While watching Grizzly Bear I paid close attention to Timothy’s behavior as I observed him from the very beginning of the film to the end. At the beginning, he seemed quite normal to me as his passion for bears was strong. He was committed to stay a few summers with the bears and just capture them in their everyday life to show people young and old and to tell his experience.Then towards the middle I realized that he became quite obsessed with the bears. It was really bad to the point where he felt he was a bear. He started to act like one and try to immerse himself with the bears by keeping his tent near theirs. I think this behavior stemmed from childhood. Yeah, he was raised by two loving parents who cared for him, but maybe they cared for him a little too much. I feel like his parents didn’t give him a chance to do what he was really feeling. His mom, just like Timothy himself was obsessed showed her love for bears at a young age and I think thats how it stemmed on to Timothy. Also, the whole truth of Timothy’s childhood isn’t disclosed in the film, so do we really now how his childhood was or do we just know the good parts to it because thats whats shown? I feel like Timothy felt solace in the bears because he can really be his true self, he can talk to them and they wont judge him and he just felt appreciated by these creatures that couldn’t talk with him, but didnt judge him as he acted crazy and did whatever he felt like doing. I think Timothy retreated to isolation because he wanted to be away from the hectic society. He felt really misunderstood and just wanted attention. Timothy found everlasting peace with the bears, and that kept him living and finding a purpose. His love for nature was everlasting, and to most people it might seem insane, that was Timothy’s story. After so many years of being lost searching for his identity and meaning in his life, Timothy found answers within the enviornment of the bears.

While watching Harlan County, I noticed that even though men were a big part of why this film was made in the first place, I feel that without the contribution of women this film wouldn’t have been as successful. The jobs they’ve done were as hard as the men’s job because not only did they have to take care of matters at home and the children but they poured out their souls by the power of their voice to save their husbands jobs. Of course, the men did work extremely hard to work in dangerous conditions where they’ve developed black lung disease and other disparities, but when theyve lost their job and go on strike I just expected them to have more active roles. The women held the ground strong; barely did I see any many male protestors, just some of the sons of the men who went on strike. If women have not had such an active role, would other men come in the position of what the women did? I feel if that was the last and only choice they had then they would step up to the plate. Women in the film actually made a change and pull so many strings and cross so many boundaries just to help their husbands get their jobs back and settle in to the union. When the women formed an organization, and actually had a president in charge of it that’s when I really how serious and committed they actually were. When they stood up to the sheriff their boldness stood out to me. When they went to the picket lines even when they weren’t supposed to be there it showcased their anger and driving force that without them the strike probably wouldn’t have finished. They held everything up for the men being the biggest support force. The scene when the two women were debating on each other’s mans has a comical feel to it because it would be something similar to what I’ve seen on the Maury show or Jerry springer show. Even despite that situation the women decided that arguing won’t get them anywhere and for the sake of a brighter future they must stand united.

It’s interesting how both films were based on the same concept, the hardcore struggle faced during the Holocaust in concentration camps, but the different perspectives of how the Holocaust was portrayed in the filmmaker’s point of view of each film is what intrigues me. I think both films were made to show viewers the truths of what really went on, sort of exposing, because what we see in these films is so different from what we’ve learned in the history books about the Holocaust. I feel like both films are explicit in the way that they show real footage from pictures of spools of hair and dead bodies being thrown into a grave like nothing from Night and Fog to interviews of survivors and footage of rail tracks that were taken to transport those being taken to the camps in Shoah. Night and Fog was different in the way that after seeing it I got a vibe where the film where I would think to myself “Wow, did it really turn out to be like this?” I knew this event was one of the worst in world history, but by seeing extreme footage made it stick out to me even more and realize how the theme of cruelty plays which just makes me question the concept of humanity. Even though the narrator’s tone in night and Fog was one I wasn’t fond of because it felt like he wasn’t in the moment and was just being told what had to be read off the screen, I feel like the images alone convey a powerful message that life is full of things that we aren’t in control of and those who don’t deserve it at all can end up in the worst situations. On the other hand, Shoah has a more personal feel to it as the survivors open up to their experience as a primary resource. I found it interesting to see the different views on how the concentration camp victims felt, even though they were put basically in the same horrifying conditions. I was confused by the way that Arthur, the first person interviewed,acted like he was in a daze when he returned back to the fields. He didn’t show any emotions of sadness or anger on his face, i assume maybe it was because he was shocked to be back or traumatized and just wanted to take everything in? I’m surprised he agreed to go back there, if it was me I truly would’ve been scared to see a place where so many horrible things went on to myself and others around me.Another person being interviewed, I believe his name was Michael, kept smiling in front of the camera which I didn’t think was that odd actually because I felt like he wanted to come off as a strong individual to the filmmaker by hiding his pain concealed by his smiles, but it was rude when the filmmaker asked him why he wasn’t crying because right away that was his expectation, for him to cry. I feel that was judgemental, but then again like the majority of society he has his expectations set for certain moments, right?

