Blackfish / White Lies? (Pt. 2): The Art Of Advocacy Film-Making

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies? (A Prologue)

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies (Pt. 1):  Sorry, I Forgot to Mention, They’re All Activists

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies (Pt. 3): Undisclosed Facts & Muddled Messages

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies (An Epilogue):  Responding To Your Comments

“I had to decide that my structure was going to be to tell the truthful, fact-driven narrative from beginning to end, following Tilikum’s trajectory through the eyes of the former trainers, that I can just tell the truth and lay out the facts.  Someone said that if you try too hard to do “on the one hand, but then on the other hand,” you may become faithless to the truth.  And so, if I just promise myself that I would not sensationalize, not shoehorn information in there that will manipulate people into feeling things and stick to the fact-driven story, then that is a story that people need to hear.“

Gabriela Cowperthwaite, describing Blackfish (available at http://collider.com/gabriela-cowperthwaite-jeffrey-ventre-blackfish-interview/).  

Is this accurate?  Is Blackfish really just an un-sensationalized piece of documentary film-making that doesn’t try to “manipulate people into feeling things?”  Does Blackfish simply “stick to a fact-driven story?”  That’s the question and the point of this series.  Ms. Cowperthwaite has given interviews to at least two media outlets claiming that Blackfish is just a straightforward presentation of “fact driven narrative,” without advocacy.  I do not see how that can be a credible claim given the inherent bias of the people involved (the discussion of my last entry), the structure and film-making tricks used seemingly for the sole purpose of “manipulate[ing] people” into considering only one side (the subject of this piece), and the inconsistent and sometimes demonstrably incorrect statements presented in the film (the subject of the next, and last, piece).  

What’s the Point of All This?

Now, before getting into the substance of this piece, I want to address a question that has been asked of me both privately and publicly over the last 48 hours:  What’s the point?  Does it matter whether this is a piece of advocacy or not?  I think it does.  

When a film is shown on CNN, the natural assumption of most viewers is that CNN, a news organization, made the film or at least had a hand in its production and, thus, that the film is a piece of journalism – an investigative report, perhaps – and thus meets certain journalistic standards.  This assumption is only underscored when the director of the film insists publicly that the film is “not advocating for anything,” and errs “on the side of the journalistic approach, not the advocacy approach.”  

An audience that sees such a film may reasonably assume that it is a fact-driven piece of journalism that is presented without bias, that presents both sides of the issue, that recognizes and addresses the weakness of each, and that allows the viewer to reach an educated conclusion based on the reported facts.  The viewer can reasonably assume that the statements have been fact checked and are reliable.  The very fact of presenting a piece as “journalism” lowers the audience’s critical filters and skepticism about the material presented.   

The same is not true of a piece of acknowledged advocacy.  An audience that is aware that it is watching a piece of advocacy necessarily views it with a more careful eye.  The audience knows that the advocate is trying to persuade the viewer to “buy in” to her position.  The viewer is, therefore, more suspicious and more critical in its approach to the piece.  They are less likely to simply take the advocate’s word for it. 

The distinction is, therefore, critical to the audience’s willingness to accept the content presented without questioning it, and I believe that is why Blackfish’s director has been reluctant to admit that her film is advocacy.  If she were to acknowledge that her film is intended to persuade the audience to a particular viewpoint, if she were seen as an activist, or if she were to acknowledge, for example, the ties between some of the people involved and PETA (an organization whose positions and tactics are frequently viewed by the public as unreasonable) or other activist groups, she risks a more critical and skeptical audience.  But by cloaking Blackfish in a cloak of journalistic objectivity, director Gabriela Cowperthwaite has obtained the Holy Grail of advocacy:  she has sold her message to an audience that wasn’t aware she was selling anything in the first place.  And that is what I find objectionable.  The audience of Blackfish deserves to know that they are being sold a product.  They deserve to know that there is another side to the story – even if it is not fully presented in the film.  They deserve the chance to decide for themselves whether to buy the product or leave it on the shelf.  That’s the point. 

Now… moving on.

Aside from the people involved in  Blackfish, Gabriela Cowperthwaite uses a variety of film-making techniques that seem designed to manipulate the viewer to adopt her point and, more importantly, to give little or no consideration to the possibility of an opposing view.  Some of these are relatively obvious, others not as much.  All of them are very effective.  Let’s start with an obvious example.

Where Is The Opposing Point of View?

This one can’t really be missed:  the film gives no voice to anyone with an opposing view until nearly two-thirds through the film.  The only viewpoint that is in opposition to the views expressed by every other interview subject in the film is that of former SeaWorld trainer Mark Simmons and, while he appears on camera early on in the film to talk about the relationship that exists between trainer and animal, it is not until one hour and twenty-one minutes (based on the CNN running time) into this film that he appears on camera to say anything that opposes the views that have been expressed by every other person previously.  By the time the film gives any time to an opposing viewpoint, the audience has already been exposed to eighty-one minutes of non-stop advocacy.  This only serves to diminish the credibility of the one person expressing a different viewpoint.  The way the film is cut makes it appear that the views held by Mr. Simmons are outliers rather than legitimate points for consideration.  Put simply, the film’s structure is set up to minimize any thought given to Mr. Simmons’ viewpoint.

