Are We Fishing For Change in a Mono-species Lake Victoria?

The idea that cinema has to power to change the world is one that is being heavily debated in the Cinema and Social Change course, but it is one that deserves a lengthy debate, because there are arguments to support both sides. According to Rebecca Winters Keegan in "Can a Film Change the World", the United nations has recently created a "$100 million Un.N. film fund aimed at combating stereotypes". Winters also reports that after seeing Syriana in 2005, "the audience sent 8,000 e-mails to Congress". On the flip side, filmmakers like Paul Haggis believe "there's a 99% chance your film won't have an impact". In face, cinema has become more "a way of rallying the base" than converting new people to the cause. Looking at polls of people who have seen movies, it seems that people tend to seek movies that inform them about the issues they are already interested in, instead of wandering into a theater without a clue as to what they are about to view.

With Hubert Sauper's documentary "Darwin's Nightmare", this idea seems to hold true. In order to sit through the two hour film that is as the blog "Docs Interactive" points it, "so dark and hopeless that it leaves the audience with little reaction but to feel despair". The filmmaker has been described by Ruby Rich in "Darwin's Man in Africa" as "an insect, poised to listen, trained by life to observe," a description that adds merit to the observational style of the documentary that appears to seek more character development than political activism. The filmmaker himself argues, " I don't want to start proving things. I want to connect things you might not have connected", furthering the idea that Sauper was merely sharing his observation through film, rather than trying to cause an uprising for the issue at hand.

Sauper's Film "Darwin's Nightmare" address the problems accompanying the exporting of Nile Perch fillets from Tanzania. The fish was introduced into Lake Victoria as a science experiment in the 1960s and has since taken over the lake, killing out all other life forms, and threatening to force itself in extinction. The industry that has been built around the exports of this fish have caused the people of Tanzania to seeks jobs either processing the food, turning the left over heads into something somewhat edible, or prostituting themselves. Those that work with the fish heads work along side the maggots that decompose the carcasses not consumed by people, in conditions that cause their bodies to break down in numerous ways, one women even had to have her eye removed because the fumes had done so much damage. Those that work in prostitution become infected with diseases that kill them if they are not killed by their clients before hand. And those that work as fisherman or processors seek the flesh of those in prostitution, which leads the them being infected by AIDS and HIV, which they bring home and spread to their wives and newborn children. All in all, the character development of them adds to the depressing reality it puts on film with relentless honesty.

The refreshing thing about Sauper's documentary is that is does not seek to stir the pot and rile people up. The films is one that allows us to "draw our own conclusions" as "Docs Interactive" suggests. While they argue that "you would have to be naive to believe that airplanes come empty from Russia just to load fish", it is never explicitly pointed out by the filmmaker, allowing the audience to maintain their own thought process on the matter.

Perhaps, what makes this film so powerful is Sauper's acceptance that "placing those indifferent to the tragedy under the spotlight and inviting First World viewers to ponder the repercussions of environmental disaster in Central Africa might be more effective than blatant calls to action in politically-charged documentary films," an idea proposed by Boris Trbic in "IN the Heart of Darkness: The Environmental endgame of Darwin's Nightmare". In that article, Trbic also argues that the raw, adaptable style used by Sauper "suggests a profound and often poignant identification with his characters," an identification that brings those characters into the room with the people watching them.

The important question, however, is not whether or not the First World audience can feels for the characters, but rather what will they do when they leave the theater? A.O. Scott points out in "FILM; The Feel-Good Feel-Bad Movie" that "our capacity to feel sorrow also makes us feel better about ourselves," which offers the idea that when watching movies about the suffering of others, we still maintain a selfish view o the world. He later address the fact that "the movies that bring us closer to the suffering of others also measures our distance from them". Audiences can feel sorry for the people they see on screen, but what is it that makes them care enough to go out and do something? It seems the best answer is to provide hope. "Doc Interactive" claims "you could argue that Sauper focuses too much on the dark side," later stating that "bringing more positive voice would have made the situation more complete and would have given the people from Tanzania respect. Now we just feel miserable for them." Scott furthers this line of thought by writing that "the media products that bring our attention to unpleasant truths about distant places are more likely to succeed if they supply such reassurance. If not, we are much more likely to tune them out." No one wants to sit through two hours of depressing stories with no sign of hope, but if people believe at the end of a movie that there is something that can be done to stop the suffering they have seen on screen, they are more likely to act. Granted these people were more than likely interested in the issue at hand before they saw the documentary, by the end of the film they have become more passionate, and showing hope gives them an outlet for that passion.

In the end, I think that a film has the potential to change the world, but it must strike the right chord with the audience to do so. In all honesty, Sauper's documentary did not make me feel anything could be done about the situation in Tanzania, nor did it make me care more about what was happening. This could be that I have become numb to vulgar images of famine and poor working conditions from a media overflowing with bad news, or it could be that the style simply did not inspire the right emotions in me. Either way, the fact remains, that the documentary did not make me want to go out and try to do something to improve the lives of the people in Tanzania, which proves that not every film can change the way every audience member looks at the world.

New Terminology:

Winter's stated in regards to the idea that the planes were carrying weapons into Tanzania that "it would be hubris to think otherwise".

Hubris is a word that means "excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance" according to The American Heritage Dictionary.

In this instance, Winter's would be suggesting that it would arrogant to think that Europeans were not capable of shipping weapons into the war torn continent on the same planes in which they were exporting the fish of their exploits.