Hello Readers,
Earlier this week, I watched A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash movie directed by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack. This movie, which was released in 2006 (the middle of the Bush administration), is as much a horror movie as it is a documentary.
Through a series of intertwining interviews, which are scored with a background soundtrack that would not be out of place in a slasher movie or an episode of the X-Files (similar to the background track of the trailer below), A Crude Awakening offers a prophecy of the collapse of the modern oil-based society.
A Crude Awakening is a mixed bag for environmentalists. It will both inform and frighten the audience. I did not notice statements (opinions aside) that are overtly factually incorrect; however, the tone of the movie overpowers the information. It may be good as a factual refresher for seasoned environmentalists, but I would not recommend this movie as a way to start a discussion on peak oil.
While the movie describes in detail the implications and likelihood of peak oil, it offers no sense of purpose or motivation to solve the issue. In fact, any solutions that may have been mentioned will be lost in the mosh-pit of despair that is A Crude Awakening.
The tagline of the movie says it all: "We're running out [of oil], and we don't have a plan." If you do show this movie, I would definitely follow up with a debriefing session or by handing out business cards of therapists.
Best of Luck,
Sean Diamond
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Movie Review: Forks Over Knives
Hello Readers,
Yesterday, I watched the documentary Forks Over Knives written and directed by Lee Fulkerson. The trailer for the movie (embedded below) can also be found on the movie's website.
As you can gather from the trailer, the documentary focuses on the connection between dietary choices and medical conditions (including: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes). The backbone of Forks Over Knives is two extended interviews with doctors T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., which is crosscut with other food and medical experts and the personal stories of people (including the director) who have seen the benefits of a 'plant-based' diet.
Dr. Campbell's research included analyzing a broad sampling medical cases in a variety of counties in mainland China, which is published in a book that he co-authored with his son: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Throughout the movie, Dr. Campbell describes the correlations that he discovered between a diet of animal-based foods (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and medical conditions (especially different types of cancer).
Dr. Esselstyn's research involves much more depth than breadth. His study followed roughly 20 individuals with heart disease and related conditions for 20 years. He required his patients/subjects to follow dietary restrictions such as reducing their intake of animal-based foods, and he closely monitored their diet, overall health, and medical conditions. Dr. Esselstyn works at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, has published a large number of academic articles (many of which can be found through Google Scholar), and maintains a website about his recommendations: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.
In addition to the primary thrust of the documentary, Forks Over Knives sprinkles in some non-health-related benefits of and potential barriers to promoting plant-based diets in America. Among the tangential issues that the documentary mentions (in some cases advocatively) are the connection between climate change and meat production and the stereo-type that veganism is non-masculine.
Overall, this documentary has a very convincing message that a plant-based diet can improve a person's health. However, it does very little to offer potential criticisms of the findings of the interviewees. From a preliminary search, it appears that there has been little-to-no direct criticism of Dr. Esselstyn's findings or suggestions; however, it is evident that the results of Dr. Campbell's research have been met with some criticism.
For a little bit of balance, here are some criticisms that are articulate and well referenced:
I recommend Forks Over Knives for people trying to start a conversation about healthy eating. It also offers some helpful tidbits for vegans and vegetarians attempting to explain their dietary choices to friends and family members. This is not a movie for kids as it focuses a lot on its middle-aged cast; however, it might be good for older teenagers and twenty-somethings that are interested in continuing to feel young and healthy for decades to come.
Yesterday, I watched the documentary Forks Over Knives written and directed by Lee Fulkerson. The trailer for the movie (embedded below) can also be found on the movie's website.
As you can gather from the trailer, the documentary focuses on the connection between dietary choices and medical conditions (including: heart disease, cancer, and diabetes). The backbone of Forks Over Knives is two extended interviews with doctors T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., which is crosscut with other food and medical experts and the personal stories of people (including the director) who have seen the benefits of a 'plant-based' diet.
Dr. Campbell's research included analyzing a broad sampling medical cases in a variety of counties in mainland China, which is published in a book that he co-authored with his son: The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health. Throughout the movie, Dr. Campbell describes the correlations that he discovered between a diet of animal-based foods (e.g. meat, dairy, eggs) and medical conditions (especially different types of cancer).
Dr. Esselstyn's research involves much more depth than breadth. His study followed roughly 20 individuals with heart disease and related conditions for 20 years. He required his patients/subjects to follow dietary restrictions such as reducing their intake of animal-based foods, and he closely monitored their diet, overall health, and medical conditions. Dr. Esselstyn works at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, has published a large number of academic articles (many of which can be found through Google Scholar), and maintains a website about his recommendations: http://www.heartattackproof.com/.
In addition to the primary thrust of the documentary, Forks Over Knives sprinkles in some non-health-related benefits of and potential barriers to promoting plant-based diets in America. Among the tangential issues that the documentary mentions (in some cases advocatively) are the connection between climate change and meat production and the stereo-type that veganism is non-masculine.
