The Film, Half Life: A Parable for the Nuclear Age is written and directed by Dennis OʻRourke. The film was released in 1986 and won the Peace Film Award in Berlin later that year. The film gives a well-balanced insight on the impacts on the indigenous communities from the Castle Bravo nuclear testing of 1954, in the Marshal Islands. The film shows multiple perspectives of the event from personal accounts of the indigenous people, to military personal, and even US political leaders. Declassified military footage of the testing, which was released shortly before the film, was also included in the film. OʻRourke, with his unique perspective as an Australian Veteran, has meticulously chosen strategies to display the information to the audience.
…show more content…
One of the carefully chosen perspectives shown is from US weatherman that were also exposed to the Nuclear Test. One of the specific scenes showed the a US weatherman flipping through his wallet and showing all the the US federal documents. Some of these documents were military IDʻs, medical IDʻs, and other federal IDʻs. The purpose of showing this was to provide proof that the Weatherman is a US citizen. If OʻRourke did not put this clip into the video, the audience could have questioned the validity of this perspective. The reason why the accounts of the weatherman were so controversial was because they implied that the US government intentionally tested the effects of radiation on the indigenous people of the Marshallese. Using a US citizen to imply these things emphasizes the possibility that the actions were actually intentional. The use of specific people, the US weatherman in particular, is important because any other US military personal could have implied the exact opposite of what US weatherman …show more content…
However, I personally feel like the elements he used tried to invoke the audience to feel as if the US intentionally used the people of the Marshal Islands to test the effects of radiation. If he had chosen different people to film, there couldʻve been the possibility that the people film would bring up the say something completely different. That itself could be a selection bias. Another bias I noticed was his another kind of selection bias. This bias was based on what parts of the interviews he chose to show. He completely left out the interviewerʻs words. The audience does not know how he asked the questions to the people that he is filming. This means there is a chance that the interviewer could have lead the speakers in a certain direction and evoked particular feelings that they would not otherwise feel. I do not agree that OʻRourke gave the masses the power to make their own decision. I think it was so carefully put together that he wanted to invoke the particular feelings from the audience. By invoking particular feelings like empathy, he therefor has the ability to really persuade the audience to side the victims. I again personally feel that the testing of radiation effects on the people of the Marshal Islands were intentional. However, I do not want to detract from the detract from the possible intentions for the careful selection of elements within the
One of the carefully chosen perspectives shown is from US weatherman that were also exposed to the Nuclear Test. One of the specific scenes showed the a US weatherman flipping through his wallet and showing all the the US federal documents. Some of these documents were military IDʻs, medical IDʻs, and other federal IDʻs. The purpose of showing this was to provide proof that the Weatherman is a US citizen. If OʻRourke did not put this clip into the video, the audience could have questioned the validity of this perspective. The reason why the accounts of the weatherman were so controversial was because they implied that the US government intentionally tested the effects of radiation on the indigenous people of the Marshallese. Using a US citizen to imply these things emphasizes the possibility that the actions were actually intentional. The use of specific people, the US weatherman in particular, is important because any other US military personal could have implied the exact opposite of what US weatherman …show more content…
However, I personally feel like the elements he used tried to invoke the audience to feel as if the US intentionally used the people of the Marshal Islands to test the effects of radiation. If he had chosen different people to film, there couldʻve been the possibility that the people film would bring up the say something completely different. That itself could be a selection bias. Another bias I noticed was his another kind of selection bias. This bias was based on what parts of the interviews he chose to show. He completely left out the interviewerʻs words. The audience does not know how he asked the questions to the people that he is filming. This means there is a chance that the interviewer could have lead the speakers in a certain direction and evoked particular feelings that they would not otherwise feel. I do not agree that OʻRourke gave the masses the power to make their own decision. I think it was so carefully put together that he wanted to invoke the particular feelings from the audience. By invoking particular feelings like empathy, he therefor has the ability to really persuade the audience to side the victims. I again personally feel that the testing of radiation effects on the people of the Marshal Islands were intentional. However, I do not want to detract from the detract from the possible intentions for the careful selection of elements within the