "a true villain in our country" and wished that "FDR was president so De Palma could be imprisoned for treason... Even if you disagree with the Iraq war, even if you dislike President Bush, no loyal American should support an enterprise that incites hatred against America." Meanwhile, US critic Michael Medved focused his criticism on the film. "It could be the worst movie I've ever seen," he said.

The true surprise is that America has not simply turned its back on De Palma's war film, it has turned its back on all Iraq war films. Not even Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie or Robert Redford can entice Americans into the cinema to explore Iraq. What has changed? After all, war movies have been a Hollywood staple. Even hugely unpopular wars, such as Vietnam, have produced hugely popular films such as The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Coming Home, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, all of them Oscar winners. Yet look at the figures for the latest batch, and it seems that all you need to do is shout Iraq to have the public running in droves from the cinema.

Redacted is based on the gang rape, murder and burning of 14-year-old Iraqi girl, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, by US soldiers in March 2006. The soldiers also killed her parents and younger sister. Redacted means edited or revised to make suitable for publication - De Palma's point is that the authorities have not allowed us to see what we have done to the people of Iraq. Access has been limited, images have been censored, and the few that have been seen have often contradicted the official version of events. De Palma was determined to tell a story that showed the full horror of the Iraq war.

Rather than watching a movie, we seem to be eavesdropping on the very worst of humanity, as his semi-deranged squaddies cross into the heart of darkness. His soldiers refer to the Iraqis as "sand niggers"; they say killing them, or "lighting them up", is like stamping out cockroaches; they mock the suggestion that they might feel guilty for pumping a pregnant woman full of lead. "You can't afford remorse - you have remorse, you get weak; you get weak, you die. Simple as that," one character says.

The film is shot in segments. There is a squaddy's version of events (the character Angel Salazar is recording the action in Iraq, and hoping his video diary Tell Me No Lies will get him into film school when he returns); a documentary in French about routine searches at checkpoints; and blogs from soldiers and their families. All three elements are fiction, created by De Palma, coming together, bit by fractured bit, to tell the appalling story. This is a very modern form of cinéma vérité, a dramatic reconstruction that does not allow for the traditional comforts of cinema - narrative drive, beauty, recognisable stars, redemption. Redacted is cinema at its most grimy and unforgiving.

The film was fictionalised for legal reasons. But barely - instead of being 14, the raped girl in the film is 15. Early on in Redacted, one of the squad is blown up by an improvised explosive device and another is kidnapped and beheaded by fundamentalists. Their distraught buddies lose their senses and exact a grotesque revenge. De Palma's camera does not turn away from the atrocity. He has never been one for subtlety or suggestion. His critics say that he glories in the explicit depiction of depravity.

I meet the film-maker in Paris, where he once lived. He is in his late 60s and as combative as ever. He is a hard man to like. Grumpy, growly and impatient, he's not the most obvious choice as a spokesman for humanity.

De Palma asks the same question again and again - where are the pictures? "As an American taxpayer I am financing a war that I totally don't believe in; and if we're going to finance the bombing and destruction of a country, I'd like to see the pictures from it. Where are the pictures?"

Have there been fewer pictures from this war than previous wars? "Oh, of course. Of course." How come, when everyone is out there making their own home movies? "They never make their way into the mainstream media because the mainstream media is a big corporation now, and they've got stockholders, and they don't like to put unpleasant pictures up on the air because you can't sell advertising and you're showing a depressing view of the war." In Vietnam, he says, at least sufficient images found their way home to enable people to make an informed decision on the war. But that was the lesson the US government learned from Vietnam - if you're going to fight an unpopular war, make sure photographs of scorched girls running for their lives don't reach the public. ...

He says the mistake that his detractors make is to see this film as simply an attack on the US military. It's an easy mistake to make - their behaviour is unforgivable. Yes, says, De Palma, but that's not the point. "When you have a terrible crime, you want to know how these boys were brought to do this, and that's what the movie shows." And what did bring them to do it? "They are very young. They are taken to a place that they have no idea of or experience of, a very hostile environment, it's very hot, they're carrying 120 pounds of gear on their back, they don't know why they're there because the reasons they are given could be false. They are surrounded by a mysterious and hostile populace. The only logic they can make of why they're doing what they're doing is protecting themselves and their buddies, and then their buddy gets blown up or assassinated, and they turn all their frustration on that populace out there."

Everything about this war, he says, is futile and relentless. Even the landscape in Iraq is hopeless: rubble and wasteland. "In Vietnam there were beaches, tropics; this is a gritty environment."

