Collapse (2009)

Collapse is a documentary film about Michael Ruppert (1951-2014), who was a social activist and a political dissident. Here is some basic information about this film which premiered in 2009:

** Director: Chris Smith

** Editor: Barry Poltermann

** Inspired by Michael Ruppert’s book A Presidential Energy Policy (2009)

** Available on DVD and via Amazon Prime Video

** Run time: 82 minutes

The only person interviewed in this film is Michael Ruppert. What is the topic? He talks about US domestic policy and US foreign policy. The focus is on the police, the FBI and the CIA. The focus is often on the energy crisis of 1973, on the economic crisis of 2008, and on global energy policy.

Sometimes the director Chris Smith will interrupt him and ask him: “Who are you? Why should we trust you? Why should we believe anything you say?”

When this happens, Michael Ruppert will offer some background information about himself. He is a citizen of the US. He was a police officer in Los Angeles for five years (1973-1978). Since then he has been a social activist and a political dissident. He has published a newsletter and broadcast a radio program. In addition, he is the author of several books.

The interview takes place in a big room which looks like an empty warehouse. From time to time old photos and old clips are shown. But most of the time we see and hear only Michael Ruppert. It is strange. Strangely captivating.

What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 71 per cent = Meta

** 78 per cent = IMDb

** 83 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes

The famous movie critic Roger Ebert (1943-2013), who was not easily impressed, was impressed with this film. He offered 4 of 4 stars, i.e. a rating of 100 per cent.

Owen Gleiberman reviewed the film in Entertainment Weekly. Here is a quote from his review:

“You may want to dispute [what Michael Ruppert says], but more than that, you’ll want to hear him, because what he says – right or wrong, prophecy or paranoia – takes up residence in your mind.”

As you can see, the average ratings are quite good, and some reviewers go higher than the average. They go all the way to the top.

I understand why. There is something fascinating about this person. Whether you agree with him or not, you will want to listen to him and hear what he has to say.

This film – which is based on several long interviews – becomes even more significant when we realize that Michael Ruppert is no longer alive. He took his own life in 2014. This film remains a fine tribute to him and the role he played for many years as a social activist and a political dissident.

*****

A Crude Awakening (2006)

A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash is a documentary film which premiered in 2006. Here is some basic information about it:

** Writers and directors: Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormick

** Country of origin: Switzerland

** Released on DVD in 2008

** Run time: ca 82 minutes

The film is in English for most of the time. There are a few cases where another language is spoken. When this happens, the statement is covered by English subtitles.

Many persons are interviewed in the film. Here are the names (in alphabetical order):

Wade Adams – a researcher

Abdul Samad Al-Awadi – an oil consultant

Fadhil Al-Chalabi – a former OPEC executive

Roscoe Bartlett (born 1926) – a member of the US Congress 1993-2013

Robert Bottome – an economist

Colin J. Campbell – an oil geologist

Marcello Colitti – a former executive of ENI

Alberto Quiros Corrado – Allied Consulting

Mir-Babajev Mir-Jusiv Fazilogli – a historian

Daniele Ganser – a historian

David L. Goodstein – professor of physics

Richard Heinberg – an American journalist

Terry Lynn Karl – professor of political science, Stanford University

Franklin M. Orr, Jr. – professor

Sherry Phillips – Mayor of McCamey, Texas

Matthew David Savinar – an attorney

Matthew Simmons (1943-2010) – energy advisor to US President George W. Bush

Alfred M. Spormann – professor of environmental microbiology

Manouchehr Takin – a petroleum analyst

Louis Woodward – an oil entrepreneur

Gary Yanibelli – a Hummer car salesman

Archive footage is used between the talking heads. Archive footage is used to show us historical events and to show us old interviews with public figures.

The title of the film is a pun based on the English expression a rude awakening, which means a surprising and unpleasant discovery. Here is an example: “If you think there is such a thing as a free lunch, then you are in for a rude awakening!”

The starting point (or the inspiration) for the film is the US geologist Marion King Hubbert (1903-1989) and his theory of peak oil which he presented in 1956.

The theory says extraction of oil can be illustrated by a bell-shaped curve. A few years later, this curve will be followed by another bell-shaped curve which illustrates the consumption of oil.

The participants talk about the oil industry: the past, the present, and the future of the oil industry. Many of them issue a warning that the amount of oil that can be extracted and consumed is decreasing rapidly. You could use this fact to say that this film is filled with doom and gloom.

What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of two review aggregators:

78 per cent = IMDb

79 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

84 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

On the US version of Amazon there are at the moment more than 80 reviews of this product. The average rating is 4.3 stars.

As you can see, the ratings are good, but not great. They hover around four stars on Amazon. If you ask me, this rating is quite appropriate. Why?

This film offers interesting and useful information about the oil industry, but it is has some flaws as well. Let me explain:

# 1. The clips are too short. We jump from one person to the next too quickly. I would like to see a participant say more than one sentence before the two directors cut him off and jump to another participant or another aspect of the general topic.

