Reviews

This documentary could have been very good. There were three particularly interesting threads that came up: 1. The environmental cost of fishing. 2. The high levels of mercury in certain types of fish. 3. The reason for Japan's insistence on this type of fishing.

Unfortunately these three topics were talked about only superficially whilst the film went on about how dolphins are special, how the team making the documentary were wonderfully heroic and other sentimental, superficial nonsense.

The thing is that the core topics in the documentary are not specific to dolphins or Japan but affect all of our habits internationally and are the collective responsibilities of all of us who like to eat our fish, our chicken and our meat. Think about these simple facts: while the documentary made a big deal about 23,000 dolphins being killed in Japan, this pales in comparison to the 5m+ tons of tuna fished every year. Tuna, like dolphin, is affected by mercury poisoning. The destruction of tuna stock is far more important to the bigger picture of environmental destruction than the killing of 23,000 dolphins a year. In fact, the killing of dolphins in Taiji has no significant environmental effect compared to the farming and killing of beef or chicken in the US.

And when the documentary tried to explain why Japan insists on allowing the massacre of small numbers of dolphins it simply classified it as misjudged national pride. There was no attempt to discuss this with Japanese people, no attempt to get their perspective. In fact, the only times we actually were allowed to hear what Japanese people said was when they were being ridiculed. Instead we were told by our all-knowing American heroes what the Japanese thought they thought and how they were actually wrong.

The way in which the documentary tried so hard to present Japan in a negative light was shocking, particularly as almost every criticism that was levelled at Japan could be levelled at the US and Europe: 1. Giving priority to special interests over citizens' health? Check. 2. Buying votes at international organisations like the UN? Check. 3. Using state powers to cover-up embarrassing issues? Check. 4. Having irrational policies? Check.

So why was the documentary so eager to point out numerous Japanese flaws even though these flaws are even more relevant in the US or Europe? Why was the documentary so eager to focus only on dolphins even though the issues raised by the killing of dolphins are even more relevant to meat, poultry and other type of fish? Why was the film so eager to ignore the most important implications of its story instead making this a documentary about poor cuddly dolphins and bloodthirsty evil Japanese fishermen?

I think the answer is political. If the documentary had tackled the big issues it would be putting the whole food industry on trial - including important American and European corporations with a lot of influence. Furthermore, a documentary which criticises events in a far off country is not going to offend anyone back home, whereas a documentary that links what's happening in a far off country to our own practices back home will touch a raw nerve that will upset the status quo and will therefore be ignored.

Finally Japan is an easy target: the US has long been suspicious and even jealous that Japan has higher standards of living, a stronger sense of culture, major international influence, and a more robust and successful economy. In other words, if you want to make a documentary that will win awards, criticising Japan is probably a good idea.