CYNTHIA: I was in Indonesia in 2012 and someone there said to me, “If you want to consider a new topic for a documentary, you should look into the mudflow.” I thought, what? I’d never heard of the disaster before. I visited the mud site for three days and conducted initial interviews on film and gathered enough material to make a three-minute film teaser.

It took a year to put the crew in place and to find my co-director, Sasha Friedlander, who grew up partially in Indonesia, worked as a journalist there, and is fluent in Bahasa. Then it was another five years of fundraising and production. We worked with both an Indonesian and a U.S. crew.

SASHA: I lived in Indonesia between 2007 and 2009, working for the Bali Post as a journalist and translator. During that time I’d covered the devastating story of the Lapindo mudflow in East Java, and I remember feeling moved and inspired by the protests mounting against the gas drilling company. Because the owner of that company was a key political figure in Indonesia, the government heavily censored the stories that were coming out in the news, so the coverage never left the archipelago.

When I received an email from Cynthia in May 2013 about the possibility of collaborating on a film about the mudflow, it was the first time I’d heard the story mentioned since I left Indonesia in 2009. I knew that there was a presidential election coming up in 2014. That offered a glimmer of hope for the mudflow victims, who were still waiting for their reparations from the drilling company. I was excited to get back to Indonesia and learn more about the situation through the lens of the activists. Cynthia and I hoped to make a film that would resonate with a Western audience. During the six years that we were filming Grit, we could never have imagined how many parallels would emerge between this story in East Java and the issues here in the United States.

Our hope is that audiences will leave the theater with a better understanding of the world’s largest Muslim country. We want people to think about the urgency for political engagement, the importance of women in leadership roles, and the power of art and perseverance in social and environmental struggles. It’s hopeful that we’re seeing young people stepping up and demanding change worldwide. After watching this story unfold, we hope audiences are inspired to cultivate their own determination, their own grit.

—Cynthia Wade and Sasha Friedlander, Directors, Grit

This guide is an invitation to dialogue. It is based on a belief in the power of human connection and designed for people who want to use Grit to engage family, friends, classmates, colleagues and communities. In contrast to initiatives that foster debates in which participants try to convince others that they are right, this document envisions conversations undertaken in a spirit of openness in which people try to understand one another and expand their thinking by sharing viewpoints and listening actively.

The discussion prompts are intentionally crafted to help a wide range of audiences think more deeply about the issues in the film. Rather than attempting to address them all, choose one or two that best meet your needs and interests. And be sure to leave time to consider taking action. Planning next steps can help people leave the room feeling energized and optimistic, even in instances when conversations have been difficult.

For more detailed event planning and facilitation tips, visitwww.pbs.org/pov/engage/.

One day when Dian was 6 years old she heard a deep rumble and turned to see a tsunami of mud barreling toward her village, the result of a natural gas drilling accident. Dian’s mother scooped her up and saved her, but 16 villages, including Dian’s, were wiped away.

A decade later, nearly 60,000 people have been displaced from what was once a thriving industrial and residential area in East Java, located just 20 kilometers (less than 13 miles) from Indonesia’s second largest city. The environmental disaster has transformed the area into a barren moonscape of cracked mud 60 feet deep. And it transformed Dian from a helpless child into an inspiring activist, protesting on behalf of people who felt betrayed by a major employer and abandoned by a government that favored corporate power.

The aftermath of the Lapindo mudflow provides a case study in the intersections between corporate, citizen and government power: Victims organize to demand just compensation and restart their lives. The drilling company resists. The government delays. Grit follows these events, giving viewers a glimpse into the power—and also the limits—of democracy.

