Darwin’s Nightmare is about the introduction of the Nile perch to Lake Victoria in Tanzania and how it caused the extinction of all other wildlife in the lake (as well as pushing itself toward extermination by eating its young). The fish is a metaphor for the impact of global capitalism on local industry. The fish is used to feed much of Europe, but Tanzania gets the short end of the stick. Once the fish is packaged, the people can’t afford it, so they are forced to survive on the rotting, maggot-infested carcasses of gutted fish discarded by the factory.
The reading raises several important questions, the first being “Can a film change the world?” My answer: Yes. Absolutely. I agree with the statement in Keegan’s article that the change does not always happen the way the filmmaker wants, but change does in fact happen. Even if the change is as simple as educating someone about an issue they didn’t know about before; even if they don’t do anything to help the cause, as least that’s one more person who can’t claim ignorance. And I also completely agree with the statement that social change movies are not for non-believers. As sad as it is, people who are apathetic or lazy or close-minded won’t be affected by the change. I think a lot of the problem comes from the thought “But what can I really do about it?” I feel like some people think, “Okay, yeah, this guy made a film about this issue, but it’s all the way over in Africa, or Asia, or South America, so why do I need to worry about it? How can anything I do make a difference? Why should I even try? There are other people who would be much better at handling this issue than me. Let them take care of it.” In relation to my case study about the Invisible Children documentaries, how may people jump on board the support train after seeing the films, and how many people just go back to their lives and think, “I’m so glad I don’t have to worry about that.”
Another question raised in the articles was “Is there, along with the obligation to tell the truth, an imperative to dispense hope or reassurance, or to angle the presentation of problems toward the discovery of solutions?” (A.O. Scott). In other words, is it necessary for bad news to be accompanied by good news? A lot of the articles talked about how Sauper only focused on the “dark side” of Africa. The Documentaries to Revisit blog says that Sauper leaves us without a solution. A.O. Scott talks about how people who have “the luxury of experiencing horror at second hand” through TV, news, and film hold firmly to the belief that a) one person can make a difference, b) that good will conquer evil, and c) where there’s a will, there’s a way. Therefore, we are more likely to pay attention when we think there is a solution. I think everyone has the tendency to crave a happy ending, even if they don’t realize it or won’t admit it, and if we’re presented with a problem that apparently has no solution, we’re likely to just say, “Well, if there’s nothing anyone can do, I guess that’s that.”
Something I also find myself wondering is “What would have happened if no one had meddled?” What if scientists had not decided to do their little experiment with the Nile perch? The purpose was to fix the overfishing problem by introducing a new species, but the plan backfired horribly when the Nile perch killed off all the other wildlife. Oops. Are the jobs the new fishing industry has provided enough compensation to balance out the fact that others in Tanzania are starving? Would the situation be better or worse? Obviously there is no way to know the answers to these questions, but in my opinion they are still worth asking. Is the outcome of the fish experiment the reason that people are so reluctant to try and solve the problems presented by Sauper’s film?
Issues for class discussion:
1. Are the articles correct? Do we see so much of Africa in a negative light that it no longer has an impact? Should films/media also include the good parts of Africa so we know that there is indeed hope?
2. Documentary ethics, in relation to the above question. The issue of ethics is always a question when discussing documentaries. Is the filmmaker being manipulative, or is he presenting the issue in the best possible way?
3. Filmanthropy. Is it effective? How do you measure the success of a social change film? Is it just the fact that people see the film? Or do measures need to be taken, positive steps towards solving the problem in order for the film to be successful? Does a film need to change someone’s mind to be successful, or is it enough that the person has been educated?
New Terminology:
August: respected and impressive
Hubris: excessive pride or self-confidence
Kleptocracy: [kleptocrat] a ruler who uses political power to steal his or her country’s resources
Xenophobia: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries
Iniquitous: [iniquity] immoral or grossly unfair behavior
Boon: a thing that is helpful or beneficial
Rapacious: aggressively greedy or grasping
Brueghelian: Pieter Breughel was a Flemish painter in the 1500s who specialized in painting satires. Brueghelian images are images that are surreal and would almost be funny if they weren’t so horrible.
When I was thinking about the accusations that many of the articles made, which you also noted, that Sauper "focused too much on the dark side", I also wondered he knew that when he made the film. The reading pointed out that he spent so much time with these people that he was getting them to tell their story, and in that time, I wonder if he became numb or accustomed to the living conditions of the people in Tanzania to the point that what he put on screen was meant to build their character and not make us feel bad for them. Perhaps there are worse things that he left out to avoid that very accusation, not realizing that what he put in would have the very effect because he was so close to the documentary and it's subject.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point. There is also the idea that he presented the information the way he did on purpose, because he DID want us to feel sorry for them. I mean, the people there might be used to it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still suck. I think sometimes (if not all the time) we're SUPPOSED to feel bad for people who live the way they live. The problem is it's not enough to just feel bad for them; you have to actually do something about it. It goes back to the whole conversation we had about apathy; people say to themselves "if it doesn't affect me, why should I care?" Apathy is one of the biggest problems we have as humans, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete