Ivory Wars: Last Stand in Zakouma (Presentation Preperation)

Documentary- Ivory Wars: Last Stand in Zakouma by Micheal Nichols and J. Micheal Fay

http://mediastorm.com/publication/ivory-wars-last-stand-in-zakouma

1. Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed. Replay an element from the film to support your opinion.

The various values first are positive and respectful towards the national park in Zakouma, the photographer finding the life beautiful as he travelled to capture it. However the tables turn in view point when the topic of elephant tusking is introduced and the poachers brought in as the main antagonist of the documentary and message. The values shown by the armed guards of the national park in Zakouma are the elephants safety seeing as it's their job to protect them and the boarders of the park. The values of the poachers waiting along the border for the elephants are money: The tusks of an elephant, the ivory in them will sell for quite a bit on the Black Market. (Guards not following and Poachers right on the borderline of the park waiting)

2.  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 by replaying an element to support your opinion.

I've always been disgusted of elephant tusking and shark finning, anything that involves killing something for one part of them and disposing of the rest in an inhumane manor. (We however as humans do this to the earth all the time so in someone else's point of view I could be considered a heretic.) The idea of greed to take away something’s life for one thing, and sell it out of greed for money isn't a value I agree with. There are more humane and honorable ways to make a living and killing isn't one of them.

(Quote about the poachers- "Expense is paid by the look in their eyes")

I do agree with protecting the elephants however I don't believe they need to be protected by humans, we've created a bit of a civil war on such matters as these don't you think? Human on Human. I completely disagree with the idea that the elephants are only protected when inside the park; if it was a mission to protect the elephants then the guards should travel with them instead of leave them when they move to find better food that the designated spot couldn't offer. (Replay part when guards don't follow elephants)

3.  Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out?

The side of the poachers was left out, most likely to make them the antagonist in the viewer's eyes and create a loving mutual bond with the elephants featured.

4.  How did things like music, lighting, editing, statistics, expert opinions, news footage, celebrity opinions, testimonials (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing? Replay an element from the film that demonstrates one of the conventions of documentary film making.

The music played when the elephants were being featured was more of a contemporary jazz___ There weren't any real testimonials or celebrity opinions however the editing and the graph of the elephants trail was a rather engaging aspect and part of the documentary. It was neat to see the red dots travel so far and the weekly markers come up but then the dots stopped and started blinking in one spot, you didn't need the commentary to realize that it meant the elephants had been found and killed. (Replay area) It engaged to a level of intensity, almost like a video game to me. I was fascinated, always hoping they'd turn back to safety but test the limits of how far freedom would let them live until finally it was game over with no restarting the level or going back to the last checkpoint. The use of lighting and editing on the images of the animals and wildlife brought them beauty and dazzle while the images of the poachers used that are slightly out of focus and blurred around the edges with poor quality show the side they want to expose of them. (Replay example)

5.  What is the overall message of the documentary? Is the message effectively conveyed to the audience? Choose one point in the film that demonstrates effective communication of the overall message.

The overall message of Ivory Wars is raising awareness of the situation and to further the cause to stop it. The final quote of the documentary is:

"Zakouma's future as a wildlife refuge depends on the continuing dedication of its guards. And support from the outside world." And gives a bit of a push, like most documentaries with a cause to promote it or do something yourself to assist with the situation.

Photograph by Michael Fay

Remember These Days Seltzer Man: Documentry

1. Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed.
The seltzer man in the documentary, who was the featured character valued his family as well as tradition and his work. Constantly speaking about his Grandfather and his Father at the beginning of the documentary, he introduced the fact that he was continuing with their work, going on the same route and using the same 90 year old bottles.

2.  How much do you agree or disagree with the ways in which they behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed?
How he behaved was very inspiring, how dedicated he was to his work was admirable however when it came to the topic of his current family, his wife who was only mentioned once and his boys who were mentioned a few times, it was rushed. When his first kid was born, he said he was there at the hospital and then when he saw his boy all clean up and pretty, he had to leave and finish his route. The values of his past family were strong and well spoken of but when on the topic of his current family, it seemed his work outweighed them, or at least this is how it came aross in the documentary.

3.  Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out?
Back to the topic of family, he barely spoke about his wife. His kids were mentioned a few times, when he spoke briefly of his first childs birth and then again on them taking over the business if they wanted to. His wife was only mentioned the one time though, besides that left out. His work was the main focus of the documentary and that was the only side of him we received. Yes we got some of his family life but that was all connected to his work and his values of the saltza and the bottles.

4.  How did things like music, lighting, editing, statistics, expert opinions, news footage, celebrity opinions, testimonials (characters directly addressing the camera) and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing?
The artistic aspects of the documentary and the different techniques used such as lighting, filming and music brought a mood, quality and respect to the film. The most noted example was the filming of the bottles, when they were being cleaned and stored. The angle was a simple pan shot that blurred out the background and showed a crystal clear bottle with clear reflections and proper lighting. It brought a beauty to them that appeared over and over again. The music in the documentary was simple and not over used. The first example was moreso at the opening when the jazzy tune brought in the swing of the route when showing him in his truck while the last clip of music was more sudude and meaningful as it brought in the finals words.

