Annick de Haas
Supervisor: mw. dr. C.M. (Catherine) Lord Second reader: mw. dr. M.C. (Maryn) Wilkinson Master Thesis
Beroepsgeoriënteerde Specialisatie: Film Studies University of Amsterdam
June 25th, 2018
Rhetorical Strategies of Eco-documentaries:
Narratives of Environmental Colonialism in Virunga and The Ivory Game
Table of Contents
Abstract...3
Introduction – Gambled Extinction...4
Chapter 1 – Situating Ecocinema: Rhetorical Strategies and Environmental Colonialism...9
Chapter 2 – Virunga, Viewer Activism and Aristotle’s Rhetorical Strategies...14
Chapter 2.1 – Logos: The Logic of Environmental Colonial Antagonists...18
Chapter 2.2 – Pathos: Emotional Alignment...22
Chapter 2.3 – Ethos: The Ethics of the Situation...27
Chapter 2.4 – Concluding Virunga...30
Chapter 3: The Ivory Game and its Rhetorical Strategies...31
Chapter 3.1 – Logos: The Illogicality of Poaching...34
Chapter 3.2 – Pathos: Using Emotion to Persuade Viewers...41
Chapter 3.3 – Ethos: Characters’ Ethical Nature...46
Chapter 3.4 – Concluding The Ivory Game...50
Chapter 4 – An Activist Framework...51
Conclusion – Creating an Activist Ecosystem...54
References...56
Abstract
The focus in this thesis is on how eco-documentaries Virunga and The Ivory Game differ in encouraging viewers of their environmental colonial narratives, through the critical lens of Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies. Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies include logical reasoning (logos), emotional effect (pathos), and ethics (ethos). The field of ecocinema, to which documentaries belong, is relatively new and lacks research on rhetorical strategies in eco-documentaries. Increasing amounts of eco-documentaries are produced and distributed yearly; and carry great power in influencing political and environmental agendas through convincing viewers of activism. Close-reading eco-documentaries will hence give insights into how viewers may be activated. In this thesis, Virunga and The Ivory Game serve as case studies, as both centralize similar topics such as environmental colonialism and the protection of African wildlife. The two eco-documentaries were compared through a textual and
rhetorical analysis in terms of their logos, pathos, and ethos. This close-reading showed a similar use of Bill Nichols’ five rhetoric ‘departments’ composed of arrangement, invention, cinematography, delivery, and memory; which gives insights into how the voice of eco-documentaries activates viewers. This conclusion points to a new (activist) framework which, if followed, will aid in eco-documentaries’ activist success.
Key words: Virunga, The Ivory Game, eco-documentaries, environmental colonialism, activism, rhetorical strategies.
Introduction – Gambled Extinction
“You must justify why you are here on this Earth,” park ranger Andre Bauma states in eco-documentary Virunga (Von Einsiedel, 2014) when asked why he is risking his life to protect endangered mountain gorillas in the Virunga National Park. Andre is seated on a plastic chair in a medium shot cleaning his gun. In a voice-over he states, “They are my life.” The
humbled park ranger is wearing a camouflage uniform moving cloth up and down the gun. Shots of mountain gorillas intercut this image, and show viewers the wide-eyed, vulnerable wildlife species Andre is protecting. The worried mountain gorillas shot changes to shots of Andre cleaning and reloading his gun. The camera positions Andre in a tight frame, and films him from a low-angle: “So, if it is about dying, I will die for the gorillas.” This low-angle shot communicates to viewers that they should admire Andre. Andre rests his gun against the wall behind him. He is ready to fight the approaching M23 rebels. Andre represents the modern environmentalist and their fight for conservation to stop mass extinction.
Earth has experienced five mass extinction events in the past 540 million years. It is currently facing its sixth one, also known as the Holocene or Anthropocene extinction. Although previous extinction events were accompanied by climate change, according to Yuval Noah Harari, the sixth one is due to human activities (73-74, 82). Harari works in the field of World History and finds that historically, humans were simple gatherers, surviving off remains left behind by larger predators. Only 100,000 years ago did humans ‘jump’ to the top of the food chain (Harari 12). Ecosystems could not adopt fast enough, leading to the extinction of various species. This extinction rate continues today. Journalist and activist Naomi Klein states that “as a culture, we have become far too willing to gamble things that are precious and irreplaceable”. I will be exploring this ‘gamble’ by developing the term ‘environmental colonialism’. This concept is essential to this thesis and requires elaboration.
