More Than A Nightmare

This week's film, Darwin's Nightmare, took an inside look at the fishing industry in Tanzania. After the introduction of the Nile perch to Lake Victoria, the fishing industry exploded. The "scientific experiment" of adding the foreign fish to the lake was apparently a success, since the fish have overtaken the old fish population dramatically. The Nile perch have practically wiped out any other edible fish in the lake, which leaves Tanzanians nothing to eat but the leftover rotting carcasses and heads of the perch. Sounds wrong, right? Unfortunately, this is actually what is happening.

While you would think this would economically be very beneficial to Tanzania, the country is extremely poor and the majority of the population lives in poverty. The fishers and and plant workers get paid very little for what money the fish brings in. The only people that appear to have money are the managers, such as Dimond, the man interviewed in his office. He has a fairly nice apartment and luxuries such as television. I think I would be able to suspect him of villainous activities more if he didn't have such a Michael Scott-ish vibe to him.

Other workers of the country who make a manageable living are prostitutes. Generally they service the pilots who fly in and out of Tanzania, taking loads of fish back with them. In the beginning, we are introduced to Eliza. Eliza is a prostitute who shares her dream of one day going to school in the future and leaving the profession she has. She seems like she is in a better place than most of the population, though. At least she has money and a place to stay. However, by the end we know she is killed by an Australian client. According to some other interviewees, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Is the comfort of income worth the dangerous risk? It makes it even sadder to look back on her interview knowing she never got the chance to further her education like she dreamed.

On a related issue, sex and the spread of diseases is a foremost yet brushed over issue in Tanzania. The priest interviewed said that condoms are not promoted because sex itself is considered a sin. But obviously it still happens, and that should be accepted. People are going to have sex. So why not promote safe sex? The religious figures can promote safety, but not necessarily sex. Especially to prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases, a prevalent issue in this film. Condoms could also help prevent unwanted pregnancies, which would help the problem of too many children to care for, especially orphaned ones whose parents had HIV. It was heartbreaking to watch the young children in the film talk of being orphaned by the virus, and mothers who could not eat or care for their children anymore. Who would provide these condoms, though? Who would pay for them?

Another problem I noticed in the film was the lack of law enforcement in Tanzania. The night guard, Raphael, creepily described the situations in which he would be allowed to kill a person approaching. Understandable, though, how he would have to be so tough and defensive. The night guard before him was murdered on duty, so obviously the position is dangerous. And when ELiza was killed, the filmmakers never said whether the Australian client was arrested for his crime. It would be interesting to hear any sort of guidelines to Tanzanian law.

An underlying issue is the gun trade situation. Pilots claim to be bringing in empty planes, but evidence points to the idea that they are really smuggling in guns and then leaving with the fish. Perhaps this is the reason the money received for the fish is too low to keep the Tanzanian economy afloat. Who are receiving these guns? And more importantly, what are they being used for? I understand the pilots, mostly Russians, are just doing their jobs and trying to make a living, but moral obligation still should prevent this. Sadly, though, money is a bigger motivation. When first watching the film, this idea was not obvious to me. Looking back it is clear that something is being covered up.

The readings posed the question, "Can a film change the world?" I would say absolutely. Just from being in this class for six weeks, I have seen and read plenty of examples. Even if a film does not directly change the world, chances are that the people watching are going to take something away from it. The more people who are aware of a situation that they might not otherwise know about, the more of a chance there is that the problem will be solved or at least looked at more closely. Films can inspire and encourage people to make a difference.

New Terminology:

Xenophobia: intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries

Rapacious:aggressively greedy or controlling