Saturday, January 31, 2015

Reflections on Bird People (2014) and The Bird People In China (1998)



Doodle Poll (Calendar View)


She regrets

she’s unable to meet today.


Yesterday


she looked out over a low creek

turning into a heron

snaking between sumacs,


one of the bird people

gliding with starched cotton wings


thinking only


“I’m hungry”


as she dived.








Monday, January 19, 2015

Louisiana Story and Separation Between Humans and the Natural World


Louisiana Story and Separation Between Humans and the Natural World



The support for oil drilling and its benefits illustrated in Louisiana Story should come as no surprise because the Standard Oil Company financed the film. Despite clear evidence that oil drilling cannot leave the water and land around it untouched, the film and its reviewers assert the opposite, demonstrating through the experience of oil drillers and a Cajun boy that human and nonhuman nature can maintain separate existences and thrive. Instead of emphasizing the interdependent relationship between humans and the natural world, Louisiana Storysuggests that to maintain the innocence of nature in the bayou, and of its more natural Cajun inhabitants, a humanity more aligned with culture and technology must leave wild nature behind, entering it only briefly and with caution to avoid an indelible affect. Two myths are perpetuated by the film, then: the myth that oil drilling can leave a natural setting untouched, and the myth that humans are somehow separate from nature rather than interconnected with it. 



Louisiana Story perpetuates these two myths through both its aesthetic and its narrative. Close-ups of a pristine bayou open Louisiana Story. Flowers, an alligator, and a heron on an evergreen tree emphasize the film’s naturalistic setting. A lone boy poles through weeping cypress trees in a small boat. We see the bayou from his point of view, including water below him. A narrator describes the scene, even mentioning werewolves to set the mythic tone of this innocent scene. The boy wears salt on his waist and something inside his shirt to protect him from all that bubbles, we are told and smiles at a raccoon in a tree, connecting him to both natural and supernatural elements. A snake, gators, and grasses blowing in the wind continue the scene.



When the boy shoots at an animal, and the pristine scene is disrupted, the conflicting element in the film is introduced: modernism in the shape of oil drilling in the bayou.  Other explosions take the gunshot’s place, then, as wheeled machinery drive up into the bayou. The machine looks like a tractor, a cultivator cutting a path through the grass. The boy floats away, demonstrating the separation between culture and nature the film perpetuates. The boy and his Cajun family represent an innocence that is untouched by civilization. When the boy heads home to his Cajun family, a family structure more in touch with the natural world is introduced. Their cabin sits beside the bayou and can only be accessed by boat. Inside the cabin, the boy’s father talks about “gators” in a Cajun accent to a lean cut younger man, reinforcing his connection to nature. The boy’s mother does offer coffee, a connection with culture, but the boy’s entrance by boat at his parent’s dock again highlights how isolated this family is from society. The blasting that continues, however, contrasts and conflicts with this innocent, more “natural” scene, highlighting the intervention on display. Modern culture has entered the pristine wilderness of the bayou and infiltrated the innocent Cajun family that is still tied to the natural world. To seal this connection, the oil drillers offer lease agreements to the boy’s father: “Can that thing really tell where oil is?” the older man asks, and signs his name to a contract. 



Evidence in the film, however, suggests that nature and culture can and must remain separated. The oilmen, representing culture, leave the rustic cabin in their speedboat. Later the boy and his raccoon, representing nature, watch the oilmen from their rowboat as the drillers prepare to build their rig and platform. The boy fishes while Cajuns hunt along a pristine shore, further connecting them to the natural world. We get a view of homes on the shore from a houseboat, and a shore view of the motorboat and its wake. The boy and raccoon continue watching, and the wake of the motorboat throws him out of his boat, so he is literally connected with the natural world. But the boy seems fascinated with the elements of culture brought by the oilmen and watches a man survey the area and a tall rig rolling up the bayou to the spot the surveyor has indicated. The boy and his raccoon watch this modern scene from the safety of nature—the waters and fecund grasses of the bayou. They remain innocent, smiling as they observe without relinquishing their connection with the natural world.



The rig contrasts with the natural scene around it, maintaining its separation from the natural world. The technology of the rig and the oil drilling it represents become a beautiful and powerful opposition to the peaceful bayou. Steam surrounds the rig, and we hear the pumping sounds of the drill. Although the boy talks to a couple of oilmen and asks what they are doing, he does not board the rig when invited. Instead, he paddles away, reinforcing his separation, and watching from his boat as the long drill comes out of the well, so worn down, the drillers must replace it.  A sunset over the bayou further separates the mechanization of oil drilling from the natural scene, which the boy and his boat both envelop and represent.



The separation between culture and nature continues even after the boy boards the rig for a closer look. The film shows the whole process of preparing the drill before the boy goes on board to see for himself. The rig is loud as chains swing around pipes to tighten and loosen connections. We cannot hear the boy and oilman’s conversation but see them smile, suggesting a connection between them and, consequently, a connection between culture and nature beyond the economic vision of ecology supported by the film’s narrative. 



After this long segment demonstrating the process of oil drilling, however, the scene shifts back to the boy and his raccoon in the bayou and, in a long sequence, highlights a battle between elements of nature. The boy leaves his raccoon and examines eggs left by an alligator. When the gator comes back on shore, the boy and we see the ‘gator eggs hatch. The boy holds a baby gator until the mother gator roars, and the boy runs away. The raccoon is now loose and swims up on a log, but the gator is close behind. The boy searches for his pet and passes representatives of wild nature: a spider in a web, a rabbit, a skunk, singing birds, and a deer. When he sees the broken line on the boat and realizes the coon has escaped, he fears the gator has killed the coon. In a parallel to the boy’s fears, the gator devours a water bird, so the boy sets a gator trap to avenge his friend’s death. His attempts fail alone, however, but his father has been searching for him and helps him out of the water, telling him, “We’ll get him.”  Together they kill the alligator, it seems. Although we do not see the actual slaughter, we assume it occurs because father and son visit the oilrig and bring the gator’s skin to show the drillers on board, holding it up for them to admire from their rowboat.




