All of our lives, we place ourselves higher on the food chain than every other animal out there. Humankind as a whole treats nature far worse than it would ever treat another human being – or so we hope. Throughout the two films, Project Nim ¬- directed by James Marsh - and “The Paw Project” – another documentary that was posted by YouTube user “The Bat Vegan” – we are a witness to harmful treatment done by acclaimed scientists. “The Paw Project” touches on the realities of declawing all types of cats while Project Nim takes us on a journey as a group of hippies tried to humanize a chimpanzee in the seventies. Though they address an overall topic, what makes each of them unique in how they present their information, defend their actions, and draw the audience in to believe any of their actions are warranted?
…show more content…
One may say that by doing this they have caused it to be more appealing to the viewer and in that, making a stronger impact in the crowds. Although there is a much larger affinity for kitties getting the justice they deserve, Nim’s story is that of triumph. James Marsh doctored up clips to model the past that tore at the heart strings of everyone to get justice for this chimpanzee. However, throughout the entire smokescreen of a documentary, it missed the mark on what it was trying to accomplish. For one there was no convincing or sway of any type. The only statement in the film that I felt was validated was by Laura Ann-Petitto, “You can’t give human nurturing to an animal that can kill you.” (Project Nim) In its own film, it disputes their efforts and attempt at convincing an audience of anything besides leaving wild animals in the wild. “He attacked Petitto several times—in the film she shows the location of one bite that needed 37 stitches” (Singer 2011). The cinematic expertise was artfully displayed throughout this work, yet the thesis was left untouched and the audience needed
One may say that by doing this they have caused it to be more appealing to the viewer and in that, making a stronger impact in the crowds. Although there is a much larger affinity for kitties getting the justice they deserve, Nim’s story is that of triumph. James Marsh doctored up clips to model the past that tore at the heart strings of everyone to get justice for this chimpanzee. However, throughout the entire smokescreen of a documentary, it missed the mark on what it was trying to accomplish. For one there was no convincing or sway of any type. The only statement in the film that I felt was validated was by Laura Ann-Petitto, “You can’t give human nurturing to an animal that can kill you.” (Project Nim) In its own film, it disputes their efforts and attempt at convincing an audience of anything besides leaving wild animals in the wild. “He attacked Petitto several times—in the film she shows the location of one bite that needed 37 stitches” (Singer 2011). The cinematic expertise was artfully displayed throughout this work, yet the thesis was left untouched and the audience needed