Film+Annotation+3

Allison Mrugal 09/12/15 Film Annotation 3: Sust. Ed., 4280-01 Prof. Fortun
 * Allergy Planet, Naomi Austin, 2008 **

The film argues that technological advances and standards of living have changed so drastically over recent centuries that human genetics and evolution have not yet synced. In turn, some individuals accustomed to a modern lifestyle (with air pollution or extreme hygiene, for example) will produce symptoms known as allergies.

Sustainability issues in the film include air pollution, urbanization, inequality, and the general correlation between environmental factors and disease. The film emphasizes that humans are the primary stakeholders impacted when the environmental thrives and/or struggles. Allergy Planet thereforeinvestigates and differentiates human psychology and physiology to decode certain stressors we humans have put on ourselves.

This particular examination—of the potentially mental impacts that humans encounter as a result of somnambulant-technological action—is not only thorough but is also not generally discussed in environmental and climate change discussion. The theory that certain allergies could be produced out of fear and stress shows that our care for the environment is necessary for humans both internally and externally. Similarly, there has never been a better time for this discussion on psychological and mental disease since mental illness, after decades of disparagement, is finally coming to light in the public eye.

On the other hand, the film could have made the connection between disease caused by environmental maltreatment (e.g. allergies) and constant demand for medication. While Allergy Planet told the story of Randal, an asthmatic boy in Africa, it only briefly noted his (and the entire community’s) use of drugs and medical devices to mitigate the asthma’s effects. By also portraying the ties that industry has to health and technological advance (as well as politics) this film could have given viewers a greater sense of causation, a literacy goal outlined by the EcoEd Research Group.

Corrective action in this film is not heavily discussed. Instead, the film provides a diverse discussion on allergies around the world to provoke viewers to care and share the message. Specifically, the film could explicitly recommend that we educate others around us as a better way to grasp the issue of health and air/environmental quality. While this film provides hope and “potential for change,” it is vague in the sense to provide “alternative ways of doing things and organizing society (through familiarity with historical and cross-cultural examples” (EcoEd Research Group). Perhaps focusing their goals for outreach and impact at the end of the film would improve the environmental education value of the film.