"Ghosts" is a film that tries to do too much and yet accomplishes very little. It is an overly simplistic take on a deeply complex issue. If Director Liz Marshall and Jo Anne McArthur want the average viewer to feel empathy for animals, they perhaps succeeded. But if their goal is to inspire the viewer and convince them to stop consuming, using and/or wearing these animals I am not sure this film was sufficiently persuasive.
The intended audience of this film is clear: It is meant for a viewer who has spent minimal time contemplating animal suffering. Not surprisingly, the animal rights and ethical vegan community are rejoicing over the film's release. It is so rare for theaters to give mainstream attention to a film that delves into the human-animal relationship and shows something the viewer may be incredibly uncomfortable seeing or acknowledging. A film like "Ghosts" is different than movies such as "The Cove" or "Blackfish," as it is relatively easy for a viewer to detach themselves from the any sense of personal complicity. In the latter two films, if an audience member feels that atrocities are committee at the expense of marine mammals they do not have to point a finger at themselves since they are not hunting the animals. But when a film demonstrates to the viewers that they themselves are part of the problem and forces them to critique their own consumption and rethink cultural norms, the film will not as readily gain mainstream support or popularity.
Unfortunately, the intended audience may be different than the actual audience, as much of the movie's support and viewership will come from the animal rights movements... the ones who need little convincing.
That said, the viewer is kept waiting for the plot in this film. The brilliant cinematography enhanced the film and the emotional response to its content, but the plot climax never seemed to come. It is easy to emphasize and root for Ms. McArthur. In an early scene in the film in which Ms. McArthur documented conditions on a fur farm, I was left waiting for amazing footage of atrocities in an unseen world. The film however left me disappointed by proceeding to spend much of the next 45 advertising for Farm Sanctuary.
The film addressed the exploitation of purpose bred beagles in laboratory research. I was inspired by the adoption these wonderful beagles, but at the same time it was an incredibly wasted learning opportunity - what exactly were these dogs rescued from? The viewer saw them in cages but the film did not explain what was being inflicted upon them and why. We saw shots of notebooks and an explanation that the dogs were scared and could take months, if not years, to re-socialize. But what type of harm did they endure? what is a "teaching animal?" The credits at the end of the film contained a sentence about beagle testing for medical and dentistry purposes. There was not a single mention of the cosmetics, chemical and pharmaceutical industries that inflict horrific and needless tests on animals. The 2 second shot of a bottle of perfume and a make up counter were very likely lost on most viewers. Moreover, it was not explained to the viewer why medical testing is cruel, unnecessary and provides flawed results.
Virtually no point in the film was fully explained. Proponents of the film may respond to my criticism to pointing out that the film doesn't aim to educate with facts or discussion, but instead to show suffering, to show the faces of these creatures that human chooses to capture, torture and turn into commodities. This may be a valid artistic choice, but it left the movie feeling empty and pointless. Veganism, a lifestyle involving a conscious abstention from the products of animal suffering, was given minimal attention in a very short part of the film. The problems of the dairy industry were barely mentioned and eggs were not mentioned at all. The potential for confusion between the idyllic scenes of rescued at Farm Sanctuary and advertising for various humane products seems especially high. Or perhaps even if a viewer concludes that any method of killing an animal is ethically questionable, they may persist in their consumption of eggs and dairy by rationalizing "I will buy my eggs from chickens who have lots of space and are well care for in small traditional farms." It was not lost on me that Ms. McArthur continuously used the term "factory farm" over and over again, but never explicitly condemned the myth of "humane" farming except for in one line towards the very end of the movie.
Overall, advocates for animals should be pleased a film that might inspire viewers to go vegan is receiving mainstream attention. However, the film had way too many missed opportunities and no definitive plot. I could have saved my $15 and simply gone onto Farm Sanctuary's website (or visited the place myself) to see it be shameless promoted. That said, I would definitely share this film with my non vegan friends and family, but I would insist on viewing it with them so that I could fill in many of the unfortunate gaps in its presentation of the issues and address any of the likely confusions that may arise for those unfamiliar with its themes.
