English below.

Español pronto…

Last Wednesday afternoon, after a circuitous ride into Flushing Meadows Park, I eventually made my way to the parking lot of the Queens Museum of Art. (This brought to mind a similarly circuitous excursion over 10 years ago when a colleague and I went to Flushing Meadows Park to have cuy for dinner. Lucky for the ‘immortal cuy’ – about which Cuencanos ponder at length when the mood strikes us – we never did find the vendor.) Since I was an hour early, I was hoping there was a café where I could have dinner before the show. But, it looks like I’m destined to go without food whenever I travel to this park since the lady at the information desk told me that the Museum (and any potential café therein) was closed. My stomach usually waits for no one but it did on Wednesday because, GPS and all, I would have taken too long to find my way out and toward food. After a longer wait than I anticipated – since the movie started ET (no, not Eastern Time; Ecuadorian Time, half past the scheduled hour) – the screening began.

The award-winning film Crude: The Real Price of Oil explores the legal battle being waged against Texaco/Chevron (Texaco merged with Chevron in 2001) for its environmental pollution of the Ecuadorian Amazon and the attendant havoc it is wreaking on Ecuadorian communities, both mestizo and indigenous. Humans and animals are dying as a result of this huge oil spill, which exceeds the Exxon Valdez spill by millions of gallons. Thirty thousand Ecuadorians have brought a claim against Texaco/Chevron. The company, however, claims to have systematically cleaned up the spills before leaving Ecuador in the mid 1990s, when the government-run PetroEcuador took over the operation. The case is still pending; indeed, community’s lawyers note that the company is using a delay tactic in order to bankrupt their case. Detractors say the plaintiffs’ lawyers, which includes an American team funded by a U.S. firm (who is not doing the work pro bono) and an Ecuadorian lawyer named Pablo Fajardo, who was featured in Vanity Fair’s Green Issue and received a CNN Heroes Award, are doing the work for monetary benefit.

Fajardo is an interesting person who I found to be the most passionate and convincing voice in this film. A mother whose child is suffering from cancer was its most heartbreaking. Another interesting personality was the humorous and frank American lawyer Steven Dozinger. His Ecuadorianisms as well as an interesting cultural exchange between him and members of the Ecuadorian team elicited chuckles from the audience. I am glad that Berlinger included his exchange with the Ecuadorian team because I think we often tend to privilege American ways of doing and knowing.

After the screening, the directer, Joe Berlinger; producer, Michael Bonfiglio, and the editor, Alyse Ardell Spiegel, were on hand for questions. Bonfiglio and Carlos Guttierez, co-founder of Cinema Tropical (one of the movie hosts, along with the Queens Museum of Art, the Consulate General of Ecuador and the National Museum of the American Indian), provided English to Spanish translation (the movie screened in Spanish). Berlinger noted that he was motivated to make the film when he saw that, instead of eating fresh fish caught in uncontaminated waters, people in the Ecuadorian Amazon were eating tuna fish out of a can which was packed who knows how many miles away. He felt he could not live his suburban lifestyle knowing that people were living in these conditions and felt a broader indignation about how, in his words, white people have abused Indians over 500 years. This was an interesting statement to hear in this setting since I haven’t always experienced feelings of solidarity on the part of the general Ecuadorian population toward the indigenous population. (I am certain Ecuadorians have felt the effects of the North/South divide but not necessarily as it pertains to Indians.) A few audience members noted that they had never even heard of this situation and were both very appreciative that Berlinger took the time and work to make this film and were interested in ensuring that more people saw it. Berlinger noted that one way to ensure it continues to be seen is for it to have a good run at the IFC Center in New York City where it will be playing, with English subtitles, September 9-22. I thought one audience member was particularly conscientious in noting that the film should also be translated into Chinese since the Chinese are currently buying a lot of petroleum in Ecuador and should be made aware of how their dealings in Ecuador impact the people there.

I am curious to know about the role of the Ecuadorian government. Berlinger noted that the Correa government has been environmentally progressive. Although the government does not have the resources to clean it all, they have cleaned up some of the damage. Moreover, in a fascinating turn, Ecuador has given constitutional rights to flora and fauna! However, I was angered to hear that the Ecuadorian government (not during Correa’s presidency) released Texaco/Chevron of any legal responsibility upon leaving Ecuador in the 1990s. (It should be noted that while the government released them, the Ecuadorians affected did not; that is how they are able to take the company to court.) Texaco/Chevron claims that PetroEcuador has caused several spills after Texaco/Chevron left the country and that they should be held accountable. I do not mean to diminish Texaco/Chevron’s role in this mess; the company should be held accountable for the damage they have caused. I am wondering whether or not the government conducted a thorough investigation to ensure that the transnational actually cleaned up before they signed this release. Did they know the extent of the damage before the community began to feel its effects? Have governments ever been held accountable for any potential neglect in similar cases?

I wish these questions had been addressed in some way (and just so you know, I finally did raise my hand but there were too many people ahead of me with their own questions). I also thought the film would have been more effective if some testimony wasn’t left out. For example, someone asked whether there were ex-company employees who had witnessed the company’s wrongdoing. Berlinger decided, for reasons of length, to use only the views articulated in the trial.

Still, the film, which was filmed on different continents and over years, was very good and definitely very engaging. In addition to timely coverage of a lamentable situation that is ultimately caused by worldwide addiction to oil and therefore touches us all, it used candid moments to focus the lens on various aspects of the case. Although certain personalities definitely stand out in the movie, I just noticed that Berlinger didn’t want to privilege any one voice. From the Amazonian indigenous woman who sings about the population’s plight in the beginning of this documentary through environmental philanthropist Sting singing “I’ll send an S.O.S. to the world” at the end, many voices have their say. Speaking of music, I thought it was cool that Berlinger used music that was representative of Ecuador’s various ethnicities; I heard indigenous music from the sierra as well as the Amazon; Afro-Ecuadorian music and the old standby, Julio Jaramillo.

So, please let someone know about the movie and about the situation. Visit the website and peep the trailer below.