Up in Arms about a Nightmare of Sorts

Hubert Sauper's 2004 documentary, Darwin's Nightmare, examines how the introduction of the Nile Perch to Lake Victoria in Tanzania has affected the locals and their environment. The plot thickens with an underlying assumption that the planes from Russia who export the perch fillets to Europe are smuggling weapons to support the internal wars/conflicts within Africa.

Sauper blatantly states within a 2006 article from B. Ruby Rich that he is not “out to prove anything.” Rather, he wants his audience to “connect things they might not have connected.”

This comment befuddles me. In order to show certain connections, does one not have to offer some sort of proof? Nevertheless, before we move forward, let us first examine the definition of the word, “proof.”

proof- the action or process of establishing the truth of a statement

Take, for example, Sauper's journalistic approach to the film. He interviews the Russian pilots over the cargo they carry. Clearly, he is after some piece of information that he wants to be revealed. This can be said for any of his subjects, whether that be the night watchman, the prostitutes, or the orphaned children. Sauper is searching for some sort of answer, and in order to get that, he seeks out explanations from the locals to survey their internal knowledge over such affairs.

Secondly, there is this pending concern that the film is too “dark and hopeless.” Thus, the audience is left with a sense that the problem his spiraled out of control to such a point that the only remedy we have to offer is sympathy. As A.O. Scott's New York Times article puts it, “movies that bring us closer to the sufferings of others also measures our distance from them.”

While this may ring true, I would like to point out that every country has it's internal daemons to battle. The only difference is its level on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In this particular instance, food, shelter, and survival are the main concern for the Tanzanian people Sauper to us. In other countries, however, psychological needs or self-actualization may be the prominent obstacle.

Take, for example, this quote within Rebecca W. Keegan's “Can a Film Change the World” article: “Big name directors have put their reputations on the line, and rich men have risked fortunes for passion projects.”

Let's break this down, shall we. “Rich men have risked fortunes.” Does this even make sense? If they are rich, should they even be concerned about “risking their fortune”? She goes on to say that “stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, and Charlize Theron have taken pay cuts and strolled red carpets for features that further humanitarian or political agendas.”

Come on, people. All of these celebrities can afford pay cuts. It's not like they are bending over backwards for films that promote philanthropy. Furthermore, it helps their public relations. It's not like they are giving and not getting. Think how many times we've heard how Angelina Jolie is an advocate for providing aid to Africa. The idea is, if people hear about this enough, they'll think Angelina Jolie is a good and gracious person. It's all, if not in part, for an image.

Words of interest:

Bigot - a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal

Juggernaut - a huge, powerful, and overwhelming force or institution

Ostensibly - apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually

Cynical - believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity

Demurral - to make objection, especially on the grounds of scruples; take exception; object