Now, I think I can guess what many of you are thinking right now:  Why didn’t SeaWorld offer its own view?  Gabriela Cowperthwaite has said that she asked SeaWorld to be interviewed for Blackfish but that they ultimately declined.  Could it be SeaWorld’s own fault that its view is not represented well in this film?  I don’t think so.  The problem with this line of thinking is in assuming that SeaWorld was the only party that could represent an opposing view.  But that’s simply not true.  Mr. Simmons proves that.  Ms. Cowperthwaite has stated that she understands why SeaWorld may not have wanted to participate, acknowledging “that at a certain point there was no way they could come off as not being defensive” given the questions she would ask and that SeaWorld was “never going to look good” in this film.  If that is true, then who can blame SeaWorld for not setting themselves up for that?   

But the fact that SeaWorld does not want to appear in the film does not mean that no one representing its side of the issue would have.  Surely, there are other former SeaWorld employees or others in the field of zoology, conservation, or veterinary science that could have been interviewed to represent an opposing viewpoint – but none were (or, if they were, they were left on the cutting room floor).  The absence of any opposing voice until the film is nearly over effectively conditions the audience to disfavor anything other than the message being repeatedly advanced so that, when an opposing view is raised, it can be easily discarded.  While effective from an advocacy point of view, this structure seems, in my opinion, designed to “manipulate people into feeling things” – exactly what Ms. Cowperthwaite claims not to be doing.

The Mark Simmons / Loro Parque Interview

Blackfish uses another technique to undermine Mr. Simmons’ credibility, but this one is more subtle.  Watch this clip (used here pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §107) and see if you spot it.

{this clip has been removed due to technical difficulties}

It is admittedly easier to spot this when seen in context with the rest of the film, but Mr. Simmons is the only person interviewed whose immediate reaction to an off-camera question is shown.  The interviewer is not heard asking questions in any of the other testimonials at any other point of the film.  Moreover, the answers given by these other individuals are very polished, with little or no “umms” “uhhhs” or obvious signs of thinking or mental preparation of an answer, such as looking away or tilting the head.  Whether this is because they are merely better speakers than Mr. Simmons or because Ms. Cowperthwaite took several takes with each and used the best footage (which is a common and accepted practice – I’m not suggesting that’s wrong), I don’t know.  But the difference between everyone else and Mr. Simmons is jarring.  We hear the question and see the immediate raw response as he answers it.  We see Mr. Simmons looking off camera and struggling to find the right words to say something as simple as, “I wasn’t there.”  He looks nervous – which is natural when one is not an actor, a camera is rolling, and questions are being asked.  And, after seventy-nine minutes of polished responses with no off-camera questioning, he appears to the viewer to be potentially hiding something.  He appears perhaps not credible.  I believe that was by design – another filmmaker’s technique to “manipulate people into feeling things” about this person and what he is saying.

Mr. Simmons’ reaction to the Loro Parque question was not necessary to set the stage for or segue to that section of the film – particularly since Mr. Simmons apparently was not there and doesn’t know much about it.  But his raw response to the off-camera question, the only one in the entire film, did portray him as potentially not credible and evasive when the topic of a tragic event was raised.  The directorial choice to fundamentally change the way Mr. Simmons is presented as compared to the other ex-trainers in Blackfish works brilliantly to subtly encourage the viewer not to believe what he is saying.

The Unsubstantiated Suggestion of a Cover Up

The last manipulative technique I want to mention in Blackfish is particularly egregious: Blackfish accuses SeaWorld of some kind of cover up connected to the death of Daniel Dukes but offers not a shred of evidence – or even speculation – as to what SeaWorld could possibly be covering up.  The effect of this is to leave the audience to imagine the worst – whatever that might be.

But there is no cover up.  Until this film, there does not appear to have even been the suggestion of a cover up.  I’ve spent time trying to find anyone that has written about this supposed cover up at any time before this movie.  I haven’t found anything (although I freely admit that I haven’t looked everywhere on the Internet).  Sure, many questioned SeaWorld’s characterization of this death, but I haven’t found anyone suggesting something more nefarious as Blackfish does.  More importantly, even if there were whispers of such a cover up lurking somewhere in the deepest corners of the Internet, there is certainly no evidence of such a thing – after all, does anyone think that such evidence, if it existed, would not have found its way into this film?  

 But, after hearing an hour and twenty minutes of one-sided interviews about SeaWorld and about injuries and deaths, both of trainers and of whales themselves, the audience is primed to believe that SeaWorld might even go so far as to engage in a conspiratorial cover up.  Never mind that there is not a shred of proof, evidence, or even reasonable inference to support such a claim.  Hardly the stuff of a typical “fact-driven story,” is it?  Indeed, no responsible editor in a journalistic setting would have even allowed this wholly speculative allegation to appear in a story without something to substantiate it.  But it can’t be beat if you’re trying to manipulate the viewer to accept the advocacy presented.

So… Blackfish features a cast predominantly made up of people with undisclosed biases and agendas and uses a variety of (admittedly effective) film-making techniques to manipulate its audience in a way that discourages critical thought and skepticism of the statements and assertions being offered.  Ms. Cowperthwaite, how exactly can you really claim that this is not a piece of advocacy but is, instead, just a piece of “fact driven” work that errs "on the side of the journalistic approach"?  If there’s any remaining doubt, the final piece in this series will look at the substance of some of the statements and arguments presented in Blackfish - statements and arguments that gloss over logical inconsistencies, may have been at least partially disavowed by Ms. Cowperthwaite herself, and ignore at least one seemingly false assertion so that the advocate’s narrative is preserved.  See you then.

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies? (A Prologue)

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies (Pt. 1):  Sorry, I Forgot to Mention, They’re All Activists

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies (Pt. 3): Undisclosed Facts & Muddled Messages

Click here to read Blackfish / White Lies (An Epilogue):  Responding To Your Comments