Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
How to Blow Up a Pipelineturns a manifesto into a thriller.
The film, now in theaters, is based on a book by Swedish climate activist Andreas Malm.
In it, the author asserts that climate change poses an existential threat to every human being on Earth.
Global governments have proven through their inaction that they will not meaningfully address this crisis.
The characters were invented for this film, but their politics are translated faithfully from Malms book.
(They all share a Film By credit.)
Goldhaber talked us through it.
The problem with climate change is that there is no one target.
You cant pin it on one government, one corporation, one person, one system.
We all participate in climate disruption, to a greater or lesser degree.
Its a great target for a heist.
And Jordan is an academic hes getting his Ph.D. at Duke.
He defends his dissertation in a week.
I havent read it even if I had, I wouldnt be able to understand it.
Its called academic theory.
And he had recommended the book to me for another project that we were working on.
I got halfway through and had this lightbulb moment.
I saw this image of a bunch of kids struggling in the desert with a bomb.
I looked up and was like, I think I have the thing that we can work on together.
Why would they do something like this?
And then how do you blow up a pipeline?
Because the book doesnt actually tell you.
What do you think that movie should be?
That set the stage for the tone and the rhythm.
Once we had that opening sequence, we really knew that we had something.
Throughout that entire process we were talking with Dan Garber.
He was offering ideas and helping us sort through our research, even just casually.
Massive forest fires in L.A.
Massive institutional instability and failure.
And then January 6, the failed insurrection.
So when we started on the project, I said, I want to make a piece of propaganda.
You dont write a manifesto not expecting people to take issue with it.
How so?The book is a verso book.
Its for a particular audience that engages with ideas in a particular way.
The movie is a pop object.
There are things that activists are facing, likein Atlanta right now, that people are not aware of.
Theyre not really engaged with these massive human-rights abuses.
You cant provoke that conversation inside of the contemporary media ecosystem without engaging in pop.
Take a movie likeTop Gun: Maverick, for instance.
This is an extraordinarily jingoistic, pro-violence, pro-military film.
That is a film that promotes death and destruction.
It reinforces the ruling paradigm.
So we dont read it as propaganda necessarily.Exactly.
Lets talk about the characters for a minute.
You have radicalized college students, you have thrill-seekers all these different types coming together.
Were you consciously attempting to draw in different aspects of the movement through these characters?Yes.
Why do we bring up the film showing you how the bombs are made?
Its all about saying, This is something that can be done.
This is something that is feasible, that is accessible, and that doesnt cost too much money.
Once you actually see how tangible an act it is, that gets the gears of your brain churning.
Thats a high-stakes idea in its own right.
It was really always about balancing the documentary aspects with the genre aspects.
This is actually an idea Ariela brought to the table.
When its on a Steadicam, thats when everything is going according to plan.
And then when it goes handheld, thats when things are going wrong.
Thats also why we shot on film.
And then all of a sudden it becomes fraudulent.
Its gonna look like a Levis ad.
An image that feels a lot more direct and contains a natural, youthful vibrancy?
Thats inherent to shooting 16-mm.
out in the sun in the desert for 15 days.
Speaking of exterior photography and the desert, why west Texas?
The setting is partially about forcing a reckoning with that idea as well.
But we were pretty careful with the film.
Its an American film from an American perspective.
Another dumb example is that nobody associated with the project has readThe Monkey Wrench Gang.
I imagine there are some crossovers, but I legitimately dont know what they are.
Otherwise, we show you all the steps that would go into doing this.
But its not intended to be instructional, so much as its intended to demonstrate the accessibility.
The point is provocation, not inspiration.
Its not a recipe.
Part of what makes that question provocative is the immediate tangibility of how easy it is to build bombs.
Therewasa sabotage of the Dakota Access Pipeline, by Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya.
They essentially just poked holes in it with an oxy-acetylene torch.
They eventually turned themselves in, and read an extremely moving confession note at a press conference.
Jessica was given eight years and Ruby was given six years in federal prison.
There have been acts of sabotage, but the problem is that theyre not getting attention.
Its something that Xochitl talks about: It has to be two bombs, because two bombs are undeniable.
You talked earlier about anger, and putting your anger into the film.
Theres so much doomism.
Theres such a belief that nothing can be done.
Thats not really the goal.
The goal is when I see people walking out of the theater feeling positive or feeling hopeful.
Oceans 11is very hopeful, as a structural comp.
Thats a movie where they get away with it.
Look at movies likeFirst ReformedorNight Moves.
Like, Dont try this, you wont succeed?Im represented at CAA.
CAA ostensibly represents this film.
I am extraordinarily grateful to our financers for taking a shot on this film.
That says a lot about where quote-unquote independent film finance is right now.
And I think its really important to fight against that.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
