If You Love This Planet - Film Review

In the film "If You Love This Planet", Dr. Helen Caldicott explains the effects that nuclear weapons have on our planet and argues that the United States should eliminate such artillery. She gives a very powerful and convincing speech on how she feels in regard to the subject and clearly explains the terrible effects these weapons could have. At first glance what she is saying seems quite straightforward and believable but it becomes easy to see characteristics of negative propaganda behind her persuasion. In the context of her case it is okay to do this to a certain extent but there were also many aspects to her lecture that weakened her argument.

When it came to the medical effects Caldicott presented it was clear to see that she was experienced in the field and had done her research. She first went into great detail in describing exactly how deadly such an explosion could be and proceeded to explain the medical side effects those who survived the explosion would experience. As a doctor she was able to use medical facts to describe the effects as well as information collected from passed nuclear explosions. The descriptions she gave were not pleasant but played a large part in supporting her argument. This part of her speech was probably the most sincere.

Caldicott gave several more reasons as to why possession of these nuclear weapons could be dangerous. She made remarks about those in power implying that they were incapable of controlling such devices. It did not seem right for her to make such assumptions considering that she is not in any way an authority on how to solve the issue herself. She should have shown more consideration towards their side of the argument, such as why these weapons were a necessity to the U.S. at the time. Degrading those who are actually in military power was definitely a weakening factor to her argument.

Another example of how the negative propaganda Caldicott used actually weakened her argument is how she concluded her lecture. Her method was to win the audience over one last time by ending on a light note and making jokes in regard to the subject. This was quite distracting and ultimately took away from the rest her presentation. She could have ended before that point and had a much more effective result. The rest of the speech, though also somewhat dishonest, seemed to be more powerful.

Helen Caldicott uses many forms of both negative and neutral propaganda to argue her opinions as to why nuclear weapons should not exist. Some of her points are quite powerful while others play a weakening role in her argument. The actual facts given are quite legitimate and make a good case, but when she tries playing on people's emotions it becomes easy to get distracted from the point and things begin to go downhill. Although her speech still had quite the effect on her audience she could have made her overall case stronger by sticking to hard facts in presenting her side of