TuttleJPFilm4

John Peter Tuttle Annotation #4 – 10/11/2011 Film Annotation: “The End of the Line” Word Count: 1218

1. Title, director and release year? “The End of the Line” is a 2009 documentary film directed by Rupert Murray.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The main argument in “The End of the Line” centers around the problem of overfishing. It discusses how fishing technology has gotten too efficient with respect to the supply of fish in the world, resulting in overfishing. Overfishing is a rather urgent problem; the population of fish is dwindling, and some species, such as the bluefin tuna – are being hunted to extinction, and there are some communities where fish is around 90% of the usual diet, so there are certainly communities that will be affected to a large degree by this problem. Besides the issue of the world seafood supply, overfishing can cause major ecological problems, upsetting the balance of species in overfished areas, as well as affecting local economies in communities that are located near bodies of water, as they often tend to focus on fishing as a major source of revenue. Commercial fishing ends up putting smaller local fisheries or even individuals out of business, or forces them to work longer hours to get enough fish to break even.

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example ? Does the film have emotional appeal? Like many of the film we have watched in class, the film’s argument is mostly made through interviews with people involved with the commercial fishing industry – workers, CEOs, etc., as well as interviews with stakeholders – small-scale, non-commercial fishers, activists, etc. The film uses plenty of scientific information – graphs showing populations of various fish species over time, quotas for fishing, etc, and has a quite nice animated map showing how overfishing spread over time, resulting in decreasing amounts of fish caught for every thousand hooks cast, which really shows how the problem spreads, though it does not quite have the emotional impact some of the other footage has. On the topic of emotional appeal, the film has several montages showing fish being processed, which really emphasizes the commercial aspect of it.

4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? The film focuses on a variety of issues that all tie into the main issue of overfishing. There are obvious legal issues that the movie covers, such as fisheries completely ignoring quotas set by both local and international environmental agencies; there are also some political issues involved, as there are often international attempts to regulate fishing, and some countries simply choose to ignore them. It also addresses educational issues, explaining how most people are not educated about overfishing and endangered species, and would not know which species of fish to avoid at a restaurant if they want to be environmentally conscious. There are some cultural issues addressed – particular communities that have a focus on fishing, and how they have been affected by commercial fishing. The film goes into the some of the ecological issues of overfishing, explaining how some species are fished so much that other species end up flooding or overcrowding the area where the overfished species used to live, upsetting the balance of the species within the ecosystem. It also explores other, related issues – how coral reefs are being affected by overfishing, and how overfishing can affect local economies; it uses Newfoundland and cod as a good example of how communities based on fishing can be affected by overfishing, and can even bring the problem upon themselves.

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Some of the montages were rather compelling, though in some cases, they were at tad gross at times, which just resulted in me just looking away or closing my eyes, which kind of defeats the purpose. The discussions of restaurants serving endangered fish without letting customers know was interesting, as it is a tad more relatable than the larger-scale information about commercial fishing, and shows potential ways individual people can help to reduce the impact of overfishing and help the environment.

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? There were not too many parts of the film that I found uncompelling; some of the scientific information was a tad on the boring side, but it did manage to paint a good picture of the potential future of the world’s seafood supply.

7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? The film would most likely appeal to those who are already interested in the topic, as it goes into far more detail about the one topic it covers than some of the other films we watched in class. That being said, it provides enough background information to be interesting to the general public as well.

8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? Some information about related issues might be helpful, as the film only really tended to focus on overfishing. There was some discussion of coral reefs, but it was not that big a part of the film.

9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The film suggests several actions to solve problem, stressing that it is possible to fix the problem. First of all, fisheries should be monitored closely to ensure that they stay within quotas; this may have to involve governments and have political repercussions. It also discusses potential educational solutions – letting consumers know which species of fish are endangered and/or overfished, and teaching them to be aware of where their food comes from (and to ask at restaurants, if necessary). Teaching consumers about fish farming – the practice of feeding smaller fish to larger fish to feed them, then selling the larger fish – and trying to get people to eat the small fish in the first place could have a large impact on overfishing, as fish farming tends to waste large numbers of fish – it takes five kilograms of anchovies to feed what ends up being one kilogram of salmon. Another solution the film outlines is to have more marine reserves – areas where commercial fishing is banned. There are several of them already in existence; however, they only cover a fraction of a percent of the oceans, so they do not work nearly as well as needed. It suggests creating a global network of marine reserves that covers more of the ocean than the current ones.

10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.) Since I had not really heard of the problem of overfishing, I figured I would look into it some more. Overfishing.org provides a good summary of the problem, explaining that the problem is reversible, and listing ways individuals can help – doing research, eating fish that are not being overfished or endangered, and spreading news about the issue. Koster, Pepijn. “Overfishing – A global environmental problem, threat to our oceans and disaster.” http://overfishing.org/ “Overfishing | Greenpeace International.” http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/overfishing/