Dark Waters [Blu-ray]

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?

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.

Good

Dark Waters starring Mark Ruffalo tells the true story of Cincinnati lawyer, Robert Bilott who has just been made a partner at a high-profile law firm which specialises in defending major chemical companies from environmental lawsuits. Bilott is called out of a board meeting to speak to a man who introduces himself as Wilbur Tennant, an acquaintance of his grandmother. Tennant is a farmer from Parkersburg, West Virginia and he brings with him boxes of videos and photographs documenting the deaths of his cattle and tells Bilott how the town has become ill. There are multiple cases of cancers, bad teeth, sick and dying animals and Tennant blames chemical giant Dupont of dumping chemical waste from their large manufacturing plant into a local creek.Initially Bilott is reluctant to get involved after all his expertise, and that of his firm, is defending clients like Dupont not suing them. Tennant, however, does not give up and eventually Bilott reluctantly agrees to have a look at the evidence. What follows is a story of tenacity and determination as Bilott investigates the claims made by the townspeople and former Dupont employees.In Dark Waters there is no “bigging up” Bilott as a hero by any means or the glorification of a David v Goliath type battle. The film portrays a quiet, diligent man as he meticulously slogs through box upon box of discovery paperwork, faces down the intimidation and bullying tactics employed by Dupont’s representatives and then seeks to hold Dupont accountable for their wrongdoing. Bilott’s health and relationships ultimately suffer as his life is consumed by the case and his battle drew me in as facts about Teflon and Dupont’s corporate greed are slowly uncovered. As the credits roll, it’s all the more disturbing to note that for an event that started in the mid 70’s,individual cases against Dupont are still being heard at the time the film was released in 2019. 5*