Reviews - Specialty Releases


Film Review: Pandora's Promise

Effectively reframing the anti-nuclear debate will require more than self-serving advocacy.

June 11, 2013

-By Justin Lowe


filmjournal/photos/stylus/1378628-Pandoras_Promise_Md.jpg

For movie details, please click here.

The nuclear-energy and defense industries will be rubbing their hands over this shameless recantation of anti-nuke opinion, led by director Robert Stone, who brought the issue to Sundance back in 1987 with his Academy-Award nominated Radio Bikini. With the national appetite for debating nuclear energy extremely low at this point, exposure for Pandora’s Promise may be limited to small-screen current-affairs junkies and VOD audiences.

With climate change widely recognized as one of the predominant environmental, economic and political issues of the decade, a re-evaluation of the nation’s energy mix is certainly warranted at a time when fossil fuel sources, in particular natural gas, are making a resurgence, while alternative energy continues to struggle in the marketplace. Combining a limited set of perspectives from environmental advocates and nuclear experts, Stone’s film takes a carefully targeted look at the status of nuclear energy in the US and beyond, advocating the position that nuclear should be reconsidered as the primary source to meet the country’s energy needs while limiting emissions that contribute to climate change.

Beginning with a historical perspective, Pandora’s Promise examines the emergence of the anti-nuclear movement, when “Ban the bomb” and “Save the whales” campaigns contributed to widespread opposition to atomic energy, along with the movement’s traditional anti-war stance. Nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and most recently Fukushima have helped solidify negative public opinion.

Nuclear experts who’ve worked on advanced reactor research, Len Koch and Charles Till explain that a new generation of contemporary reactor designs offers more efficiency and safety, while generating less waste, than current light-water reactors, the predominant designs used in the U.S.

Leading technologist and environmentalist Stewart Brand concedes that the environmental movement’s widespread anti-nuclear orthodoxy is based on some legitimate safety concerns, but questions if those opinions are perhaps misguided or misinformed. Author and former nuclear opponent Gwyneth Cravens suggests that the conflation of atomic bomb testing and deployment with nuclear energy led to widespread opposition over fundamental fears of radiological contamination.

British environmental writer and former activist Mark Lynas found his opinion on nuclear shifting after he re-evaluated energy options with the potential to minimize climate-changing emissions. Environmental policy expert Michael Shellenberger had a change of heart when he considered the inadequacy of current approaches to mitigating climate change and re-examined the facts and research regarding the ecological and public-health impacts of nuclear energy, as well as the potential of “next-generation” technology. The other, unheard, voice in support of nuclear is of course Stone’s. After completing a number of environmental advocacy documentaries, he's now adopting a pro-nuclear stance. Part of the problem with this shift in viewpoint, however, is that the film’s restricted scope of analysis and limited selection of sources threaten to undermine its conclusions.

Among other salient points, these commentators collectively contend that nuclear energy has contributed to a very small number of direct fatalities and that notable accidents have not had the severe long-term ecological and health effects first anticipated. They also opine that the nation’s nuclear waste problem is not as widespread as widely believed and that the reactor material is safely stored under current conditions. Alternative energy options including wind and solar are criticized for their lack of flexibility and reliance on natural gas for backup power when weather conditions offline the primary sources.

Several of these observers also minimize the potential savings from energy efficiency and conservation, without considering the impact that widespread changes in economic policy, agriculture, transportation and technology could contribute to reducing energy use. They further justify nuclear as a safe, clean method of delivering power for developing economies, although the film never features any speakers from these nations discussing domestic energy priorities. And the contention that nuclear energy is “cleaner” than other sources because it minimizes emissions fails to look at impacts associated with the entire 20-plus-year lifecycle of building, fueling, maintaining and decommissioning nuclear plants, as well as the mining and production of nuclear fuel.

While many of these topics may merit re-examination, Stone never offers subjects with countervailing opinions to challenge his new pro-nuclear doctrine. Perhaps most disconcerting, Cravens, Lynas and Shellenberger admit that they were poorly informed about nuclear energy, as well as some fundamental ecological and policy issues, implying that they’re now better positioned to comment objectively on the technology.

Stone illustrates the documentary’s reframing of the nuclear energy debate with archival clips, computer animation, subject interviews and a globetrotting segment with Lynas visiting both Chernobyl and Fukushima, where he admits that the levels of background radiation are giving him a “bit of a wobble” on his pro-nuclear stance. Overall it’s a slick, attractively packaged advocacy film that will provoke thought and perhaps even change some minds among those unprepared to examine the doc’s underlying methodology.
-The Hollywood Reporter


Film Review: Pandora's Promise

Effectively reframing the anti-nuclear debate will require more than self-serving advocacy.

June 11, 2013

-By Justin Lowe


filmjournal/photos/stylus/1378628-Pandoras_Promise_Md.jpg

For movie details, please click here.

The nuclear-energy and defense industries will be rubbing their hands over this shameless recantation of anti-nuke opinion, led by director Robert Stone, who brought the issue to Sundance back in 1987 with his Academy-Award nominated Radio Bikini. With the national appetite for debating nuclear energy extremely low at this point, exposure for Pandora’s Promise may be limited to small-screen current-affairs junkies and VOD audiences.