Key Participants
Hawarti – Dian’s mother; widowed by the Lapindo explosion, she works as a tour guide on the mudflow to earn much needed income

Dian – Hawarti’s daughter, a child at the time of the mudflow, now a teenager and activist

Fandi – Dian’s friend whose parents lost their jobs as a result of the Lapindo explosion

Aburizal Bakrie – owner of the Lapindo company

Joko “Jokowi” Widodo – worked in his family’s furniture business and served as governor of Jakarta before being elected president of Indonesia

Dadang Christanto – an artist known for pieces exploring human rights who creates installations of statues consumed by the mud

Key Issues
Grit is an excellent tool for outreach and will be of special interest to people who want to explore the following topics:

activism

drilling

environmental disasters

environmental justice

Indonesia

Lapindo mudflow

political and corporate corruption

The Sidoarjo Disaster
In May 2006, near a densely populated city in Indonesia’s East Java called Sidoarjo, the ground erupted in a volcano of scalding hot mud. As local residents fled their homes, the hole continued to expel toxic gaseous mud, killing 20 people and displacing immediately almost 40,000. Known as the Lusi mudflow, the continuously flowing mud has submerged homes, factories, rice paddies, roads and 12 villages.

For the first several months of the mudflow, the hole expelled about 26 million gallons of mud a day, according to the government agency that oversees disaster recovery. The rate has since slowed to 7 to 15 million gallons a day, but the mudflow shows no signs of stopping. The Indonesian government has built levees to contain the mud and a system to divert the flow into the Porong River, but this infrastructure has failed to contain the mudflow and has needed to be rebuilt several times. By July 2015, the area contained an estimated 1.26 billion cubic feet of mud; experts estimated that the mud would continue to flow for another 8 to 18 years.

The Lusi mudflow has had severe impact on the region’s economy and public health. According to a 2015 article in Nature Geoscience, the disaster has cost the region more than $2.7 billion. Residents who worked in local factories have lost their jobs, and the rising lake of mud makes rebuilding impossible. The disaster has affected biodiversity in the Porong River, where fish species that cannot adapt to chemicals from the mudflow go extinct, curtailing a food source that locals previously relied upon. Since the eruption, respiratory infection cases in the area have more than doubled; however, as in all natural resource contamination cases, it is difficult to prove the causality of an illness.

Sources:

Danaparamita, Aria. “Life After the Mud.” Foreign Policy, May 29, 2016. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/29/sidoarjo-mud-volcano-indonesia/

Drake, Phillip. “Emergent Injustices: An Evolution of Disaster Justice in Indonesia’s Mud Volcano.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, July 18, 2018. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2514848618788359

Mohsin, Anto. “The Sidoarjo Mudflow and the Muddiness of an Environmental Disaster.” Arcadia, Spring 2017. https://doi.org/10.5282/rcc/7767

Nuwer, Rachel. “Indonesia’s ‘Mud Volcano’ and Nine Years of Debate About Its Muck.” The New York Times, Sept. 21, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/9-years-of-muck-mud-and-debate-in-java.html

Scott, Michon. “Sidoarjo Mud Flow, Indonesia.” NASA Earth Observatory Image of the Day, Dec. 10, 2008. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/36111/sidoarjo-mud-flow-indonesia

Tingay, M. R. P., et al. “Initiation of the Lusi Mudflow Disaster." Nature Geoscience, June 29, 2015. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2472

Wayman, Erin. “The World’s Muddiest Disaster.” Smithsonian, Dec. 2, 2011. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-worlds-muddiest-disaster-1603529/

Causation Debate and Victim Compensation
The cause of the Lusi mudflow has been hotly debated among scientists, government officials and local residents for over a decade. This debate is fraught, because the outcome will determine who is responsible for covering the cost of both disaster relief infrastructure and compensation for the victims who lost their homes. Many believe that the mudflow was triggered by gas drilling conducted by PT Lapindo Brantas, an oil and gas company that was drilling near the site just before it erupted. Others, including Lapindo, argue that the disaster was caused by a 6.3-magnitude earthquake that struck 150 miles west of the drill site two days earlier. Scientists have published conflicting studies, but as more evidence has emerged in recent years, a majority of scientists have come to support the hypothesis that Lapindo is responsible.

