[Earthlings Revision] Vegan Maker? – Nope, Vegan Introducer

Ye Ji Park / 111053 / b4

Mr. Garrioch

English Composition

November 20 2012

Vegan Maker? – Nope, Vegan Introducer

Of course we know meat dishes and leather shoes are not fallen from the sky. We know animals are slaughtered to be served at family restaurants and displayed at department stores. But when we confront the true reality, not the ambiguous imagination, we realize that animal abuse is something much, much more brutal and gruesome act than it is in our mind.

Shaun Monson, the writer/producer/and director of the documentary Earthlings, gets the audience to face the truth via exploring the vivid descriptions of animal maltreatment for 95 minutes. The documentary is divided in five parts: pets, food, clothes, entertainment, and scientific research. The first chapter shows animals locked in dirty, crammed cages in pet stores. The second chapter portrays the bloody slaughter of pigs and cows, practiced with no effort to appease pain at all. The third chapter follows India's "Death March" that transports animals to regions where it is allowed to skin them. The fourth chapter shows the shackled life of circus animals, commanded to perform abnormally for the sake of entertainment. The final chapter pictures the cold-blooded medical experiments performed on animals, such as vivisection without anesthetizing.

All the visual images Shaun Monson displays in the documentary are often shocking and appalling enough to make people feel guilty. A lot of reviewers admit that the video made them reconsider about their meat diet, which is why the video is nicknamed "the Vegan maker". It is doubtful, however, whether this video succeeded in "making" the vegetarians. People did think about being vegetarian, but only few actually changed their lifestyle. In other words, Earthlings is enough to inspire people to think about change, but not enough to actualize that change.

This "insufficiency" is incurred from three shortcomings of the film: its broad range, prejudiced standpoint, and enumeration of facts. First of all, the video deals with a general problem; rather than choosing one specific example of animal abuse, the film covers many aspects of human violence on animals. Discussion of overall issue is effective to enlighten the viewers that animal violence is a ubiquitous problem. The drawback of this approach, however, is that the film needs to deal with too much content; some of the details, therefore, must be portrayed in brief. One YouTube reviewer points out that the film "tries to cover the whole spectrum ... that give you fast, short facts here and there.” For example, the reviewer points out, the images of animals in the zoos pass so fast that he missed most of them. If the film had included specific acts of zoo staffs mistreating animals, the film would have conveyed a much clearer message. Likewise, because the film deals with a general problem, the quick series of short-cut images does not give the viewers enough information or time to ponder about their lifestyles. As the reviewer mentioned, the viewers must do their own researches to replenish their knowledge until it reaches enough to lead to realistic action.

Secondly, the stance of Earthlings is overly one-sided. A strongly-biased perspective unintentionally leads the viewers to question, "What about the other side?" Maybe the director picked the most extreme examples among various cases in order to maximize pathos. Maybe there would be some more generous industries that anesthetize animals before slaughter or vivisection. Actually, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 57% of animals used in scientific experiment were used in procedures that did not include more than momentary pain or distress; 36% were used in procedures in which pain or distress was relieved by anesthesia; only 7% were used in studies that cause pain or distress which would not be relieved. The documentary, however, neglected 93% of consideration and only exhibited 7% of inhumanity, leading the viewers to accept this minor practice as a whole. Even if this is not true – that is, even if Shaun only pictured normal, quotidian, everyday-happening real events, the "truth" of video is so uncomfortable and guilt-eliciting. The viewers would try to deny and justify their current situations, rather than believing the film as presented and changing their life. If the director had included milder examples of the brutality and tempered his strongly biased perspective, viewers would have raised less disbelief and denial.

Finally, merely listing the “facts” is not enough to make the viewers of Earthlings act. Throughout five chapters, the film clearly shows that animal abuse is omnipresent; however, it does not suggest any solutions to rescue animals from maltreatment. There do exist alternatives; beans and tofu other than meat; synthetic fiber in substitute for leather and fur; a tennis competition in place of bullfighting. The film, however, hardly suggests such solutions. A local foodie and interactive marketer, Adam Harrell claimed that “[Earthlings] implies that if we want to eat meat, then animals will be treated cruelly in factory farms. That there is no other way. It’s an all or nothing approach.” The viewers, thus, feels futile and regards challenge meaningless – consequently bringing no change in their lifestyles.

Earthlings is, doubtlessly, one of the greatest definitive animal rights films. It introduced the brutal reality of animal abuse which humans are unaware of. Unfortunately, its role stops at merely "introducing" the issue; the film fails to take a further step of eliciting real changes. The film’s broadness, biased stance, and little suggestion of solutions, prevents the viewers from "being vegetarians". Maybe the film's nickname, "the Vegan maker", is adulation; "the Vegan introducer", instead, would be felicitous.