Analysis of A Civil Action Movie by Zaillian - Essay Example

? A Civil Action affiliation A Civil Action The movie ‘A Civil Action’ is one that involves the story of children who contracted leukemia at very tender ages. A good example is Robbie Robbins who contracted the disease at the age of four. This is only an example of 28 children who succumbed to the infection between 1964-86 (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). It is this disaster that led to the villagers seeking explanations to the loss of their children especially the location of the homes being in the suburb of Boston with a high population of about thirty thousand persons. It is at this juncture that Anne Anderson, Donna Robbins and other residents took the initiative sought to seek help for a cleaner and safe environment for its people (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). This initiative led to the signing of law suits against the Beatrice Foods Company, W.R. Grace & Company, and the UniFirst Corporation for being part of contamination of contamination of the local water that was used by the residents of Woburn (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). These companies were said to dispose toxic chemicals in the water system, and was later consumed by the residents. However, the law cases were not easy for the residents who were in and out of court to defend their sides. Finally, the participants and the company owners were forced to come up with a solution outside the court despite the damage that had been done on the citizens. This also led to the involvement of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in solving the issue. The agency attests to the fact that some of the properties in the suburb were contaminated and they launched a clean-up for the contaminated wells in Woburn (Redford & Zaillian, 1998).  In relation to the story of the Woburn leukemia cluster, I strongly feel that that was laxity from the side of the government. It is unfortunate that only after the death of innocent individuals that the agency is quick to fix the situation at hand. I also relate to this situation as it is not the first time that the government only reacts to threatening situations when it is too late. Were it not for the government’s commitment, they would already beware of the fact that five sources pose a great danger to the water supply system in the suburb (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). An instance where the residents would not have been aggressive enough to go to trial, it is almost obvious that the residents would continually lose their citizens to the non commitment of the government agency. Just as its title reads, the agency is charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment but the contrary happens. Secondly, I do not agree with the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that the agency would have done far much better and on time as opposed to the present situation. In my opinion, the agency would have been dismantled to pave way for reforms in Woburn. In fact, it is arguable that the sole responsibility for the deaths of the residents lies on the government that was not keen to perfect its role. It is evident that toxic chemicals have been finding their way through to the city government with no questions arising (Redford & Zaillian, 1998).  Worse still the government agency seemed concerned at first about the water problem in the city and sought help to drill wells. After a survey was conducted on the viability of the project, the consultants reported that the ground water was too contaminated for consumption (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). One would then question the decision by the government to certify the drilling of the wells, yet they were well conversant with the dangers involved. One of the wells included Well G that was drilled in the east of Aberjona, and Well H drilled three years later to the north of Aberjona (Redford & Zaillian, 1998).  From this scenario, it is clear that the government does not care about the good will of the residents as they proceeded to come up and finalize projects that were evidently hazardous to the lives of the residents. It is therefore ironical that the same government gives the agency the mandate of clearing the wells from toxic substances yet they knew the risks involved from the onset of the project. I, therefore, disagree with the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in this situation. Lastly, the argument on sides of the legal basis is valid on the side of the residents, but on the side of the government’s agency is not valid. It is clear from the movie that the judges seemed biased as they favored the side of the government. It is not clear whether this was a ‘scratch my back’ case or otherwise as the tycoons were willing to part with huge amount of funds to get away from the set allegations. Schlichtmann Jan, a lawyer, was thought to be the hope of the residents of Woburn; but seems to get puzzled once Beatrice – the owner of Beatrice Foods Company- was prepared to present $8 million (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). Schlichtmann became economically and psychologically fatigued, and decided to relocate to rebuild himself and sort out his bankruptcy problem. Anderson Anne, one of the residents, seems tired and drained (Redford & Zaillian, 1998). The cases were finally dismissed to a resolution outside the court. Therefore, it is arguable that the legal basis of the residents of this story appears sound (Redford & Zaillian, 1998).  There are no conflicts between the function of the regulatory organization and practices by industry that are exceed the intervention of the agency. The conflicts in the case are ones that are created by the government itself, as they clearly legalized the operation of a threatening business by the business owners who were supposedly rich and willing to bribe their way out of legal cases. This is to mean that the voice of the ‘powerless’ and poor citizens will remain at their own mercies as no one seems to take their plight seriously. Reference Redford, R. (Producer), Zaillian, S. (Director) (1998). A Civil Action. [Motion picture]. United States: Boston Phoenix, Inc. Read More