StephanieCaouetteFilmAnnotation13

1. Title, director and release year?

The name of the film is Erin Brockovich. It is directed by Steven Soderbergh and was released in 2000

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

The film is centered around big businesses being able to dispose of their waste in any way they see fit, with a blatant disregard to the health of the land and people. The film goes through the story of Erin Brockovich and how she fights for the rights of a small town in California whose people are being poisoned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The townspeople have seen increasing rates of sickness including cancer, tumors, headache, fatigue and nosebleeds because of the water they are drinking, which has been polluted by PG&E. This company had knowingly been dumping Chromium and improperly storing the chemicals in the ground in this town, understanding that this chemical is hazardous to human health.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

There are a couple sustainability problems that the film draws out including political, social and legal issues. Once again this film presents a case of a big corporation being able to lie to the public and hide the terrible things they are doing to the environment. PG & E was knowingly storing Chromium 6, the only harmful form of Chromium, in unlined ponds at their Hinkly plant. These ponds were allowing the chemical to seep into the environment and groundwater for the neighboring town causing all types of health problems for the residents.

Unlike Chromium 3, which has beneficial health factors, Chromium 6 is lethal. It can cause reproductive failure, many different forms of cancer, chronic nosebleeds, rashes, headaches and gene mutations that can be passed through DNA to future generations. PG&E knowing they were using the Chromium 6 as a rust inhibitor held a seminar for the townspeople explaining what Chromium 3 was and how it has no harmful side effects and that their drinking water was fine.

The PG&E Headquarters even acknowledged that they were using Chromium at a level that was harmful to human health to the Hinkly plant in the form of a memo, and told them they should do all that they can to “not disclose or discuss” the problem with the public. This is a sustainability issue because PG&E was acting against regulation by not lining the waste pools, they intentionally were harming the public and lying to them and lastly, because they were shredding evidence that documented the problem. As stated in the film “incriminating evidence has a way of disappearing when people are looking for it,” this issue is seen every day and is a real problem for those trying to right the wrongs being done.

A smaller sustainability issue in the film was the fact that a whole community could be brainwashed to think that all of their health problems are unrelated and that their corporate neighbor is looking out for their best interests. The townspeople in Hinkly trusted PG&E, they were helping to pay for doctors visits, and held informational seminars, and were never challenged or questioned about what they were doing and if it could have an effect on the community.

Lastly, the film showed the legal system to be unsustainable. The fact that it was so difficult for the people of Hinkly to take PG&E to court when there were hundreds of cases of citizens sick or dying is unreal. There should be something they could do to make it easier to charge big businesses for their misconduct when it can be proven.

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

I found the entire film to be compelling in different ways. The most persuasive part was watching the passion that Erin had for the case and the time and effort she put in to bring justice to this town. It showed just how much time, energy and money go into these types of cases and just how much proof you need to have in order to take a case to court. The fact that she could recite the names, ages, living family members, numbers, and addresses off of the top of her head shows the dedication that she had to these people and their cause, and proved helpful in taking PG&E down.

I found that the legal parts of the film added to its value; the hoops that lawyers have to jump through like having to get 90% of the plaintiffs to agree to go to court and getting all the signatures. All of the busywork deters people from trying to take down these big companies and should be minimized for the future.

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

From an educational standpoint I was not compelled or convinced by the romantic scenes, house problems or the profanity used in the film. I understand it was not a documentary, so there needed to be some type of storyline behind it, but it did not add any dimension for me.

Also, I did not like how little they put in about the actual documentation that Charles had given to Erin. Those documents were a crucial part of the case against PG&E and were treated more as an afterthought in the film.

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.?

I do not know much about Chromium or the effects of it besides the little information they gave in the film. I am curious to find out what it is, what it does, and if the less harmful version of it can be used in place of the more harmful version. The film didn’t really tell the viewer what was being done in the PG&E plant, so I would also like to find out in which ways and at what quantity are they using Chromium 6, what other types of harmful chemicals they are putting into these unlined pools, and if there are corporations like this around here that could be contaminating our water.

The film also made me want to look deeper into the actual court case to see what type of information they kept out of the film. Was there more to the story that was maybe too complex or didn’t fit within the storyline that they chose to keep out?

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?

I think that the film was more of a leisure film then a real environmental or educational movie; therefore it was aimed more towards a viewer looking to watch an interesting, thought provoking movie. I think that it definitely exposed some viewers to new ideas and put a different light on big corporations, warning that not all companies can be trusted. I don’t think that the movie is likely to change the way viewers think, but it may make them take a second look at the businesses operating near their hometown and water supply.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?

In terms of what the viewer could actually do to get involved in the issue; the film did not give any type of intervention or course of action to take. The general message was to get involved and informed about the businesses that surround you and if they are operating according to the law and ethically. Also, the film promoted the idea of getting wholeheartedly behind your cause, if you put everything you have into it and work hard, you can get people to listen and take you seriously.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

In terms of educational value, I think that the film could have added more about what Chromium is and the research behind the side effects and toxicity levels that are harmful to human health. They could have shown exactly how it is used in the PG&E plant, the correlation to the ponds and the water sources, and the research they found from taking the water samples. These pieces of scientific information would have upped the educational value for me, but weren’t necessarily needed to understand the whole picture and enjoy the film.