Long+Film+Annotation+7

Arunesh Ghosh, Annotation #7 01/08/12 Shark Water

1. Title, director and release year?

The title of the film is //Sharkwater// and was released in 2006 and was directed by Rob Stewart.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

//Sharkwater // depicts the evolution of sharks throughout history. Though the physical characteristics of sharks have gone unchanged for millions of years our perception of them has been heavily altered by the media over the years. The film focuses in particular on how the species are increasingly perceived as a source of income for poachers, providing a multi-million dollar fin industry around the world. With one of the biggest players in the shark finning industry being China, the cut-throat nature of the business is more apparent there than anywhere in the world. Shark fins are a delicacy in China, and to have shark fin served at an event such as a wedding or in a restaurant, is elegant and gives off an air of prestige. The lucrative nature of the fin market and the immense demand from China has resulted in government officials more often than not, looking the other way as poachers hunt these creatures to near extinction largely unregulated and unchecked.

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?

The argument starts off simple; humans are led to believe that it’s in a shark’s nature to harm us. What this documentary shows the viewer is that through misleading information and a bad reputation through poor media portrayal, sharks are actually the prey, not the predator as we’ve thought for years. Through one on one interview with experts in the field, it is made clear that humans are not the prey. We are doing more harm than good by hunting these animals, and without them, our ecosystem will not be able to sustain itself. Aside from interviews, the crew travels to destinations such as Cocos Island, Costa Rica, and the Galapagos Islands to document the exploitation of the world’s shark population. The most gut-wrenching part of the film is the footage of the catch and release shark fishing. Seeing as they are used mainly for their fins, there is no use for the rest of the body, thus being thrown back overboard to float down to the sea bed. Not only was there disturbing footage of decapitated sharks, but the clip of the helpless sea turtle being gauged in the eyes yielded an especially disheartening reaction.

4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The sustainability problems most apparent in this film are over-consumption due to illegal shark finning, overall archaic notions and stigmas of sharks due to media misinterpretation, as well as shady and bureaucratic hidden agendas permit, and even promote, this harmful and highly illegal practice.

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

The most compelling part of the film related to the dangerous and harmful stand-offs the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the film crew encountered when faced with illegal shark finning ships. The stand-offs were so violent that drastic measures such as the use of tear gas bullets and even the boat itself as means of weaponry can be seen during one of many encounters that were captured. Most people do not have the chance to see such raw footage of just how fierce the finning industry is, as we are only force fed the glamorized image of a “Jaws”-esque shark population that devour humans when, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Perhaps even more shocking was the blatant corruption of the governments using as many underhanded techniques as possible from seizing videotaped evidence to threatening to arrest the entire team. Absolutely repulsive.

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I felt that the entire section based upon Stewart’s illness was unnecessary. It really came across as filler footage and wasn’t beneficial at all to the educational purpose of the film. Instead of that more energy could have been focused on getting better interviews or really delving into the how we can globalize the ban of shark finning. It seemed like there were too few options discussed as to how the public can help put an end to a horrendous business. At the end of the film it stated that 15,000 sharks had been killed by the time the film concluded. Instead of watching, this should be an issue the public is more aware of, thus preventing the need to sit and be educated about. Essentially, it should be a more proactive topic.

7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The film will hit home with an audience who are concerned with the ecological well-being of the world’s oceans, as well as anyone who feels they have been wronged by the misinterpretation of sharks as a ferocious species. I feel that individuals who are unfamiliar with this business would be especially interested in seeing what is going on in our oceans, as we only really see the eco-tourism side of travel. I feel as though the issue of shark finning will hit home with those younger generations who have a passion for marine biology or biology in general. Those people will need subjects to study within their ideal field and if an entire species is wiped out, what will they do?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Despite the fact that there were many authoritative figures interviewed in the film, I would have liked to see more crew interviews of either the finning ships or the renegade Sea Shepard ship. Even though the two have opposing ideals and views on shark finning, they make it their lives to either stop it or keep the business alive. It would have been very enlightening to see those viewpoints take center stage.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Towards the end of the film it is made very clear that there are resources out there that are passionate about putting an end to the shark finning industry around the world. At the rate that sharks are being finned, the species as a whole may face a mass extinction within the next few years due to sheer human greed. If action isn’t taken to put an end to this business, our ecosystem will be off balance which will affect all of us on a global level.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">At the conclusion of the film, I was compelled to seek out laws and regulations regarding shark finning. Seeing as it is an unmanaged and unmonitored business, I was curious to see if countries are taking any sort of action against it. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Code of Conduct, shark finning violates appropriate action for responsible fisheries. What really surprised me is the fact that each country with a coastline is responsible for laws and regulations pertaining to fishing in their waters. I feel that until the industry is out of business, each country reliant on sharks will never really take action against it. I also delved a little deeper in the sea shepherd organization.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 22pt;">Links [] []