On “Bold Native”
December 28, 2010
“Bold Native” is particularly relevant to our discussions here at Animal Rights and Anti-Oppression. The film deals with themes that recur here and elsewhere, and takes a side on some issues while leaving others illustrated, but for the audience to decide upon/take a side on. In an effort to keep this brief, I’ll just bullet them.
- Fighting for bigger cages is put into context of sitting at the table with agribusiness and asking them for concessions that aren’t really concessions for them. And though each of us has a private opinion about bigger cages, what’s also made clear is that nobody’s goal is bigger cages. Asking for what you want is the issue. Dare you ask for what you want, and if not, is what you’re asking for meaningful, and if so, to whom?
- The definition of violence is a theme, with the main character, Charlie, telling his father, regarding property damage (roughly): “It’s not violence. That’s what you’re whole system is about, isn’t it? Animals are property so what we do to them isn’t violence, it’s processing or rendering.” Violence against people and animals is clearly not supported by the filmmaker, though the audience is put in a position to accept or reject how and why such violence might occur.
- The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is mentioned throughout, as the main character is being hunted by the FBI from the start of the film, and, well, I don’t want to spoil what comes thereafter so I’ll stop there.
- The linguistic acrobatics practiced by those who obviously aren’t proud of what they do, otherwise they’d describe it honestly, is also highlighted. In general, the language we use to describe animals, what we do to them, and the names for the “products” we make from their parts is emphasized.
- People do change. The two characters in the film who change do so because others took the time necessary to figure out how to get through to them (which is no guarantee that change will occur as we can’t control the time lines of others, but it’s the least we can do). Relationships help people change. As I’ve mentioned prior, what has worked for me in my activism more often than anything else is also what takes the most time and effort: constant reinforcing that this is who I am and why, challenging the other person’s assumptions, supporting them in ways that are meaningful to them, showing them what being vegan looks like, loaning books, cooking, shopping, etc…
- There’s no question that for this story, graphic visual images of suffering are important. And for some people, a grisly visual is necessary. For others, a description is all that’s necessary to trigger immediate empathy and action. This film is geared toward the former.
- Finally, speciesism, though not mentioned, is featured, particularly in one discussion where the question is: If you would eat a steak right now if I put it in front of you, why wouldn’t you kill this dog in front of you? There’s more than speciesism going on there, as The Middleman Effect is even more prominently in play. People will easily pay others to do things they won’t do themselves and then not feel complicit because they hold the middleman solely responsible for the act.
That’s a lot. And there’s more, but I’ll say just one more thing: I found the film entertaining and I cared about the characters. If you can say that about a film, in addition to the list above, it’s worth watching with a group of vegetarians or omnivores for one reason, and with vegans and animal rights activists for a different reason.
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
12 Comments
leave one →
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
Going by your recommendation I look forward to seeing this movie… You’ve never steered me the wrong way yet! ;)
Great review Mary. Thoughtful and insightful comments as always.
No other film has ever brought up the subject matters mentioned above and done it so creatively and w/ such integrity.
For animal rights activists this work of art will challenge us to be more mindful of what we actually think and feel about the real life issues we are constantly confronted with.
The film also profoundly shows that this particular liberation movement like any is not always so black and white.
I also hope that non AR people watching this film will realize that the animal rights agenda is not at all about insane or trivial pursuits sought after by a few misanthropes but rather a deep political and social movement driven by human beings who want to fight against oppression… for every-body.
This is a ground breaking and entertaining film and anyone who cares about the future liberation for all sentient creatures (including the human type) should see this movie… even if you don’t agree with every scenario presented
Real life …just like this bold movie is never quite that simple.
Thank you Mary.
I don’t understand who this movie is made for. As an animal rights activist I found it basic, and those who are not interested in animal rights are not going to be, for the most part, rushing out in droves to see it.
I saw this movie at AR 2010 and I confess I didn’t sit through the whole thing. I confess I was likely swayed by a friend who disliked the movie for issues having to do with an activist accused of assault.
Nevertheless, I found the movie irritating and badly-acted. The parts I saw reeked of machismo, the main character was very unsympathetic in my view and, as I said, I thought the acting was bad. I could not tell if the movie wanted to be a documentary of someone or a fiction. It seemed to want to straddle both and for me ended up doing neither particularly well.