# 2. At least one participant makes a statement that is totally false. Terry Lynn Karl begins a statement by saying “If you look at our first wars, World War One and World War Two…”

Terry Lynn Karl is professor of political science at Stanford University. She should know better. The US was involved in numerous wars before World war One.

# 3. By now the film is more than ten years old and in some respects it seems that it has become obsolete. Its predictions about the future has been overtaken by reality. Here is one example: McCamey, Texas, is presented as a ghost town, but it seems this place is not a ghost town anymore.

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but as you can see, there are some flaws, which cannot be ignored. I have to remove one star because of these flaws. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

*****

Orwell Rolls in His Grave (2003)

Orwell Rolls in His Grave is a documentary film which premiered in 2003. Topic: the mass media in the US. Keywords: power and politics. Additional keywords: communication and information. Here are some basic facts about this film:

** Director: Robert Kane Pappas
** Writers: Robert Kane Pappas and Tom Blackburn
** Producer: Miriam Foley
** Released on DVD in 2006
** Run time: 105 minutes

Many persons are interviewed in the film. Archive footage is used between the interviews. Here are the names of the participants (in alphabetical order):

** Vincent Bugliosi – attorney, author
** Jeff Cohen – founder of FAIR
** Charles Lewis – Center for Public Integrity
** Mark Lloyd – media expert, reporter

** Robert McChesney – professor, University of Illinois
** Mark Crispin Miller – professor, New York University
** Michael Moore - filmmaker
** John Nichols – reporter (The Nation)

** Greg Palast – reporter (BBC)
** Bernie Sanders – member of Congress, independent, from Vermont
** Danny Schechter – television producer, media critic
** Aurora Wallace – assistant professor, New York University

The title of the film refers to the English author and reporter George Orwell (1903-1950) and his famous novel 1984. Throughout the film, short quotes from this novel appear on the screen.

Several cases are covered in this film. I will only mention two of them:

# 1. The case of the US hostages in Iran, 1979-1981.
# 2. The US presidential election in November 2000.

What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:

** 44 per cent = Meta (the audience)
** 49 per cent = Meta (the critics)
** 81 per cent = IMDb
** 79 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
** 91 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

As you can see, the reviews are mixed: from 44 to 91 per cent, which is a big difference from top to bottom. When you look at Rotten Tomatoes, you can see that there is a significant difference between the professional critics and the general audience. The audience seems to like this film more than the critics, although both groups are positive.

On the US version of Amazon there are more than 40 reviews of this product. The average rating is four stars (the same level as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes). The average ratings from Meta are too low.

On IMDb there are more than 20 reviews of this product. Some are very positive, while others are very negative. 

Here are three positive headlines:

** “A must see for all citizens”

** “Great documentary”

** “Illuminating”

Here are three negative headlines:

** “Fails to provide a balanced view”

** “Kind of informative but completely biased”

** “Totally left-wing liberal biased attack on Reagan, Bush and Murdoch”

When I look at the negative reviews, I can see that these reviewers do not really understand what a documentary is. They seem to think a documentary must always be balanced. This is not true. There is no law or rule which says a documentary must be balanced. In fact, most documentaries are not balanced at all. There is a good reason for this.

The director and the people around him or her want to convey a certain message; therefore they will present evidence to support this message. It is not their job or their duty to present the opposite point of view (although some directors do this).

In many cases, a director wants to present a point of view that is not well known and perhaps controversial. There is no need for him or her to present the dominant point of view, precisely because it is already well known.

Some viewers like this film, because they agree with the general message, while others dislike this film, because they disagree with the general message. Whether you agree with the general message or not, I think this film is worth watching, because it offers important information.

Having said this, I have to add that there are some flaws in this film. Let me explain:

# 1. The film does not seem to have a clear structure. The style is a bit rambling, moving from one case to the next.

# 2. Watching this film, I have to think about the reporter Ben Bagdikian (1920-2016) and his famous book The Media Monopoly. Yet the film never mentions this reporter nor his book that was first published in 1983. Why not?

# 3. Watching this film, I also have to think about the concept “Manufacturing Consent” that was developed and explored by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky many years ago. Yet the film never mentions Herman and Chomsky nor the concept that they studied in their book that was published in 1988. Why not?

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but as you can see, there are some flaws in it. I have to remove one star because of these flaws. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS # 1. Shadows of Liberty is a documentary film which premiered in 2012. It is dedicated to the memory of Ben Bagdikian whose classic work about the media monopoly inspired this film.

PS # 2. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is a documentary film which premiered in 1992. It is inspired by Herman and Chomsky’s book from 1988.

PS # 3. The Corporation is a documentary film which premiered in 2004. It is somewhat similar to Orwell Rolls in His Grave.

*****

 

George Orwell (1903-1950)

*****

 

The cover of Orwell's book "1984" (published in 1948)

*****