In any other written word’s realm, the warning that a piece is long and meant to be so is unnecessary. Among us bloggers, it’s only polite to do so. Be warned: this post is long, and it isn’t just about Sharkwater either. Today is Earth Day (Wikipedia entry). While 2007 may have been the year we apparently all went green, 2008 is the year we’re starting to wake up to the sheer complexity of environmental awareness. It also a year where it isn’t really that all great to be human, when one thinks of the numerous dilemmas facing our species. The problem is in the Misanthropic Principle, which I wrote about a few years back. Very few real solutions short of the extermination of humanity are explored with any seriousness.
Sharkwater, released in 2007, is probably the most important environmental documentary released in the past, oh I don’t know. Since film, perhaps? The movie clearly demonstrates the causal relationship between human action and environmental effects, the situation on the ground, so to speak, or in the water, is not really open to “debate,” unlike in the case of, say, global warming. Fisheries are collapsing, shark populations are dwindling. Period. The film also places people at the center of the story: from the destruction they wreak to the methods used to address the issue.
The film’s narrative is presented as Rob Stewart’s development from shark photographer to activist. One of the most interesting events in the film is when Stewart forms an association with Paul Watson. His depiction of Watson is laced with rationalizations for Watson’s actions. Watson left Greenpeace because of the organization’s vow of non-violence. The film shows Watson dousing an illegally operating fishing boat with water cannons in an attempt to capsize them (I recall the use of the word “capsize,” too). Watson’s ship also has a weapon that can tear ship hulls open. Stewart’s participation in Watson’s activities is perhaps the most morally ambiguous aspect of the entire film. It raises important questions about attitudes towards nature, the role of humans, and what means are necessary in response. They attack a fishing vessel engaged in illegal activity, only to be detained for attempted murder upon reaching Costa Rica. They allege the influence of Taiwanese businessmen (they refer to them as mafia, though the term is loaded) who’ve made it their business to sell shark fins despite prohibitions by law.
Watson’s activism is no news: a search on Google for the label of ecoterrorist yields plenty of results. He’s also quite the misanthrope; his attitude toward humanity is frankly appalling (National Post: Enemy of Mankind). The question then, is, what would drive Stewart to associate with him? Is it desperation? Is it the need to “get something done” despite the costs? Stewart “turned to” Watson, bit after he came down with flesh-eating staph, Watson went on to other projects. Stewart’s return to Costa Rica was a journey embarked away from Watson.
Since Stewart didn’t claim otherwise, I will have to assume guilt by association. But it also raises the question: if people normally come first, at what point do solutions to human-caused problems come at a human expense? What makes the question easier to answer in the film’s case is that shark finning is not a means to a greater human end.
Sharkwater exposes the folly of chasing after “status,” and it does so very, very well. If there is one aspect that would make me look the other way from Watson’s eco-terrorism depicted in this film, it is the very fact that sharks meet a commercial need that is based solely on the human need to feel above each other. It is a disgusting, irrational rationalization. The Chinese businessman they feature, with his twisted philosophies on business and his horrid views on sharks, is yet one more embodiment of greed. He is a reflection of the long history of humanity’s practice of killing off animals to exhibit economic status. The irony is that in this politically correct world, if some Chinese would plead “culture” to this practice, are we brave enough to call bullshit on it?
The trade in rare animal products has a long history: elephants for their ivory, sea turtles for shells, and mink for their fur are just a few examples of animals that have faced great pressure due to this practice. Thankfully the more liberalized of Western nations have realized their folly and demand has gone down to almost zero. Unfortunately, it is not the case with some other nations, and the Chinese are just one of the many currently culpable societies.
An important point in the film is that shark conversation is almost nil because of the animal’s reputation. Never mind the idiotic notion that it is an “evil” animal; no such beast on this earth exists. Its dangerous nature has been overblown, and we have forgotten that when we venture upon shark-infested waters, no matter how pretty that view is, how nice the water may be, we enter a domain not our own. It is also easier for us to try and conserve the “cute” things, with all disregard to the importance of the sharks in the ocean ecosystem.
The film’s thesis, to its end, is that we have the ability to set things right. Watson’s lines on radical individuals causing great change comes in contrast to Stewart’s plea for all of us to be aware and his belief that we have the ability to set things right. It is hard to say whether this contrast was intended by Stewart, but it rings true.
Sharkwater may carry a stupid title, but its message deserves a listening ear and a watchful eye.
Recent comments