Weber_Erin+Brockovich


 * Ashley Weber, Annotation #6, Date: 10/10/10 **
 * Erin Brockovich **

The film Erin Brockovich was directed by Steven Soderbergh and released in 2000.
 * Film, Director, Release Year **

This film focuses on how a woman named Erin Brockovich’s perseverance pays off when she takes down Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG&E, for polluting a small town in California called Hinkley. The movie follows Brockovich as she starts her new job as a file clerk as she discovers discrepancies in files and after much persuasion gets her boss, a lawyer, to look further into the case. Brockovich begins investigating and finds Hinkley’s water supply was knowingly being poisoned with Hexavalent by PG&E. This industrial poisoning is the cause of the illness plagues community dealing with health issues as dangerous as cancer and death. It’s Brockovich’s perseverance and deep investigation work that brings the whole town together and gaining proof linking the California company to this industrial poisoning cover-up.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

-A huge sustainability problem is prevalent with the PG&E company. To begin with, the ethics of the corporate executive, who advised to keep the contaminate water a secret, can be questioned. This man worked at the corporate headquarters and having power doesn’t necessarily mean the best decisions are made. The ethics of the people who were also made aware of the issue, but chose not to do anything about it are also at fault. Companies today have ethics courses that aim to prevent people from having to make decisions similar to this, but they do not always work.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

-Another problem revolves around the history of toxic dumping not being banned until later in history. We have seen GE’s dumping of toxic chemicals prior to the ban and we are still dealing with the consequences.

-The affected population is also a sustainability problem. Hinkley being a small town of less than 500 people made this community prime targets for the company to affect. If the plant was located somewhere where the population was large and high level people lived, the PG&E executives would think twice before harming these people’s lives and getting caught.

-The perseverance, heart, and amount of effort put into bringing down this large corporation seemed so exhausting that one watching the movie my see issues this large would be too overwhelming.

-This film brings awareness to the fact that appearances can make or break an argument. Brockovich’s attire, manners, and history do not help to get her side to be taken seriously when being compared to the lawyers she had to deal with. This can be easily related to many people’s view of environmentalist and the hippie attire and possible violent protests leading to their ideas not being taking seriously.

-Lastly, although the company was caught and money was awarded to the community. The illness and effects are still present and these people will have to live with the company’s decision for the rest of their lives.

If found the character of Erin Brockovich to be powerful and moving. Her perseverance made the movie very compelling along with the interviews she had with the residents of the town. This film being based on an actual true story allowed for the whole story to be told in a professional entertainment manner featuring the famous actress Julia Roberts playing the leading role. This film would not have been compelling in any other form because it would have been impossible to tell the story Erin Brockovich without someone playing her in a film and viewers seeing here in action and learning about her character.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

This type of film can be very compelling because being an actual movie rather than a documentary based solely on facts. This is where it can be difficult to know which parts of the movie were made up to make the story better. However, being based on a true story, the main points of the movie can be got across. I also found the
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

This film is best address for mature audiences who can understand the real level of detail involved in the film. This is another film that brings awareness to viewers ignorant of the type of case and company corruption. This film is a great way to get to an audience who wouldn’t typically watch a film a straight educational film. This film allows viewers to learn as well as stay connected and persuaded by the excellent performance of the leading character.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

The film does a great job of providing a holistic look of the case. If the film would have added information at the end of the film making the viewer aware of other cases similar to this environmental ethics issue and the outcomes of those. This would have increased the viewer’s awareness that this issue has taken place in other parts of the country affecting people in different ways.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

Throughout this movie, intervention is witnessed by Brockovich’s investigation and drive to take the large company to court to fight for the rights of the residents of Hinkley. This type of action can seem very overwhelming for an individual to perform. However, larger law firms should work like Brockovich who took the case pro bono.
 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does n **** ot suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

I was interested if the movie had any effect on more light being brought to the issue. I found where a law was passed in 2001 requiring that the State finalize an enforceable drinking water standard for hex chrome by 2004. “Unfortunately the legislative deadline came and went, and the machinery of state regulation has ground along slowly.” []
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) **

I also found that many people were left out of the lawsuit and 104 more people have received settlements since the movie. Many of which died due to their exposures. “Pacific Gas and Electric Company has paid out more than $600 million in settlements linked to four separate lawsuits filed by residents of Hinkley” []