I enjoyed reading this interview a lot. I appreciate the perspective and knowledge that Craig Foster offers into the ecosystem he is so familiar with.
But with the documentary, it was the opposite. The cinematography is gorgeous and many of the scenes that were captured were truly remarkable because he spent so much time in the water. The footage of the octopus and the sharks was just extraordinary. However, I really found the way Craig injected his own life story into documentary to be a real distraction and wished it had been more like a Sir David Attenborough documentary. (Actually, some of the footage made it into Blue Planet II, episode 5.)
If he had conducted the documentary more like this interview, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it even more.
> Octopuses don’t have tentacles as such.
Huh, TIL.
> The frustrating thing about a film is that you’ve only got 85 minutes. What you don’t see is that I have watched those pyjama sharks for years. [...] But what you don’t see is that I’m close to many different animals. All the different types of fish I got to know extremely well, otters, even some of the mollusks. Whales. There’re so many different animals. There’s no time to show all of that.
I wonder how much unedited footage he has? Seems like he could make an entire season about it all, especially now that he has a relationship with Netflix.
> I really found the way Craig injected himself into the story to be a distraction and wish this had been more like Sir David Attenborough documentary
Can you already see this 94 years old guy jumping into the water to build a personal relationship with an octopus? ;) I think the whole point of the movie was not capturing the life of the octopus, but showing the relationship between human and octopus. This would not be possible with the way Attenborough documents things (i.e. as a narrator).
Sure, but I didn't need to hear CF's life story. He could've presented the octopus and his interaction with it without all that. Almost everyone I've talked to found it to detract from the documentary.
I thought CF's story could have been a bigger hook into how he rediscovers the circle of life and his place in it. But the film never closses that loop successfully.
I appreciated the window into his struggles, not only because I continue to work towards better mental health, but because so many other people do, too.
Art is for the artist. That relationship gets more difficult when a production team gets involved, and will rarely (never?) please everybody.
Yeah agree, loved the movie but his story did not land for me at all. The octopus gets her arm ripped off and he somehow internalized that as himself being torn apart... He was dying working a regular job and needed to make this moonshot octopus documentary... for his son.
It all comes off as this sort of quasi humble but very self-aggrandizing story told by a man with one facial expression. Sort of like a wealthy white lady talking about her ayahuasca retreat or something.
The movie is not a nature documentary, it is a love story. He starts out making a nature documentary, but this is merely the context of his relationship with the octopus.
For me the moment the Octopus overcame its outwardly appearance is when she was extending her arms and playing with the school of fish; exactly like a dog (which I can relate about much more easily). I could literally imagine myself in that spot extending my arms to play with the fish in the same way.
If anyone hasn't seen this documentary, I highly recommend it. My kids loved it too.
I don’t know. It’s a bunch of different octopuses for starters, so the whole premise is pretty flawed. It’s definitely not the same octopus.
If you interact with them in the wild, at least I have, they are pretty easy to catch at daytime, and then they’re very curious and interact a lot, smelling your hair and touching everything (your scuba gear) after a moment of trying to jet.
In some habitats they are not elusive at all, easy to find in very obvious preferred hiding places.
The thing I didn't much like about this movie was that the ending tried to put an activist spin on what the filmmaker was doing. One of the last shots is of him and a bunch of his friends going out on a dive (as opposed to just him), as if this will help the octopus somehow.
In fact, the relationship between him and the octopus only works because the filmmaker has a large patch of pristine coast seemingly to himself. If it was some common thing to go diving there the habitat would likely be destroyed. As such the film is not really about activism at all, it's about a man enjoying privileged access to a natural resource.
While I understand your sentiment, I think the primary objective of the filmmaker is to make a good film. Sometimes that means doing something to simply get an emotional response out of it. If it’s effective in giving people a deeper appreciation of the animal and that ecosystem, then I'd argue it was a good choice and not at all misguided as you're portraying it.
Just because a film can make a large positive emotional response doesn't mean it was a good film, just as a film that can make a large negative emotional response is a bad film.