Environmental colonialism includes all the ways in which colonialism influences people, nature, wildlife and land. Colonialism refers to the claim of power by one country over another, which includes the claiming of all its resources. This power claim is often beneficial to the controlling party (colonizer) and destructive for the controlled party
(colonized). Environmental colonialism refers to the colonizing of environments. This ranges from exploiting resources and introducing non-native species to poaching wildlife and
biodiversity to air pollution and waste (Barnosky et al. 52). But also, reserve parks, and arts (ivory). Environmental colonialism therefore includes all human acts that pollute
environments and wildlife. One example is the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which irreversibly and recklessly contaminated much microorganic life forms (Klein).
Another example of environmental colonialism is ivory trade, killing white rhinos for their horns. This has led to the species’ extinction, when the last male called Sudan passed away in March 2018. Examples such as these exemplify the rising need for awareness of environmental colonialism. Awareness is however insufficient; people young and old need to work together to conserve so that the Holocene extinction may be delayed or stopped
entirely. Because in the end, “it’s much easier to create a desert than a forest” (Lovelock). One way in which awareness may be raised, is through eco-documentaries. Eco-documentaries are environmental Eco-documentaries and vital objects of study in the field of ecocinema. They aim at communicating activist messages. As the field is relatively new, scholars have differing definitions of ecocinema (Rust and Monani 2). According to cinema studies academics Stephen Rust and Salma Monani, scholars are however in consensus about films’ ability to visualize the relationship between humans and environments and wildlife (3). The visualization of this relationship is used strategically in eco-documentaries with a
rhetoric aimed at encouraging viewers to participate in conservation. Eco-documentaries also often centralize human-induced environmental colonial acts which influence the relationship between humans and non-humans. For example, global warming’s consequences in An
Inconvenient Truth (Guggenheim, 2006), dolphin killings in The Cove (Psihoyos, 2009), and
the impact of plastic on marine life in A Plastic Ocean (Leeson, 2016).
More recent examples include Virunga and The Ivory Game (Davidson and Ladkani, 2016). Similar to the eco-documentaries mentioned, Virunga and The Ivory Game raise awareness. However, in addition, they encourage activism through the visualization of environmental colonialism. Which is why these two eco-documentaries will serve as case studies of how eco-documentaries visualizing environmental colonial acts may be utilized in activism efforts. Virunga narrates the story of park rangers based in the Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, protecting the park and its last group of 800 endangered mountain gorillas from rebels and oil companies’ operations to secure oil-rich land. Viewers are introduced to the main characters whom are shown playing and taking care of the cute and clumsy gorillas; thereby communicating that the gorillas are family. This is most notable in scenes with Andre, who is captivated by the playful gorillas he takes care of. His dark eyes sparkle as he talks about them as if they are humans. These images are
juxtaposed with the harsh reality of antagonistic rebels and oil companies disregarding the park and its human and non-human inhabitants when trying to overrun it. For example, large tanks, gun shots and frightened fleeing people, children and wildlife are shown as a result of the money-hungry antagonists.
The hardship of conservationism due to environmental colonialism is also visualized in The Ivory Game, which follows investigative journalists, park rangers and conservationists aiming to protect vulnerable African elephants from ivory poachers. They do so by
uncovering the truth behind ivory trading in and between Africa and Asia; and equate elephants to humans. For example, stating that elephants are “much more connected to each other than even humans are these days” (Craig Millar). Images of vulnerable and majestic elephants minding their business are juxtaposed with images of war, fleeing people and wildlife, and industrialized cities that have colonized elephants’ and other wildlife’s homes. This juxtaposition serves as evidence of not only poaching, but also of the meta-narrative that nature is increasingly polluted by humans. Environmental colonialism, is the cause.