The intended audience of this film is clear: It is meant for a viewer who has spent minimal time contemplating animal suffering. Not surprisingly, the animal rights and ethical vegan community are rejoicing over the film's release. It is so rare for theaters to give mainstream attention to a film that delves into the human-animal relationship and shows something the viewer may be incredibly uncomfortable seeing or acknowledging. A film like "Ghosts" is different than movies such as "The Cove" or "Blackfish," as it is relatively easy for a viewer to detach themselves from the any sense of personal complicity. In the latter two films, if an audience member feels that atrocities are committee at the expense of marine mammals they do not have to point a finger at themselves since they are not hunting the animals. But when a film demonstrates to the viewers that they themselves are part of the problem and forces them to critique their own consumption and rethink cultural norms, the film will not as readily gain mainstream support or popularity.
Unfortunately, the intended audience may be different than the actual audience, as much of the movie's support and viewership will come from the animal rights movements... the ones who need little convincing.
That said, the viewer is kept waiting for the plot in this film. The brilliant cinematography enhanced the film and the emotional response to its content, but the plot climax never seemed to come. It is easy to emphasize and root for Ms. McArthur. In an early scene in the film in which Ms. McArthur documented conditions on a fur farm, I was left waiting for amazing footage of atrocities in an unseen world. The film however left me disappointed by proceeding to spend much of the next 45 advertising for Farm Sanctuary.
The film addressed the exploitation of purpose bred beagles in laboratory research. I was inspired by the adoption these wonderful beagles, but at the same time it was an incredibly wasted learning opportunity - what exactly were these dogs rescued from? The viewer saw them in cages but the film did not explain what was being inflicted upon them and why. We saw shots of notebooks and an explanation that the dogs were scared and could take months, if not years, to re-socialize. But what type of harm did they endure? what is a "teaching animal?" The credits at the end of the film contained a sentence about beagle testing for medical and dentistry purposes. There was not a single mention of the cosmetics, chemical and pharmaceutical industries that inflict horrific and needless tests on animals. The 2 second shot of a bottle of perfume and a make up counter were very likely lost on most viewers. Moreover, it was not explained to the viewer why medical testing is cruel, unnecessary and provides flawed results.
Virtually no point in the film was fully explained. Proponents of the film may respond to my criticism to pointing out that the film doesn't aim to educate with facts or discussion, but instead to show suffering, to show the faces of these creatures that human chooses to capture, torture and turn into commodities. This may be a valid artistic choice, but it left the movie feeling empty and pointless. Veganism, a lifestyle involving a conscious abstention from the products of animal suffering, was given minimal attention in a very short part of the film. The problems of the dairy industry were barely mentioned and eggs were not mentioned at all. The potential for confusion between the idyllic scenes of rescued at Farm Sanctuary and advertising for various humane products seems especially high. Or perhaps even if a viewer concludes that any method of killing an animal is ethically questionable, they may persist in their consumption of eggs and dairy by rationalizing "I will buy my eggs from chickens who have lots of space and are well care for in small traditional farms." It was not lost on me that Ms. McArthur continuously used the term "factory farm" over and over again, but never explicitly condemned the myth of "humane" farming except for in one line towards the very end of the movie.
Overall, advocates for animals should be pleased a film that might inspire viewers to go vegan is receiving mainstream attention. However, the film had way too many missed opportunities and no definitive plot. I could have saved my $15 and simply gone onto Farm Sanctuary's website (or visited the place myself) to see it be shameless promoted. That said, I would definitely share this film with my non vegan friends and family, but I would insist on viewing it with them so that I could fill in many of the unfortunate gaps in its presentation of the issues and address any of the likely confusions that may arise for those unfamiliar with its themes.