It's becoming quite a pass time for me to watch documentaries on Netflix. I admit that.
Well over a year ago, I was told Ethos was *the* documentary to show us the truths of America at this time. Now I've finally seen it and I just shake my head.
First off, was most of this not common knowledge? "Imagine a nightmare scenerio where big business controls the government." Obviously the documentary is not going to show me how that's what we're living. Well, obviously, kids. It's called Free Market economy. You try to show us how things were changed in the past to make this true, but the reality is, it's always been the case. If you don't like it, open your own business. That's the message this capitalist society was built upon.
Now, I'm not denying all the facts of this film. There are actually a lot I know from other more reliable sources *are* facts, but it's interesting that those things are not covered within this film because the message is not to trust the media or government without question... yet you expect us to
listen to you. Without question. It's sort of like taking up smoking to give up alcoholism or becoming Lutheran because you think the Presbyterians believe in God too much.
If you are talking to a society that listens to the media and blindly follows because they make their unsupported points with determined gusto and by making incendiary comments, then I suppose the way you sell them *your* bill of goods is to be incendiary and make your points without bothering to provide supporting information
The problem is I question the government and the media already and I try not to be influenced by commercials (but know the reality is there is not 100% escape if you live within the realms of society) so I hear your message, but all I can think is that you are just as weak in your arguments as they are in theirs. It was a soft blow, to say the least.
I'm fascinated by the number of these anti-government/media/corporation documentaries are narrated or voiced by foreigners. One of those "without question" things I've noticed is that people think those from other countries (specifically English speaking) should be taken more seriously. Those who want to seem sensitive and intelligent tend to pick up that Americans are arrogant, therefore we must be self-loathing which leads to the idea that other countries "have it right" and are doing things in a better way. Is that why these films often have a European accent lilting through their dialogue?
The part of this film I think they have right is pointing out that we can support companies we believe do the right thing by buying from them and shunning those we don't agree with by not consuming their products. however, this is an infinitely complicated problem. Can we decide if the farmer Dan's buys its eggs from is morally better than the one who sells his eggs to Harmon's? I recommend buying locally when possible, but let's be realistic. We're all struggling financially so sometimes the low cost of goods outweighs the desire to be perfect in every purchase.
I resent this documentaries claim that that makes us "obedient consumers" and argue that it means our lives are way more complicated than some Hollywood dude who spoke in the film and your bunch of film makers -- who will, frankly, make money off of this documentary for years to come -- understand. Forgive me if I don't think you really understand the complicated thought process of a regular family who works the daily grind and can't rely on our "art" to pay the bills.
I just felt that, overall, it wasn't eye opening or ground breaking and before taking their word for it, you should question and research every word they say because it's not so cut and dry. Not in the slightest.
I also feel like a lot of the documentaries these days are lacking hard hitting evidence and that the film makers believe we are following blindly. I think "people" are blind, but a person knows what he or she is doing. I think sometimes people are misinformed or confused, but I also think most people are just overwhelmed. They aren't burying their head in the sand as this documentary claims, it's that their lives are so much more complicated than the decisions "they" want us to make and we have many many more factors than are being explored.
Showing posts with label documentaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label documentaries. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Blackfish
What a sad, sad "documentary". We watched it as a family and found it enlightening, but definitely took it with a grain of salt. When a film uses a lot of obviously old footage and the story seems very one-sided, I don't assume this means that the issue is cut and dry, one side is clearly wrong, the side making the "documentary" is right.
I put quotations around documentary because it seems that this is the accepted description for films these days that are definitely biased. I feel like the History Channel often shows documentaries - films stating facts without drawing opinions. They may not get the viewership of a Michael Moore "documentary", but they are DEFINITELY more accurate, honest, and educational.
And yes. I do believe it is Michael Moore who is the main culprit of ill-informed, biased films. I hate to go so far as to say propaganda, but seeing as how his films have a clear direction and can be misleading while holes can be pierced through his "truths", I suppose propaganda is the right word.
Now we have Netflix who conveniently streams these "documentaries" into our lives and sadly as I talk to people, it seems they take it all as fact and forget the fact that each film maker has an agenda. Whoever made 'Blackfish' seems to be the same agenda we've heard a thousand times before. We can't have aquariums or zoos because no matter what, placing animals in captivity is cruel.