With climate change widely recognized as one of the predominant environmental, economic and political issues of the decade, a re-evaluation of the nation’s energy mix is certainly warranted at a time when fossil fuel sources, in particular natural gas, are making a resurgence, while alternative energy continues to struggle in the marketplace. Combining a limited set of perspectives from environmental advocates and nuclear experts, Stone’s film takes a carefully targeted look at the status of nuclear energy in the US and beyond, advocating the position that nuclear should be reconsidered as the primary source to meet the country’s energy needs while limiting emissions that contribute to climate change.

Beginning with a historical perspective, Pandora’s Promise examines the emergence of the anti-nuclear movement, when “Ban the bomb” and “Save the whales” campaigns contributed to widespread opposition to atomic energy, along with the movement’s traditional anti-war stance. Nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and most recently Fukushima have helped solidify negative public opinion.

Nuclear experts who’ve worked on advanced reactor research, Len Koch and Charles Till explain that a new generation of contemporary reactor designs offers more efficiency and safety, while generating less waste, than current light-water reactors, the predominant designs used in the U.S.

Leading technologist and environmentalist Stewart Brand concedes that the environmental movement’s widespread anti-nuclear orthodoxy is based on some legitimate safety concerns, but questions if those opinions are perhaps misguided or misinformed. Author and former nuclear opponent Gwyneth Cravens suggests that the conflation of atomic bomb testing and deployment with nuclear energy led to widespread opposition over fundamental fears of radiological contamination.

British environmental writer and former activist Mark Lynas found his opinion on nuclear shifting after he re-evaluated energy options with the potential to minimize climate-changing emissions. Environmental policy expert Michael Shellenberger had a change of heart when he considered the inadequacy of current approaches to mitigating climate change and re-examined the facts and research regarding the ecological and public-health impacts of nuclear energy, as well as the potential of “next-generation” technology. The other, unheard, voice in support of nuclear is of course Stone’s. After completing a number of environmental advocacy documentaries, he's now adopting a pro-nuclear stance. Part of the problem with this shift in viewpoint, however, is that the film’s restricted scope of analysis and limited selection of sources threaten to undermine its conclusions.

Among other salient points, these commentators collectively contend that nuclear energy has contributed to a very small number of direct fatalities and that notable accidents have not had the severe long-term ecological and health effects first anticipated. They also opine that the nation’s nuclear waste problem is not as widespread as widely believed and that the reactor material is safely stored under current conditions. Alternative energy options including wind and solar are criticized for their lack of flexibility and reliance on natural gas for backup power when weather conditions offline the primary sources.

Several of these observers also minimize the potential savings from energy efficiency and conservation, without considering the impact that widespread changes in economic policy, agriculture, transportation and technology could contribute to reducing energy use. They further justify nuclear as a safe, clean method of delivering power for developing economies, although the film never features any speakers from these nations discussing domestic energy priorities. And the contention that nuclear energy is “cleaner” than other sources because it minimizes emissions fails to look at impacts associated with the entire 20-plus-year lifecycle of building, fueling, maintaining and decommissioning nuclear plants, as well as the mining and production of nuclear fuel.

While many of these topics may merit re-examination, Stone never offers subjects with countervailing opinions to challenge his new pro-nuclear doctrine. Perhaps most disconcerting, Cravens, Lynas and Shellenberger admit that they were poorly informed about nuclear energy, as well as some fundamental ecological and policy issues, implying that they’re now better positioned to comment objectively on the technology.

Stone illustrates the documentary’s reframing of the nuclear energy debate with archival clips, computer animation, subject interviews and a globetrotting segment with Lynas visiting both Chernobyl and Fukushima, where he admits that the levels of background radiation are giving him a “bit of a wobble” on his pro-nuclear stance. Overall it’s a slick, attractively packaged advocacy film that will provoke thought and perhaps even change some minds among those unprepared to examine the doc’s underlying methodology.
-The Hollywood Reporter
Post a Comment
Asterisk (*) is a required field.
* Author: 
Rate This Article: (1=Bad, 5=Perfect)

*Comment:
 

More Specialty Releases

Drive Hard
Film Review: Drive Hard

A car-chase-heavy clunker whose vehicular set-pieces are almost as lame as the recurring sight of star John Cusack attempting to look cool while firing pistols. More »

Harmontown
Film Review: Harmontown

Open-nerve documentary about “Community” creator Dan Harmon’s chaotic live podcast tour after being fired from his own TV show is sometimes raggedly funny, but truly a fans-only artifact. More »

The Liberator
Film Review: The Liberator

Impressively mounted but overly truncated take on a great historical figure about whom much more needs to be known. More »

The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin
Film Review: The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin

Wide-ranging primer is involving but leaves some details hazy. More »

ADVERTISEMENT



REVIEWS

The Equalizer Review
Film Review: The Equalizer

Former agent is drawn out of hiding to fight a Russian gang in a reboot of the 1980s television series. More »

The Boxtrolls
Film Review: The Boxtrolls

Another amazingly meticulous and stylish stop-motion tale from the Laika studio, this time focusing on a boy adopted by a population of maligned underground trolls. More »

Player for the Film Journal International website.


ADVERTISEMENT



INDUSTRY GUIDES

» Blue Sheets
FJI's guide to upcoming movie releases, including films in production and development. Check back weekly for the latest additions.

» Distribution Guide
» Equipment Guide
» Exhibition Guide

ORDER A PRINT SUBSCRIPTION

Film Journal International

Subscribe to the monthly print edition of Film Journal International and get the full visual impact of this valuable resource for the cinema business.

» Click Here

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Learn how to promote your company at the Film Expo Group events: ShowEast, CineEurope, and CineAsia.

» Click Here