Both eco-documentaries track the collisions between humans and animals, exploring environmental and ecological concerns by focusing on one endangered African wildlife species. And conclude their narrative with an encouragement for viewers to fight natural resource exploitation. Virunga and The Ivory Game also inform viewers of the dogmatic nature of environmental colonialism, showing that natural resource exploitation has ties with colonialism. With that I mean, the connection between the ideology of nature as subordinate and contemporary normalization of environmental colonial activities. For example, the shift from living with nature, to abusing it – as notable with the dairy industry. Animals are bred and mistreated in service of human overconsumption. The same may be seen with ivory. Elephants are poached and left for dead – simply because humans desire a decorative piece of ivory. For viewers to become activated due to awareness of such issues raised in the eco-documentaries, an eco-documentary requires strong rhetorical strategies.
By rhetorical strategies I mean discourse with a strong combination of logical reasoning (logos), emotional effect (pathos) and ethics (ethos) used to persuade someone of an argument. In eco-documentaries, rhetorical strategies in Aristotle’s sense gain strength through elements such as mise-en-scène, dialogue, and cinematography. These communicate the logic, emotion and ethical nature of the eco-documentary’s issue, aiming to persuade viewers of activism. All elements used in an eco-documentary are used on purpose, to convey a feeling that supports the film’s dominant perspective. For example, the lack of sound in The
Ivory Game when Big Life Foundation’s Craig Millar is filmed in a tight frame after having
just heard of the death of an iconic African elephant. The emphasis is on his cracking voice, his stumbling words stating how illogical poaching is, and the emotion on his face. This combination of logic, emotion, and Craig’s ethical profession persuade viewers of The Ivory
Bill Nichols’ well-established work on documentaries explains rhetorical as seeking “to inspire belief or instill conviction about the merit of a particular viewpoint on a
contentious issue” (“Voice” 77). Viewer persuasion is of essence for rhetorical success. As are Nichols’ five ‘departments’: invention (inartistic and artistic evidence), arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. According to Nichols, rhetorical strategies may: encourage or discourage, accuse or defend, and praise or blame. For example, both Virunga and The Ivory
Game, accuse antagonists and praise protagonists, which encourages viewers of an
environmental perspective. Nichols draws on Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies to explain how documentaries persuade. Logos draws on viewers’ logical thinking, build up through
arrangement; pathos draws on viewers’ feelings through body language and tone of the main characters; and ethos relies on the main characters’ moral character and actions.
In Virunga, viewers get to know Andre, caretaker of four mountain gorillas named Maisha, Kaboko, Ndeze and Ndakasi. When M23 rebels are approaching the Virunga National Park, where Andre and the gorillas reside, he decides to stay while villagers flee. Although this seems illogical, his voice-over justifies his action and convince viewers of his decision: “I felt obliged to stay with gorillas here. You must justify why you are here on this Earth. Gorillas justify why I am here. They are my life. So, if it is about dying, I will die for the gorillas.” This voice-over guides images of adorable mountain gorillas intercut with Andre preparing his gun. Seeing the adorable species, viewers are forced to see the logic in his decision. The pathos, or emotional affect, is that Andre uses the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’. He confronts viewers with ‘you’, telling them how he justifies his existence on Earth. He is basically asking viewers to reflect on the justification of their existence. His perhaps ill-advised decision to stay with the gorillas is a clear example of ethos: his character is moral, he does not give up and fights for what he believes – protecting the mountain gorillas.
Later in Virunga’s narrative, one of the gorillas dies due to the stress of the approaching M23 rebels. This draws heavily on pathos and is only successful due to the gorillas’ introduction as endangered and vulnerable earlier in the narrative; resulting in viewers’ sympathy. This shows the importance of strong rhetorical strategies, as they combine to convince the persuader of an argument. Nichols neglects to mention
eco-documentaries as employing rhetorical strategies and focusses on traditional eco-documentaries. Eco-documentaries are not traditional in that they do not observe situations or detail a person’s life or an event. They visualize the consequences of human-induced environmental colonialism and have rhetorical strategies aimed at encouraging conservation.
