Deep Dive Docs
An underseen doc explores the truth behind a bloody environmental action.
The two subjects of Mark Grieco’s 2017 doc A River Below can agree on the problem: illegal fishing has endangered the pink river dolphin. That’s where their common ground ends for conservationists Fernando Trujillo, a Columbian marine biologist, and Richard Rasmussen, a Crocodile Hunter-style wildlife television host.
The long-probiscused dolphin, known in Brazil as “boto” and sacred to populations in South American, has been poached by local fishermen and cut up as an effective commercial fishing bait. Legislation to protect the pink river dolphin had crawled – until a Sunday night newsmagazine showed Brazilians graphic footage of one of the creatures getting hunted and slaughtered. This prompted immediate legislative action – but something, ahem, fishy occurred to bring about this collective call to action.
The movie contrasts Trujillo and Rasmussen against each other as avatars of two philosophies of social change – and at the center is the mystery of the bloody dolphin death witnessed by millions of television viewers.
Letterboxd Views: 271
Services: Free on Hoopla, PlutoTV, rentals on usual services
Trujillo is an even-tempered man of science. He’s the world’s leading expert on the pink river dolphin, devoting years to study of the dolphins and building a research station. He counts the declining population of the dolphins. Rasmussen is a made-for-TV personality who handles animals on camera for his viewers and insists television is the route to making enough people care about wildlife populations to take action to save them. He’s introduced posing for pictures with fans and fawning over river animals of several varieties, including the botos.
The contrast between the personalities is apparent from the start, but a larger conflict looms as questions arise about Rasmussen’s involvement in the documentation of the dolphin slaughter. As he investigates questions about how this footage came to be, Grieco and his crew visit a nearby fishing community where they’re greeted with hostility and a legion of phone cameras pointed back at them. The fishermen of the community wish they’d had their own cameras ready when the last camera crew visited, a crew that goaded them into a heinous act for the cameras with promises that the footage would never get seen by the public.
The most memorable scenes pit Grieco against an increasingly defensive Rasmussen, a man whose love for nature is rivaled only by love of his celebrity status. “I am the anti-hero. I’m the one you don’t want, but you need,” he says dramatically about his decision to get the footage aired. But Rasmussen has trouble coming clean, as the filmmakers uncover more about his role in the dolphin snuff film. His unceasing showman’s personality clouds the question at the center of his decisions: if the killing of one dolphin potentially saves thousands of others, isn’t it worth it?
The documentary aims to boost the work of men like Trujillo whose unflashy work aims to convince the public through reason and rigor. But the film can’t help but get hijacked by a man who demands a camera’s attention as thoroughly as Rasmussen, whether he’s pushing back on off-camera questions or making his case in between selfies with fans. Much as our sympathies lie with the traditional environmentalists, it’s impossible not to get caught up in watching Rasmussen navigate a documentary outside his control. And it’s another knot in the very tangled net – in the end, the vain Rasmussen can claim to have (at least temporarily) stopped the killing of the dolphins by harnessing the power of the camera to shape public opinion. Trujillo publishes his unpopular research to back up his conclusions about the high levels of mercury in the food provided by the fishing industry. For his efforts he has to hire a bodyguard and wear a bulletproof vest in public.
A River Below uncovers a story with so many competing problems – environmentalism vs commerce, tradition vs pragmatism, logic vs populism – the simple desire to save innocent, beloved dolphins seems like a herculean task. Yet the movie’s biggest competition is between the damages of immediate action versus the frustration of the daily grind seeking long-term results. “Stop talking, do something,” declares Rasmussen after mimicking ineffective environmental sloganeers. If the right way of doing things isn’t rewarded, does that change what methods are right?
About the writer
C. D. Ploughman
The weary Ploughman is a writer and filmmaker, focusing these days on documentary and educational projects. He obsesses over movies with his very patient wife and children.
C. D. Ploughman’s ProfileTags for this article
More articles by C. D. Ploughman
The life and career of a man who found the extraordinary in the ordinary.
The Friday Article Roundup
An assembly line of this week's pop culture writing from around the Internet.
Lunch Links
State of the art special effects, little attention paid to plot - what's changed over the past 120 years?
And It is a material presenter of this week's pop culture writing from around the Internet.
The Friday Article Roundup
A catty roundup of great pop culture writing from the past week.
Department of
Conversation
What did we watch?
