Blackfish vs. "Why Zoos are Good"

Blackfish relies on pathos to emotionally move the audience and highlight the psychological and physical torture endured by orcas in captivity. There is nothing more convincing than the testimony of a person who used to aid in the cruelty against orcas and now speaks up against it. It’s a form of repentance and appeals to the audience’s empathy and trust. At the end of the day, a person who once worked within the crime ring knows its inner workings best—and if they choose to speak out against it, the crimes must have been so inhumane that even they found them outrageous. One instance is when the documentary shows footage of young orcas being separated from their mothers, while adult whales refuse to leave the young ones and eventually die. A former trainer describes this as “the worst sound I have ever heard” (Blackfish). Through heartbreaking imagery, the director prompts feelings of anger, sorrow, and helplessness. This impact is further intensified through the testimonials of the former employees, who personalize the suffering, allowing the audience to emotionally connect to the orcas’ pain, encouraging empathy and moral outrage toward the inhumane practices. The documentary also facilitates the circulation of emotionally charged stories from former SeaWorld employees who bonded with the whales and later witnessed their psychological deterioration in captivity. Additionally, Blackfish evokes distrust against SeaWorld by invoking propaganda. They reference past controversies, the lack of knowledge among employees regarding trainer deaths, and the concealment and distortion of information. The most suspicious propaganda move they used was revealing, “SeaWorld repeatedly declined to be interviewed for this film” (Blackfish). By including this, they further emphasize their stance that SeaWorld has something to hide or is guilty of something—otherwise, they would have agreed to be interviewed. This further encourages viewers to side with the filmmakers’ anti-captivity stance.

Ethos was established in Blackfish by using former SeaWorld employees and their personal experiences. John Hargrove and Samantha Berg, former trainers once loyal to SeaWorld, provide insider perspectives that carry weight because they once believed in and supported the institution, they now critique. Hargrove says, “We were taught that the whales lived longer in captivity than in the wild. I later found out this was not true” (Blackfish). The vulnerability they showcase by revealing their past ignorance and sharing painful memories humanizes them and earns the audience’s trust through redemption. Also, by showing that they blindly followed what the institution told them to be true, they reveal that, in some form, employees were “brainwashed.” And if they could do that to their own employees, just imagine what they did to SeaWorld visitors. The inclusion of scientists and experts on animal behavior commenting on the ethical violations that SeaWorld has committed further supports the filmmakers’ anti-captivity stance. It also strengthens the film’s ethical appeal by assuring the audience that the views presented in this film not only have emotional and ethical merit but also on a scientific basis.

Looking at Dave Hone’s article “Why Zoos Are Good,” he uses logos to build a line of reasoning and rationally argue in favor of zoos as centers for conservation and education. The author writes, “If you are against animals in captivity full stop then there is perhaps little scope for discussion, but even so I’d maintain that some of the following arguments (not least the threat of extinction) can outweigh arguments against captivity” (Hone). He challenges absolute opposition to animal captivity by creating a logical framework that sets the tone for a nuanced perspective rather than an emotional one. And even though emotional appeals have the power to move an audience, it is the logical argument that drives the author’s message home by providing reason and justification. The author also questions the definition of captivity, asking, “But at what point does that become captivity? A 10000 m fence? 1000 m fence? What if veterinary care is provided or extra food as in many reserves or as part of conservation projects?” (Hone). By offering hypotheticals and proving that captivity is subjective, he furthers his stance that captivity is not an absolute idea and hence shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as evil and unforgiving. He also presents reasoning that appeals to the audience’s sense of logic by showing that the issue is complex and context dependent. Unfortunate situations of animal care, species preservation, and ethical gray areas exist and are often interconnected. By framing captivity in this way, the author persuades readers to think critically about the varying degrees of animal confinement, ultimately presenting a more nuanced view than a simple binary of “captivity versus freedom.”

 

                                                                   Works Cited
Blackfish. Directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, performances by Tilikum, John Hargrove, and Samantha Berg, Magnolia Pictures, 2013.
Hone, Dave. “Why Zoos Are Good.” The Guardian, 19 Aug. 2014, www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good.

(DONE AS PART OF COLLIN COLLEGE ENGL 1302 CLASS)