McNeilFilmAnnotation4

Title: The End of the Line Director: Rupert Murray Release year: 2009


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The principal issue of the film is whether or not massive fishing operations are sustainable. Trolling and other large fishing operations remove millions of tons of fish a year from the ocean without any regard to the rate they will be replenished. Commercial companies as well as governments need to be more wise towards this natural resource that may be very soon become a limited resource.


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

Many of the individuals supply hard facts that contribute to the director’s message. For instance scientist Borris Worm had begun the task of assessing how the global ocean had change since large scale industrial fishing stared in the 1950’s. His data established that globally, certain species of large fish have diminished by about 90%. Now this is an audacious number to suggest but the director then allows other scientist to undermine these claims with their own data. This kind of unbiased movie making makes the viewer feel like they are in the middle of a real debate and not just a report of ludicrous number. To me this gave the movie a feeling of credibility.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

The director of The End of the Line bring into light many horrific sustainable fishing problems occurring around the globe. Such as the role that foreign governments affect the current state of this problem. For example, scientist Daniel Pauly, researched why the global catch of fish seems to be increasing annually at a rate that didn’t seem to match biological productivity of the oceans. Pauly uncovered that Chinese reporters had been inflating the amount they caught; These numbers were simply made up by individuals who only got preferment if their reported catches increased. Once the reports had been corrected it was proven that the international fish population had been decreasing for the better part of 15 years.


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

The film addressed different forms of fishing such as long lining and trolling which can catch enormous amounts of fish very quickly. The sheer capacity of these forms of fishing is amazing. For example long lining industry sets 1.4 billion hooks a year. These hooks are set on enough line that the line to encircle the globe more than 550 times. The mouth of the largest trolling nets in the world could fit 13 Boeing 747’s. It’s difficult to comprehend a ton of tuna but when they quantified these industrial fishing operations in this way I was upset.


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

I was not very much compelled by the aggressive approach that the film took towards high scale restaurants selling fish. For me I felt this was an attack on a small business that didn’t contribute to the main argument of the movie, Why not interrogate the captain of a small fishing boat? Perhaps it was because the director was trying to invoke some idea of a class struggle by only involving expensive restaurants. However, anyone who buys a can of tuna fish or a box of fish sticks holds some level of responsibility in this matter.


 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

I feel like anyone who enjoys eating fish regularly may have a change of appetite after viewing this film. Speaking for myself; I rarely eat fish but I happened to order tuna at an upscale restaurant just days before watching this film. If I had seen The End of the Line before that meal I probably wouldn’t have ordered that dish. I have also eliminated buying cans of tuna fish since watching this film. Using myself as a model of a “normal” consumer I think that many people are unaware of what is happening to the world’s population of fish and by education the population fewer pounds of fish will be consumed.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The topic of this film affects the entire world, and therefore the director traveled to different locations and analyzed problems with the global network. However, I would have like to see more attention paid to north America and particularly the United states. There was some reference made to the regulations that are in place in this country but that was about it. If the director could have discusses more about how the U.S. model of regulation is different that the Chinese or how hatcheries here in this country operate that may make them more sustainable and a model for other countries to follow.


 * 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 doesn’t suggest many alternatives rather than recommending consumers don’t eat fish and fisherman stop catching so many fish, but the problem isn’t that easily resolvable. They do suggest eating smaller species of fish since their populations are renewed quicker. For there to be a real effective solution people need to be educated that the livelihoods of people that rely on fish are disappearing. This may be done through educating fisherman and governments of the long term problems associated with the current state of fishing, or governments enforcing stricter regulations when if comes to the amount of fish caught and sold each year.


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

This is an issue that I had absolutely no idea was a global problem until this movie was screened in class. I felt somewhat ignorant for never hearing about this until now when it seem that overfishing has been known to be a problem for the past decade. It’s surprising to me that this issue has landed little to none mainstream attention when there could be huge changes in the way we view fish as a resource. Since viewing this film I was interested to see exactly what kind of regulations are in force today in the United States. What I found was the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This act manages America’s marine fisheries. It was first passed in 1976, was reauthorized in 1996 and again most recently in 2006. I was pleased to find out that there has been a strict mandate in place to end overfishing in America in 2011. Finally time will be allocated to the fish that are indigenous of the Atlantic and Pacific coast and they will have time to recover in numbers. [] Another article I found was about Oli Valur Steindorsson and Karl Petur Jonsson, a pair of entrepreneurs from Iceland that started a sustainable seafood company in San Francisco. Their goal was to delay on the Bluefin tuna's drift near extinction from the sushi-loving West Coast. Their company became among the first to spawn the species in captivity without the use of hormones, bringing the firm a step closer to mass rancher-style commercialization. With any luck the company will be able to make breakthroughs in the farming of natural tuna and make their techniques available to other organizations trying to help the Bluefin recover. []