8/3/2019 "Erin Brockovich" PHE 455 Christopher Harley Quick Critique 2

1/2

Christopher Harley Quick Critique #2 Erin Brockovitch

PHE 455 Lockwood 1

Positive Aspects

I enjoyed watching Erin Brockovitch, again for a second time, just like our first film,Thank You for Smoking. I think right away the audience is given an example of aperson who sees a complex series of events through a lens that makes everything

seem more easily understood if simply looked upon from a standpoint of right orwrong. It was that spirit that animated Brockovitchs actions in the eventssurrounding the films central subject, the groundwater contamination withhexavalent chromium in and around Hinkley, California by the states largest utilitycompany, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). I think the film successfully portrays whatit takes to see the human element inside the endless paper chase that is class-actionlitigation involving individuals and large corporations.In this film we get a clear vision of what pubic health and community health can andcant do to make certain that individuals are able to enjoy the World HealthOrganizations definition of health, That it [Health] is a state of complete physical,mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. I

use this definition here not simply because it is highlighted in our course work butbecause it mentions health outside the obvious presence of disease or infirmity. Inmany ways the presence of harmful chemicals in the Hinkley groundwater stillposed a threat to community health even though not all residents were equallyaffected by it or at all.Brockovitch is portrayed as a down on her luck, twice divorced, mother of twobarely able to hold a job and ill-suited for office life and its attendant hierarchies. Itmakes for great drama in that Julia Roberts, the plucky actress portrayingBrockovitch, plays the role in a very believable sense. Shes clever and resilient

when its necessary and fragile and uncertain when circumstances dont go her way.

Her will to see things through and her empathy for client-centric legal

representation provide a great portal for the audience to understand the humandrama at the center of lengthy court battles encumbered by legalese and shiftymaneuverings from corporate attorneys.

Interesting Aspects

Most interesting from a current assessmentof the films setting and time, is the factthat so much was done behind the scenes by PG&E with the confidence that it couldindefinitely hide its clandestine activities. Today, grassroots organizing mobilizesforces among the public, to protect public health, so much more efficiently than itcould have 30 or even 20 years ago. In the 21stcentury, people are more connected

to the environment and are more easily connected to each other in a way that makessharing information and raising claims of injustice that much more common thanduring the era portrayed in Erin Brockovitch. The language used by PG&E,downplaying the role of chromium in the environment or the exact identification ofhexavalent chromium, would never have go unnoticed by outside concerns today ifit were posited in the same manner to a community of residents as large as those inHinkley. That fact is directly attributable to how social marketing techniques are

8/3/2019 "Erin Brockovich" PHE 455 Christopher Harley Quick Critique 2

2/2

Christopher Harley Quick Critique #2 Erin Brockovitch

PHE 455 Lockwood 2

used to inform, mobilize, and persuade individuals to take a more active role inunderstanding the health of their communities.Community health in many ways presupposes by its very title that all are inagreement with what constitutes good health and what constitutes an obviousthreat to good health. The truth is that communities argue over these definitions

and consensus is seldom found regardless of the size of the communities inquestion. Apathy, political divisions, and a will to take part in or avoid socialactivism can all be factors that either inspire or hinder individuals to reachconsensus. In the case of the Hinkley groundwater contamination, Brockovitchshowed herself to be instrumental in organizing the residents to accept arbitrationover individual court proceedings in their claims against PG&E. Arbitration provedto streamline the process and worked to award the residents with a settlementtotaling $333 million in the end.What were given in this film is a detailed look at the schema laid outin the Dahlgrenand Whitehead determinants of health. Individual factors, lifestyle factors,community networks, and general socioeconomic, cultural and environmental

factors all played a role in how this story was told. Had those connections beenclearly bridged, one to the other, as they are in graphic, the people of Hinkley mighthave been spared their ordeal with PG&E. The fact is that there are gaps betweenthose sections and it is the role community health to create the bridges that allowfor the necessary transparencies to affect greater understating between each.

Negative Aspects

Aaron Eckhart who we saw last week in Thank You for Smoking played the role ofGeorge, Brockovitchs neighbor and love interest. Hes a kindly gentleman, helpful

with the kids, rough around the edges but endowed with a big heart and a selfless

disposition that inspires him to aid Brockovitch in her crusade. Its a convenientreversal on the old adage that behind every great man is a great woman.Unfortunately, after the case was settled, and the film had run, George and severalother men in Brockovitchs life threatened to expose her and her lifestyle as nothing

close to what was portrayed in the film. There were allegations of her being an unfitmother and obviously George not quite fit as a selfless next-door neighbor. Oh well,not all is as we see it on screen. Brockovitch the character is a great heroine and aperson like George was very convenient for the sake of the film. I think anything lessthan what we saw would have detracted from the central case and chilled theaudiences love for the plucky paralegal who balanced it all and still had time to lookhot in a mini-dress.

Another aspect that we didnt see enough of was the disparity in awards given out tothe plaintiffs in the case. Again, after all was said and done, the law firm ended upwith 33% of the award, not the customary 25%. The firm billed an extra $10 millionin expenses and though the plaintiffs rewards were supposed to be measured

against individual medical bills, some said their bills were never reviewed andtherefore couldnt have influenced their awards. In all, a good film that tried hard to

expose a social injustice by highlighting greed and corruption but ultimately tookartistic license by only selectively revealing parts of the larger story.