I think GP was criticizing the cheap, low-hanging feelgood duct taped onto the end. It doesn't make the film better.
What's weird is that octopuses are not a social species. So it's a bit of a mystery how they evolved so high intelligence without having to outsmart other individuals of their own species constantly.
It's theorethized that they have very rich environments and have to work very hard to hunt and to stay alive as they have no armor.
But the puzzle still remains why their intelligence is similar at all to the one that evolved through forced social interactions.
Oh. That might mean that some ancient octopuses that modern smart octopuses all come from might have been social and evolved intelligence modern octopusses inherited.
I heard a theory that a large reason humans have complex brains is that we need them to do fine motor control with our hands and throw things accurately.
Similarly, a octopus probably needs a big brain to control all the muscles in its arms
> So it's a bit of a mystery how they evolved so high intelligence without having to outsmart other individuals of their own species constantly.
It's not like they don't have myriad other creatures to outsmart in their daily lives.
> But the puzzle still remains why their intelligence is similar at all to the one that evolved through forced social interactions.
Is it? Every time I see 'octopus' and 'intelligence' in the same sentence it's someone saying how weird and alien they are. Possibly they have some similarities when it comes to theory of mind because they're modeling generic other intelligences, but everything else about their minds seems totally alien unless presented with a large ladle of anthropomorphization poured over it.
> It's not like they don't have myriad other creatures to outsmart in their daily lives.
Intelligence of competing species doesn't seem to evolve together very often. Various strategies are developed but they are pretty much hardcored in instincts and bodies. Intelligence is rarely that useful in interspecies competition.
It seems that all highly intelligent species got their intelligence to compete with individuals of the same species because intelligence is way more useful in social context than in others.
> If we wish to continue living and if we wish to continue living healthily, we should be doing everything in our power to sustain and regenerate that biodiversity.
While one person’s efforts are a drop in the ocean, they at least matter to that person. I’d heard the benefits of cold showers extolled since a guest speaker, an elderly maybe-Finnish guy, visited my elementary school classroom, and I’d dabbled a bit, but the practice didn’t stick until five months ago after I got a vasectomy. I didn’t want the incision point to open up, so I ran the cold water enough to get wet, washed with a soapy cloth, and turned on the cold water again to rinse. I haven’t strayed from that since, and sometimes extend rinse time for the perceived mental and physical benefits. It does very little to mitigate climate change, but our electricity bill is lower, and the act of turning on the cold water helps cut the groove of being better-able to face something I don’t want to do.
I thank Craig Foster for his notes about swimming in the cold ocean and its possible effect on his health.
For more impact, I’m regularly contacting my elected officials to lobby for regulations that effect all of us and promote a healthier and more resilient ecosystem. Will you do that too, please?
Edit to ask: In the spirit of intellectual humility, what else (either to add to or replace lobbying) might be a good use of my free time towards this same ecological goal?
>The scientist you interacted with was probably a very nice person—but just didn’t seem to think that the animals they experimented on were very sentient and probably in enormous distress.
just a bit more than 100 years ago they were cutting dogs and cats alive without anesthesia.
and that is one of the popular calf castration methods which is still done without anesthesia even today - as described it is painful "only" the first 12-36 hours (left to your imagination what the calves feel during the next several weeks as the testicles and scrotum slowly necrotize and ultimately fall off)
Growing up in a rural area I witnessed a “stovepipe castration” of a cat, and heard that rubber bands were commonly used for castrating other farm animals (sheep, cows, goats). I don’t remember seeing it, though.
> The only thing to add to that, where you have to be slightly careful, is if an animal hasn’t got strong genes. And then you interfere and you allow that animal to procreate. You could potentially be making the gene pool weaker and more susceptible to mange. That’s where you have to be a bit careful.
It's interesting that we can talk about this in such an objective and rational way when it involves non-human animal species, but when it involves humans this statement suddenly becomes extremely controversial.
Also frowned upon when done to humans, but accepted by most humans in regard to animals: slavery, raising for food, taxidermy, hunting for sport, neutering and keeping as pets, etc.