THAT AGENDA completely dismisses the fact that humans learn about animals and humans from captivity. They forget that the only reason they know the things they know to argue AGAINST captivity were learned because of animals IN captivity. So our kids won't learn NOT to put animals into captivity if there are no animals in captivity. Interesting dichotomy, no?
Of course, this is not why we should have animals in captivity. Frankly, I am probably with the majority of people who doesn't think it's right, but who also doesn't think it's wrong. I think zoos, aquariums, and other animal facilities have made incredible strides in my lifetime to make the situation better. Without PETA and other animal activist groups (whose agenda is usually to CLOSE all facilities) those improvements would not come about so we need the people who say it's wrong in order to make things right.
Follow me?
Well, Blackfish is likely to push SeaWorld and other animal captivity facilities to make more improvements so that's a good thing. In the meantime, we are now in a world where everyone feels educated (often more than they actually are*) and we have the internet to boost those feelings. I keep hearing people talk about Blackfish as though they think it's an honest portrayal. Notice the number of happy, current employees on the documentary being allowed to speak their mind? Now how many former employees were represented? Sure, they don't work there anymore so we think they are free to be more "honest", but how do we know they aren't disgruntled? We have know way of knowing that for sure.
*before I get slapped for that remark, I will gladly admit that I am probably not as smart as I think I am. Or observant. I'm also not a very good friend, but that doesn't mean I can't see when someone else is doing it wrong.
I've let the documentary digest for a while. My kid came home from school and said the kids at school have talked about it, but we have explained to her why we felt the film was one sided.
The other day, I read that Bindi Irwin signed on as the new SeaWorld amabassador. People flipped out, saying her father would roll over in his grave. Don't you think he did a better job than that of teaching his children? My first thought was that -YAY- we would have someone with clout (granted through her father's legacy, but people will listen!) to find out the truth and to be an educated facilitator to improve things that need improving.
This brought up the whole thought of the film being propaganda in my mind. Now I feel a little ashamed, though, because that's the word SeaWorld used. Again, we are seeing a biased view, but take some time and read through that article completely. If you think they are lying 100% to respond to 'Blackfish' being 100% true, then I think you have fallen into the trap the makers of 'Blackfish' hoped for in thinking that as long as they publicized the first view, every response would be seen as a lie. This, unfortunately, is where media takes us.
However, if you watched Blackfish and thought the actions were reprehensible, then to be an educated human being, it is only fair that you take in Truth About Blackfish and keep certain facts in mind.
~SeaWorld along with other zoos, aquariums, and animal facilities around the world spend millions to aide in conservation efforts. Without those dollars, where would conservation be? Interesting question I may research later: Do groups like PETA spend more or less on conservation than on campaigns to close zoos, aquariums, etc? If their income is smaller or larger than those facilities, how does the percentage spent on conservation efforts compare to the percentage spent on promoting the closing of facilities and ending educational and conservation efforts of other groups?
~SeaWorld is hugely educational. Yes, what some people see are performing monkeys. What other people realize are the capabilities of other species. Do you think people back in the 1700s were remotely capable of understanding that? No. Because they had no way of seeing what these animals could do.
~If the ex-employees cared so deeply for these animals, why quit, wait for a documentary to be made where you can talk about how terrible it is, and then join these groups who are anti-educational (because any group that puts the rights of animals so high that humans can't reach it are, frankly, not interested in education of the future...) instead of standing up for them at the time? Maybe fear of getting fired, but if you quit, who cares if you get fired? And if you think the animals are being treated that badly, why would you care more about getting fired than those animals? And if you did stand up for those animals (which I don't believe), why not mention it the perfect place to defend yourself - a documentary designed to defend the animals? While you were inside you had a much healthier way to get your point across than some passive-aggressive film, don't you think?
~Listen/read carefully. The words used are artistic, beautiful. There is little to no science in art. It sounds more dramatic to say 'psychotic', but without data from a neuro scientist or (let's face it, SOFT science!) an animal psychologist to confirm that, you're just using artistic words to jump to conclusions.
