Sharkwater

1)      Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out? Could Rob Stewart have chosen a better advocate to demonstrate the shark finning side of the argument?

The side Rob Stewart chose to represent the shark finning side of the argument was the mobs and private docks and pirate boats of the waters. Things were left out though to promote the idea that skarks are endangered and something needs to be done. A large portion that was left out against the sharks were the past events and accidents surounding sharks; we heard stories about how they were safe and few absurd ones about people being eaten or killed by sharks. True only 5 people on average die a year by sharks while something like 150 (around that number I believe) die by falling out of bed but there are accidents that happen and not all sharks are as heavenly as the hammer head (The Bull Shark is the first that comes to mind). For the argument Rob Stewart was making, he chose the perfect antagonist for his documentery that really does encourage a rise against the barbarik finners.
As for the advocate of Shark finning, he chose a rather peculiar man who had trouble articulating his thoughts and came across as an idot who didn't know what he was talking about. There were many other choices that could have made his argument more valid.

2)      Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed. Are there cultural bias in the film.

The main people in the documentary behaved as most green peace groups do, they didn't apove of something and needed to do something to stop it. Rob Stewart was very calm and persuasive to his argument and the greenpeace groups were more stubborn and loud-mouthed with their ideas. Cultural biases were all over the film; the ones for China and Japan the most evident. There was the one man being interviewed about skarks closer to the beginning of the film who didn't know a thing he was talking about and came across as ignorant and amusing. They showed footage of walking down a street in China and seeing all the Shark fins and catalige and also listed the statistic and belief that the Chinese believe a sharks power and strength will be past along if you consume it. This idea has no science behind it and reflects a typical spiritual stereotype of eastern countries.

3)      How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed? Explain your feelings and point of view.

I agree with how Rob Stewart behaved, finding his motives soley to save the sharks admirable and the values of the Southerners, Chinese, Costa Rican fishing vessels barbarik. Believing killing all the sharks is saving people is based on no fact or evidence, like one of the men said in the film 'it's not like they come up on land'. We invade them and that's something a lot of people are forgetting. The beliefs and words the people said that 'god put the animals there for us to eat' stirrs feelings in me that are completely negative. I don't pretend to understand because I don't, I'm ignorant as far as most religions are concerned belonging to more of a spiritual belief myself then a strick book and politically tainted religion. People need to realize that we are not the top of the food-chain, we don't have the power to control what lives and what dies. Humans love power and have a hard time giving it up but what the documentary is showing is that if we don't, it may be too late to do so in the future.

4)      How did things like music, lighting, editing, testimonials (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing?

The music was one of the most powerful things in the documentary. The calm and soothin jaz and classical instrumental pieces, or pieces with a soft vocal over top were placed with footage of the sharks freely swimming under water to show how peaceful they are and how they mind their own. There was more of a dead flat and horror movie like tone when the sharks were being hunted that was also mixed with the soft vocals one might find at a celtic funeral service. As for the testimonials, all were powerful and all were meaningful and professional looking while the ones involving people who didn't support sharks and supported shark finning had a weaker lighting and a less professional flare to them. It made them all look like a joke, which was the point that did get across by the end of the documentary. The parts where it was soley Rob Stewart adressing the camera, like when he was in the hospital, also didn't have a professional look to them and appeared as if they were shot on a flip cam or low budget camera (probably because it was...) made him more real. He wasn't some big star celebrity from Green Peace, he was a kid from Toronto who was a marine biologist and supported something he was working to help. It made him and his cause more real and more relatable.