M*A*S*H, Season One, Episode Twenty, “Major Fred C Dobbs”
A light episode, storywise; the concept is mainly interesting because it’s a strong variation on the “bringing the enemy back” cliche, where they’re bringing him back entirely because otherwise Hawkeye and Trapper would have to keep pulling double duty, and even then only because Frank nearly takes Margaret with him. If there’s any kind of character revealed, it’s that Frank’s greed outweighs any other concern he has, up to and including his life, and Hawk and Trap know this. Frank is funny because he has about six or seven different motivations that can pull him in any direction, and the main thing holding him together is a scrappy survival instinct. If there’s anything about the world revealed, it’s that it takes an enormous amount of effort for Henry to get Frank transferred and this apparently cannot be pulled again.
What’s really interesting about the episode is how much it depends on detail. I’ve been thinking about Nath’s Madison Square again, and that Nath’s plotting is far more elegant than my own, which I put down to both his deep knowledge of TV and, more importantly to this conversation, the fact that he’s heavily rewritten it over the years. I notice this episode has some rather elegant plotting too; when Frank goes to complain to Henry, Henry is getting dental work done, which initially seems like just a funny way to spice up a boilerplate scene but ends up factoring into Hawk and Trap’s scheme to trick Frank into thinking there’s gold outside the camp.
I can imagine this having worked one of two ways – either the dentist scene was written first, and later they got the idea to work in the gold, or they wrote the gold first and had to figure out how to justify finding gold, struck upon the idea of gold fillings, and went and rewrote the Frank complaint scene to include dentistry. I like my plotting – I think of it as Gonzo – but there’s definitely a benefit to heavy rewriting, especially – in fact, inarguably for a comedy.
Frank and Margaret’s dumbass soap opera scenes always get a big laugh out of me. It’s very M*A*S*H that their sincerity is never in question; it’s also very M*A*S*H that Frank is too dimwitted and self-absorbed to realise he shouldn’t bring up his wife around Margaret.
Now I’m just trying to think what M*A*S*H actors I would cast as what Madison Square characters. I feel like Stevenson could have plausibly played a good Jimmy back in the day.
I would guess that the gold idea came first, with the dentist scene written to justify it, and if so, I’m particularly impressed, because it would have been so easy to do a blatant “bet that’s going to come up later” scene, where gold is obviously introduced for no real reason, and instead, it’s folded in almost invisibly, so it coming back and turning plot-relevant is a delight.
Young Gary Burghoff would have been magnificent as Paul; William Christopher would also do pretty well. Harry Morgan would have a blast as Blue, as would Jamie Farr. I can’t top Stevenson as Jimmy. (In general though, it’s hard not to see Nath’s castings for the characters)
Right? Like, one thing I’m always delighted by is a work that genuinely works to make it hard to predict what’s going to happen. One thing this watch project has revealed is how M*A*S*H lives so hard on its basic joke-writing – it’s so good at churning out great one-liners from any premise (even no premise) that it has these basic building blocks for making elegant, invisible plots. Your attention is focused so hard on the jokes that the plots glide right past you.
Live Music – Baths! Who made my favourite album of the year so far (“Gut”) as well as possibly my favourite album ever (“Romaplasm”) so I was very excited for this one. It was great, always tough to know exactly how well it’s going to work when seeing an electronic act but it was an energetic performance with some cool projected visual stuff and even though the new album only came out in February, he debuted three even newer songs that were all great. Loved the support act too, their deeply annoying band name – ANOTHER; COUNTRY $$$$ – set my expectations low but they were a really excellent surprise, intense electronica with a live drummer.
Woooo, live music!
I do feel like no band name needs a semicolon, but I’m glad ANOTHER; COUNTRY $$$$ came over that hurdle to provide a good supporting act. And I’ll have to check out Baths!
This song isn’t from either of the mentioned albums but the video really makes me laugh.
https://youtu.be/tEJIjjfNHrE?si=FzW6MpfCqf4_t_eo
That was great and funny and beautifully weird. I especially loved the incredibly supportive cat.
They had to be going for the worst band name in history, right? Do you pronounce the dollar signs? I’m extremely annoyed just looking at that, almost sorry to hear they’re good in spite of it, increasing the chances I’ll be searching the name.
I’m pretty sure all the punctuation is silent, I have no idea what the point of any of it is.
Wooooo live music! Boo Lionel Hutz business card-ass band names!
Wooooo live electronic music!!
