On “The End of the Line”
I went to a screening of “The End of the Line,” not having paid close enough attention to the language in the trailer. It’s easy to miss, but at about 30 seconds, the curly-haired gentleman says, “There will be a point in the future where we will run out.”
And that, my friends is all you need to know. We will run out. The fish are our resources. Furthermore, we will fail to be honest with ourselves about what we do to fishes. They aren’t disappearing. They aren’t “lost.” (The history of cod fishing is told, and at the end of the story, which is that we have killed almost all of them, either the narrator-Ted Danson-or the person telling the story, says we have “lost” the cod. They’re not lost–they’re dead and that’s because we’ve killed them. Also, to say “they’re not lost, we ate them” is to leave out a rather large step in the process.)
The reason there might not be fishes in the oceans after 2050 is that we have indeed declared war on them and we are on pace to win that war, if winning means exterminating all of them. As all of the experts in the film at one point say, we are simply too good. Our capacity, our technology, and our inability to control ourselves is no match for any creature whom we hunt and kill. And this is especially true for the creatures of the oceans.
After the dire picture that is presented about what we have done, you’d think–you’d hope–that at least one message from the filmmakers would be: If you are moved by the plight of the fishes and moved to turn this situation around as soon as possible and act in a way that expresses your desire for justice for the fishes, you should stop killing them or having them killed for you.
But no. That message, which frankly is the only logical one once you’ve seen and heard about the devastation, is nowhere to be found. Instead, the message is to ask your server or grocer where the fishes they are selling came from and how they were caught. I’m fairly sure the question the fishes would more likely want the answer to is: Why did you kill me when you didn’t need to?
The “sustainable fishing” message irked me but I’m no fool–I was prepared for it. What irked me, and which I suppose makes it a great film if you agree with its message, is that the entire production was similar to Food Inc.’s in that one particular way of using and killing animals was romanticized. Food Inc. has its homage to Polyface and glorifies Joel Salatin, and The End of the Line portrays anyone who’s not on a large commercial boat in a different light as somehow not doing something wrong. Local people fishing get different music to accompany their hunting and killing of fishes. They get music with an adventure-on-the-high-seas quality to it that comes from lots of strings, while commercial boats get the dreary, low, tuba-based music that can accompany only an evildoer.
But the fishes die horrible deaths anyway after they’ve been chased and exhausted and injured in their struggle to escape, and not one word is said in the entire film about their suffering. Meanwhile, it doesn’t matter who hunts and kills them or how. It doesn’t matter if they land on the menu at Nobu or if their bodies are being frozen and stored until a time when they are so rare or nonexistent in the oceans that people will pay exorbitant amounts of money to sample their flesh. What matters only is that we have taken their lives when we didn’t need to.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
At what point does the general population get it that we are killing, not only the animals around us, but ourselves.
I don’t know, kathi, but I must say that “The End of the Line” presents a compelling story of the horrors we commit at sea. The scope of destruction presented is jaw dropping and that’s why the recommended response seems so weak. In the face of what we have done to the oceans and what we do, daily, to the fishes, a stronger response is warranted. Or at least the voicing of that stronger response alongside the message about sustainability.
After all, the reason we want to cut back on our killing is to the fishes can “recover.” And all recovery really means is that their numbers would be back up to a point where we could comfortably resume the carnage without the prospect of extinction.
Until of course we go too far, once again. That’s what happens when the oceans and everyone and everything in them are ours to use as we wish.
Human’s are not the only predators in the sea, seals, whales, and other fish which are now being over protected are decimating several species of fish world wide. They are much better at it and kill far more than humans do. But the point is just by stopping one predator you won’t stop the ending of several species of fish without controlling the other predators. They all have to eat. Did you know that seals often kill and don’t eat the fish and in fact will disturbe the habitat of several species just so they can hunt them easier.
Dr. Rossset,
Neither the film nor I maintain that humans aren’t the only predators in the sea. And neither the film nor I maintain that stopping predators at sea is the issue.
We kill the fishes because we can, not because we need to.
As a vegan and animal rights advocate, I don’t think that “controlling the other predators” should be part of our job description. Perhaps that’s where we differ.
Again, the film presents a compelling argument for stopping our carnage at sea, though its message stops short of saying that. The filmmakers were addressing our insatiable appetite for fishes, how that has depleted our oceans of entire species, and how there is no end to that in sight unless we dramatically alter what we do. I agree, except that my solution is more dramatic than the one offered.
I’ve seen this film, and I agree whole heartedly with your analysis – I too was very frustrated that the idea of simply not eating fish wasn’t even mentioned. It just goes to show how ingrained flesh-eating is in our world, when out of a two hour long film, even ten seconds wasn’t given over to someone saying “…or you could just NOT EAT FISH.”
I think many pescatarians might give up eating fish after watching it though, as the violence and brutality involved in fishing was very apparent.
As one who once happily caught, “cleaned” and eaten the creatures – I can only wish everyone who continues to do such, (despite the knowledge of consequences), the same stay at the hospital that I once endured. It’s amazing how much retribution can be metted with a single fish’s bone lodged in the throat of a human. I’ve heard of an eye-for-an-eye… How bout a hook-for-a-hook!
please send me emails
?