It is of essence to research eco-documentaries’ rhetorical strategies. First of all, research into the role of rhetorical strategies in eco-documentaries remains underdeveloped in the field of ecocinema. Second, for eco-documentaries to be successful, their rhetorical strategies need to be strong. Research will point out how rhetorical strategies function, using
Virunga and The Ivory Game as case studies. A third reason to research eco-documentaries’
rhetorical strategies, is to illustrate rhetorical power and activism consequences. This research shows its relevance in media and ecocinema studies on how eco-documentaries may be used as propagandist tools for environmental change through raising awareness. The focus lays on reading Virunga’s and The Ivory Game’s narratives of environmental colonialism through the critical lens of Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies. This allows for insights in eco-documentaries’ rhetorical strategies within ecocinema, and how elements of fiction such as mise-en-scène and cinematography aid in rhetorical success. This research therefore draws on and adds to the fields of media studies and ecology, specifically ecocinema and eco-documentary.
Virunga and The Ivory Game1 focus on the prevention of wildlife extinction and serve
as case studies in researching eco-documentaries’ rhetorical strategies. They illustrate the gamble humans are taking when engaging in environmental colonial acts. Of importance are Nichols’ and Aristotle’s work on rhetoric; on which will be elaborated upon in the chapters below. Other terms that will be elaborated on include anthropomorphism, and environmental colonialism. Following that, will be a discussion of textual and rhetorical analysis of Virunga and The Ivory Game. Aspects that will be discussed include, the narratives’ environmental colonial aspects, how the argument of environmental colonialism is logical, how the eco-documentary uses emotional effect and the role of ethics in communicating its specific perspective. Of importance in discussing Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies are cinematic elements such as cinematography, dialogue, mise-en-scène and narrative. Light will be shed on how Nichols’ five departments and Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies may be used by documentaries to communicate a specific environmental perspective. After both
eco-documentaries are evaluated, differences in their rhetorical strategies will be discussed. This leads to the conclusion, in which is shown that Virunga and The Ivory Game adopt a similar use of Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies. This points to a potential framework for
eco-documentaries and allows for insights in the rhetoric agency of eco-eco-documentaries within ecocinema.
1 Following Bill Nichols’ modes of documentaries, the eco-documentaries fit best in the reflexive mode. Both expose environmental colonial topics and communicate a clear environmentalist perspective. Though lacking a ‘voice-of-god’ narrator, they have authoritarian characters that carry the narrative and guide viewers.
Chapter 1 – Situating Ecocinema: Rhetorical Strategies and Environmental Colonialism Ecocinema scholars “agree that all films present productive ecocritical exploration” and should be analyzed accordingly (Rust et al., 3). Ecocinema centralizes environmental issues, dealing with ecology and anthropomorphism. Ecocritic Paula Willoquet-Maricondi agrees and finds that these films “strive to play an active role in fostering environmental awareness, conservation, and political action” and remind viewers of their position in the planet’s ecosystem (10). Only in the last 100,000 years have humans sneaked their way to the top of the food chain (Harari 12). Since then, there has been a narrative of nature as subordinate and exploitable; as shown through the centralized environmental issues in Virunga and The Ivory
Game. Eco-documentaries confront viewers with this narrative through anthropomorphism.
Randy Malamud is active in the field of animal ethics and influenced by Laura Mulvey’s ‘male gaze’. Mulvey2 researched the cinematic representation of women and found
that men are active lookers at the passive, objectified women. Malamud follows Mulvey, calling animal objectification the ‘human gaze’ (6). He states that due to the human viewer, “the animal is rendered vulnerable, free for the taking, in whatever way the human viewer chooses” (7). Similar to cinematic female passivity, animals have been human accessories for centuries in the arts. The human gaze commodifies animals, influencing human-animal relations as a dominant-dominated binary. Animals are reduced to their “usefulness or threat” to humans, which “confounds an ecologically ethical ideology, in which all members of an ecosystem are interdependent” (Malamud 7). The human gaze thus counters ecological thinking; or, the interconnectedness of all organisms. For example, The Ivory Game’s
cinematic representation of African elephants. Cinematography showcases elephants’ bodies and majestic movements, putting the animal on a pedestal. Simultaneously, elephants are shown to be a threat to local crop growth. One scene positions Craig Millar in a discussion with locals who want to kill the elephants who are damaging their crop fields. He states that locals may find poaching a solution, not a threat; as it saves their crops. Hence, even in an eco-documentary that aims at raising awareness and encouraging activism, the human gaze is apparent. Elephants are positioned as useful (ivory for poachers and art collectors) and as a threat (to farmers whose crop fields are run over by hungry elephants). Thereby reducing them to a commodity that influences human lives, not the other way around.
