So here we are (a little later than originally planned), the
final piece of this series, and my last foray into
Blackfish until, perhaps, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules on SeaWorld's OSHA appeal sometime in the coming months. In the time since the first two pieces of this series hit
the blogosphere,
Blackfish has moved
from near-nightly airings on CNN to on-demand availability on Netflix.
Additionally, the film has stayed in the
headlines due, in no small part, to the recent media attention surrounding the
decision of several musical acts to cancel their appearances at SeaWorld in an
apparent act of protest.
It is clear that
the “Blackfish effect” is powerful both in its message and its longevity.
But what is its message exactly?
And do the facts presented in
Blackfish support that message in a
fashion that lives up to the claim of its
director, Gabriala Cowperthwaite, that the film is nothing more than a
“truthful, fact driven narrative” that
errs “on the side of the journalistic approach”and is, in fact, “not at all advocating for anything.” My belief is that
Blackfish itself plainly belies any contention that the film is
anything other than a piece of animal-rights advocacy – one sided in both fact
and presentation.
In the first two
pieces in this series I looked at the people involved in Blackfish, many of whom have undisclosed (and sometimes radical) animal-rights agendas, and the filmmaking techniques used to steer the viewer
toward one, and only one, position. To
finish, I thought we should take a closer look at Blackfish’s substance - the claims it makes and its overall message.
Remember, Blackfish is being passed off by its
director as erring “on the side of the journalistic approach.” That means that its statements should comply
with journalistic standards: they should
be fact checked, unambiguous, and not misleading. Why is
that important? Because if the film
conveys a false factual impression or is inaccurate or untruthful as to even a
single point, it can (and does) degrade the credibility of the film as a
whole. To continue the analogy from Part 1 of this series, this film is, in essence, the star witness in the Court of Public Opinion's trial of SeaWorld. The audience must, therefore, assess its credibility as to the facts presented, just as it would any other witness. A falsehood, even a little white
lie, calls into question the rest of what the film says. If the film lies about little things, the
audience - the jury in the Court of Public Opinion - has a right to wonder whether the film is lying about bigger things
too.
I lied. I said my last post was my last foray into Blackfish. But, I have been inundated with so many emails and comments that I thought I should write one last piece to address some of these points raised either publicly or privately. First, let me say how grateful I am for most of the comments, even those that clearly think that I have missed the point of Blackfish (and, not surprisingly, there are quite a few of you out there). The point of this blog is to generate discussion and debate and to provide information and opinion about the amusement industry to those that are interested, and those goals seem to have been achieved in this series. But, having read hundreds of emails, comments, tweets, and Facebook posts about these pieces, I have seen some common themes emerging that deserve to be addressed - I just don't have time to address them individually. So I thought it made more sense to post one last piece. I wouldn't, after all, want anyone to think I was ignoring them.
