HeilmannCraigAnnotation3

Craig Heilmann, Film Annotations

1. Title, director, and release year? // Homo Toxicus //, Carol Poliquin (2008) 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film deals many with pollutant chemicals in our environment and our inability as humans to avoid them. They are in the food we eat, products we use, and the air we breathe. You cannot escape them. Even newborns can have contaminants passed from their mothers enter their bodies. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from a cultural standpoint. Companies are being forced to produce at a never before seen rate due to the high consumer demands of today. They produce more and more, which usually means they pollute more and more. For this reason a matrix of sustainability problems is created. Companies say that they are testing to find out how harmful their products really are, but in reality they aren’t looking for anything new. They are searching for what they are sure already exists instead of looking for new contaminants that could exist in their products. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The part of the film that I found to be most compelling was the case in the Indian community that was finding a staggering decline in male births. It was said in the film that was most likely because of the contaminants in the air that the people are being exposed to. It gives a real life scenario of what these contaminants are doing to a community. One can only imagine what could happen if this sort of thing began to spread. 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? This was definitely a film which left the viewer feeling vulnerable, like there was nothing we could do. I would have liked to have finished the film, gaining knowledge about the problems we are facing in the world, but also with a feeling that I know if I change certain things I am doing I can make a difference to help the environment. 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.? The film makes me wonder if there really is anything we can do to reverse the effects of what we are experiencing or if we are just caught too far in it. I believe we can make a difference and would like more insight on what we can do at the human scale to help., other than just the obvious measures. 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? This is a film meant to scare the everyday consumer. It throws a lot of depressing information to make you want to change, but in the end you are left feeling helpless and unable to make a difference. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? This is the problem with the film. It doesn’t really give any. It beats you down with information about all the wrong we are doing without bringing us back up again with solutions. It says we much intervene, but doesn’t tell us how. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? I feel like a broke record her, but giving the audience means of correcting the problem would have been very helpful. We all know that we should consume less and take the obvious measures to help the environment, but some outside the box ideas would definitely be helpful and would add a lot to the success of the film and the reaction of the viewers watching it.