Some people don't think this treatment is appropriate for non-human animals either.
Personally I eat other animals, but I'm against both eugenics and cannibalism.
The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical fallacies.
But I am also a primate, mammal, vertebrate, animal, terran life-form. And going the other direction I am homo sapiens as opposed to neanderthal, caucasian, German, member of my specific family. Why draw a sharp line specifically at "human"..?
One of the things "morals" is is a negotiation with society about what should be construed as blameworthy. Potential participants in that negotiation may have different treatment without, as you said, it "rest[ing] completely on logical fallacies," which is why I brought it up.
I am not saying this makes up the entirety of my moral system, and I am explicitly (here) saying that a naive application does not.
If your comment was some kind joke please disregard my comment.
Sorry to see you getting down voted into the basement, I too am a devout theist. I don't think the nature of your argument being theistic is the primary reason you are getting down voted though. I think if you built a stronger set of arguments about why this matters and how it relates to humans deserving a better level of treatment than other animals your comment would fair better.
A decent example might be something like,
"As a Christian, I believe all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. This gives humans a special place in the order of the universe in Gods eyes and God asks us to respect that view in relation to how we treat other human beings. Giving humans a higher level of reverence than other animals. Being made in Gods likeness is also a reflection of the higher order cognitive, spiritual, and social faculties that humans share and other animals often don't display. Although we do see animals having some advanced emotions or social ordering we don't see them simultaneously containing all the high order functions that humanity does at once"
I wrote Christian because I'm a Christian, you might be part of any religion or none. Something like the above comment might be more constructive in the future best wishes.
The problem is that you’re approaching the discussion with a completely different philosophical framework than most people have, so they’ll latch on to specific things they disagree with in your example comment and dismiss the rest. For example your statement “I believe all humans are made in the likeness of God” will lead to “well I don’t”, and the discussion is over.
I think it’s more effective to find the core issue of disagreement, which here seems to be whether or not ethics can exist without some kind of a moral authority.
Christians have a tough time in public discussions these days, unfortunately because of some blunders in the past and poor arguments in the present.
I agree with all of your comment. However, I think many people presume the purpose of the HN comments section is to have a robust debate that helps the community arrive at some conclusion. I think there is a lot of value in comments that simply share a persons point of view. I would really enjoy hearing others perspectives outside of secular scientific/evolutionary viewpoint and christian viewpoint.
Particularly it would be great to hear from people with hindu backgrounds as they often have a lot to say about our relationship with animals.
It is true that without a foundation for human exceptionalism, like belief that humans were designed for a special purpose by a higher power, it becomes very difficult to answer ethical questions of why humans should be treated differently than other animals. The eugenics movement was strong in American institutions in the early 20th century.
I share your sentiment in the regard that it highlights an obvious difference between how we think about humans and animals.
I think you probably know why applying darwinisim to human society is "extremely controversial".
On a side note, what constitutes "good genes" nowadays?
The ability to exploit finite natural resources (including human health and lives) in a maximally efficient way?
Accumulating as much money as possible?
Would you prefer to reduce human population to a wealthy, healthy remainder and purge all people who cannot sustain themselves?
What does sustaining yourself mean in terms of "benefit to society"?
Is making money by burning fossil fuel - or facilitating and developing systems that (unnecessarily) burn more fossil fuel - a contribution to a "better human gene pool"?
Can sustaining yourself make life worse for others?
Would you approve eugenics, if yes, to what degree?
These are ethical questions as old as humanity.
Overcoming naive social darwinism is arguably one of the reasons that todays "civilized" society can even exist.
I appreciate your comment as a start for a discussion, but I also dislike the implications that I read into it.
People who earn obscene amounts of money and deplete natural resources hardly contribute to an improvement of the human gene pool.
And to me it seems that most people with physical or psychological handicaps that deem them "unfit" already are poor, die young and often don't procreate.
What exactly do you believe the link is between someone's profession and their genes? Because your comment reads like you believe there are genes for things you consider moral and immoral.