~I can't say how many decades ago it was, but it was sometime after my parents took me to SW as a child (around 1985), there was an incident with the dolphins. I can't remember any details, but I do remember it was a call for SW to change its practices. SW did so immediately. When I went back in, I think, 1995, things were drastically different. Again, in 2010 when my family went to the one in CA (not the one where the incident occurred), I noticed how many more changes had been brought about to improve the standards for the animals. Each time, the habitats became larger, more natural appearing, more education, and more well-kept.
Sidetrack: The same can be said about my local zoo. If you've ever seen The Last Unicorn, near the end when the spell is removed from all the animals in the cages? That's what our zoo looked like in the 80s. I was 5-15 years old and didn't know any better, but now you wouldn't know it EVER looked like that. The habitats are huge, natural, and I swear you can see the tiger smile these days. They move around so much more and look relaxed when they sleep. Now that I have a basis of comparison, I dare say they habitats were small, uncomfortable, and slightly cruel when I was a kid and frankly the trainers could have been abusing them - they always looked edgy.
The world changes and evolves. It comes with help from one extreme group and great expense to the other extreme, but it does come. Without either, we don't have conservation, education, or enjoyment of the world beyond our computer screens. It's just that this format breeds hatred and ignorance. I don't like that part of it.
SeaWorld says that in the 4 years since the death which Blackfish focuses on, they have worked diligently to make even more improvements. Bringing things to light helps increase animal satisfaction. At the same time, the WAY these propagandists bring it about offends me. Is there not a better way than shaming, publicly lying, confusing people?
Peta says "Don't fall for it."
Don't fall for Peta's propaganda either, okay? That's all I'm asking.
Basically, I think both 'Blackfish' and 'Truth about Blackfish' are pushing their own agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but how will you know where the middle is if you don't look at both sides as objectively as possible?
Be ruled by your brain, not by your emotions.
I put quotations around documentary because it seems that this is the accepted description for films these days that are definitely biased. I feel like the History Channel often shows documentaries - films stating facts without drawing opinions. They may not get the viewership of a Michael Moore "documentary", but they are DEFINITELY more accurate, honest, and educational.
And yes. I do believe it is Michael Moore who is the main culprit of ill-informed, biased films. I hate to go so far as to say propaganda, but seeing as how his films have a clear direction and can be misleading while holes can be pierced through his "truths", I suppose propaganda is the right word.
Now we have Netflix who conveniently streams these "documentaries" into our lives and sadly as I talk to people, it seems they take it all as fact and forget the fact that each film maker has an agenda. Whoever made 'Blackfish' seems to be the same agenda we've heard a thousand times before. We can't have aquariums or zoos because no matter what, placing animals in captivity is cruel.
THAT AGENDA completely dismisses the fact that humans learn about animals and humans from captivity. They forget that the only reason they know the things they know to argue AGAINST captivity were learned because of animals IN captivity. So our kids won't learn NOT to put animals into captivity if there are no animals in captivity. Interesting dichotomy, no?
Of course, this is not why we should have animals in captivity. Frankly, I am probably with the majority of people who doesn't think it's right, but who also doesn't think it's wrong. I think zoos, aquariums, and other animal facilities have made incredible strides in my lifetime to make the situation better. Without PETA and other animal activist groups (whose agenda is usually to CLOSE all facilities) those improvements would not come about so we need the people who say it's wrong in order to make things right.
Follow me?
Well, Blackfish is likely to push SeaWorld and other animal captivity facilities to make more improvements so that's a good thing. In the meantime, we are now in a world where everyone feels educated (often more than they actually are*) and we have the internet to boost those feelings. I keep hearing people talk about Blackfish as though they think it's an honest portrayal. Notice the number of happy, current employees on the documentary being allowed to speak their mind? Now how many former employees were represented? Sure, they don't work there anymore so we think they are free to be more "honest", but how do we know they aren't disgruntled? We have know way of knowing that for sure.
*before I get slapped for that remark, I will gladly admit that I am probably not as smart as I think I am. Or observant. I'm also not a very good friend, but that doesn't mean I can't see when someone else is doing it wrong.
I've let the documentary digest for a while. My kid came home from school and said the kids at school have talked about it, but we have explained to her why we felt the film was one sided.
