Guillot_Annotation+5

Rachel Guillot Film Annotation 5  The End of the Line The film “The End of the Line” was directed by Rupert Murray and released in 2009. This film delves into the problems associated with fish; how they are caught, where, what types. Its biggest arguments are that the world is overfishing and soon we will extinct certain species. Our fishing methodologies are also a sustainability problem because they are destroying and disturbing other life forms as well. For instance in Newfoundland, cod is the reason the cities there grew as they did and because of the overfishing occurring, in 1992 there was a moratorium set on cod fishing during which 40,000 people lost their jobs. The cod species has still not rebounded and is still endangered.

The matrix of sustainability problems included in this film begins with a lack of accountability from countries in counting their yearly catch and stock. For instance, in China, the numbers were calculated incorrectly [either on purpose or by accident] leading to a world figure that was deceiving when it came to doing something about the problem. This also is shown by the fact that the world stock of fish has been dropping since 1988 but not until the year 2002 was this realized and publicized. It is difficult to count and report all the fish in the ocean. The issue of too many boats and trolling nets disturbs the habitat on the ground floor of the ocean and destructs and disturbs entire ecosystems and new electronic equipment such as satellites, doesn’t give the fish a chance. The policing of Blue Fin Tuna is not accomplished as well as it could be either and many fishermen are still catching more than allowed such as in Malta where there alone, more than 2 times the total amount of fish allowed to be caught worldwide are being caught. In Tokyo where Mitsubishi is in control of 60% of the tuna, they are also believed to be building up frozen stock. The consumer demand, money, industry, and technology are the primary sustainability problems. With the water warming because of water pollution the fish are already struggling. Workers of the fish industry rely on the fishing for an income and for their culture and are put out of jobs when large industries and technologies are involved. Many of the fishermen in Senegal, West Africa, are moving to other parts of the world because they can no longer afford to live in the area they are leading to more problems with immigration. Health and fashion are also parts to the matrix as shown with the Blue Fin Tuna are hunted almost to extinction but still offered on the menu of various elite restaurants making them more highly valued. This links back to cultural bias we have with gluttony and the concept of “if you can get it, get it”. This film also brought up politics vs. science, multinational corporations, the interdependence of ecosystems, and organic certification.

The convincing aspects of the film were the use of imagery and the music. The imagery was very powerful with the fish catching methods and the tons of fish that are caught and piled into boats as well as the fish waste. The contradiction in images between the fish being harvested and killed and the beautiful sea images worked well together. For me, the images of the pristine sea and the large blue fin tunas were especially compelling. The music worked very well in conjunction with the images. It had an intensity to the music that built well with the images. The antithesis arguments and interviews that contradicted the points made by the movie and made the movie stronger. The statements made at the end of the film were done well to summarize the intentions of the movie in case the main point was lost. The visual and verbal elements complemented each other well.

The aspects of the film that would use improvement would be to mention species other than the Blue Fin Tuna. I personally never knew about the problem of the Blue Fin Tuna becoming an endangered species and the film was also not clear about the tuna that we eat from cans and whether or not it is on the road to becoming endangered as well after the Blue Fin. The film also could have gone more in depth on the solutions it proposed, such as what is sustainable fish harvesting and if there are sustainable farms and where they are. I believe at the end it also oversimplifies the problems by stating that there is an easy fix that is simple to solve and we can act now, when really the matrix of sustainability problems do not allow for one simple fix.

This film was directed towards a variety of audiences. Except for the extreme graphics of fish waste, etc, it could be directed toward younger audiences. They may not understand all of it but they would gather important factual knowledge. As a result of this I would say that this film would be most effective with middle school, high school students and older. Educationally, the film works well for students in secondary education in order to bring up points they may not have heard of and introduce them to sustainability issues and solutions they can do on their own, such as choosing what they eat and influencing their parents to buy/not buy certain things.

The solutions mentioned in the film included a greater interest by the population in what they eat, where it is caught, how it is caught, and if it is endangered. The film pleads us to become more involved in the fish industry by using our voice as consumers. It tells us to look at labels on fish packaging and mentions there is only 1% of the fish market that is currently sustainable. It also mentions the case in Chimbote, Peru where in fish farming the larger fish are fed with smaller fish [one kilo of salmon is fed with five kilos of anchovies] and then are eaten by the wealthy of the area or exported. It encourages a push to eat smaller fish that do not need to feed on millions of fish throughout their lifetime. In the Bahamas, the marine reserve has banned commercial fishing and since 1995 when a portion has been off-limits to fishing, the amount of fish in the area has grown by five times. “The End of the Line” argues for more areas throughout the world that function in the way the marine reserve functions and more policing of waters needs to occur. Fishing subsidies also encourage over-fishing so a solution would be to cut the subsidies, especially for large fishing corporations. The argument for pressure on governments to provide more regulation and protection for certain areas, responsible politicians, industry following the rules, and changing of our consumer habits are the other key points when it comes to solutions that this film mentioned.

Looking for further information I found the [|ISSF [International Seafood Sustainability Foundation]] who works with regional fishery management organizations to trace fish and enforce compliance. The foundation seems to be an intermediary between the fish, United Nations policies, and local compliance organizations. It does the paperwork and research to determine what needs to be done to conserve the fish. I also looked into Nobu restaurants to see if any of their policies have changed with the release of this film and the pressure put upon them so take Blue Fin Tuna off their menu or at least add a note that it is an endangered species. I found an [|article from July of 2010] that stated that Blue Fin Tuna are listed on the Nobu menu as an “unsustainable” option but because of the cultural connotation of it, they still serve it. I also looked into the Nobu menu and I found the [|New York menu] and that both Yellowtail and Blue Fin Tuna are listed on the menu but not listed as unsustainable/endangered options.