In 2015, an international team of scientists published a study in the journal Nature Geoscience that concluded with 99 percent certainty that Lapindo’s drilling caused the disaster. Just before the explosion, the company’s workers were probing for a new natural gas deposit in Sidoarjo when they hit a rock formation and liquid began to rush up through the drill hole. The engineers sealed the hole, but mud continued to build up underground; eventually the pressure became so great that it burst through the ground 500 feet from the drilling site. The 2015 report includes a new piece of evidence: gas readings that were initially withheld by Lapindo show that a process called liquefaction, which is the mechanism by which an earthquake would have caused the explosion, did not occur. Meanwhile, the data shows that hydrogen sulfide built in the vent in the first days of the eruption, suggesting that the mud came from two miles underground—the same depth reached by the drill. The study’s lead author argued that Lapindo failed to take standard precautions to prevent an accident: “This almost certainly could have been prevented if proper safety procedures had been taken,” Dr. Mark Tingay told the New York Times.

Immediately following the disaster, the Indonesian government refused to assign blame, citing a lack of scientific proof that Lapindo was responsible. The company is owned by the family of Aburizal Bakrie, a former cabinet minister, billionaire and leader of an influential political party, the Golkar party. The Bakrie family has a net worth of about $5.4 billion, making them one of the wealthiest families in Indonesia. Victims and commentators speculate that political corruption prevented the government from holding Lapindo accountable initially. The local residents led a sustained protest movement, staging demonstrations and filing lawsuits to demand compensation and accountability from Lapindo. For example, on the one-year anniversary of the disaster, activists erected a giant puppet representing Bakrie on the Porong embankment near the mudflow site, defying bans on demonstrations in that area.

In 2007, the Indonesian government ordered Lapindo to provide cash compensation or resettlement to victims who were in a designated “core disaster area.” This ruling caused frustration among many residents, because it relied on a map that many thought did not accurately represent the impact of the mudflow, and because the compensation was unequal. Further, compensation funds were inconsistent: families would receive money for a few months and then the payments would stop. In 2008, Lapindo claimed that it was unable to pay because it faced financial problems due to the global financial crisis. In 2014, newly elected president Joko Widodo, who had campaigned on a promise to help the Lusi victims, ordered his government to loan Lapindo $45.5 million to fund the remaining victim compensation. Lapindo promised to repay the government within four years.

The outstanding compensation payments were completed in October 2015, but some of the mudflow victims continue to organize. Despite the compensation order, Lapindo has not been held legally responsible for the disaster. In 2016, the company announced that it would resume drilling near Sidoarjo in order to pay off its debt to the government. Activists have led a campaign against this new drilling plan, including a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in Jakarta on National Anti-Mining Day in 2019. Many of the Lusi mudflow victims are still struggling to survive and simply want assurance that Lapindo’s drilling will not upend their lives again.

Sources:

Baskoro, Yudha. “No Mining No Cry.” Jakarta Globe, May 28, 2019. https://jakartaglobe.id/vision/no-mining-no-cry

Danaparamita, Aria. “Life After the Mud.” Foreign Policy, May 29, 2016. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/29/sidoarjo-mud-volcano-indonesia/

Drake, Phillip. “Emergent Injustices: An Evolution of Disaster Justice in Indonesia’s Mud Volcano.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, July 18, 2018. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2514848618788359

Drake, Phillip. Indonesia and the Politics of Disaster: Power and Representation in Indonesia’s Mud Volcano. London: Routledge, 2016.

Farida, Anis. “Reconstructing Social Identity for Sustainable Future of Lumpur Lapindo victims.” Procedia Environmental Sciences 20 (2014): 468–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.059

Jensen, Fergus. “Indonesian Energy Company Plans to Resume Drilling Near Mud Volcano.” Reuters, Jan. 12, 2016. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-gas-volcano-idUSKCN0UQ1W820160112

Mohsin, Anto. “The Sidoarjo Mudflow and the Muddiness of an Environmental Disaster.” Arcadia, Spring 2017. https://doi.org/10.5282/rcc/7767

Nuwer, Rachel. “Indonesia’s ‘Mud Volcano’ and Nine Years of Debate About Its Muck.” The New York Times, Sept. 21, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/9-years-of-muck-mud-and-debate-in-java.html

Retnowati, Heri. “Prayers, Protests Mark One Year of Mudflow.” Reuters, May 29, 2007. https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-indonesia-mudflow-env-dc-idUSPAR94560120070529

Immediately after the film, you may want to give people a few quiet moments to reflect on what they have seen. Or pose a general question (examples below) and give people some time to jot down or think about their answers before opening the discussion:

If you were going to tell a friend about this film, what would you say? How would you describe the main message(s) of the film?

