Long+Film+Annotation+4

Arunesh Ghosh, Annotation #4 12/31/11 Addicted to Plastic

1. Title, director and release year?

The title of the film is //Addicted to Plastic// it was directed by Ian Connacher and was released in 2007.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film details our often overlooked addiction to plastic. The piece does a terrific job of bringing to light the extent to which we are reliant on the material, a material that is not biodegradable. The gravity of that statement begins to sink in when one realizes that means that every single piece of plastic that has not been incinerated still exists, somewhere out there to this day. Not only does most of this plastic eventually make its way out to the ocean but much of it also ends up in landfills, forever. An increasing amount of plastic is also making its way overseas to countries such as India and China. In all, the film hopes to bring to light the gravity of the situation and offers a glimpse of numerous solutions companies are employing to address the growing crisis.

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?

The documentary itself begins with footage of the deep ocean. Due to natural weather patterns, five gyres form in the ocean creating a “toilet-bowl” effect. This overtime has resulted in areas of ocean that are completely saturated with plastic waste. Footage revealing the actual makeup of the ocean water in the area really hits home as the amount of plastic sludge present in the ocean is shown. This part in particular has strong emotional appeal as even though plastic bag strewn streets are not common in the United States, the oceans well being is important to everyone. The film then shifts to the fate of plastics around the world and a brief rudimentary glimpse at the processes involved in dealing with plastics from production to disposal. The film waters down exact scientific processes involved in plastic production to viewer friendly, digestible explanations via animations of a “nurdle” the basic production unit of plastic. It then follows the journey of the “nurdle” from the production plant to the wide ocean. The piece then goes on to describe current and rather ineffective recycling and disposal efforts, primarily within the United States along with a handful of other European Countries such as Denmark. Finally, the film concludes with a glimpse of numerous, innovative, and intelligent methods of plastic production and recycling operations around the world.

4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

Perhaps the biggest sustainability problem that the film draws out is the scope of our addiction to plastic. If one simply looks around their room, there can easily be over a hundred different items with some sort of plastic polymer. Hell, even the computer I’m typing this paper up on is made up mostly of plastic. So what exactly do we do about it? How can we escape this prison of plastic bars? One simple and relatively misleading solution is recycling. Most well-to-do Americans, busy with their own lives, despite the many wasteful practices they engage in, often rest easy with the thought that “at least I’m recycling”. Unfortunately this is not the case. As it turns out, only a tiny portion of the plastics in production are actually recycled within the United States. Why’s that? Well as one would expect, there is little to no communication between corporations and the facilities and organizations that are in charge of recycling. To add to this messy situation, most plastics in production are made up of a combination of different types of plastic making recycling efforts even more difficult. So what do we do with all this unrecycled plastic? That plastic which is properly disposed usually ends up in landfills where they stay, forever. Much of this waste is often shipped out to China or India where much of the plastic is reused and recycled. What would appear as a final solution to our waste problems is deceiving as this huge influx of trash is horrendous and is deposited in country’s with a rising middle class of its own, hungry for its own turn at a disposable lifestyle.

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

The segments of film detailing the harmful effects of our plastic use were very persuasive. Simply seeing the plastic “gunk” removed from the ocean truly opened my eyes to the degree of pollution plastic is responsible for. The history of widespread plastic use stemming from Post-WWII abundance resulted in the stereotypical disposable American lifestyle. With little regard for the long term effects, the amount of plastic products and other applications exploded. Everything from mugs to speakers to desks to carpets and syringes all began being produced in plastic form. It is very easy to see how this outlook has resulted in much of the pollution today and the spread of the belief of the “disposable lifestyle” to other countries as well. The segment on India once again struck a chord with me as I have visibly seen many of the details presented in the film in real life. The streets in India are literally peppered with plastic bags of all shapes and sizes and though the government has banned many different types of plastic bags, enforcement of this legislation is more or less nonexistent.

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

The claims by the American Chemistry Council of its concerns for the environment and the problems of pollution were not surprisingly, dubious. The film presented this irony cleverly with footage of the speaker drinking from a plastic bottle before the interview. Though the film did detail many unique and creative methods by which individuals and grassroots companies are dealing with the problem, it did little to offer insight into widespread efforts to effectively curb plastic use. True the film did show political efforts in countries such as Kenya and India to ban plastic bags but its subsequent enforcement and policy effectiveness is questionable.

7. What audiences does the film best address? Why

The film best addresses those who are more environmentally minded and concerned about future problems with pollution due to plastic. However, the segment about ocean pollution due to plastics would have some sort of universal appeal to viewers as widespread ocean pollution affects us all in one way or another. The film would probably not be well received by those with heavy interest in the plastic industry, though these individuals can also in some way rest easy and watch with amusement as once again the reality of our reliance on cheap plastic is profound.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The film did a terrific job of presenting the problems with plastics as a whole from its production to its disposal. If the film focused more on ways consumers themselves could reduce their own plastic consumption, the environmental educational value of the film would be increased significantly. If the film suggested more commonly available biodegradable products and plastic alternatives, then younger viewers, who are often times greatly influenced by such films, could directly influence changes within their households.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">There are a variety of methods of intervention suggested by the film, most of which are grassroots movements and companies. Within the United companies such as TieTek and Agriplus use innovative and highly effective recycling techniques to create intelligent, reusable products. TieTek for example completely avoids the problems associated with recycling different types of plastic by using all parts of plastic products. These are in turn converted to completely reusable and recyclable products that are more often than not better than their traditional counterparts. One company I was particularly surprised with was the clothing company Patagonia, which apparently produces all of its clothing from recycled plastics. Efforts in other countries were also shown from companies in India and Kenya that produce chic handbags and other accessories from recycled plastic bags to a bio-plastic manufactured in Australia that dissolves completely in water. A company in Japan has even manufactured a cell phone made completely of biodegradable products.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Many of the companies that were featured in the film truly inspired me, and gave me hope in the existence of benevolent, sustainable companies. I decided to delve further and research the companies of Patagonia and TieTek. I hoped to find out the mission statement of the companies and how the beliefs of the founder’s of these companies may have influenced its operations and goals. Research into TieTek revealed the goal of the company’s founder, Henry Sullivan of preserving and protecting the environment while simultaneously creating a viable business. Patagonia has done extensive work in promoting sustainable manufacturing, from its Bluesign standard program of using sustainable dyes to its 1% for the planet initiative, pledging 1% of all sales to environmental conservation efforts. Both companies are truly admirable in their continued efforts and commitment to conservation efforts and should be regarded of models for sustainable businesses and companies to come. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 22pt;">Links

[]

[]