I was aiming at the fact that money is today a prime signifier of "evolutionary fitness", if that makes any sense.
In my tangent about natural resources and fossil fuel I wanted to suggest that making money (especially big money) is strongly correlated with consumption of natural resources.
(see tragedy of the commons)
Mostly indirectly, even in professions that to not directly "burn fuel".
Sell more goods, buy more property, consume energy. Which of course is also a necessary part of modern life.
The problem is scale. We are not getting more efficient in depleting natural resources (as in using less for more), we are maximizing monetary gain.
That being said, I have no problem if you discard my answer as incoherent rambling.
On the other hand, I don't understand why I was implying "immoral genes" or anything like that.
I think power (specifically geopolitical) is significantly more of an indicator than money.
There are people substantially less wealthy than, say, Zuckerberg, who are far more likely to survive in a civilizational collapse/population bottleneck type evolutionary scenario.
In that sort of circumstance I'd rather be a Dr Strangelove (or high ranking military official, or an Air Force 1 crew member) than a Warren Buffet.
Humans have technology like medical care and a lack of natural predators that substantially mitigates any impact gene pool deficiencies might cause, whereas wild animals do not. So there's no real danger that the human population will collapse without eugenics. That isn't true of the wild. This changes the ethical calculus quite a bit.
A weaker gene pool puts a huge strain on our medical systems though.
For examples: the gut microbiome directly impact our health, diets influence gut microbiome, junk food has a negative impact on it, it is mostly inherited from your parents
Which means in just a few generations you can end up with massive changes. Diabetes, obesity, cardio vascular disease, cancer, &c.
I think we shouldn't have blind faith in tech, we can fix broken bones and a few other neat things but we're far from having the right tools to work on these kind of problems on a global scale, especially since we usually detect the changes after they're too late to properly revert them.
> It's interesting that we can talk about this in such an objective and rational way when it involves non-human animal species, but when it involves humans this statement suddenly becomes extremely controversial.
Because historically people mistook skin color and phrenology and other nonsense for "good genes" and caused grave injustices. The attitudes aren't even fully eliminated and so eugenics is rightly viewed with suspicion.
"Breeding" is also the crudest of methods to produce "good" humans because we value relationships and individuals much more than we do cattle or show dogs. Medicine is the proper science to treat disease in humans.
Humans are supposedly born with inalienable rights - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Our societies in the West are built upon this shared foundation of rights. To deprive any adults of the ability to procreate would be considered barbaric, as they want to pursue the creation of "life" with their liberty, and to support their own happiness.
Meanwhile, nature is just raw competition, we're used to talking about genetic evolution in natural populations. Natural creatures aren't deemed to have any right to their own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, or at least not by most humans outside environmentalists.
> To deprive any adults of the ability to procreate would be considered barbaric
There are two ways to look at this. There is a difference between forbidding people to procreate, for example by forced sterilization, and simply not forcing things with unnatural interventions, for example with IVF for people who cannot conceive in a natural way. I don't think it's barbaric to see IVF as detrimental to the human gene pool.
Just a thought, is IVF an unnatural response to ubiquitous unnatural hormone disruptors and the proposed reduction in gametes? Would IVF even be known outside of the lab if men were as virile as their grandad (generally speaking)?
I would look for sources of this in a conflict of interests. Most humans don't care about the fate of other species, as competition for resources is relatively rare. An exception is where animals can be turned into a resource to extract, with overgrown chickens as an example.
Whereas humans compete with other humans, and it's in one's interest to manipulate others to be less of competition, but more subservient instead. Even if the human who advocates for it doesn't benefit from it, their descendants will.
With conflicting interests at play, rational neutrality is hard to achieve.
The quote takes a position of non-interference with the process with naturally occurring selection pressures on animals.
When the discussion involves humans and eugenics, it's the complete opposite and revolves around substituting a human chosen selection criteria with all the possible inclusion of criteria with very limited knowledge of the long term impacts, a minimal knowledge of short term impacts, and often biases driven by hubris and racism assessing the benefits vs the unknowns. That's why it's controversial.
