Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Blood and Sand


There's an old idiom about the importance of family relations that says "Blood is thicker than water," although Michel Klare argues in his documentary Blood and Oil that Oil is thicker than blood. The documentary is an overview about the policy of escalating military presence in the Middle East to protect national interests (oil).
The documentary starts off with some dirty tactics, however, and the first thing viewers are treated to is Bill O'Reilly, a man so staunchly conservative and offensive that even some Republicans are embarrassed about him. He begins by accusing a vague enemy, "the far left," of saying that the war in Iraq was a cause of United States oil interests being under threat. Because the first thing we see is an offensive, narrow minded man saying something that seems paranoid and almost McCarthy-esque, we are immediately sympathetic to Klare's ideas, as we are turned off by the other side.
As the documentary unfolds, we see that it's pretty repetitive. Klare shows us scene after scene of presidents meeting with Saudi monarchs, intimidating military displays of might, and countless shots of terrorist attack or revolution. Klare almost could be said to use fear to send his message with all the horrible images that he shows and the way he misrepresents various nations. He brings up both China and Russia, but the only images associated with them are their armies and weapons.
The worst part about this though, in my opinion, is that by the end of the documentary, one almost feels as though the entire movie wasn't about oil and the violence associated with it, but rather was Klare's political views using oil and brinkmanship as a medium. He shows each presidency since Roosevelt and their relationships to the Middle East, but it is mainly the Republican Presidents which he seems to chide. I'd consider myself liberal and believe that oil is probably a big factor in our decisions regarding the Middle East, but I wouldn't misrepresent presidents I disagreed with or misrepresent the facts for that matter to push my own political agenda.

2 comments:

  1. I thought that it was actually interesting the way that Klare opened and closed his documentary, it was almost like he was challenging his viewers. In his opening he was asking "do you believe this?" then at the end of his argument, by closing the way he did, it was almost as if he was daring us to believe the President and State officials

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that he was skewing facts to present his own political opinions in a better light. However, I do not agree with being offended in the beginning... I was offended BECAUSE he used Bill O'Reilly,and immediately tried to dismiss the right's point of view without any explanation from them! And I totally agree with you that Michael Klare misrepresented countries and presidents, especially the Presidents that he did not like!

    ReplyDelete