Looking at life from both sides: The Importance of Perception in Documentary Film Making

To date, I have primarily written about fiction films, but documentary film has always been my first and lasting passion. It was also my main avenue of study during College. It is refreshing to watch documentaries become increasingly popular. The classic ‘whodunnit’ crime-doc series is a genre we are all used to seeing on every streaming service available. The issue or the struggle in the documentary film world is transparency and balance. Most see documentaries as fact, and so they tend to be taken at face value. This is not to say that the facts and research present in documentaries are not true, but that a documentary maker has a specific agenda and point of view that they wish to present. Sometimes, a passion and focus can lead to a lack of duality. This, in turn, may lead to the full story never coming to light.

Many of you may be aware of the 2009 Oscar-winning documentary The Cove. This story is focused on a mission led by former dolphin trainer Ric O’Barry to stop the killing and selling of dolphins in the small town of Taijii, Japan. This documentary inspired a whole wave of activists to get involved and try to put a stop to this brutality. After watching it myself, I must admit that I did get onto google to see what could be done to stop this. The Cove has a clear agenda, which is evident form the film’s description: “to expose both a shocking instance of animal abuse and a serious threat to human health”. However, as is the case with most documentaries, the story is not as cut and dried as it appears.

There have been two counter-documentaries to The Cove. There may be even more, which I am unaware of. This post will be focusing on Megumi Sasaki’s A Whale of a Tale (AWOAT). This documentary focuses more on the people of Taijii, their culture and their reason for behaviours that many would not consider being barbaric. From AWOAT’s description, their goal is also clear: “revealing not everything is as black and white as it seems”. This is the key difference between these two documentaries and, to me, this is what is key to a balanced documentary, which in turn creates a well-informed viewer.

The Cove can be found much more easily than AWOAT. It’s available to rent on most services, not to mention the number of pirated versions there are (not that I condone pirating). If you are trying to watch AWOAT, you will seriously struggle to find it. The danger with this is that the main perspective a viewer will see, or at least the perspective that the majority will see, is that of The Cove.Considering this, will anybody get a true representation of the whole story?

As mentioned, Ric O’Barry was a very famous dolphin trainer. He was involved in the training of many dolphins used for film and television. He came to realise what he was doing was animal cruelty. Overwhelmed by guilt and seeking change, he made it his life goal to end marine life cruelty. His cause is noble, but how he goes about it and how he frames the story may hinder his own efforts.

For much of the documentary, O’Barry and his team are like the SAS, using night vision to film the elusive goings-on in Taijii. The locals are referred to as murderers and evil people. Once this documentary came to light, it only caused more activists to descend upon the town with their video cameras, invading the local's lives and berating them. Obviously, it is hard for a documentary to remain impartial, especially when they are emotionally attached. Still, when a vision is so narrow, it may hinder rather than help your cause.

I absolutely do not condone any animal cruelty, including the use of animals in the entertainment industry. I think sooner rather than later, things like SeaWorld and circuses will be things of the past. I certainly hope they will be, and the only reasons that animals will be in captivity is for conservation and sanctuary. Taijii uses dolphins and whales for their meat. This is a part of its heritage and culture, which is explained in AWOAT. In AWOAT, one local explains how the land is not viable for crop growing, so their focus is on the sea.

Many cultures and countries could never even consider eating such animals, but that is because of our own culture and the beliefs that come with it. Had we grown up with this, had it been a part of who we are, of our heritage, we wouldn’t think twice about it. I have to say that I think if locals from a small town in Japan descended upon some small town in America and tried to tell them what they have been doing their whole lives is wrong, shouting insults at them and telling them that they must change, they would be met by much resistance and probably aggression.

The Cove seems set on their method of interrogation and intimidation. In contrast, AWOAT seems more interested in showing the reasoning of both sides and opening a dialogue between the two opposing sides. The Cove does not show both sides of the story and, frankly, shows the local people as barbaric. AWOAT acknowledges that this behaviour may need to change, but it understands and respects where it has come from. Overall, it made me question who it is up to tell another country what to do or rather what they can do?

The Cove is the film everyone knows, but, to me, AWOAT presents the most compelling case for change. This is why it is so important to show both sides of the story. After I viewed The Cove, I was horrified, but when I saw AWOAT and other documentaries, I still didn’t condone what was happening, but I understood it. Surely the only way to reach an agreement and change is for both sides to understand and respect each other?