Darwin's Nightmare (Hubert Sauper, 2004)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
ape
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:19 pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

#1 Post by ape » Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:15 pm

Outstanding film.

But, I have a question about the production... Was this really shot on 35mm? Granted, I watched this on On Demand TV, but I thought this was shot on video while watching it. (There was even that scene with the prostitutes gathered around a video camera, watching previously shot footage.) The website seems to indicate 35mm.

Any clues?

ape
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:19 pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

#2 Post by ape » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:10 pm

Apologies, I just answered my own question... It was shot on miniDV. (Not sure why I didn't search more extensively...)


Anyway, fantastic film.

mikeohhh
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:22 pm

#3 Post by mikeohhh » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:24 am

has anyone heard any news about a DVD release?

BrightEyes23
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:46 am

#4 Post by BrightEyes23 » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:31 am

nope, but after seeing the initial post, I checked my comcast On Demand and was thrilled to see that it was in the "Free Movies" section! I had wanted to go see this when it was playing at the DIA last fall.

A couple of qualms about the film (which I thoroughly enjoyed btw). First, it seemed as if those behind the camera were trying to bait people with the "and what else is brought into the country on the planes" questions, which bothered me a bit for some reason. I understand that the idea does tie in to the cycle of it all, but it felt as if they were trying to make the story happen, rather tell us the facts and show examples, etc.

The other thing is, and I can see both benefits and negatives of this, is that it felt like they spent more time trying to cover every possible aspect of the entire situation, rather than REALLY digging into one specific area. For example, I would've really liked to have been exposed to more information about the ecological effects that the perch is going to have, they mentioned its cannibalistic behaviour in passing as well as how it was introduced, but I would look to see more on the whole food-chain of the area and what could and will happen, they mention that the perch could potentially wipe itself out, and after wiping everything else out, i think that is a rather important and grand-scale thing to go into.
Also the vicious cycle of those who have HIV/AIDS.
I guess it just felt like they were trying to spread the story around, and even if it was a little thin, try to cover as much as possible, rather than picking a few things and really getting to the core of the issues at hand with them. Now granted, perhaps a 110 minute movie about one or two of those specific issues would be rather dull and boring, so perhaps this was a choice based on that?

Thoughts?

ape
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:19 pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

#5 Post by ape » Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:28 pm

BrightEyes23 wrote: The other thing is, and I can see both benefits and negatives of this, is that it felt like they spent more time trying to cover every possible aspect of the entire situation, rather than REALLY digging into one specific area.
I think the purpose was more about introducing all of the catastrophic effects of the introduction of the Nile Perch into the lake. Or, looking at it from a wider perspective... the effects of globalization on one (of many) exploited countries.

To go into such great depth on one of the many problems presented in the film might detract from the larger message that this community is simply overwhelmed with many major issues, each one just as important as the next. All of the issues are related to each other in some respect. Everything is connected.

User avatar
Alyosha
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:50 am
Location: Northern Sweden

#6 Post by Alyosha » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:29 am

Well, the dvd has been released in both Canada and Australia (among others). A couple of reviews:

R1
R4

I own the Swedish DVD myself. Great film!

User avatar
nyasa
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:05 am
Location: UK

#7 Post by nyasa » Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:17 am

I've just seen this (I purchased it as a download from UK online rental company Lovefilm). Coincidentally, I spent time at Lake Victoria just a couple of weeks ago.

Verdict: although its heart is in the right place, the film is manipulative, polemical, emotive, and often deliberately misleading.

If your knowledge of the subject comes entirely from watching this film you will be led to believe that:

1) The Nile perch has eaten every other fish species in Lake Victoria. (In fact, although the introduction of the perch probably led to the extinction of many indigenous species of cichlid, dozens of endemic cichlids continue to thrive, along with catfish, tilapia, and minnows. The introduction of the perch was an ecological disaster, but Lake Victoria is far from the aquatic ground zero suggested by the film).

2) Planes from Europe fly in to Mwanza loaded with weapons which they exchange for cargoes of fish. (Bizarrely, to make the case, the film-makers alluded to the wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone - in distant West Africa - and Angola, far away in southern Africa. The Russian pilot admitted to making two flights with military cargoes, but these appeared to have been to Angola and Congo rather than Tanzania. In truth, many of the European cargo planes do arrive in Mwanza near-empty, having off-loaded their commercial cargo from Europe at Entebbe or Nairobi. The link between Nile perch and illegal weapons is tenuous at best.)

Undoubtedly the relationship between the West and Africa is one-sided and exploitative. But however just the cause, manipulating the truth and presenting it as clear-cut fact is unforgiveable.

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#8 Post by che-etienne » Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:38 pm

They persistently question the pilots and others concerning the cargo of the planes as they arrive in the continent, but they actually never state that fact plainly as I recall. So I can't agree. The film is not polemical, nor is it manipulative. If it has factual errors these are due to the filmmaker's own decision to limite their line-of-sight. It is meant to be I think a subjective narrative. From what I heard, he practically lived in the area for months. It's less a journalistic op-ed piece than a cinema verite travelogue, though of course the filmmaker's have a point of view. Nor, if I remember correctly - I saw the film about two years ago now - do the filmmakers themselves discuss the effects of the Nile perch on the lake, they show instead a film within a film with a narrator detailing the problems, but we are made very aware that we are watching something the filmmakers did not make. It is a very intimate film frankly that shows the costs while speculating the causes. Sorry but I don't see much exploitation here.

Post Reply