5.  What is the overall message of the documentary? Is the message effectively conveyed to the audience?
The overall message of this documentary is family, respect and tradition. [Everyone wants someone knew, but these bottles have been here for 90 years and this world works on stability] is the just of what he was saying. On the topic of cellphones and how his kids always wants what's new, he brought in the idea of the bottles and how even though they aren't as new as they were, there are still people who depend on them and need them.

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.

Who killed the electric car?

1.   Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed.
The different values displayed were those of environmentalists and the co-creators of the EV1s as well as those of a higher power such as the government and the oil and car companies. The way they acted were connected to their views and values; the car and oil companies were against the electric car because if it did blow up into a success, they would loose profit in their companies and the car companies played as pawns seeing the oil companies are their magor supporters. As for the electric car supporters and manufacturers, they challenged the higher power because they believed that the electric car was a better alternative and the hope of a cleaner and better future; however what's good for us doesn't always get to us. It seems greed and self-preservation usually get in the way...

2.  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 the environmentalists and suporters of the electric car, because I believe that the future can be brighter, and will be brighter. One day we're going to run out of oil; that is an inevitable fact that most still haven't come to terms with. The race is to see whether we run out of oil first or we destroy our planet with it before we do. I disagree with the companies because they turned down a new alternative because of greed and self-preservation. I disagree with the government for taking a biased side. I do agree with the environmentalists for not giving up and standing up for what they believe in.

3.   Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think
things may have been left out?
The documentary was biased towards the electric car and all of its benefits to society and the environment. I would have liked to find out a little more about any possible technical flaws and why they weren't advertised on a grand scale. They came across as a mystery and why was a constant question streaming through my head. Obviously these points may have been left out to make the electric car seem supirior in that aspect compared to the other alternatives.

4. How did things like music, lighting, editing, testimonials  (characters directly addressing the camera), statistics and higher powers and the various conventions of documentary affect your opinion of what you were viewing?
Regarding the music, lighting and editing: These were all well done in the sense that they made you understand how grave the matter could come across as to a supporter of the electic car. The funeral styled music evoked a certain mourning that the electric car and sympathy towards those who supported it.
Regarding the testemonials and higher powers: The testimonials did what they alwasy do in documentaries; they made you think. They gave you two sides of one battle and they made you try to choose a side (and with the biased in the documentary and subjective viewpoint, this was rather easy). The higher powers that we met though were three celebrities who had a brief say on the matter (these clips were from interviews, television media sources and testimonials). Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson and Ex-govenor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger were all for the electric car which could and would appeal to those who idolized these actors and their works.
As far as statistics were concerned they brought a sense of urgency to the documentary. We've all heard about these problems with the environment however only few know just how important a new alternative is (we're running out of oil and coal and we're not going to be getting anymore soon)

Spellbound: Humanizing

1. Why does the director of the Documentary Spellbound spend so much time at the beginning of the Documentary introducing the 8 competitors that will be participating in the National Spelling Bee.
For the same reason in the Olympics they play the 'Behind the Athlete' or 'Athlete's Moms' specials. It's to humanize the people who we're supposed to feel something for. It makes a boring subject relatable if not interesting. Most look at spelling and acedemics and immediately change the channel or find something else to do.You get to know their families, their motives and their personalities; choose a favourite and root for them in your mind as you watch the documentary.
2.   Describe the ways different people in the Documentary behaved, or the kinds of values and beliefs they displayed.
Most, as in usual circumstances, showed a must desire to win, they've spent their entire educational career working towards this with either pressure on themselves or pressure on them from their parents (or both) while some, mostly in a rarer situation with Spelling Bees in the US, just have a natural talent for it and want to do it for fun, but also have that motive to win as all should and do. 
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 the one mother who said it was a form of child abuse. It's the same with sports too, academics and anything that involves competition in my opinion. In a way for America, this is the 'nerdy pagent show' I've heard that nick name loosely associated with Spelling Bees a number of times.
Coming from a sports perspective, I've seen families in a variety of different views on competition. Some families, lik mine, are oblivious to how the sport works so allt hey can do is cheer me on. Others like one girl I played against last year in a tournament, had parents who pressured her and her teammates and her coach to win so they could put a new trophy on the mantel. The question posed now is, who would you root for? And that's also another reason why the students were introduced at the beginning of the documentary.

4.   Was there anything about the Documentary that was biased or omitted? If there was, why do you think things may have been left out?
I think the last part, when the spelling bee had reached the top 8 and they announced the other boy who'd come 4th the year before was a bit of a surprise, seeing as he wasn'tmentioned once before. I thin it was left out simply to show the suspence of a competition like this and all the twists it can hold.

5. 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 made the atmophere a little more lighter, like the theme of jepordy in a way. The lighting created a sense of realism that came when it was the individual interviews; almost like they were talking into a webcam while the lighting for the participants while on the stage in the National Spelling Bee was more dramatic and intimidating, which showed the viewers just how alone you can be up there.
Over all, they affected my opinion of the viewing by once again making it more real. There wasn't the high tech lighting and editing like in the Hollywood block busters that immediately come across as cinematic but instead Spellbound had a 'homey' charm to it that really grounded the viewer.