AliprandoJoannaAnnotation1

Released in 2004 Hubert Sauper’s //Darwin’s Nightmare// tells the story of the villages along what is known as the heart of Africa, Lake Victoria. After a scientific introduction of a foreign fish species, Lake Victoria lost all native life however flourished with this new fish and the economic opportunity it affords. Through visual storytelling and various interviewing, Sauper argues this new breed of fish has created a very foreign and unnatural fish exportation market opportunity for the people of Tanzania. What may appear as a beneficial disturbance due to the increase in food and work is unfolded as a cause to numerous seemingly unrelated consequences such as homeless children, prostitution, early deaths, war weapons, child drug usage, and ironically enough famine. The film dwells into many arenas of sustainability problems beyond the initial disturbance to fishermen and their families, exportation pilots, and factory workers but to the starving children and population of Tanzania. These issues combine with the overshadowing allowance for an over-consuming first world demand is just some of the cause and effect consequences Sauper outlines. Legal and economical issues are present through the distribution of arms overseas. In order to leave Tanzania with 55 tons of fish, pilots fill the African-bound planes with weapons for a more productive, economical trip. Not to say weapons would never make it into Africa if it weren’t for the fishing market, it however substantially increases the traffic going to and from the country. A second economical issue is understood through Eliza’s story of the prostitution market serving foreign pilots waiting to fill their planes with the next fishing load. From the ecological disturbance a new culture of fish camps and fishermen families has changed behavioral aspects of the community. Media and Informational issues are also shown from the European Union public announcement reporting high levels of sanitation in the Tanzania fish market. Containing very little director narration, the film relies upon the use of compelling scenes and images presented in a meaningful order. This careful attention to scene content and ordering allows the viewer to dissect the information as the director intends and perhaps is the reason for the film’s acclaimed attention. Having little background knowledge, the very first scene showing this enormous fish pushed along the streets in a wagon was extremely striking and attention grabbing. I could not grasp the magnitude of such a large fish and thought immediately to myself “there must be plenty to eat here.” Another first impression I found striking was that of the fish filleting factory, specifically the white, cleanliness of the room and the workers contrasted with that of the dirty atmosphere experienced by those outside. Another specific image in the film was of a widowed woman standing barefoot in maggots hanging fish skeletons so she may eat them once they have dried. Preceding this particular scene we watch a European politician reporting “high levels of sanitation” in the fish processing factories. Throughout the entire movie we see aircraft, both entering and leaving the county, flying just feet over the heads of smiling fishermen. Repeatedly we hear those planes come empty and leave filled to capacity with fish. To fishermen the planes meant more business, work and success. As the viewer discovers and understands more of the vast negative consequences the community experiences we begin to dislike them more and more. Until finally, towards the end of the film we discover every time a plane lands we watched weapons enter the county and precious food leave. This food leaves a country nonetheless, experiencing great and extreme famine. Children fighting over a pot of food sniffing fish extract to get high, and young girls scared on the streets were just some of the other compelling scenes in the film. Due to the extreme situation experienced by the people of Tanzania, the scenes of the pilots’ stories in comparison were much less compelling. While I understand they too are deeply affected by this business and spend long months away from their families, I felt emotionally much less concerned with their experiences. Nothing seemed quite as serious when compared to the scenes of hungry and homeless children in the dirty streets. Beyond that, several other interviews and scenes were difficult to understand the spoken English by the Tanzanians. The language barrier made comprehension difficult and frustrating when trying to understand the discussion and distracting to the rest of the movie. Further exploration of this topic undoubtedly begins immediately with the question “Where does my fish come from?” Watching the workers in the filet factory and the planes leaving Tanzania I cringed as I faced the realization there’s a good chance I’ve tasted a fish from this journey. If not specifically from Tanzania, I have unquestionably consumed fish, chicken, pork, beef or even produce taken away from another “Tanzania”. Additional topics for further research are to discover the severity of the famine and the war. How many other countries are affected, and how long has the famine been this extreme? What exactly is the war revolving around and what countries and politicians are involved? The film best addresses an audience with a specific interest in agricultural sustainability and ecological disturbances. However any viewer with a humanitarian interest would appreciate the work as well. I definitely think the film will change the way viewers think about their own food consumption and United States foreign affairs with developing countries. While the film does offer little points of intervention for the average viewer it does leave you struck and eager to share the information with others. It is a hard picture to get out of your head. Increasing the conversation among the slightly concerned and somewhat environmentalist American of food importation could help lessen the demand perhaps increasing localism. While I really appreciated the artistic element of the film, I would have liked a little more environmental or historical information woven into the scenes. I say this mostly because some interviews were difficult to understand and I was concerned that I was missing important information to better understand the issue.