DominguezAmanda+Annotation3

__FILM ANNOTATION: HOMO TOXICUS__

- Homo Toxicus, Carole Poliquin, 2009
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

- This film focuses on the effects of our short-sightedness in the production of new chemicals. The director interviews doctors, experts, agency officials, family members, and pedestrians off the street about the toxic effects of widely used chemicals today, how they affect wildlife and humans, and what is being done to control this problem.
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

- This film portrays the many ways in which our man-made toxins affect our environment, wildlife, and the human race (in this generation and those that follow). - The director does an excellent job of drawing out the several ways by which we are trapped by toxins; for example, in a portion of the film, she goes around the house and simply names the many items that contain chemicals which have proven toxic to humans and/or animals. In doing this, the viewer realizes the matrix of issues surrounded by the lack of regulation of new chemicals and how inevitable contamination really is.
 * 3.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

- I found the interviews very compelling because most agency officials asserted that chemicals used in their plants, products, and labs were safe and followed government regulation. Some ideas that stood out were that of “normal levels” of toxic substances, “all substances seem to cause” certain physical illnesses, and “miniscule” levels of hormones in meat is “harmless.” These ideas as serious, official statements from agency executives are laughable. The director juxtaposes statements such as these with statements and images of scientists showing the adverse effects toxins have had on the wildlife in the area, further emphasizing agency negligence. - I also really enjoyed the Toxic Buffet portion that took place on a common street while pedestrians walked by. It was interesting to see people’s reactions and the questions they posed like, “Well if we don’t eat this, then what do we eat instead?” Compelled me enough to want to host one myself.
 * 4.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

- I was disappointed with the lack of solution provided by the director, granted a solution for such a matrix of problems is not a simple one. However, this film left me with a sense of hopelessness, that we were too far in to change our ways and any changes we attempted would have to be drastic. So, the ending could have been better.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

- This film took place in Canada, therefore, it pertained to the local issues of Canadians. I would like to see a film like this pertaining to the United States, who I’m assuming follows similar (or even lower) standards than those of Canada. Also, for comparison, I would like to see the regulations followed by countries that provide its citizens with healthcare and if there is a correlation at all.
 * 6.** **What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

- ‘Homo Toxicus’ was directed primarily at Canadian audiences, but it also speaks volumes to people around the world who underestimate the effects of the chemicals used to produce items we come in contact with on a daily basis. It allows viewers to see the world in a new perspective, through a lens that shows products not for the goods they are, but the chemicals used to create them.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

- Consumer awareness. The director advocates the need for consumers to ask questions and be cautious when purchasing anything and everything. I, for one, would also suggest encouraging companies to make available specific details about the contents of their products, although truthfulness in this type of labeling would be virtually impossible to regulate.
 * 8.** **What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

- The conclusion to this film did not satisfy my expectations and in fact left me feeling trapped in a world of toxic chemicals. There was little hope for a solution. Providing a solution beyond individual choice would have concluded the film more completely in my opinion. I realize that there is no simple solution but I feel consumer awareness can only go so far, considering corporations and government rarely provide honest facts freely.
 * 9.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

[Posted March 14, 2010]