Dark Waters (DVD) [2020]

Mark Ruffalo did a superb job playing lawyer Rob Bilott. The filming mirrored the general atmosphere of helplessness and despair. I was hooked from beginning to end.Like some other reviewers, I knew next to nothing about Teflon, nor that there had been a big furore about it in the US……. and that furore only being relatively recent.Some home truths were forthcoming in the film. One, for example, was when Rob Bilott finally realised that the system is “rigged” in favour of Big Business and the rich and powerful……………. at the expense of the little person. Rob’s boss, Terp, also makes a comment about the extent to which Big Business controls government. Science, somewhat unreasonably, I think, comes off almost scot free in this film.For example, didn’t some DuPont scientists contract “Teflon flu’”? Didn’t they know what was happening to their Teflon-dosed lab rats? Didn’t DuPont scientists lace cigarettes with Teflon knowing the likely effects of smoking them? Despite this, why were these scientists not speaking out? The answer, according to the film, is that many were in thrall to DuPont, who in effect paid for its scientists’ silence with good salaries as well as all manner of perks and “presents” (as Mrs Kiger put it).From what I can tell, it appears that the silence of the scientists was not confined to DuPont. There are other films based on real events about similar sorts of issues e.g. Erin Brockovich and The Insider, where scientists from other big companies also appear to have remained silent. This begs a look at scientific practices in general.Science is no longer an independent discipline. Scientific research is funded by big business, and it has been decades since any Blue Skies research i.e. any independent research, has been done at UK universities (or US universities). This, thanks to the Thatcher government of the 80s. Given the faith people place in science e.g. by looking to science to save the world from coronavirus and all manner of other diseases, not to mention environmental issues, then the independence of science is absolutely crucial.Further, read any History of Science book and it will be littered with incidents where scientists acted in an extremely dangerous, gung-ho manner, implementing highly dangerous, potentially lethal, science without adequate testing. As examples: the Manhattan Project (scientists’ first explosion of a a nuclear bomb went ahead despite concerns among them that the explosion could cause a fatal chain reaction and destroy the world) and, with respect to DuPont's science, its commercial use of the chemical we now know as Teflon, despite knowing that it was highly toxic.Also, in the film it was pointed out that DuPont was allowed to police itself by setting their own safety standards (to a limited number of parts per billion) for their chemical. This DuPont apparently did to its own benefit i.e. it set the danger levels so high that contaminated, and highly dangerous, toxic water was declared safe to drink. The point here is that DuPont was, just as science is today, self-regulating. This self-regulation by science is called Peer Review. Given, among others, the DuPont affair, can science really be trusted to regulate itself?When I hear scientists talking on the media, many make a point about how cooperative scientists are i.e. the extent to which scientists share their data and results with other scientists. I have a close relative who worked as a research scientist in both academia and in a prestigious commercial lab. He does not recognise this claim. Far from it. In his experience, quite the opposite is true.Like business, the world of science is highly competitive. For example, a highly successful scientist is not only expected to regularly publish scientific papers (in prestigious journals) but also to have been referenced as often as possible in the published papers of other scientists. On several occasions, my relative was attacked by other scientists for this as well as other reasons. (In one of his papers my relative was limited to providing six references, yet he was attacked by another scientist for a failure to reference him, even though this would have increased the number of references to an illegal seven). To be a successful scientist, therefore, one must be prepared to make such attacks oneself. My relative found such backstabbing a commonplace.Being highly competitive, science also practices secrecy. In a world of secrets, lying and cheating are rife (as they are well known to be in business), as my relative also discovered.Finally, I read recently in a science textbook that science cannot prove scientific theories to be true. At best, science can only prove that a theory is false. This fact is openly acknowledged by scientists (but NOT openly acknowledged in school science courses). Moreover, the complete absence of scientific truth does not inconvenience scientists in the least. Not a bit of it. Undaunted, scientists nonetheless take it upon themselves to advise governments on policy about e.g. covid-19 or global warming, as if their theories are true (as I said, science in unable to prove the truth of its theories), while simultaneously keeping their heads stuck firmly in the sand by refusing to consider, or even look for, better alternatives to science.In conclusion, to be fair to scientists, science behaves no better than big business. That said, two wrongs don’t make a right. (Or, as the High Sparrow said to Cersei in Game of Thrones, her husbands' sins did not excuse her own.) Nor do three wrongs make a right. By which I mean that the practices of big business and science are indistinguishable from those of politics. In fact, as I discovered from personal experience, schools are just as bad. Not only that, but the higher up one goes in the school career ladder, the worse the backstabbing, the lying and the cheating, as well as the secrecy, become. Since we live in a competitive society displaying all of the attendant symptoms of this disease, is there anywhere in society that has remained sacrosanct?