Overall, this documentary has a very convincing message that a plant-based diet can improve a person's health. However, it does very little to offer potential criticisms of the findings of the interviewees. From a preliminary search, it appears that there has been little-to-no direct criticism of Dr. Esselstyn's findings or suggestions; however, it is evident that the results of Dr. Campbell's research have been met with some criticism.
For a little bit of balance, here are some criticisms that are articulate and well referenced:
- 'The Truth About the China Study' from cholestoral-and-health.com
- 'The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response' from rawfoodsos.com
I recommend Forks Over Knives for people trying to start a conversation about healthy eating. It also offers some helpful tidbits for vegans and vegetarians attempting to explain their dietary choices to friends and family members. This is not a movie for kids as it focuses a lot on its middle-aged cast; however, it might be good for older teenagers and twenty-somethings that are interested in continuing to feel young and healthy for decades to come.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Patenting Plants
Hello Readers,
I was watching the movie The Future of Food, which describes the infamous Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMO crops. The Future of Food also goes into a variety of food production related topics. If you eat food, you really need to watch this movie!
I will not spoil the movie. Instead, I will point out just one of the topics that struck me: the fact that Monsanto has already (and has the ability to) patent crops and seeds that they did not develop!
According to the movie, an individual or corporation has the ability to patent the genes of any crop or seed that have not yet been patented regardless of the fact that such seeds probably occur naturally. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this straightforward quote from the movie; however, if this is true, it is a true outrage. Also, it is completely counter to 'novel' and 'non-obvious' requirement of patent law. See the quote below from the US Patent Office website:
I highly recommend watching this movie. It was released in 2004, so it may seem like some of the references are out of date. Unfortunately, they are not. The issues presented are still current today!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond
I was watching the movie The Future of Food, which describes the infamous Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMO crops. The Future of Food also goes into a variety of food production related topics. If you eat food, you really need to watch this movie!
I will not spoil the movie. Instead, I will point out just one of the topics that struck me: the fact that Monsanto has already (and has the ability to) patent crops and seeds that they did not develop!
According to the movie, an individual or corporation has the ability to patent the genes of any crop or seed that have not yet been patented regardless of the fact that such seeds probably occur naturally. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this straightforward quote from the movie; however, if this is true, it is a true outrage. Also, it is completely counter to 'novel' and 'non-obvious' requirement of patent law. See the quote below from the US Patent Office website:
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."Clearly, any non-GMO seed genes must have been around and in use for more than a year before a patent was filed! Can somebody please explain how to patent something as 'new' that has been around for centuries if not millennia?
I highly recommend watching this movie. It was released in 2004, so it may seem like some of the references are out of date. Unfortunately, they are not. The issues presented are still current today!
Thanks,
Sean Diamond
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Movie Review: The End of Suburbia
Hello Readers,
The other night, I got the documentary The End of Suburbia in the mail from Netflix. The movie begins with an in depth history of the development of the modern US suburban culture and infrastructure. This history sets the stage for documentary's hypothesis -and the title of the movie- the coming decline in the American suburban lifestyle as a result of the unsustainable reliance on cars as the sole means of transportation among other factors.
If this movie were made during the past year, I would have thought that it were ridiculous for stating the obvious. However, since this movie was made in 2004, it appears to be prophetic from our perspective 6 years out. Also, I did not notice any statements, claims or predictions that were contrary or exaggerated in comparison to any of the other literature and news that I've read in the past few years. In fact, The End of Suburbia is a great introduction and/or review to the topic of peak oil and peak energy... just beware: it can be quite depressing if you truly understand the magnitude of the situation! I highly recommend following up this movie with a discussion about potential solutions to the issue. Hopefully, this will mitigate the potentially overwhelming message.
Keep trying!
Sean Diamond
Trailer:
The other night, I got the documentary The End of Suburbia in the mail from Netflix. The movie begins with an in depth history of the development of the modern US suburban culture and infrastructure. This history sets the stage for documentary's hypothesis -and the title of the movie- the coming decline in the American suburban lifestyle as a result of the unsustainable reliance on cars as the sole means of transportation among other factors.
If this movie were made during the past year, I would have thought that it were ridiculous for stating the obvious. However, since this movie was made in 2004, it appears to be prophetic from our perspective 6 years out. Also, I did not notice any statements, claims or predictions that were contrary or exaggerated in comparison to any of the other literature and news that I've read in the past few years. In fact, The End of Suburbia is a great introduction and/or review to the topic of peak oil and peak energy... just beware: it can be quite depressing if you truly understand the magnitude of the situation! I highly recommend following up this movie with a discussion about potential solutions to the issue. Hopefully, this will mitigate the potentially overwhelming message.
Keep trying!
Sean Diamond
Trailer:
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Age of Stumped
Hello Readers,
Earlier in the year I was assigned a debate topic that revolved around the 'documentary' the Age of Stupid. The premise of the movie is that a man (living a few decades from now in a remote arctic archive) is looking back on the history of the world leading up to the severe climate change during the coming decades.