I think there’s a need for movies and books that present activists in a positive light, that explain why they do what they do. I don’t mean to suggest sugar-coating issues, but as someone who writes fiction and never has a piece without a vegan in it (okay, one short story) I find it incredibly tricky to attempt to make a point without sounding like I’m making a point. I think with almost any movement that utilizes some kind of art as a way to move forward and reach people the desire is to regurgitate statistics and scenes of horror and whatever else may be specific to that movement. I think it’s understandable but I also think it leads to bad art and a sort of loss of respect for whatever issue is being examined. I’ve seen/read things about other types of activism where I just sit there and ask myself “are they serious?” because the attempt to make the point known is so blatant, often seems out of place within the rest of the art, that it makes me at times want to laugh.
Okay, Bold Native IS about an animal rights activist so that will be the focus. But could the people be more sympathetic, please? The main character is an asshole. He utilizes violence against a stereotypical queer man, and no matter whether you think violence is needed or hinders the AR movement, for a general audience I think this movie is a turn-off. If this movie is not intended to educate non-AR activists, I’m not sure what its point is because I don’t need a movie with some self-righteous male activist as the “hero” to tell me about animal rights activism. Unfortunately, I see too much of that in the movement as it is.
“I think with almost any movement that utilizes some kind of art as a way to move forward and reach people the desire is to regurgitate statistics and scenes of horror and whatever else may be specific to that movement”
crap, I meant that the impulse, not the desire, is for artists to want to regurgitate facts and statistics, rather than weaving the issues into their type of art.
Hey Wendy, I’m a fiction writer too. Well, an aspiring one. ;-) I’m looking for ways to integrate a vegan message into my work without having it come off as preachy. I’d love to read some of your work and see how you did it. Do you have a website, or some other place where your work is published?
I think the movie is appropriate for activists as it promotes discussion, and I also think that I’d watch it with an omnivore or vegetarian and have a whole different set of discussions. It’s a film that will be watched by omnis and vegetarians, probably because they will be invited to see it, as part of vegan outreach. I know I’ll invite my guests this season to watch it. And I do think a handful will–because someone they’re close to is recommending it.
As far as the main character goes, in my experience, people who end up as leaders in movements both large and small, have a certain personality that does have its “asshole”-ish interpersonal qualities. I see it all the time. I thought the main character was realistic. But that’s me and tells you about my personal experiences. As for the stereotypical queer man, I have to say that I had no idea who you were referring to. Obviously there aren’t a lot of choices as there are few characters, but I didn’t see that character that way. But again, that likely tells you more about me than anything.
You yourself say you see enough of the self-righteous male “hero” behavior in the movement already, so that tells me you agree that it’s realistic.
What’s a filmmaker/storyteller to do? I don’t know. But I do know that the more stories, the more art, good or bad (as it’s all so subjective) that’s out there, the better.
Alexandra,
Oh, I’m not published (yet) either, but I do write. Not as much as I’d like to (life sometimes seems to get in the way) but when I do write I find that political issues are something of a theme. The tricky part is how to make fiction less head-bashingly political so that the story is still engaging.
Hi Wendy, I totally agree! Right now I’m working on a piece that’s set in a futuristic world in which some jurisdictions recognize the rights of all sentient beings and others don’t. The story isn’t *about* that, per se, but it’s part of the setting and the main character, who comes from one of the animal-using societies but finds himself in a vegan society, experiences culture shock in dealing with this new and unfamiliar set of values. I’m working very hard to find a balance between putting the issues out there–unflinchingly–without having it get in the way of the story or having it come off as preachy. The fact that the MC comes from an animal-using, agriculturally based society helps, I think, because his perspective on things will be easier for omni readers to relate to than a vegan’s would be, but I expect that no matter how careful I am, some readers will still accuse me of preaching. Then again, you can’t please everyone. I just got really, *really* sick of reading scenes where the protagonists declare their love for one another over the corpse of some murdered animal, and I decided that–hey, if omni writers can be open about their values, I can (and should!) be just as open about mine. ;-)
Oh that sounds fantastic! Are you still on the very first draft, or have you gotten that down and working on a revision/edit?
Hey Wendy, nope, I’m about 15k into the first draft, and I figure it’ll be 40-50k when I’m done (a short novel or a long novella, depending on how you look at it). There are still a lot of things I’m still figuring out about the world and how it works, but I’m having a lot of fun with it. And it’s great to “meet” another vegan who also writes fiction! :-)
Alexandra & Wendy,
There’s an online community, largely of fiction writers, started by literary agent Peter Cox, who’s a vegan. It’s called Litopia http://litopia.com/ and a lot of the writers are working on books about animals. It has a great radio show, the people are very friendly and supportive, and you can have others read your work.
Thanks, Mary! I’d never heard of that, and I will definitely check it out. :-)