I saw two movies this past week that I want to comment on. The first was a documentary about Chernobyl. It was presented as part of the 20th anniversary commemoration. The film was made by Belarusians and focused on the rehabilitative efforts since the accident. From the film, it appears as there is an understanding of how to deal with the environmental and health problems and that they are being carried out in a scientific, objective manner. The more complex issue is responding to the social and economic consequences that result from the environmental and health damage to the communities. UNDP has recently been put in charge of the Chernobyl area and is working with the governments of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus on increasing investment and human development in the area. One interesting point which was not discussed in the movie, but which to a scientist in charge of a UN commission on Chernobyl commented on, was nuclear energy. Chernobyl may be the most dramatic example of the connection between environment, economy, and society. However, the accident was a result of gross negligence. While some environmental groups have been highly critical of recent reports on Chernobyl , this scientist (who spent a large amount of time around Chernobyl) had no problem advocating for nuclear energy as a clean and safe power source.
The second film I saw was a documentary, The One Percent, directed by the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune. It featured interviews with Steve Forbes, heirs to various fortunes, Milton Friedman, Robert Reich, Ralph Nader, Hurricane Katrina victims, people from the Chicago projects, and a taxi driver. There were also personal moments with his family and family advisors who expressed their anxiety over the making of the movie. The movie was an attempt to open discussion about the wealth gap and the negative impacts it has in the United States. After the film someone asked the director why he did not include more actions the poor could take to mobilize themselves. He replied that he wanted to make a film about a topic he understood. The most explicit political reference was in advocating for the repeal of the estate tax (which caused Milton Friedman to call him a socialist). This echoes sentiments of Illich, when he writes, “Work for the coming elections: You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you speak.” Although, the movie shows that the gap in this country is so wide that communication about it is increasingly difficult.
Recent Comments