Analysis of the film Erin Brockovich

Erin Brockovich

Did you come away from the movie convinced that the company had done wrong and that Masry and Erin had performed a beneficial service? If so, why did you reach those conclusions?

Yes, the company had been involved in wrongdoing and Masry / Erin performed a beneficial service. This is because PG&E was buying up homes that were contaminated (based on their waste management practices). They would then destroy these properties and act as if they had done nothing wrong. The fact that they had to fight so hard, in order for the firm to rectify the situation is a sign of how they did not care. If Masry and Erin were not persistent these issues would have become much worse. (Devito & Soderbergh, 2000)

How might the basic story have been slanted more toward the company with equivalent dramatic effect?

This could have taken place with an employee who wants to do the right thing. Yet, the management is holding them back by forcing the person to hide this secret. This individual can be used to illustrate how there are honest people who are working at PG & E. However, they have become involved in something that is over their head. (Devito & Soderbergh, 2000)

Do the filmmakers have any obligation to give the company's side of the story?

No, this is because the filmmaker can tell their story from the point-of-view of the main character. Since the movie is called Erin Brockovich, they can discuss specific activities without hearing the company's side. (Devito & Soderbergh, 2000)

What is the company's side?

PG&E will claim that these practices were a select number of individuals who kept upper management in the dark. This means that any kind of liabilities are limited because they were unaware of what was happening. (Devito & Soderbergh, 2000)

Why do you think the company's employees did what they did?

There are several reasons why employees dumped toxic waste for 22 years on Hinckley, California. The most notable include: fear of retribution and greed. Fear of retribution occurs when the management will go after any whistleblower. At the same time, their coworkers will look at them negatively because they are telling outsiders about what is happening. Greed takes place when the company will offer employees some kind of special benefit for keeping quiet about their activities (i.e. bribes and kickbacks). (Devito & Soderbergh, 2000)

How do you suppose films like this might affect public debates concerning, among other things, regulation of corporate misconduct and trial lawyers?