As I exited Seigle Hall after the showing of “Atomic Homefront,” hosted by Wash. U. MedX, I had conflicted feelings. On one hand, the style and techniques employed in the movie were very barebones. On the other hand, by the end of the movie, I had to check on the wellbeing of my friend because he lived north of St. Louis. For context, “Atomic Homeland” is about the West Lake Landfill, a region less than twenty miles north of Wash. U. It has an underground region containing nuclear waste and a burning compost pile quickly approaching it. The director follows the surrounding communities as they deal with the radiation coming from the landfill.

The objective of the documentary is to incite passion in the audience via a call to action. The film alternates between the perspectives of one group called Just Moms STL, focusing on Dawn Chapman, one of the three founders of Just Moms STL, and random victims of the radiation. Regardless of who is on the screen, the audience is compelled to be frustrated at the system that has allowed this environmental problem to exist. Just Moms STL is constantly ignored and denied any access to those who would have power to change their situation. Despite evidence of the irradiation getting into the nearby river and sinking into the backyard of neighbors, the EPA, both regional and federal, refuses to recognize what Just Moms STL is saying. Then, in between the narrative arc of Just Moms STL, the film shows heart wrenching moments.

The film focused on Michelle Seger, a resident of the area who is battling cancer. In one of the better-crafted scenes in the documentary, the film provides a long shot of her looking down while the audience is hearing the offscreen audio of another shot, in which she is told she has stage 4 cancer. These scenes are used as small breaks in between bureaucratic battles to maintain the audience’s emotional investment in the film. However, this is all the film has going for it.

In general, “Atomic Homefront” is not as interested as I had hoped it would be. The post-production of the film feels somewhat rushed, and the music is often generic for the subject matter: slightly heavy and orchestrated. While it doesn’t detract from the film, it doesn’t add anything to it either. The same can be said about the use of on-screen text between scenes, or primarily relying on handheld cameras throughout the film, even during town halls where the camera person be stationary. The point I’m making is that the film is too static in its structure with a reliance on the emotional impact of seeing near death cancer victims affected by environmental waste.

That is why the Michelle Seger scene stood out to me. It is one of the few times the film decides to change how they want to represent the events happening to these people. The other times the film does this are usually shorter and are not used to deliver info or impact: i.e. bird’s eye views of the landfill or of St. Louis as a whole. Overall, I would not recommend this documentary. While informative on an issue close to home, it is not necessarily captivating, but still a worthwhile watch.