I’m “biast” (con): nothing
I have not read the source material
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Teflon is the Devil’s manmade chemical compound? Mark Ruffalo as a social justice warrior? Checks out — no lies detected. Todd Haynes does Erin Brockovich? Really? Okay. The director of delicate, intimate dramas about repression and secrecy such as Carol and Far from Heaven doesn’t seem the likeliest choice to head up a based-on-fact legal drama like that of the real-life lawyer, Rob Bilott (Ruffalo: Avengers: Endgame), corporate defense attorney turned activist lawyer who took on chemical giant DuPont over the poisoning of *checks notes* the entire planet and every living creature on it. Yet here we are.
If you like these sorts of movies, you’ll like Dark Waters, based on a 2016 New York Times article “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” by Nathaniel Rich. It is solidly performed by an incredible cast, also including Anne Hathaway (Serenity) as The Wife, Victor Garber (Self/less) as The Corporate Baddie, and Tim Robbins (A Perfect Day) as The Law Firm Boss. It is more keenly — and horrifically — observed as a horror story than these kinds of films usually are: the 1990s-era farmer who jumpstarts this legal odyssey with VHS tapes of his homegrown animal necropsies and keeps the diseased organs of his cows wrapped in kitchen foil is right outta The X-Files.
Ruffalo’s journey from naive corporate drone — who genuinely seems to believe (at first) that big companies can “self-regulate” and wouldn’t lie to cover their asses — to gung-ho SJW who uses his insider-ish knowledge of how corporate America works to prosecute corporate America is, well, classic Ruffalo. The film’s insistence that “DuPont knew” for decades about the dangers of its products — like how tobacco companies knew about lung cancer and how oil companies have known about global warming — may be the least surprising thing about yet another movie that is ultimately out to condemn, with good reason and with plenty of evidence, profit-above-all capitalism that embraces willful negligence and corruption, and which thinks that “Better living through chemistry” (DuPont’s actual motto) is a good, positive, happy slogan, and not like something out of Orwell.
I am totally on board with all of this and have no problem with any of it… but Dark Waters still doesn’t feel like a Todd Haynes film.
Your understanding of this film’s message and of Capitalism (especially in the context of its correct definition–see: free market) is seriously flawed. The context in which DuPont operated in was one wherein a company which had a monopoly in its particular market benefited from a corrupt government: people who worked in the company had ties to government officials–as such, they had access to welfare, subsidies, and protections. Don’t believe me? Research. Now, when a company collaborates with the state; this is NOT free-market capitalism; it’s CORPORATISM. Perhaps you could even call it CRONY-CAPITALISM. But CAPITALISM (an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state–let’s stick with the WORKING DEFINITION) is not to blame for DuPont’s abuse.
Let’s take this syllogism:
Capitalism = separation of economy and state.
DuPont = Benefitted from plenty of political investors and government protections,
THEREFORE, DuPont did not benefit from CAPITALISM.
Here’s an example of a politician many leftist like, who actually supported DuPont; I sure hope there are no Bernie Sanders supporters in this comment section. In 2004, Jane Sanders (Bernie’s wife) was announced as the new college President of Burlington College. She was appointed because–in the words of board member Robyn LLoyd (and I quote): “we felt that her connection to Bernie would be would be helpful, certainly in terms of fundraising.” Burlington college, despite its extravagant look, was also quite thriftless when it came to its choice in which companies to invest in. Tax fillings (which can be easily Googled) show that the college had invested in DuPont (along with other large corporations; namely cigarette brands like Philip Morris and Altria and financial giants like HSBC). As a matter of fact, none of Bernie’s tax filings have any record of him NOT supporting a large corporation and helping regulate in their favor.
But of course, the biased lefitst (heck, even rightist) media is not reporting this; you can blame this same media for DuPont, Monsanto etc. not being held accountable.
Theoretical definitions are fun to discuss, but every large real world application of capitalism rapidly devolves into crony capitalism/corporatism. You could argue that no country has ever tried pure “free market capitalism” completely devoid of any government interference, but even if such a thing was possible (it isn’t – wealthy business interests will always influence government policy in their favor and vice versa), looking at the shit storm we’re in now, I shudder to think what further horrors such unrestrained capitalism would wreak.
Sure, capitalism has brought many great improvements to our lives and harnesses our natural competitive spirit and desire to accumulate property and wealth to promote the production of innovative solutions to pressing problems. I got nothin’ against capitalism as an economic system – it’s certainly more in harmony with human nature on average than communism. To paraphrase Brockman, it may not be perfect, but it’s the best economic system we have… for now.
As everyone knows, the Federal government (at least here in the US) wastes ludicrous amounts of money, is inefficient, bloated, corrupt, overmilitarized, incestuous, and overflowing with redundant middle managers whose jobs consist of shuffling paperwork, forwarding email, reorganizing org charts, and playing musical chairs at conference calls and meaningless meetings. There’s no love lost between me and the government (my entire family is made up of Federal employees, so I speak from experience).
Yet, despite my appreciation of capitalism and my disdain for large swaths of the Federal government, it’s clear that unrestrained capitalism would quickly reduce huge portions of the planet becoming barren and uninhabitable and lead to the needless deaths of millions of people (to say nothing of the extinctions of natural life) too poor to afford its benefits and a massive squandering of human potential for those that barely manage to survive.