The other day, I read that Bindi Irwin signed on as the new SeaWorld amabassador. People flipped out, saying her father would roll over in his grave. Don't you think he did a better job than that of teaching his children? My first thought was that -YAY- we would have someone with clout (granted through her father's legacy, but people will listen!) to find out the truth and to be an educated facilitator to improve things that need improving.
This brought up the whole thought of the film being propaganda in my mind. Now I feel a little ashamed, though, because that's the word SeaWorld used. Again, we are seeing a biased view, but take some time and read through that article completely. If you think they are lying 100% to respond to 'Blackfish' being 100% true, then I think you have fallen into the trap the makers of 'Blackfish' hoped for in thinking that as long as they publicized the first view, every response would be seen as a lie. This, unfortunately, is where media takes us.
However, if you watched Blackfish and thought the actions were reprehensible, then to be an educated human being, it is only fair that you take in Truth About Blackfish and keep certain facts in mind.
~SeaWorld along with other zoos, aquariums, and animal facilities around the world spend millions to aide in conservation efforts. Without those dollars, where would conservation be? Interesting question I may research later: Do groups like PETA spend more or less on conservation than on campaigns to close zoos, aquariums, etc? If their income is smaller or larger than those facilities, how does the percentage spent on conservation efforts compare to the percentage spent on promoting the closing of facilities and ending educational and conservation efforts of other groups?
~SeaWorld is hugely educational. Yes, what some people see are performing monkeys. What other people realize are the capabilities of other species. Do you think people back in the 1700s were remotely capable of understanding that? No. Because they had no way of seeing what these animals could do.
~If the ex-employees cared so deeply for these animals, why quit, wait for a documentary to be made where you can talk about how terrible it is, and then join these groups who are anti-educational (because any group that puts the rights of animals so high that humans can't reach it are, frankly, not interested in education of the future...) instead of standing up for them at the time? Maybe fear of getting fired, but if you quit, who cares if you get fired? And if you think the animals are being treated that badly, why would you care more about getting fired than those animals? And if you did stand up for those animals (which I don't believe), why not mention it the perfect place to defend yourself - a documentary designed to defend the animals? While you were inside you had a much healthier way to get your point across than some passive-aggressive film, don't you think?
~Listen/read carefully. The words used are artistic, beautiful. There is little to no science in art. It sounds more dramatic to say 'psychotic', but without data from a neuro scientist or (let's face it, SOFT science!) an animal psychologist to confirm that, you're just using artistic words to jump to conclusions.
~I can't say how many decades ago it was, but it was sometime after my parents took me to SW as a child (around 1985), there was an incident with the dolphins. I can't remember any details, but I do remember it was a call for SW to change its practices. SW did so immediately. When I went back in, I think, 1995, things were drastically different. Again, in 2010 when my family went to the one in CA (not the one where the incident occurred), I noticed how many more changes had been brought about to improve the standards for the animals. Each time, the habitats became larger, more natural appearing, more education, and more well-kept.
Sidetrack: The same can be said about my local zoo. If you've ever seen The Last Unicorn, near the end when the spell is removed from all the animals in the cages? That's what our zoo looked like in the 80s. I was 5-15 years old and didn't know any better, but now you wouldn't know it EVER looked like that. The habitats are huge, natural, and I swear you can see the tiger smile these days. They move around so much more and look relaxed when they sleep. Now that I have a basis of comparison, I dare say they habitats were small, uncomfortable, and slightly cruel when I was a kid and frankly the trainers could have been abusing them - they always looked edgy.
The world changes and evolves. It comes with help from one extreme group and great expense to the other extreme, but it does come. Without either, we don't have conservation, education, or enjoyment of the world beyond our computer screens. It's just that this format breeds hatred and ignorance. I don't like that part of it.
SeaWorld says that in the 4 years since the death which Blackfish focuses on, they have worked diligently to make even more improvements. Bringing things to light helps increase animal satisfaction. At the same time, the WAY these propagandists bring it about offends me. Is there not a better way than shaming, publicly lying, confusing people?
Peta says "Don't fall for it."
Don't fall for Peta's propaganda either, okay? That's all I'm asking.
Basically, I think both 'Blackfish' and 'Truth about Blackfish' are pushing their own agendas. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but how will you know where the middle is if you don't look at both sides as objectively as possible?
Be ruled by your brain, not by your emotions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)