The Righteous Gemstones, “Better Is the End of a Thing Than Its Beginning”
Beautiful finale. Highlights:
– Edi Patterson’s performance when Judy is tearfully talking about her first “boyfriend,” the professor she raped and then stalked, eventually kidnapping his son; it’s perfectly pitched so that she knows what she’s saying is dark, but she still doesn’t get exactly how dark it is, and the delivery is just so broken and vulnerable: “After that, we weren’t boyfriend and girlfriend anymore.”
– “G’day.”
– That poor security guard stuck witnessing Judy and BJ’s weird, triumphant reconciliation. I’m happy those crazy kids are going to make it work, but this guy having to listen to them arrange some watersports cracked me up.
– Keefe in a wetsuit in a sensory deprivation tank … with only his dick exposed.
– Baby Billy making a break for it while Tiffany tries to claim he’s dead.
– Both the bee scenes, with side-splitting comedy replayed as something heartwarming and awe-filled.
– Jesse’s viscerally disgusted reaction at learning Gideon went on a mission trip to Haiti.
– Johnny Seasons getting the mall church.
– Kelvin’s romcom run to go save Keefe.
– Everyone’s reaction when Eli breaks Baby Billy’s Jesus bobblehead. (Well, more like bobblewaist.) Particular bright spots there tied between the kids’ “Ooooh,” like they’re delighted at their dad being in trouble with the teacher, i.e., God, and the precise language of Eli’s “No, that was a karate person.”
– Eli’s lovely sermon, especially when the bit about praying for your enemy’s salvation cuts to a vision of Aimee-Leigh sitting peacefully side-by-side with Scotty. A lot of this show genuinely gets to me on an emotional level, especially with moments like that one.
– Jesse and Gideon, digging side by side.
Lupin the Third: Episode Zero: First Contact – Yes, that does have two colons. In theory, a flashback to how everyone first met, but at the end we learn the whole flashback was not from Jigen’s usually honest point of view but Lupin’s, and is most likely a bunch of lies. Which makes sense given the characters and the franchise’s almost relentless resistance to having a consistent canon. But also kind of means the viewers have wasted their time trying to see just how a hitman for the Mob, two scheming thieves, and a samurai became allies. Plus the story is pretty standard, though there are some good set pieces, a good choice of setting in a somewhat stylized but very recognizable New York, and a rare instance of Fuji sleeping with Lupin as part of the story and not the backstory.
Kojak, “When You Hear the Beep, Drop Dead” – While catching a couple of burglars, Kojak and team discover that the renter of the robbed apartment is planning to kill her lover. Kojak sets out to find the potential killer, but the twist is, the killer doesn’t exist! Or rather, the wife of the victim, a former actress, has created a false identity to blame so she can get all his money. Can Kojak unravel the mystery in time? (This time, yes he can!) Susan Sullivan is great as the murderer-to-be. Eric Braeden almost as good as the hapless victim.
Frasier, “Death and the Dog” – On a slow day, Frasier recounts to his one caller how Eddie was essentially depressed. How a dog therapist (an idea I think is much less mocked now) concludes that Eddie is being affected by how down the humans around him are. And how the cast find themselves pondering death itself, only to discover than Eddie was down just because he couldn’t find his favorite toy, a lesson they take to heart by having fresh baked cookies. There is a plate of cookies next to Frasier the whole time he’s telling this, so the end is perfectly set up, but the flow of the story, from the seeming absurdity of a depressed dog to the philosophical musings to a nice twist end, is really strong. Even if Frasier and Niles were mean to the dog therapist.
Election – With commentary recorded by Payne in 1999. As an Omaha native who was in high school down the road when this movie was made, Election has always had a special place for me (a good friend of mine’s mom was a set dresser and his photo appears prominently in the principal’s office). And Payne’s facility with real locations makes this a great snapshot of the city in the late 90s. I’ve always appreciated how the characters live in realistic-sized houses, from the aging middle class places that were either homey or crumby depending on the care given by the resident up to the new construction on the west end of town, all sod lawns and tiny new trees.
Payne’s commentary gives further insight on the locations filmed and points out several motifs – many more than are strictly needed – that completely went by me but now seem obvious when they’re pointed out (there’s a crazy number of trash trucks and trash cans that follow the characters around). It also hits the nostalgia chords as he talks about the still mostly analog moviemaking process. He speaks of the complications of the optical effects with Tracy’s intoductoey montage being the most complicated and expensive part of the movie (there’s only one digital effect that he points out, a few digital bees hovering around before Broderick’s character gets stung). He mentions how most of the student extras (played by real students in the school that was actually holding classes while they filmed) had never seen a film camera before, and it took me a moment to realize that of course that’s right. Cameras accessible to the general public would have been the recently-shrunk consumer-grade, and even the digital ones would have shot on tape. Someday I’ll write my long-gestating piece on how Payne treats Omaha on film the way New York got treated in the 70s and what a fortunate resource that is to have.
