As independent journalist Michael Ruppert sits in a chair, in a dark room, smoking and saying alarming things my remote desire for business as usual went up in the smoke from the end of his cigarette. I’ve seen Chris Martenson’s Crash Course a few times. I’ve seen the 45 minute version of it too. I’ve read and heard many things by Jim Kunstler, Albert Bates, Richard Heinberg, Rex Weyler, Dr. William Rees of UBC; the list goes on and on. However, until my face was melted by the 83 minutes of Collapse I hadn’t seen it all put together in one blazing and succinct package.

This is an intellectual horror movie first and foremost. If Ruppert’s claims have any validity, the relatively easy way of life enjoyed by Americans, Canadians and other beneficiaries of the current economic order is about to receive a major shock.

This is the most accessible and important introduction to the concepts and consequences of peak oil that I’ve yet to encounter. Subjecting friends to 3.5 hours of data filled powerpoint slides narrated by a former Fortune 500 VP of Finance (see The Crash Course linked above) was never really the best way to get other people to recognize the same problems I’m concerned about. I didn’t hear anything new from Collapse, but Ruppert is the kind of guy who takes multiple sources and can weave them into a relevant complex narrative, this ability is amplified by Director Chris Smith’s interviewing that was the basis of the film.

Ruppert recaps the basic information behind the Hubbert model of oil extraction, net energy, the problems with the Gwar field in Saudi Arabia and the role of cheap oil in everything from toothbrushes to food. I felt the balance between information overload and dangling a hook to seekers was just about right. I tried to play the mental role of the peak oil skeptic for most of the movie, what was Ruppert saying that could convince me if I was a tried and true Chicago school economist? Smith played the role of the audience in several scenes, calling into question Ruppert’s credentials and key aspects of his theories. The movie needed about 5 more minutes of scenes like this, I think it is important to portray Ruppert for who he really is but I left without learning how he planned to prepare for the coming transition. Also, I was curious to how the director felt about the issue of peak oil before and after making Collapse.

If Ruppert’s picture of peak oil missed anything, it was the possibility for demagogues to control a disheartened populace in a collapsing world. He spoke of the anger, the unrest, the revolution but didn’t get into a lot of indicators on how that anger could be channeled by nefarious influences. Nor, did Collapse tackle many specifics, especially in the way of infrastructure issues (see Reinventing Collapse by Dimitri Orlov for that piece)

Ultimately, Ruppert calls for a human revolution. The same conclusion anyone giving a serious look to the coming transition must reach. What does a human revolution mean? Collapse skirted around the issue but mainly for lack of time. I think that revolution means focusing on low scale, low energy technologies for the external world and focusing on the internal world through human technologies like meditation and entheogens. Ruppert calls out solar and wind energy as the only two alternative energy sources that can have immediate impact… and that’s encouraging because I’m going to grad school to build solar cells.

This is a movie without a mainstream audience, too intellectual for any regular movie goer and too alarmist for most academics. I don’t see it doing too well in theatres (although I hope the world can prove me wrong) but I do see it becoming a hit when it is released to DVD. I know I’ll be passing it along as a recommendation to anyone that is even remotely skeptical in the stability of our modern civilization.