Originally, we were stoked to hear about a new Netflix ocean documentary film about overfishing. We were hopeful that the film wouldn't be the same ole 'shark weeky' take and that we'd gain insights, learn some actionable items or at very least it would do justice to raising much-needed awareness aroundissues facing the oceans. Sadly, this was NOT that film.
Why do we care?
It's true, we are not scientists, we've never been diving nor have access to the ocean in our daily lives. We are a LGBTQ+ white-female owned small business, that designs clothes to inspire people to take action in order to save sharks and the seas. We started our brand to create sustainable, ethical clothing that we couldn't find in stores, especially clothing without the typical clip-artsy 'great white attacks another surfer' graphic on it. Aside from creating sharky flair, we are driven to make a difference however we can. In fact, you are apart of that right now as you read this (thank you)!
While we don't have the degree or all that dive gear we can create a supportive community, a platform for resources, a place to access REAL people making an impact world-wide, a brand that not only inspires but nurtures learning. We are a brand that understands how vital it is to support conservation through multiple aspects: political, scientific, educational, and habitat restoration. It's important to speak up because we set out to be a business that we wanted when we were younger.
"You do not need to be an expert, scientist or even a diver to make a difference."
The unfortunate fact is big businesses have real power in driving public opinions and actual policy decisions that result in impacts on our planet- be them bad or good impacts.
It's so important to critically think and do your own research to find out more about the brands/orgs/businesses you support through donations and purchases.
When examining these large businesses, non-profits, even our social media platforms and news sources, this film serves as another grim reminder about how little consumers actually know (or are 'allowed' to know) about what goes on, what goes IN, and who is making the products you buy.
In our technology rich world, film and social media are powerful tools for relaying information or telling a story to a mass audience, but this documentary left a lot of story untold. Most glaringly was the fact that the filmmakers failed to give any consideration or voice to Black, Indigenous, Asian, Latino communities that bare the brunt of the topics poorly summarized in the film.
In general, the conservation issues in the movie are HUGE and deeply complex ones. The filmmakers took the most gruesome parts of each topic and chopped them up into a 90 minute window. What viewers may fail to realize as they are caught up in the gore-filled aspects of by-catch, overfishing, whaling or shark finning is that without adequate representation or even mentioning context for each issue this documentary perpetuates xenophobia and violence against non-represented community members. This is apparent in the way the filmmakers chose to include a very graphic and triggering scene of a non-white man getting fatally shot without warning- this scene serves as a horrifying example of how 'normalized' violence against BIPOC community is worldwide. We felt it was an unnecessary, disrespectful and harmful scene to include for people who experience racism and fear of violence every day.
Little to no historical or anthropological context is included which results in gaps of viewer understanding that lead to these non-represented/non-interviewed groups being portrayed (either on purpose or not) as the 'enemies' instead of fellow humans trying to survive or frankly just going about their lives in their own culture and country.
We noticed that most interviewees and speakers were white coming from privileged points of view with the option and means to 'stop eating fish'; with the option to 'opt out' of certain foods or materials that other populations or areas can't. And as we watch the public reaction to the film, we are disappointed in some of its support from well known activists, photographers and filmmakers for not calling out these problematic aspects of it.
When people watch 'educational' films that lack critical input from not only scientists in the field of discussion but input from individuals within the communities the film is about, it generates misinformation and has the potential to breed violence or have severe economic fall out from false claims.
Representation matters and when it is left out of films like this that go out to the masses, a filmmaker's lack of research or consideration can contribute to the dehumanizing and erasure of entire populations. It strips ownership from those communities that should have the most power to say while allowing any entities responsible for injustice to get away unaffected.
This documentary DID bring some awareness and spur lots of conversation to issues that the 'everyday person' wouldn't be aware of. However, we felt Seaspiracy failed to interview key scientists, didn't follow through on their own research leads nor provide context with history or relevant cultural information, relied mainly on questionable stats, used unsavory interview techniques and editing to push an overwhelming narrative that the best way we can save the ocean is to stop eating fish.
While cutting down or cutting out consumption of meat and fish can help, it's not accurate to position it as a major remedy and fails miserably to include even a mention about the coastal/island nations that rely on fish for food.
In our opinion, this film was an oversimplified hobby flick from a white guy with some sweet camera equipment that sorta talked about a lot of things without saying anything at all and offered no real action to viewers other than to stop eating fish.. which it mentions A LOT.
Anyone can buy a drone, get a camera and put a film together - by all means go for it, film and art are powerful in change making!
BUT It's critical we address how DANGEROUS misinformation is. How failure to obtain permission to film violates peoples' privacy and can cost them their job or even their own life unknowingly in addition the more obvious violates laws and regulations. How a failure to research a topic or location adequately or seek proper input from experts has a role in creating deeper divisions and ignorance within conservation efforts that can ultimately undo hard-fought victories.