The history of 'scientific' human eugenics is absolutely full of controversies and links to controversial things like involuntary sterilization campaigns, genocides, etc.
Oddly, people tend to get touchy when someone starts trying to provide justifications that decide who will live well, poorly, or not at all.
I'm not OP but I don't think either of those statements is accurate.
We don't engage in eugenics and we do engage in medical care because people are more than animals and we value individual survival more than gene pool hygiene (might be the wrong term?)
Humans aren't the only species to tend to their injured. Even some ants do that. The motivation is still debatable - is it done selflessly or because cooperation improves our own chances? Could that mean empathy is just an evolved impulse to help ourselves that was naturally selected? In some animals there may be an element of maintaining appearances that complicates things further. But there's no evidence to suggest that we aren't animals too or that the line we draw to separate less from 'more' isn't just drawn in some arbitrary place.
Huh? He only has one kid- a son, who appears in a lot of the movie diving with him. I'm no expert on the filmmaker's life, but I've not heard that he 'turned his back' on his wife. In fact, you can read her feelings about his relationship with the octopus here:
That does make me feel a bit better about it tbh. My main takeaway from my first watch through was "what are you doing obsessing over an octopus while you have a family at home that you seem to have forgotten about."
I almost stopped watching it during the first few minutes for the same reason, you just have to get past that first bit and get to the first underwater shots.
It's an incredible film, definitely my favorite nature film.
> A privileged white dude complains about how he feels disconnected from his family
I thought he was suffering from burnout. Regardless, it's possible to be rich and sad at the same time. You don't have to have empathy for the guy if you don't want to, but if we're turning suffering into a competition, there will always be someone with bigger problems than you.
> It literally tries to run away and he stalks it, it's creepy.
Scientists observe animals that try to run away all the time. And it did approach him on multiple occasions as well.
I found it to be a fascinating case study in the life of an octopus in it's natural environment. These long form animal documentaries are a lot more interesting to me than "Earth" or the like where it's a rapid fire, quick form snapshot into multiple animal species.
Is our curiosity about the world not one of the fundamental features of humanity?
The fact that a man is able to rediscover his fervor for life in something as lowly as an octopus seems to me to be nothing short of beautiful.
The film is antithetical to our fractured modern society of ease, reason, disregard for our lowlier neighbors on this planet, and mindless consumption.
Its frustrating to me that its expectedly relegated to the doc category while a vapid, shallow commentary on modern life such as Nomadland is nominated for best picture.
> It literally tries to run away and he stalks it, it's creepy.
shrug other people who dive in that bay would stalk it, catch it, kill it and later that day; cook and serve it with some nice white wine to their family. Is that less creepy?
That was my thought process exactly for the first half of the film. Really pissed me off that he had this "woe is me my life is so empty" while having this dream job and living in paradise. Like, WTF dude? See a therapist. What softened me was the storytelling: it's a feelgood formula and I'm a sucker for that. I believe one could have easily re-narrated this film to make the octopus terrified, we have no real way to know. Sorry you're getting downvoted, but I agree with you. Some people just want to see a happy narrative, even if it has a dark side. But definitely bursting at the seams with privilege and questionably misleading ethics.
I was expecting some kind of mention of this guy's apparent privilege.
As I recall, not even a single line in one of the talking-head section even as simple as "I've been incredibly lucky to be at a place in my life where I have the resources to make this film." I found this lack to be particularly off-putting when the general message (of this otherwise good documentary) is more-or-less "You can strengthen your soul by connecting with nature".
> I was expecting some kind of mention of this guy's apparent privilege.
What's the goal of this though?
Any popular documentary is the result of privilege somewhere along the line.
Either it's self-funded by a privileged person, or it raised money from privileged people. Either way, all the content you're able to view on TV, streaming or in the movies is because someone along the line had the privilege to make the film, promote it and distribute it. And those privileged people are likely the ones benefiting the most from it.