War and rape are recurrent themes in De Palma's work. "It's a metaphor for my feeling of what America did to Vietnam and what we're doing to Iraq. We come in, we destroy, we rape, we kill and then we leave. The girl represents the innocent country." But it's more than a metaphor, isn't it? "If you're going to rape a country, why not rape its women at the same time," he says baldly. De Palma believes that the consequences of an unjust war are felt for generations, and he quotes one of his characters. "McCoy says you have to have a very good reason to go out and kill people. Because if you don't, it twists you all up inside, and we will be suffering the repercussions of those soldiers that will never be able to deal with the experience of killing women and children for generations."

He is happy to see his film as a form of counter-propaganda. "I want people to try to understand a little better how and why this terrible crime was committed, and how it tells us a lot about our whole occupation and invasion of Iraq."

In some ways, Nick Broomfield's Battle For Haditha is eerily similar to Redacted. Again, it is shot more like a reconstruction than a traditional movie, using no recognisable stars (in this case, mainly non-professional actors), and again it is unremittingly bleak. Both films are based on true stories and have pretty much the same starting and finishing points. In the Iraqi town of Haditha, on November 19 2005, a marine was killed by an insurgent bomb. On the same day, 24 civilians were killed. Initial reports said that 15 had died from the bomb blast and the others in subsequent fighting with US soldiers. But an amateur video, shot by an Iraqi the day after the killings, told a very different story - this had been a massacre. Five men in a taxi had been lined up and shot on the spot, and nearly all the others had been shot in their homes, including seven women and three children, the youngest aged three. Haditha has been called Iraq's My Lai. Four marines faced charges of unpremeditated murder, which were later dropped. Squadron leader Frank Wuterich, who was charged with 12 counts of unpremeditated murder, could still face jail if convicted on charges of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, dereliction of duty or obstruction of justice.

Broomfield tells the story from three perspectives - that of the marines, the two insurgents who plant the bomb and the Iraqi family living in the vicinity. Although the atrocity is every bit as shocking as that depicted in Redacted, Broomfield's film is more nuanced, more humane. Battle For Haditha starts with a series of talking heads - the marines who go on to slaughter the innocents. "What d'you want to know?" asks one boy-man, who looks as if he has not even started shaving. "I live in a shit barracks. Constant threat. I get shot at any minute through every window. I wake up every morning and do the same patrols every day and basically the only thing I'm fighting for, that I know I'm fighting for, is to make it home every day without being killed, because I don't know why we're here." We sympathise with all three sides. The marine largely responsible for the carnage begged to see a doctor before the incident because he was having nightmares - and was refused permission; the older insurgent was a former Iraqi soldier given negligible compensation when the US disbanded the army; the Iraqi family are warm and loving.

He talks more like a campaigning journalist than a movie-maker. Like De Palma, he feels that while there are so few official images provided of body bags and charred victims, it has become the film-maker's role to act as an official recorder. And because they are so angry that the truth has been withheld from the public, they are all the more determined to make their films hard-core.

If there is such a need to chronicle the war, why are the films struggling for an audience? Broomfield points out that the films from Vietnam were made years after the event, when it was no longer so raw. "The other main difference is there was conscription in Vietnam and middle-class college kids were being killed. Here, it's just the poor and dispossessed being killed in Iraq. Nobody needs to deal with it. The rich don't need to deal with - it's Puerto Ricans and white trash being killed in America." However savage the portrayal of Vietnam in Apocalypse Now, made six years after the end of the war, it is obvious to viewers that this is fiction (indeed, it is based on Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness). At least to that extent, we are let off the hook. ...

In The Valley Of Elah, again based on a true story, makes up a trilogy of Iraq bad-apple movies. Directed by double Oscar winner Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby), it is more conventional than the Broomfield and De Palma pictures. It has a conventional narrative (a father determines to find out how his soldier son, just home from Iraq, died), it belongs to a cosier genre (murder mystery) and it has stars (Tommy Lee Jones, Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron). But at its heart is another unspeakable act committed by the military.

In The Valley Of Elah has also failed commercially. Rightwing groups have labelled it "Bin Laden cinema" and called for it to be boycotted. Haggis's inspiration also came from trawling the web. He was horrified by the blogs soldiers were posting - a shot of a kid with a burned corpse talking to it as if to a buddy, a soldier picking up a dismembered hand and waving it as if it were his own. "I said, 'My God, what is happening?' I know these to be good men and women. These are kids; these are good kids they are sending there."

Since making the film, Haggis has screened it to soldiers and has been shocked by further discoveries. "There is the highest suicide rate in the military in 30 years right now. I was screening this film for some troops and their family members in Washington DC, and afterwards a woman came up to me and said, 'Thanks so much, it was a really hard film to watch. My husband was in active duty, and when he came back he hung himself.' Then another woman came up and said, 'Thanks for making the film. It was really hard to watch because I saw my son in it. He was in Iraq, and the first week back he shot himself.' I walked out and another woman came up to me and said, 'My husband was an Iraq war vet. I was really afraid for the first two weeks until he hung himself.' "These are three women who didn't know each other and this is within seven minutes of me walking out of the theatre.