Delisle's Dupont Film Analysis

In the video, it is obvious that the filmmaker use/present evidence through the inclusion of multiple interviews with people that worked in and around DeLisle’s DuPont location. The filmmaker also included the fact that around two-thousand people had filed lawsuits based on health concerns. The use of interviews helped to convey a more realistic feeling of what was going on from the perspective of the people of DeLisle, Mississippi. It also helped to convey the severity of the situation; not only were the workers harmed, their families that lived in DeLisle were affected as well. To supposed this point, one interviewer said that his mother died of cancer, his father had cancer, his sister had cancer, and he developed cancer as well. When the two sides of the argument were shown later in the film in court, the side that included the affected DuPont workers utilized Dr. Richard Clapp, an epidemiologist, and his knowledge to impress upon the jurors that Dioxin is the “Darth Vadar of toxic chemicals”. On the other side of the case, the side that was seeking to uphold and defend DuPont’s reputation, the Public Affairs Officer of DuPont, Terry Gooding, spoke to a radio station and declared that there was no evidence that DuPont was the cause of all the health concerns. Despite saying this, he did indicate that he was aware that Dioxin was generated at the plant. …show more content…
Clapp’s warnings of the danger of Dioxin, it was made clear by DuPont’s side that Dr. Clapp has never treated or evaluated patients, nor is he qualified to diagnose illnesses in a