Describe a moment or scene in the film that you found particularly disturbing or moving. What was it about that scene that was especially compelling for you?

Did anything in the film surprise you? Was anything familiar?

If you could ask anyone in the film a single question, whom would you ask and what would you want to know?

How do you interpret the film’s title?

Artist Dadang Christanto observes, “When everything is destroyed, you can’t put a price tag on the history, family and the land that is gone.” Hawarti laments that the descendants of the victims will “never know the history of where they’re from. They will never again see their grandfather's grave, because everything is under the mud.” What else did survivors lose? How might people be compensated for these non-material losses?

We see hot mud pumped into the river. According to news reports, “Protestors claim the mud is mixed with toxic gas that has contaminated the soil, water, and air.” How might such impact affect people far from the accident site?

Hawarti reports, “There hasn’t been movement by the government or health services to research the impact of this disaster.” What makes the health effects of eco-disasters difficult to track? How does the complexity and longevity of the task hurt victims and benefit those who caused the damage?

When Dian looks out over the mudflats, what do you think she sees? When you look at the mudflats through the lens of the filmmakers’ camera, what do you see?

What was your reaction to the various activities we see happening on the mud: tours, fashion photo shoots, selfies and so on? In what ways might these be a form of protest? Resistance? Disrespect? Something else?

The film’s cinematography lends a certain beauty to the mud. In what ways does this obscure the impact of the disaster? In what ways does it help us better understand or feel the loss?

What were your takeaways from artist Dadang Christanto’s sculpture installation in the mudflow?

What did you learn about grassroots activism from the film?

How do activists in the film use art to convey their message? What other methods do they use to build support?

The families displaced by the mudflow knew that the government and Lapindo were covering up the truth but didn’t let the corruption lead them into despair. What do you think led them to put their faith and energies into winning a presidential election? Why might they have believed that democracy could defeat corruption?

Lapindo’s owner, Aburizal Bakrie, is associated with General Suharto’s party and history. Hawarti recounts to Dian memories of Suharto’s 1965 purge of suspected communists, when millions of people were “disappeared” and murdered. Many committed no “crime” other than protesting. How might those events be linked to the mudflow victim protests? Why might business leaders like Bakrie see an authoritarian leader like Suharto as a natural ally, and vice versa?

A court cleared Lapindo of liability for the mudflow, concluding that the disaster was caused by an earthquake rather than a company mistake. A teacher explains to her class that there was, indeed, an earthquake, but that “Lapindo paid the researchers who [testified that it] triggered the disaster.” Where do you find accurate information about environmental disasters? What makes you think your sources are credible? How could news sources absolving Lapindo of responsibility have been both accurate and misleading? Do you know of any other examples where this has been the case?

The film notes that Aburizal Bakrie “is listed as the sixth richest person in Indonesia.” Why is that a salient fact?

Aburizal Bakrie explains, “The problem with Lapindo is simple. We have no responsibility for this. Legally, we were not found guilty.” What might lead him to think that “legal” responsibility is the only form of responsibility that matters?

Why did Hawarti describe Lapindo’s demand for proof of ownership or sworn oath as “all kinds of stories and tricks”?

In the compensation process, was Lapindo’s request for proof of land ownership reasonable? After disasters, what verification methods could be used to prevent fraud without putting the exclusive burden of proof on individual victims?

Aburizal Bakrie states that Lapindo paid only 20 percent of the claims it recognized, explaining, “We stopped paying when we faced financial difficulties in 2008. We were the richest family in Indonesia. We are nobody now.” How is the system designed to allow owner and shareholders to benefit from the company’s successes while letting them off the hook for financial obligations when things go badly? Who assumes the risk of corporate errors? What would need to change to make the system more fair?

After ten years, Hawarti receives her compensation payment. She is pleased that that she’ll be able to fund her daughter’s education. Did you find this small victory to be satisfying (or cathartic)? Why or why not?

Survivors say they are fighting for “justice.” What might justice for survivors look like in this situation?