One thing I think about with Election is how everyone is a complex figure; even the ones who aren’t doing anything nasty have complicated reasons for doing what they’re doing, like the dumb jock who’s also totally sincere and just too dumb to realise the implications of what he’s doing. And then you have Mark Harelik’s teacher character at the start who blows up his life doing something dumb and vile and ends the movie getting just desserts, and he makes everyone else look better by comparison.
It’s very even in doling out contempt and sympathy, mostly in that order (Payne confesses he has the most sympathy for Paul’s lesbian sister and the movie bares this out).
Andor
Season 2, Episode 7. “The Messenger”. First time.
Very much a table-setting episode but it does a great job of getting us up to speed not only with how thoroughly the Empire has fucked up Ghorman and how far along the propaganda machine has advanced, but with how closer the Rebellion had gotten to the more organized but still messy state we’ve seen in Rogue One/A New Hope. Very invested in Bix and Cassian’s relationship at this point and legitimately scared by Syril and Dedra’s. That kiss was like a fucking jump scare.
The most dramatic thing in this episode is Bix and Cassian’s interlude with the force healer, introducing the force for the first time in the show without the full fantastical bent of the movies. Here it works as an outlet for their doubts and faith to be tested and their love for each other to be reaffirmed, even while their relationship with the rest of the Rebellion remains tenous (as illustrated by them living in their own shack away from the iconic base in Yavin, and having lost contact with Luthen and the increasingly radicalized Wilmon for some time).
Season 2, Episode 8. “Who Are You?”. First time.
Aside: For a second, I thought Cassian would shoot Dedra and that would get the massacre started but what actually happens has probably more political revelance. (Although Cassian getting a ton of innocents killed by going along with Luthen’s plan would be perfectly in keeping with this show’s story.) As it is, Dedra stays alive but is a wreck by the end of the episode, and maybe even scarier as a result.
I got the closest I’ve been yet to seeing an episode of Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney, uh, live. About an hour after it ended. More detail to come Sunday.
I did check out the first episode of The Four Seasons as well. Not bad, but it remains to be seen how good it might be. Again, more thoughts on Sunday.
And I finally saw the re-released final ending of Mythic Quest. OK.
Added to Hoopla! Uh, do we see the graphic footage of one of the river dolphins being brutally slaughtered? I can see the basis just for inclusion, just trying to figure out how much to steel myself for that one.
You do. They show the broadcast that created the national outrage and discover a couple other maimed dolphins along the way. Steel yourself accordingly.
Werner Herzog takes on a new role of listening to recordings of horrible animal-related incidents for documentaries.
Year of the Month update!
May’s year will be 1962, so you can write about any of these movies, albums, books, et al!
May 9th: Gillian Rose Nelson: Bon Voyage!
May 15th: John Bruni: L’Eclisse/Il Sorpasso
May 16th: Gillian Rose Nelson: Big Red
May 23rd: Gillian Rose Nelson: Almost Angels
May 30th: Gillian Rose Nelson: In Search of the Castaways
And coming in June, we’ll be moving on to 1983, including all these movies, albums, books, et al!
Jun. 9th: Sam Scott: El Sur
Jun. 23rd: Sam Scott: Codex Seraphianus
Jun. 24th: John Bruni: Legendary Hearts
Jun. 30th: Tristan Nankervis: The Big Chill
The obvious comparison for bloody river-related eco-action is Night Moves, whose protagonists have Rasmussen’s understanding of actions that get results and those that don’t — the questions around that sound interesting but I am sidetracked by “Trujillo publishes his unpopular research to back up his conclusions about the high levels of mercury in the food provided by the fishing industry. For his efforts he has to hire a bodyguard and wear a bulletproof vest in public.” Is that because of angry fishermen or a more powerful industry menace? Because that also raises questions about the kind of actions and where they would best be directed.
It’s the fishermen, if I understand correctly, though I’m sure there’s higher powers that wouldn’t shed a tear. It’s the same issue around most all environmental policy changes, it screws up somebody’s industry. And this film isn’t really concerned with big industry but the workaday people who rely on the ability to catch these fish to survive, who probably don’t want to feed people dangerous levels of mercury or kill dolphins, but the alternative is starvation for their family.