PennacchiaFilmAnnotation5

Andrew Pennacchia Film Annotation #5


 * 1. Title:** Blue Vinyl
 * Director:** Daniel B. Gold, Judith Helfand
 * Release year:** 2002


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

This film attempts to uncover the potential human health and environmental risks of the production and use of vinyl products, most specifically vinyl siding for houses. While vinyl and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) are commonly used products around the world, most consumers do not know about how dangerous the processes of producing and disposing of vinyl are, as well as the deadly toxins that are released when vinyl siding, for example, catches on fire. The film investigates the vinyl industry in different parts of the world in order to expose the health risks to the public.


 * 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 director Judith Helfand begins her investigation into the vinyl industry after her parents decided to put vinyl siding on their house. When she learned that every 3 seconds a house in America is sided with vinyl, she wanted to take a closer look at how this product was produced, since most of the houses in her neighborhood had vinyl siding. The film sustained its argument about vinyl by investigating a Louisiana PVC plant which produces 1/3 of American PVC, as well as traveling to Venice, Italy to interview vinyl factory workers, and families of deceased workers who died of chemical exposure. There was not an extensive amount of scientific information presented, other than interviews with a scientist in Italy who studied vinyl chloride exposure on rats and found that it caused certain tumors in the rats that could be linked to similar cases of cancer in vinyl plant workers. The film also displayed emotional appeal when the director interviewed workers of the plants in Italy who got cancer from chemical exposure, and the families of the workers who had died from long term exposure in the plants, many of who have sued the industry.


 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**


 * Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?**


 * Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

This film draws out many sustainability problems. The environmental and human health problems as a result of chemical exposure in plants are being covered up by the vinyl industry who claim that workers are not subjected to chemical exposure. However, there are many vinyl fabricators who develop throat and lung cancer after working in the production stages of the industry. There are also concerns about the areas surrounding vinyl factories that have unsafe levels of vinyl chloride in the air, making the land dangerous to live on.


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

The part of the film that I found most compelling was how the vinyl industry was able to cover up the scientific testing in the 1970's that revealed the consequences of long term exposure to chemicals that are present in vinyl plants throughout production. The tests were conducted on rats, and in some cases a certain cancer of the liver was developed, called angiosarcoma. I was amazed how the industry was legally able to deny all affiliations with cancer found in plant workers, even when workers developed the same rare form of cancer found in the rats that were being tested. The vinyl companies knew that the chemicals caused cancer but somehow were able to avoid criminal involvement.


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

The conclusion of the film made the viewers aware that most of the health risks are generally aimed towards factory workers who may be exposed to chemicals during the production of vinyl. I felt that this ending was a little short of the anticipation in the beginning of exposing hazardous health risks for people who have vinyl siding on their houses.


 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film best addresses all those who are unaware of the issues involved with vinyl and PVC products. Due to its dry humor and occasional disturbing interviews with cancer stricken workers, the film is directed for a mature audience who will understand the issues discussed, and use it to make an informed decision about using vinyl products.


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

The film could have enhanced its environmental educational value if it had gone into more detail about specific products that are made with vinyl. Similar to the issue brought up about vinyl chloride in hairspray in the 1970's it would have been beneficial to the viewer to learn about products that may be more harmful to be exposed to.


 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

The film discusses possible alternates to using vinyl as a building material, however the director admits that a key selling point of vinyl is its affordability, being that many of the alternates are more expensive and are only used by those who can afford it.


 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

After viewing this film and learning about the human health and environmental risks in vinyl production, I was compelled to seek out more information about products that are currently made with a PVC type material.

[]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/polyvinyl-chloride/pvc-products/