So is the goal to just acknowledge when the protagonist has privilege or should everyone involved in the film do it?
This specific story is explicitly personal and delivers a personal message, rather than an objective "Here is an octopus in it's natural environment."
"I was unhappy in my life so I spent time personally connecting with and understanding nature and now I feel more fulfilled and whole as a person" is likely to cause viewers who think "Yikes, I sure wish I could afford to drop everything go swimming every day" to respond with resentment. A small acknowledgement of this disconnect can be enough to bring those viewers back in to engage with the core message.
The "goal" is to craft a more resonant/engaging story. I think you need to assess why you have assumed I have some sort of agenda or why this should apply in the exact same way to all media.
It seems like there is a spectrum for this sort of thing. I think I'd have a similar reaction to, say, an extremely rich person recommending that a frontline worker take a 1-month detox at an expensive yoga camp. But for me personally, "My Octopus Teacher" was pretty far away from that extreme, and I think an explicit discussion of privilege would have taken me out of the movie, so I'm glad they didn't add one.
I agree, an explicit discussion of privilege would have made this a significantly different movie but please note that I said I was looking for "A small acknowledgement" rather than "an explicit discussion".
Interesting, so literally one sentence somewhere like "Luckily, I had time and savings to figure things out. So, I started going to the shore..." would have made a big difference?
Or maybe instead of "Luckily, I had time and savings to figure things out." something just slightly more verbose like "I have been extremely fortunate in my life to have the time and savings to figure things out"
> is likely to cause viewers who think "Yikes, I sure wish I could afford to drop everything go swimming every day" to respond with resentment
Really? I doubt given the choice that many people would choose to dedicate a year to daily cold water swimming and filmmaking.
And we have no idea about the financial arrangements. Maybe he pitched the idea and got an advance. And we don’t know if he was consulting on the side.
Resentment probably says more about the viewer than the filmmaker. At that point you might just as well resent capitalism.
> The "goal" is to craft a more resonant/engaging story
The privilege exists wether it’s acknowledged or not. I don’t need all my characters to be fully self-aware or without flaws to find them engaging. But we know very little of his life story. All we see is a small glimpse into the fact that he’s burnt out.
> I think you need to assess why you have assumed I have some sort of agenda
I didn’t assume you had an agenda. Why did you assume that? I meant “what’s the goal” as in “what’s the point”, like “why is that important to you”.
Yes. I do not doubt given the choice that many people would choose to dedicate a year to daily cold water swimming and filmmaking.
> And we have no idea about the financial arrangements.
Maybe it could be anything. But the story as presented in the movie is: a burnt-out white guy (who lives in an ocean-view villa in South Africa) spends every day filming an octopus.
> I don’t need all my characters to be fully self-aware or without flaws to find them engaging.
I'm not talking about all characters and I don't understand why you are.
> I didn’t assume you had an agenda. Why did you assume that?
Because I made what I thought was a relatively small and reasonable observation. Your response (instead of engaging with that point perhaps by arguing that My Octopus Teacher is improved by the fact that the main character seems like an out of touch "What's a banana cost? Ten dollars?" rich guy) was to bring in wild hyperbole about applying this specific observation to every one in every thing couched in the extremely broad statement "Any popular documentary is the result of privilege somewhere along the line."
> I meant “what’s the goal” as in “what’s the point”
To craft a more resonant/engaging story
> “why is that important to you”
Because I like engaging stories that feel fully thought out.
> I do not doubt given the choice that many people would choose to dedicate a year to daily cold water swimming and filmmaking.
No way. Most people don't like swimming, the ocean, free diving or being cold. The subset that likes all 4 and has enough dedication to do it every day for an entire year regardless rain, wind or injury and has a passion for filmmaking is very, very small. That's why this documentary is so impressive and why the footage is so rare. Because very few people who are rich enough to work on a film project for a year would ever spend their time in this way.