Fantastic movie

Oh this is good, very good, it's the story of the little guy against the corporate behemoth, but in this case it's the true story of a West Virginian farmer and his attorney, Cincinnati corporate defence lawyer Robert Bilott against the DuPont Corporation who the farmer claims has been contaminating his land causing tumours and birth deformities in his herd of cattle, and as the film unfolds we learn it's not just the cattle that are affected... [enough said, you can read the spoilers elsewhere].The film is dark, it is in places uncomfortable to watch, but this is a serious story and it needs and deserves a weighty treatment, by contrast with the similarly themed "Erin Brockovich" which I remember as being too light and fluffy for it's weighty story. Disappointingly the soundtrack is poor veering from loud to quiet [we couldn't find the best volume setting] and some of the mumblings are unintelligible. But throughout Mark Ruffalo is superb putting in an "Academy Award Nomination" performance as Robert Bilott the defence lawyer turned prosecuting attorney who gets the bit between his teeth putting his commitment to seek restitution from DuPont before his career, his family and his own mortality.Recommended, but it's not a film you're going to want to watch more than once, but it's one to watch and that's why it's four stars.

if you want to understand how the self regulated chemical corporations are quietly poisoning the world under the guise of philanthropy. throw away your non stick pans right now

I first heard about this issue on a late night documentary here in the UK. I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing. Since then I have stopped wearing Gortex and seek other methods of non-stick coatings for my pots and pans.Like its title, this is a dark, gritty film - the sunshine is seldom seen, matters seem to take place mostly in winter and this seems to echo the veil that the main corporate protagonists throw over their obscene and uncaring actions.What emerges is a sort of subdued, barely depressed rage at what is revealed that occasionally blows off through the character of Ruffalo's corporate defence lawyer (gamekeeper turned poacher) who decides something is not right and pursues the case with dignity and strength.What we also see is the long hard, lonely road of the person who decides to make a stand and the personal cost it can exact on themselves and their loved ones (a frequent phenomena which makes you wonder why some people even bother - it's tough).All the performances by the big stars are great but where this film is unique is that it also places in the scenes real people who have been affected by the poisoning of their environment - such as Bucky Bailey - born with deformities as a result of chemical poisoning. I remember being deeply touched by Bucky talking about the loss of his father in the documentary, a man who seemed to be so instrumental in getting him get through his difficult early years.I think including these people in the film - the victims and those who spoke out - elevates this film to a whole new level of film making - it is a real tribute to their suffering and their fortitude. Bless them, every one of them.As for the other messages in this film, we have to question what Government is for. The case against the corporate giant in this film could only gain traction because it was proven that they broke their own safety standards - not that set by the US Government. Something has to change. It really does.Highly recommended.

Great movie. Better than any horror flick because it's true. This story proves that the U.S. government along with its powerful corporate alliances value a dollar more than the lives of the common citizen and they will do anything to line there pockets- even if it involves testing on or even killing the average citizens. It's a real shame that these events are taking place in the modern age. More of these scandals need to be exposed if only to keep the public educated to make proper decisions.

Sous-titres français incrusté, assez scandaleux de nos jours.

Aunque no esté especificado en los detalles, el Blu-ray es multizona (A,B,C) por lo que cualquier reproductor, indistintamente de la región, puede leerlo. El DVD, en cambio, es zona 1. Por lo demás, buena calidad de imagen y en cuanto al sonido, para los castellanoparlantes que no nos la apañamos muy bien con el inglés, el Blu-ray incluye audio 5.1. Español latino, así como también subtítulos en español.Lo único reprochable sería el precio, muy elevado para tratarse de una edición tan normalita, pero lamentablemente Universal ha decidido no distribuirla en España ni en DVD ni Blu-ray, así que es la única forma de conseguirla en formato físico.

satisfait de cet achat

Quality movie