(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
A River Below is a movie about an endangered, amazing animal from the Amazon: the pink river dolphin. The film is also about the power of images in our world. The exploration of these themes becomes a powerful illustration of everything having to be seen in context; it is a network of relationships – all the way down to the micro level – that causes environmental problems all over the world. A River Below is a thought provoking, as it highlights causal relationships and why it is so complicated to solve environmental problems.
You may never get the chance to see a pink river dolphin. The beautiful and intelligent mammal of the Amazon River is used as a bait for a flounder-like bottomfish called piracatinga, a fish that is popular and that sells well. The popularity of the bottom fish causes the entire fishing community to catch and kill the dolphin to use it as bait, which is well known but largely overlooked.
So what does it take to change the state of things and give the dolphin a chance to survive? This question is explored with the help of a scientist who is fond of dolphins, a charismatic television personality, and a local fishing community that feeds on fishing piracatinga. These people are very different and are driven by different motives, but they are linked by their relationship with the pink river dolphin.
Animal protection
Love and science don't seem to be enough to save the dolphin. The researcher Fer-
nando Trujillo supports both; He has been researching the Dolphins in the Amazon for many years and believes that they are the smartest, most intelligent and charismatic mammals in the world. They are "people like us, but underwater," he says. For many years he has warned that children in Colombia are poisoned by eating the piracatinga, since the fish – which is why the dolphins are hunted – contains a lot of mercury. But instead of the warnings dampening the demand for piracatinga, they led to reactions from a fishing industry that felt threatened: Trujillo received death threats while sales of piracatinga continued as before.
A River Below invites reflection on "them" and "us".
In Brazil, Richard Rasmussen used other means to help the dolphins: Rasmussen is a biologist, and a charismatic and popular presenter in the National Geographic program Mundo Selvagem – a TV-friendly exploration of wilderness. He has an explosive personality and is clearly used to being in front of the camera. Love of nature and sense of the economy of the tabloid are important drivers in him, and it is difficult to distinguish between his TV personality and his "real" self. Still, Rasmussen's aids work better than Trujillos: In 2014, he asked some fishermen to show him how they catch the dolphins at night – and filmed the process. Although he had promised not to show the recordings publicly, they were broadcast in a program called Fantastic, with an audience of about 20 millions.
complex
Rasmussen's recording had a completely different effect than Trujillo's warnings: Watching a video of a dolphin being caught and slaughtered in the middle of the night – and showing that it was a female dolphin with a tiny little dolphin inside – led to a raging wave that was so powerful that the Brazilian government immediately banned fishing the piracatinga. Overnight there was an end to a practice for which the government had long closed its eyes; the law was implemented with great determination.
Rasmussen acted ethically correct? Maybe not. Was it effective? Definitely. The filmmakers look more closely at the ethical side of "getting things done at all costs", although the goal is never so noble and important. And it all takes a new turn when it becomes clear that the fishermen who were filmed lost their source of income and began to receive death threats from other fishing villages.
Rasmussen's reaction as he becomes aware of the consequences the broadcast recordings have had for the fishermen is surprising, balancing on the narrow boundary between pity and damage control. What this incident points to is that conservation is a luxury for the financially vulnerable. It is all too easy to blame them, and only them, though things are so much more complicated when it comes to the piece.
What we are left with towards the end of A River Below, are some important questions and an invitation to reflect on "them" and "us". How do we – each of us – influence nature, and what do we do to create change? How did the entire community depend on hunting for endangered species to survive? Why do facts and research seem to have so little power over people and politics? And what does it take for humanity to really change their habits?