It's important that film makers, influencers, activists, and viewers acknowledge the ripples that will always have lasting impacts in the communities long after that film crew is gone.
From our Notebook:
If watched, this film should be used as more of a starting point for more research. There is not a quick answer or one easy solution to the world's problems, be them in shark conservation or otherwise.
This film briefly touches on a number of very complex issues that need a great deal more consumer research in order to understand them adequately. Again, people spend their lives studying any one of these aspects and still have more layers to examine.
Anyone watching and wanting to take action should put effort into learning more about by-catch, fishing regulations, overfishing, shark finning, pollution, climate change, coral bleaching, fishery management, trafficking, aquarium industry and the pet trade, marine protected areas as well as related legislation/policies happening in their state/country. It was concerning that utilizing elections and your country officials wasn't touched on in any meaningful way in the film when it's perhaps one of the most powerful ways to take action. Especially with more in-land populations attempting to support bills or environmental protection policy for their coastal areas, using your vote and using your voice to contact city/state/country representatives isn't a point to miss.
The film putting a lot of emphasis and pressure on the consumer to stop eating fish as a best way to save the seas is not fair nor a viable solution. BILLIONS of people rely on the sea and seafood for survival. The fact is, we NEED science, we NEED subject matter experts in addition to people from all walks of life to be welcomed into the conversation if we are ever going to solve any of these complex issues.
If you make the claim there are 'no sustainable fisheries' why wouldn't you interview more wildlife biologists/fisheries biologists to include in your documentary so you can substantiate that claim? Instead, the filmmaker chooses a sort of echo-chamber cast of activists. Interviewing activists would be okay if they are balanced them out with actual scientists or people working in the field they're discussing. Sidenote: We found it interesting that most of these activists mentioned how they personally do not eat fish/meat- we felt like it created a "peer pressure" like vibe and again pushed the 'stop eating fish' theme throughout.
The last segment about whale hunting in the Faroe Islands seemed like an afterthought and didn't seem to flow with the rest of the show. Here again, the film only really focuses on the very audible, very bloody hunt without explaining the context of why the hunt happens or started, if this community relies on the meat for survival year-round, is it meat that is exported to make a living for the people that live there; there's no in-depth explanations of the landscape nor mention of helpful details like the country's population to explain why a whale hunt may be needed. The segment ended with a choppy whale hunter interview that also didn't fit in or support anything in particular. Again the whaling segment is another example of how the film leaves out culturally and economically significant information that contributes to ethnocentrism, Cultural erasure and xenophobia.
The film didn't follow up on their own 'leads'; example, the documentary didn't consider/address micro plastics as apart of plastic pollution in our oceans even after they show their 'gotcha interview' with PlasticPollutionCoalition.
The filmmaker's ambush-like interviews on this film left us feeling icky. The questions are aggressively asked interrogation-style with the clear goal of trying to get a specific answer rather than the truth. Read Plastic Pollution Coalition's statement here.(please read their FAQs at the link too!)
The filmmakers didn't mention any 'good' organizations, clean up efforts/relavant research- they didn't even explain what the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was or go in detail about any of that although that was the basis for why the filmmaker claims to have made this film. They also didn't talk about the top plastic polluters either- you may have heard of them: Coke, Pepsi, Nestle?
This whole film is a glaring example of how misinformation and personal biases can negatively impact communities long after the film wraps and the filmmakers leave.
This film's impact and has already had very real consequences. Take a look at the organizations the filmmakers specifically 'target' in this film that are suddenly full of hate messages, death threats and misinformed rage from its streaming audience that watched. Look at @PlasticPollutionCoalition's social media page or peek at @Oceana for example. See Oceana's statement here.
To us, this documentary was a better lesson about how we as individuals need to question information that's given to us than it was about saving the seas. A wake up call for us to really examine what information is presented, how sources are used or not used, how interviews are edited and WHO is being interviewed or allowed to speak. We need to pay close attention to underlying narrative(s) that a documentary, news article, organization or business may be pushing forward to consumers. Who is it being funded by? Are they trying to sell me something? Where'd they get that stat from?
Hopefully somewhere in this film people see how everything is connected regardless of if we are aware of it or not. We cannot have environmental justice, climate justice without social justice; animal rights will never be acknowledged if were unable to acknowledge human rights.
Hopefully this film will make people question who and why they're supporting who they support, it will drive businesses to be more transparent with where their money is going and into what practices it funds.
Hopefully this film will inspire innovation around plastic pollution upcycling or more artisans will make new ghost net products? Stay safe, do your research.
Wanna make a difference?
Check out our TAKE ACTION post for links and pages to follow,
petitions to sign and local bills and policy to support.
Check out: 12 ways to live more sustainably HERE.
You can also learn more about our Shark Partners and follow along in
support of their various missions to save sharks and our seas!