Above is the link to the film, it is sort of bootlegged but this was all I could find of it on YouTube. The film is up on Netflix in better quality then the one on YouTube.

Last week in class there was quite a short discussion about animal treatment in films. This led me to think more after class about how an animal feels in unacquainted settings compared to their natural habitat. Being taken away from their family to be placed conditions they’ve never faced before ruin an animal’s psyche and lead to trauma. While being completely torn in the inside, but stuck with the inability to convey their feelings in spoken word, the majority of humans couldn’t even bother to think what can we do to accommodate the animal’s feelings. With this said, one of my friends recommended me to see the documentary Blackfish.
Blackfish is a film directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, a typical mom with no prior knowledge of whales who would take her children to sea world and was always interested in why the great orca, Tilikum acted in the ways he did. The film came out in 2013. By this time there was a great controversy about the way the whales and the former trainers were treated at seaworld. Several trainers were interviewed and they all seemed like they had to put on an act to please Seaworld so they can have a form of entertainment for the public and earn monetary gains. Trainers would have to act like everything was okay, but deep down they wanted to save the animals because they knew what was being done was animal cruelty. However, what sort of power does a trainer have in a big corporation in sea world? I saw none whatsoever. They just have to do what they are told. Whales were treated just as worse as the trainers because they were being forced to adapt to an environment totally unknown to them and tsken away from families. For example, there was a scene in the documentary where a baby whale was born and shortly after she was taken away from her mother and moved to another facility. Before this incident occurred this particular mother whale was quiet and calm, but when her baby was taken away she yelled and cried so much and wanted to be alone. Looking at this scene made me tear up because it was so heartbreaking.
I know that the animals should be in their natural environments, if not then they will develop psychological problems, like shown in the film. In seaworld, Tilikum was portrayed as an orca that was full of life and joy, but when you turn the camera to how he was treated when shows weren’t taking place, the sad reality of it is seen. He was held in a metal box where he was deprived of food and contact with other whales. He was only in contact with several female whales for breeding purposes, but they abused him, gave him cuts and he bled. Usually, orcas are known for being one of the most friendliest animals but put them in conditions like that of Tilikum , and that view of whales is turned upside down.
In 2010 when Tilikum killed seaworld trainer Dawn Brancheau, feel like he was just bashing out his anger toward the sea world corporation in general by killing an employee he was fond of in hopes of getting the seaworld corporation to close down and place the whales back in their natural habitat, but of course that didn’t happen. I think that there is also another possibility that he wanted to play with Dawn but was. Aware of how effective his weight was on her. The fact that seaworld still held Tilikum in captivity after all that happened and still continue to do so today indicate how their heartlessness and lack of humanity. This shows that corporations like seaworld are greedy and self centered when it comes to keeping their popularity up and obtaining money they’d literally do anything.

After viewing Nanook of the North in class last Tuesday, I was left with mixed feelings about the film. At times during the film I felt like the concept of the Inuit culture was portrayed because of the costumes they wore, the role of woman and children, and the environment of the film, but another part of me thought if it was a little bit over exaggerated or did Inuit’s really live like this? There were some parts of the film that I loved such as when Nanook was going to hunt the seal, the amount of suspense and intensity that scene caused for me made me feel excited of what was going to happen next. Even the music in the film would set a worrying mood. For example, thoughts would run through my head like, “Oh man, what is Nanook doing?” “What will happen next?!” and “I hope he’s successful”. In his attempt of catching seal Nanook and his crew looked passionate because those seals weighed a ton, but as courageous as they were that didn’t stop them, as their sense of survival is ongoing. I feel like Nanook represents a typical family man doing what he’s got to do in order to survive during difficult times. I felt that the hunting of animals scenes in the movie depicted how Flaherty THOUGHT Eskimo’s would obtain their food, but in one scene in particular where Nanook was catching fish and had to leap over a bunch of broken ice pieces, I felt that was overdramatic because of the way in which it was done and when Nanook caught the fish in his mouth at the end of the scene I liked that part because it showed that he was successful. Yes, He is very hungry and is trying to get food for his family and himself but Flaherty portrays the scenes where Nanook is getting food, as food being a hard commodity to obtain, but who knows if that was necessarily true for all tribes in generally or if Flaherty just wants it to seem like that on Nanook’s behalf. A concept of the film that I wasn’t too fond of, was the way that the white settlers made it seem like they were superior to Nanook’s race, I didn’t feel a sense of equality at all there. For example, when the white trader showed Nanook the record player, Nanook observes it by first hearing, then feeling it, than finally putting it in his mouth. The white man knew what Nanook was doing, but didn’t bother to tell him that a record player shouldn’t go in your mouth. Even though Nanook was testing out his senses, because he is living in a time period that hasn’t interacted much with objects and his curiosity is tested in this situation, the white man should’ve known better as to sit there and smile at Nanook doing so. I figure a normal reaction would be the man would have a shocked look on his face, but instead he was laughing at Nanook as if Flaherty told him this was bound to happen and he couldn’t control himself and let his laughter out.