So, originally I planned to have one more blog entry about the rest of the films I saw during the festival. I started out writing about Pandora's Promise, and it quickly became apparent that I had way too much to say about this one film. It deserves its own entry, and so that is what is presented here. :)
Pandora's Promise
Written description
Director's note
This was part of the Doc Premieres section of the festival. When we first were told the list of films that were chosen to be part of the festival this year, this was the one I most wanted to see. As an environmental science major, the idea of climate change and the need for us to break away from fossil fuels and use alternative energy sources, is one that is near to my heart. I have always been very hesitant when it comes to nuclear power. I never wanted to write it off completely, because I understand that it is an excellent source of power. and also a relatively clean source of power. However, because of my fear of catastrophes caused by possible meltdowns of nuclear facilities (case in point, what happened in Japan just a few years ago) and my concern for what could be done with the waste produced by nuclear power plants, I always felt that nuclear should only be a small portion of where we got our energy from. I was more than happy to focus on wind, solar, and geothermal as sources from which we could get the majority of our energy. That is why this film intrigued me so much. If you read the description, you know it is about a group of scientists and environmentalists who used to be very anti-nuclear and are now extremely pro-nuclear, and why exactly they have changed their minds. I tried to go into it with an open mind, and was curious to see whether I could be convinced.
After having seen it, I have to say, I was definitely presented with a lot to think about. I want to do some research on my own, but I think it is safe to say that I am sufficiently convinced of the importance of nuclear energy as a main power source for the future. Which, admittedly, is difficult to say, since it has always been ingrained in my mind that nuclear is dangerous, and should only be used limitedly as a power source. When I sat back and really thought about it after the film, as I was discussing with my friend and her brother who also went to see it with me, we came to realize that we weren't exactly sure where that idea came from. I cannot remember specifically reading something or being taught outright that nuclear was bad. I think it was just sort of ingrained in me - it was a natural way of thinking, and incidents like what happened at Fukushima only helped to solidfy my conviction that nuclear energy wasn't worth the risk, despite the fact that I did know and understand that it is a much cleaner option than oil or coal. Once I realized that I had no actual, demonstrative proof of the dangers of nuclear energy and I was presented with many convincing facts that it is in fact NOT very dangerous at all, I was definitely shaken. When you watch the film, and you see that over twenty years ago, a nuclear reactor was developed which was completely fail-safe and would shut down automatically if anything went wrong, it is eye-opening. Then you can say, ok, but wait a minute, what about things like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima? You are then presented with the facts - both the good and the bad, about what exactly happened in each of these incidents. Where things went wrong, why such reactors like those at Fukushima would never be built again, how in reality, to date no one has lost their life in the United States as a direct result of problems at nuclear power plants. Sure, you can say, what about all of the radiation leaking out after the disaster at Fukushima? Surely that must be causing serious damage. Japanese citizens are terrified, and rightly so. I'm sure that if I lived through a disaster like that, I would be terrified too and nothing could convince me otherwise. However, I think one of the most compelling parts of the movie for me was when they took a scientific instrument which measures radioactive activity, and showed you the numbers at places like 'ground zero' at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and then compared that to numbers seen on beaches in south ameria and even mountains of the north-eastern United States. The shocking truth is that there are numerous places where natural levels of radioactivity are higher than at these sites of nuclear power plant disasters. Obviously, this is not to downplay the devastation that can be caused if there is a meltdown. But it does help to put things in perspective. Especially when you think about all the health issues currently being caused by using coal and oil as energy sources.
Another compelling aspect of the film is who made it, and the people involved in it. The director, Robert Stone, first came to Sundance in 1988 with a documentary called Radio Bikini, which was an antinuclear documentary (turns out it is on netflix - I plan to watch it in the near future). He considers himself a life-long environmentalist. The peolpe he interviews throughout the film are all scientists and environmentalists who used to be anti-nuclear and now believe nuclear power is our best, and really only option, to truly combat climate change. It is certainly not easy to just write these people off and say they are working for an "anti-environment" or "anti-climate change" agenda. These are people who believe strongly in the reality of climate change, who care deeply about the environment, and want people, as a whole, to wake up and realize that a lot of what we think about nuclear power is simply not true.
One of the amusing, and very thought-provoking parts of the film, for me anyway, was when they compared some of the anti-nuclear activists to those people who staunchily deny climate change. Namely in the blatant disregard for the facts. The point was made that you really need to examine all the facts before you come to a conclusion. They also made the point that many environmentalists and left-leaning folks seem to be anti-nuclear simply because many Republicans are pro-nuclear. We are so programmed, especially in this country, to think that Republicans and Democrats have to be split on every issue, that we think if we agree with a Republican, then we must be abandoning our "liberal ideals". That may seem harsh, but sometimes I have to admit I think it is true. We get so caught up in the politics of everything, that we let logic and common sense fall by the waste side. I do not want to be one of those people. I want to have opinions because of facts that I believe in, and I do not want to be influenced by the politics involved, as much as possible. And I think it is impertive that other people do the same. My hope is that as many people see this film as is physically possible. Even if you aren't convinced by it, I still think it is important to give it a chance. To have this other side of the story be explained to you in simple, easy to understand ways.You might find youself, as I did, quite surprised.
I am a firm believer that we, as a species, need to drastically change our way of living (most importantly, the way we produce energy) in order to slow-down and in time, halt, climate change. It is my belif that if we do not, our outlook for the future is very grim indeed. While I still believe wind and solar are of the utmost importance (and that is actually one of the things I have qualms about from the film - they say at one point that solar is actually more dangerous than nuclear but they do not really explain how this is the case. I would like to learn what facts lie behind that statement), I now think that those involved with this film make a very good point - without nuclear power, it is highly unlikely that the devastating effects of climate change can be brought to a halt in time. I am now fairly convinced that nuclear is the best, cleanest, safest option for an energy source that we currently have available to us.
Well done Robert Stone, on making a film that is level-headed, down-to-earth, and deals with an extremely important and controversial topic. I am extremely glad that I got to see it, and I will do everything I can to help others to get to see it as well. As I said earlier, there are still some small issues I have and some things I would like to research for myself, but overall, I guess I would have to say that my mind has been changed. And isn't that the best thing that can happen from watching a film?
You should also check out these other, more professional, reviews of the film.
LFM review
EW review (second half is about Pandora's Promise)
No comments:
Post a Comment