The Cove Commentary

1. Does the camera ‘take sides’?
It's hard to tell if the camera took sides. The whole point of the movie was to educate people about the killing of dolphins, so obviously the camera would take the side of an environmental activist.

2. Does the film allow the audience to think for itself, and to draw its own conclusions, or does it manipulate audience reaction and emotion?
I think it really manipulated the audience, but that was really the purpose of the movie. To me it wasn't really a formal documentary, but more of an awareness film about dolphin slaughtering. I didn't see a whole lot of talking from the other point of view.

3. Does it support opinion with evidence?
Yes I think it does. The entire movie was evidence basically. They take you to the location, they hide cameras, they go to the political convention, rather than just talking about all of this stuff.

4. Assess one possible interpretation that it reduces particular groups and individuals referred to, or participating in the film, to simplistic polar opposites of good and evil, heroes and villains.
I'm kind of confused about this question, but I'll address it the best I can. Clearly the producers were very opinionated about the subject, so if they wanted you to think a certain way they had to be extreme about it. There was no "this guy likes to kill fish, but he's a really great family man".

5. Through the range of filmmaking techniques presented, are we overtly manipulated into accepting uncritically the film’s version of truth?
Yeah we are. All of the shots and all of the interviews were chosen for a reason, they didn't decide to throw in any clips for fun. They also mentioned that this is an issue rarely talked about, so it's easy for them to convince us of their truth, because nobody knows the other side.

6. Does the film educate, does it enlighten us, or does it ‘preach to the converted’?
It's hard to speak for "us" because people are going to have different opinions, but for me it was educational