This resolution of the battle between human and nonhuman nature is paralleled on the rig with a battle between humans and elements of culture when one of the oilmen, Tom, tests oil levels. Any connection between culture and nature ends once the oilmen test the oil and find it good. The lease money from the father’s contract buys groceries and a new pot for mom, and a new rifle for the boy, but the family members continue to speak Cajun without translation. Despite the relative prosperity the lease money brings to the family, the last two scenes from the film perpetuate the separation between nature and culture and suggest that human intervention—even oil drilling—can leave the natural world pure and untouched. In the first of these scenes, the boy sees his raccoon in the tree, complete with the rope collar around its neck, so boy and ‘coon are reunited and, consequently, the boy is reconnected with the natural world. In the second and last of these two scenes, the derrick leaves slowly, and oil is pumped through a pipeline under the bayou and hidden from the natural world.  The boy and his pet watch the process and wave goodbye to the rig, its oilmen and the culture they represent. Only a lone Christmas tree-like pole remains, and it is now more tree than derrick, a tangible claim in the film that human exploitation of nature’s resources can leave its pure innocence untouched.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Critique of the Oil Frontier and the Spectacle Behind it in Comes a Horseman


Critique of the Oil Frontier and the Spectacle Behind it in
Comes a Horseman



Oil Drilling films from Cimarron (1931 and 1960) to There Will be Blood (2007) illustrate well the ongoing conflict between eco-disaster on display and spectacle, a conflict between an explicit and implicit environmental message and the “sensuous elaboration” that, as Susan Sontag argues, filmic representations provide (212) . Whether the films respond to environmental history from the 19thCentury, the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or today, that conflict remains. We assert, however, that reading these images in relation to environmental history can make the sometimes disastrous workings behind spectacular oil events transparent. 




The less well-known Comes a Horseman(1978) serves as an apt illustration, since it reveals the environmental disasters behind resource exploitation while grappling with questions regarding ranching and oil frontiers. The film pits ranch owners Ella Connors (Jane Fonda) and Frank “Buck” Athearn (James Caan) against Jacob “J. W.” Ewing (Jason Robards) and his oil-developing friend, Neil Atkinson (George Grizzard). The film is set in post-World War II Montana but illustrates the conflict between oil and cattle ranching immediately. Atkinson is negotiating with Ewing to drill on his land and claims from the film’s beginning that “oil and cattle are not incompatible.” 



Ewing, however, still sees his ranch as a heartland and looks toward a painting of buffalo racing across a prairie to reinforce his point. Ewing wishes to own the ranch land in the valley, but it is unclear at this point whether he supports oil drilling instead of ranching. Ewing’s henchmen kill off one new rancher and injure another, Frank, thinking they will scare him into selling Ewing his land. Frank pairs up with Ella when she takes him back to her ranch and nurses him. Together Frank and Ella defeat Ewing and Atkinson, saving their land from both Ewing and oil production.



The first conflict they encounter concerns whether Ella can earn enough money from her cattle to save her ranch once her husband is dead. With only Dodger (Richard Farnsworth) to help her round up her cattle, she seems doomed to failure, but Frank talks her into becoming partners for the season, so they work together to round up both of their ranches’ cattle.



The second conflict begins when a geologist comes to the ranch to test for oil. He checks with Ella about getting a seismic record and completing the tests, but Ella refuses. Here Frank again partners with Ella, making clear that he too rejects oil drilling because it “means they’re going to tear the earth apart.” He has “seen places where they’ve drilled for oil” and knows the score. 



Ewing, on the other hand, is under the thumb of a banker, Virgil Hoverton (Macon McCalman), and must agree to allow them to test for oil on his land. We hear blasts from an oil test, and, as if to reinforce the impact of blasting on the environment, Dodger is thrown from his horse and breaks his ribs. The conflict between Ewing and Ella accelerates because Ewing also wants Ella and may lose his ranch if no oil is found there. 



Before leaving, the geologist leaves a report that says seismic shooting brings up no good test area on his ranch. Good drilling is only available on Ella’s ranch, so they must drill diagonally from Ewing’s land to Ella’s, in order to strike oil. They need Ella’s permission in order to continue. Virgil tries to take Ewing’s ranch, but Ewing kills Atkinson, the oilman, in a plane crash and kills Virgil at Ella’s house. The battle then is between Ewing and Frank, with Ella as the prize. Ultimately Frank and Ella survive. Ella has lost her house but has kept her land. 



Comes a Horseman critiques oil drilling in several ways. It illustrates how oil exacerbates greed, when Virgil attempts to undermine even the cattle baron, Ewing. It also explains how oil drilling tears up the land because Frank has witnessed the effects of drilling and rejects them. Finally it critiques oil testing and drilling in a more general and dramatic way because it is associated with Dodger’s fall from his horse. More importantly, the film avoids the reliance on spectacle and the spectacular evident in most oil frontier western films. The seismic tests and blasting are heard only at a distance, and the violent confrontations are resolved. In this context, the notion of spectacle obscures or even erases ecological readings, but primarily the film highlights the disastrous environmental consequences of oil drilling rather than their spectacular effects.