A reporter asks Aburizal Bakrie what he learned from the mudflow. He answers, “It’s done. It’s been resolved… Your questions are boring.” What would you like him to say? How does his dismissal of the reporter serve his interests?

The government granted Lapindo permission to begin drilling again, arguing that the company must be able to generate revenue in order to repay loans related to mudflow victim compensation. Activists question why the government would risk another accident. If you were the responsible official, would you grant the permit? What would you want to know before making your decision?

What did you learn from the events depicted in the film that could apply to recovery from other environmental or natural disasters?

We learn that mud continues to flow and spread, threatening residents who cannot afford to relocate until they receive compensation. What is the role of economic vulnerability or poverty in coping strategies that survivors can reasonably be expected to use?

Hawarti says she will use the compensation she finally receives to fund her daughter’s education. Of all the ways she might spend the money, why do you suppose she chooses to spend it on Dian’s education?

How did Hawarti and Dian’s activism help them cope with life after the disaster?

If you could send a message to Dian and her classmates about using the tragedy as a springboard to move forward what would you say?

At the end of your discussion, to help people synthesize what they’ve experienced and move the focus from dialogue to action steps, you may want to choose one of these questions:

What did you learn from this film that you wish everyone knew? What would change if everyone knew it?

If you could require one person (or one group) to view this film, who would it be? What would you hope their main takeaway would be?

This story is important because ___________.

What question(s) do you think the filmmakers were trying to answer? Do you think they found the answers they were looking for?

Complete this sentence: I am inspired by this film (or discussion) to __________.

Additional media literacy questions are available at:
https://www.amdoc.org/engage/resources/media-literacy-questions-analyzing-pov-films/using-framework/

If the group is having trouble generating ideas, these suggestions can help get things started:

Reread Dian’s poem dedicated to the victims of the Lapindo mudflow:

Where is your voice?

Deserted,

silent,

lifeless,

quiet.

I see an old woman with tears in her eyes.

Without a word,

she seeks justice for herself.

She shouts out,

“Where are the voices of resistance

that I once heard?”

Don’t be silenced.

Let your voices be heard.

Wake us from this endless nightmare.

Don’t give up now...

for the sake of your children.

With determination we can overcome this struggle.

Damn Lapindo!

For destroying our villages.

Then write and share your own poems honoring victims of injustice.

Compare/contrast this film with movies about other eco-disasters (e.g., the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown or the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Follow-up with a book group to read and discuss H. M. Maksum Zuber’s Titanic Made by Lapindo, a memoir by a mudflow survivor. Compare/contrast to memoirs of other corporate environmental disasters (e.g., the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India).

Get involved with efforts in your region to hold companies responsible for environmental damage they cause.

Investigate ongoing environmental conflicts in Indonesia, including the role played by U.S. corporations and/or the U.S. government. Research and publicize calls to action from the Indonesians most directly affected by the conflicts. Where appropriate, contact your political representatives and/or corporate executives to suggest ways to support those calls to action.

FILM-RELATED WEB SITES

Explore content related to Grit on the POV website, where you’ll also find other relevant features, shorts and digital projects.

Grit – The official website for the film.

Environmental Justice Atlas: "Environmental Conflicts in Indonesia" – A global atlas of environmental conflicts.

Friends of the Earth Indonesia – A source for current environmental advocacy initiatives in Indonesia, searchable by category (e.g., mining, agriculture, disasters).

Katadata: "The Revival of Bakrie Group's Oil and Gas Business" – A 2018 story from Katadata by Safrezi Fitra about the company that owns Lapindo.

Natural Resources Defense Council: "The Environmental Justice Movement" – This advocacy organization provides an explainer on environmental justice.

The Victim of Mud Volcano Lapindo Disaster – A 2007 series of blog posts from a victim of the mudflow.

Writer
Faith Rogow, InsightersEducation.com

Background Writing
Ione Barrows
Senior Associate, Community Engagement and Education, POV

Guide Producers, POV
Alice Quinlan
Director, Community Engagement and Education, POV

Rachel Friedland
Community Partnerships Associate, POV

Thanks to those who reviewed this guide:
Cynthia Wade and Sasha Friedlander
Directors, Grit

This resource was created, in part, with the generous support of the Open Society Foundation.