When the film 'Blackfish' was released back in 2013 it instantly became something of a gateway drug into the camp of stereotypical animal welfare campaigners. It's easy to see why so many people were sucked into a downright disturbing documentary that does well to highlight the singular issue of killer whales in captivity, using methods that appealed to a broad audience; and to that extent we have to applaud the achievements and widespread appeal of this film. However that love of being shocking and widely accessible for effect is ultimately this film's downfall in terms of credibility. This, like many animal rights documentaries I've come across, is a plague on the often sophisticated and well informed serious documentary genre. The sole composition of 'Blackfish' is a one sided narrative that exploits the emotions of viewers to buy into a singular cause that is in no way presented accurately by this film. As a student in this field I would like to say that I'm not in direct conflict with the primary issue that 'Blackfish' aims to highlight, rather the narrative based brainwashing that clouds over a very controversial issue. Both myself and this film share a dislike of seeing animals used solely for entertainment purposes, which is why I find it all the more inexcusable that the approach a documentary takes on this subject revolves around feelings rather than facts.
The portrayal of killer whales in this film is odd, and more resembles the dramatisation of a fictional character. One minute these marine mammals are portrayed as beautiful creatures that have zero killer instincts towards humans in a natural environment despite being apex predators, but suddenly when they're confined they become these cold-hearted ruthless killers hellbent on maiming those in contact with them. The film tried its best to portray certain trainer deaths as senseless aggression from the orcas, but unfortunately never got round to making an informed judgement. The only explanation the viewer ever came across of this unbelievable change in behaviour can essentially be paraphrased by the expression 'muh captivity'. There wasn't any evidence to back this wild claim up, but then it's not like evidence is important in making a formal argument is it?
Irritatingly 'Blackfish' never actually pegs onto the idea that orcas might only be killing a few people in public aquaria because that's the only time orcas are in close proximity with humans, and so the only time there's ever going to be any conflicts between the two species. Even though there is evidence that in the wild orcas have displayed aggressive behaviour towards humans, the film still thinks it's necessary to constantly shoved down our throats the misleading statistic that orcas have never killed anyone in the wild. Let's not forget that killer whales are an apex predator that can happily tackle sharks and larger whales, so just because they haven't killed anyone in the wild doesn't mean they don't have the potential to. A correlation is not automatically a causation; a phrase that unfortunately wasn't repeated enough to those involved in making 'Blackfish'. Maybe captivity does change the behaviour of orcas and makes them more aggressive, however I'm not aware of anyone on the planet who has solid evidence that this is the case. To simply generalise the behaviour of a whole species, irrespective of their background, from the case study of a single whale is highly unreliable evidence. When you consider how this film goes about presenting evidence it becomes instantly clear that this is not an objective documentary by any stretch of the imagination.
Aside from the appalling lack of evidence there is a noticeable absence of explanations in any form throughout the film. The core argument this film is based around relies on the huge assumption that captive killer whales would benefit from freedom, a human based emotion. Applying this logic to a vastly different species with millions upon millions of years since their last common ancestor is anthropomorphising to say the least. The film knows this as well, and so instead of insightful comments from seasoned experts there is a focus on opinions from former employees of 'SeaWorld' and animal rights activists, who rely on subjective comparative techniques to convey scientific messages, simply conforming to the film's narrative rather than analytically addressing the issue. In fact 'SeaWorld' themselves have actually highlighted the lack of expertise and experience of the 'Blackfish' cast; that's a fair criticism, and a factor that often goes amiss in discussions surrounding this issue. The facts are that there is still no clear evidence that captivity has a profoundly negative effect on the mental wellbeing of orcas, which may be because there is a lack of research on the area, but that doesn't stop this film from parading that notion around like it's an obvious fact. This is a serious issue and so uninformed hypothesises should have no place in a factual documentary posing as a scientific debate.
The thing that really grinds my gears with 'Blackfish' however is the attitude this film has towards the consumers that pay money in order to see killer whales. I'm sorry these normal people who perhaps don't realise there is a serious debate surrounding the issue are desperate to see an animal as amazing as a killer whale in person. I have absolutely nothing against trying to persuade these people against funding killer whales in captivity, but to then demonise enthusiastic tourists trying to see these animals from their own perspective simply because they haven't watched some one sided slander is absolutely disgusting behaviour. How fucking dare you judge people who would rather see a killer whale in captivity rather than shell out thousands of pounds with the vague hope of seeing one in the wild. Since when has it been acceptable for a misleading documentary to take the moral high ground?
This love of taking the moral high ground is apparent with every thinly veiled accusation this film can muster. 'Blackfish' has the audacity to expose 'SeaWorld' for lying to consumers by lying to consumers. I'll admit that 'SeaWorld' are hardly my favourite organisation, but this is the very definition of hypocrisy. Just one questionable behaviour from an organisation is enough to shun a varied animal care programme in the eyes of this film. Of course it doesn't matter that boycotting 'SeaWorld' would eradicate rehabilitation programmes, and presumably leave the other animals in their care without a home, because the real evil in this system is the captivity of a few individuals. 'Blackfish' however doesn't actually bother discussing solutions, because its narrative would rather ignore the fact that you absolutely cannot just release long term captive animals back into their natural environment due to the dire and unpredictable effect that would have on the gene pool. Funnily enough 'Blackfish' never even mentions previous reintroductions of captive killer whales into the wild, which may have something to do with the fact that previous schemes to free these animals have been anything but successful. In my funny little world I would have thought that would be a very fucking important point to mention.
Emotion unfortunately is more powerful in a documentary than factual and balanced arguments. There is however a fine line between a biased documentary and pure propaganda that intentionally misleads the viewer at every available opportunity despite appearing to be purely factual. As a documentary maker you have a moral responsibility to portray a compelling argument that doesn't mislead or flat out lie to the audience when pushing an agenda. Obviously there is always going to be a bias in any documentary, but documentaries are an art form just like any other film, and so this sort of underhanded tactic devalues the whole genre and reduces the integrity of truly factual films as a source of information. 'Blackfish' contains zero elements of a great documentary. Any film can invoke an emotional response from the audience, but in a documentary there should be a debate, there should be insightful points backed up by solid evidence, and there certainly shouldn't be a narrative formed around lies and misleading the viewer. Why the hell 'Blackfish' feels the need to take the moral high ground in all its arguments is another question, because in reality it follows the reprehensible system of lying to people who were previously unaware of this issue. 'Blackfish' is purely a propaganda piece that fuels an anti-captivity movement despite providing a lack of any concrete evidence as to why captivity is inherently bad, only succeeding in exploiting rare deaths for purely emotional purposes, manipulating people's existence to misrepresent a very complex issue. In a film that preaches moral duty there is an alarming absence of integrity in this irresponsible and slanderous ploy; and yet it's a ploy that activists will blindly follow thanks to the immoral attitude of this so called 'documentary'.
No comments:
Post a Comment