In the movie, the narrator flips through a number of real news clips portraying severe weather events prior to 2010. The effect of condensing several sensational news stories together is meant to indicate that these were obvious precursors to even more severe weather to come. The narrator, who is looking at his past (our future), calls the time we are living in "The Age of Stupid". He asks, "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"
The rest of the film offers several paradoxical stories of people in contemporary society. Each story pointing to how 'stupid' we are being. In the film, it is obvious that we are missing all of the signs of impending disaster. While this movie simplifies the complexities of resolving the issues that are causing anthropogenic climate change, it makes no question about whether there are issues (and hopefully this will be the case for public opinion sooner rather than later).
During my debate about the film, I took issue with these over-simplifications. I also did not think that smashing several real-world news clips about weather-related disasters was a proper motivator for actionable change. However, over the past month or so... when the actual daily news started to look like the movie's montage of news clips (See the "Hell and High Water" article on Climate Progress), I began to wonder if the dramatic weather events associated with the changing climate was the only tangible warning we were going to get.
Certainly, pointing to every passing storm and drought as an indicator of climate change is the wrong way to encourage social and behavioral change. Especially when - to be scientifically accurate - every legitimate representation of an extreme weather event requires the disclaimer "not directly caused by climate change", it seems impossible to use the facts as a public motivator without moving into the realm of fear mongering. How can the messaging get past this barrier?
Perhaps it will take related messages, such as the announcement last week by NASA scientists that plant growth will not necessarily continue to benefit from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to tip the scales of public opinion and motivate action. Unfortunately, articles (e.g. the related article in the Christian Science Monitor) about such findings are drenched in the term "uncertainty", which means something different to scientists and the general public. This again dulls the meaning of the findings in the minds of most readers.
Thus, I think the 'Age of Stupid' might be a bit harsh when describing the state of affairs today. Instead, I would like to offer the title the 'Age of Stumped'. Wherein those who know what is going on are unsure of how to communicate the issues in terms that others can understand without sounding alarmist.
On a side note, the term 'alarmist' makes me think of a t-shirt I once saw. The t-shirt read "I am a Bomb Technician, If you see me running, try to keep up!" So I have to ask: is there a time to simply start 'running'? I certainly don't think now is the time, but will there be if things do not change? At what point does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being practical?
I do not know the answer to these questions. Instead, I will leave you with a quote from Douglas Adams:
"Don't Panic"
Thanks, for reading along. I'd love to hear your comments on the subject.
Sean Diamond
Earlier in the year I was assigned a debate topic that revolved around the 'documentary' the Age of Stupid. The premise of the movie is that a man (living a few decades from now in a remote arctic archive) is looking back on the history of the world leading up to the severe climate change during the coming decades.
In the movie, the narrator flips through a number of real news clips portraying severe weather events prior to 2010. The effect of condensing several sensational news stories together is meant to indicate that these were obvious precursors to even more severe weather to come. The narrator, who is looking at his past (our future), calls the time we are living in "The Age of Stupid". He asks, "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"
The rest of the film offers several paradoxical stories of people in contemporary society. Each story pointing to how 'stupid' we are being. In the film, it is obvious that we are missing all of the signs of impending disaster. While this movie simplifies the complexities of resolving the issues that are causing anthropogenic climate change, it makes no question about whether there are issues (and hopefully this will be the case for public opinion sooner rather than later).
During my debate about the film, I took issue with these over-simplifications. I also did not think that smashing several real-world news clips about weather-related disasters was a proper motivator for actionable change. However, over the past month or so... when the actual daily news started to look like the movie's montage of news clips (See the "Hell and High Water" article on Climate Progress), I began to wonder if the dramatic weather events associated with the changing climate was the only tangible warning we were going to get.
Certainly, pointing to every passing storm and drought as an indicator of climate change is the wrong way to encourage social and behavioral change. Especially when - to be scientifically accurate - every legitimate representation of an extreme weather event requires the disclaimer "not directly caused by climate change", it seems impossible to use the facts as a public motivator without moving into the realm of fear mongering. How can the messaging get past this barrier?
Perhaps it will take related messages, such as the announcement last week by NASA scientists that plant growth will not necessarily continue to benefit from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to tip the scales of public opinion and motivate action. Unfortunately, articles (e.g. the related article in the Christian Science Monitor) about such findings are drenched in the term "uncertainty", which means something different to scientists and the general public. This again dulls the meaning of the findings in the minds of most readers.
Thus, I think the 'Age of Stupid' might be a bit harsh when describing the state of affairs today. Instead, I would like to offer the title the 'Age of Stumped'. Wherein those who know what is going on are unsure of how to communicate the issues in terms that others can understand without sounding alarmist.
On a side note, the term 'alarmist' makes me think of a t-shirt I once saw. The t-shirt read "I am a Bomb Technician, If you see me running, try to keep up!" So I have to ask: is there a time to simply start 'running'? I certainly don't think now is the time, but will there be if things do not change? At what point does it stop being 'alarmist' and start being practical?
I do not know the answer to these questions. Instead, I will leave you with a quote from Douglas Adams:
"Don't Panic"
Thanks, for reading along. I'd love to hear your comments on the subject.
Sean Diamond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)