> a burnt-out white guy (who lives in an ocean-view villa in South Africa) spends every day filming an octopus
I don't understand why his identity is as important as the content he created. The story to me is: "cold water free diver develops a passion for open ocean swimming and bonds with an octopus while capturing rare, intimate footage of the creature's life, death and everything in between".
> Because I made what I thought was a relatively small and reasonable observation.
It's not a small or reasonable observation to me. I've never seen another documentary about a rich, white male where they need to state their privilege. So that's why I was wondering if it's something particular to this individual or more like you want anyone with privilege in any documentary to acknowledge it, otherwise you'll feel resentment towards them.
> Your response (instead of engaging with that point perhaps by arguing that My Octopus Teacher is improved by the fact that the main character seems like an out of touch "What's a banana cost? Ten dollars?" rich guy) was to bring in wild hyperbole about applying this specific observation to every one in every thing couched in the extremely broad statement "Any popular documentary is the result of privilege somewhere along the line."
Because I have no idea where you would draw the line. Is it only self-made documentaries where people have to acknowledge their privilege? The problem is way deeper than that. People with privilege decide what content options you're able to watch and which projects get funded and who makes them which is a way bigger issue than some random guy you'll never meet acknowledging his privilege or not while making an introspective nature film. If you find yourself resenting this guy, it must be rough resenting at least someone in nearly every documentary on Netflix. Almost all of them have a rich, white male at some point and I've never seen 1 acknowledge their privilege on film. And there's no mention of how he got the beach house or his family history. You're just filling in the blanks that this guy doesn't know the price of bananas when you know little to nothing about him except for that he has a nice house. There are tons of nice beach houses in CA that are super remote, precisely because people build them by hand and the roads / utilities are poor so no one wants to live there. We have no idea how much his house is worth or how desirable that location is.
> To craft a more resonant/engaging story
> Because I like engaging stories that feel fully thought out.
The format of a documentary is designed to be a window into someone's reality. A good documentary shouldn't be trying to craft a message or to make someone more likable. This just happens to be a documentary about a white, rich, male, but that's incidental to the focus of the film which is why it wasn't necessary to address it. The guy had a ton of brilliantly shot underwater footage. I really don't see the point in resenting him for that.
You should go out and take a deep breath of reality. People in real life, especially outside of the US, aren't obsessed with talking about their or other people's privileges every time you put a microphone in front of their face.
You should go out and take a deep breath of reality. People in real life, especially outside of the US, care how they present themselves to other people and about their impact on society and culture.
People always tend to acknowledge their privilege or advantages. Here in the US we even have a national holiday for just that [0].
Don't try to twist this into some culture war bullshit.
I'm not from the US, though I have spent probably a quarter of my post university life over there. There is a hell of a lot to love about your country and your people. I've never felt more welcome in any other country anywhere.
However.
Saying that Thanksgiving "acknowledges your privileges" is possibly the strangest and most disconnected thing I've ever heard an American say. And that's a pretty high bar.
This was filmed near Simon's Town, near Cape Town (1)
One can feel blessed living in that part of the world near beach and mountains. There are also still some appalling 3rd world tin-shack slums in Cape Town. It's a part of the world where the privilege is very easy to see, if you care to see it.
But with the documentary, it was the opposite. The cinematography is gorgeous and many of the scenes that were captured were truly remarkable because he spent so much time in the water. The footage of the octopus and the sharks was just extraordinary. However, I really found the way Craig injected his own life story into documentary to be a real distraction and wished it had been more like a Sir David Attenborough documentary. (Actually, some of the footage made it into Blue Planet II, episode 5.)
If he had conducted the documentary more like this interview, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it even more.
> Octopuses don’t have tentacles as such.
Huh, TIL.
> The frustrating thing about a film is that you’ve only got 85 minutes. What you don’t see is that I have watched those pyjama sharks for years. [...] But what you don’t see is that I’m close to many different animals. All the different types of fish I got to know extremely well, otters, even some of the mollusks. Whales. There’re so many different animals. There’s no time to show all of that.
I wonder how much unedited footage he has? Seems like he could make an entire season about it all, especially now that he has a relationship with Netflix.