The best thing and worst thing about private property is that as you accumulate it, your ability to accumulate more increases exponentially. The second best and second worst thing about private property is that it’s typically passed on to children. These two qualities result in a situation which is the opposite of the meritocracy that many so called “free market” capitalists claim to idolize. Capitalism, by its nature, provides great wealth and power to those who value it above all else, then allows them to easily accumulate more and more of it. Talent, effort, and achievement begin to mean less and less in comparison to what family you happen to be born into and how much wealth you’ve accumulated.
Capitalism has no morality, no empathy, no justice, and certainly no love. It plasters price tags and pop up ads over these essential aspects of humanity until they suffocate or are subsumed. Without some powerful regulating force, the cruelty, inequality, injustice, and intolerance accelerate until we have the world today, unbalanced, spiraling down a vortex of never-ending hunger for self-centered dominance and accumulation.
What major social institution could be powerful enough to reign in the rampaging beast of capitalism and ensure a baseline quality of life? Not perfect equality, but a baseline level of health, education, housing, and transportation that gives every citizen the chance to reap rewards earned through earnest effort. What institutions could possibly divert the path of this raging Juggernaut? There are three obvious options: Organized Religion, The Military, and the Federal Government.
Of these three devils, the only one we citizens have any control of in the US is the Federal Government, so that’s the one I’m going with, flawed and inefficient though it may be. Capitalism doesn’t give two shits about our life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, so it’s up to us to do our best to whip the bloated blobfish of the government into shape so it can fulfill its duty and redistribute the benefits of capitalism in an equitable, empathetic, and environmentally sane fashion.
When every citizen in the wealthiest country in the history of the world is born with access to high quality affordable healthcare, housing, education, and transportation, then and only then can people toss around words like “meritocracy” and “level playing field.” Until that day, any comment heaping praise on some theoretical “unrestrained free market capitalism” is doomed to sound hopelessly out of touch and blinded by privilege.
When it comes to Bernie’s wife’s employer hiring her for access to Bernie and investing some of its funds in unsavory corporations, all I can say is, I hope you warmed up before typing all that, because you’re liable to pull a muscle stretching so hard. Bernie has never said he wants to destroy capitalism – if anything he wants to eliminate the cronyism you claim to dislike. He wants a more progressive tax code, a more sustainable energy policy, the extension of public education a couple more grades past 12, and Universal Medicare.
Even if by some miracle he’s elected, the combined machinery of the government, both Republican and Democrat, and every major corporation in the world will be fighting his policies every step of the way. I doubt he’d be able to accomplish a quarter of his agenda even if he had four terms, but it sure is fun and cathartic to cheer him on and watch him try, a heck of a lot more fun than watching preaching to the choir movies like this one (this comment is now certified 1% on topic).
I forgot to address your last point: this comment is completely on-topic. This review has a highly political SJW slant. As a matter of fact, I’ve browsed this site, and the author’s personal politics can be found in every single review. Although there is nothing wrong with this, I find it to be disingenuous to have a function on this website that allows discussion, yet not allow discussions on politics, despite this doubling as a political site. If you write about politics and its depiction in cinema, why can’t you have a discussion about politics?
You don’t get to derail the conversation. Sorry. Quit it, or I’ll ban you.
It has discussions, so you can talk about whatever you like in them? That doesn’t really make much sense. Do you go to book clubs and derail their discussions to praise capitalism too?
This website has a comment section; a comment section implies that discussions are allowed to be had; this discussion happens to be on an film review that talk mostly about politics; a discussion on politics that the owner of this site herself censors. Invite discussions, yet stifle them for no apparent reason? Maryann, you’re a disingenuous HYPOCRITE. No wonder this website–upon further investigation–is such a failure.
For amanohyo: Look, for some reason my reply to you keeps getting deleted. If you’d like to continue this discussion elsewhere, let me know. The owner of this site is clearly someone who wants to live in an echo chamber. Only politics that agree with her own are welcome here. She would rather silence people than hear them out–this is tantamount to censorship. Censorship is something dictators practice.
It is only when you have discussions with people whom you disagree with where you learn and, luckily, find a middle-ground. To the person who keeps deleting my comments; good luck in life.
Refusing to allow me to reply; thus refusing amanohyo the option of disputing my claims is hypocritical disingenuousness as its finest. Refusing to allow political discourse on a website that inject politics into every single review–what does that say about you, the owner?
You use “SJW” as a slur, and you don’t know what censorship is. You’re gone.
Oh, and FYI: I have not deleted any comments by you.
I am not interested in debating semantics, sorry.
I am also not interested in anyone using my comments thread for their own grandstanding. If you have something to say about the movie or my review of it that isn’t an attempt to drag the conversation to where you want it to be, feel free to post it.
But this site is not for your random political posturing. Start your own site for that.
Sorry about that. As usual, I got carried away listening to the sound of my own typing. I’ll stay on topic in the future.
No worries. I have to restrain myself from addressing in-depth such comments too, but it’s invariably a waste of time.