2 Film theorist Laura Mulvey found that cinema is built on patriarchy, and that there are three ‘looks’ used in cinema: the camera itself looks/films, the audience looks at the film, and the characters look at each other. Each of these looks has a voyeurism hidden behind it. Additionally, Mulvey found that looking is perceived as an active male activity and that women were the passive objects of desire (10). Female characters, according to Mulvey’s research, did not influence the plot. They were simply sexual beings of desire.
Malamud neglects discussing anthropomorphism, a different human gaze.
Anthropomorphism is the act of attributing human traits to non-human things and may lead to conservation by promoting sensibility and awareness (Pollo et al. 1360; Root-Bernstein et al. 1578; Tam, Lee and Chao 514, 518). For example, Virunga and The Ivory Game
anthropomorphize animals by naming them and drawing comparisons between humans and animals such as relationships and loss. Specifically, the naming of four mountain gorillas in
Virunga and stating that they miss the deceased gorilla. Although the act of naming and
acknowledging the gorillas’ feelings seems natural, it is unnatural when done according to human standards. Anthropomorphism goes hand in hand with anthropocentrism, or the belief that humans are the most important and intelligent living animal (De Waal 256).
Anthropocentrism, such as giving non-humans human attributes, may be beneficial to animals. Giving animals human attributes, such as a name, relationships, or traits such as intelligence or suffering, makes them seem equal and relatable to humans. Thereby
encouraging people to protect them. Therefore, anthropomorphism leads to conservationism. This is exemplified in Virunga and The Ivory Game, whom both adopt various anthropomorphic methods while raising awareness. Virunga led to a fight against oil
company SOCO which resulted in a significant drop of its shares; and The Ivory Game calls for ivory conservation. Therefore, animals benefit from being anthropomorphized as the films raise awareness, encourage activism and persuade conservationism. Textual and rhetorical analysis of eco-documentaries should not neglect to research anthropomorphism and
Malamad’s human gaze as they are vital for the representation of environmental and wildlife issues; and are influential on the success of eco-documentaries’ rhetorical strategies.
Aristotle finds that “a man must be capable of logical reasoning, of studying
characters and the virtues, and thirdly the emotions” (Freese 17-19). These three ‘capabilities’ are identified as rhetorical strategies: logos, pathos and ethos. They do not aim at spreading knowledge, but to convince, and produce belief and ideology (Nichols, “Evidence” 33). Rhetoric is thus defined as the art of persuasion and composed of logos, pathos and ethos (Nichols, “Voice” 77). Logos is argumentation, or logical reasoning (Nichols, “Voice” 79). Pathos regards emotional effect and requires the persuader to know his viewers (Nichols, “Voice” 79). This includes, gestures, facial expressions, body language and tone used during the performance of persuasion. Pathos is highly subjective and perhaps the strongest
rhetorical strategy as it influences individuals to undertake action, or to reposition themselves in the discussion. Aristotle’s third rhetorical strategy is ethos, which concerns persuaders’ moral character, their credibility and how clear their intent is.
Aristotle identified rhetorical strategies as part of artistic (influenced) evidence. Together with inartistic evidence (not influenced by the persuader), artistic evidence makes up ‘invention’; which is part of Nichols’ five rhetorical ‘departments’ (invention,
arrangement, style, memory and delivery). In invention, artistic and inartistic evidence are used in support of an argument. For example, Virunga’s archived footage visualizes Congo’s colonial and natural resource exploitation history. This inartistic evidence sets the tone by visualizing the connection between contemporary and colonial exploitation. Nichols’ arrangement refers to structure – five-act, problem/solve. The Ivory Game employs a
problem/solve structured narrative which centralizes poaching as the problem for which four solutions are implemented throughout. Style refers to cinematography – types of shots used, character representation, and what is visually and aurally included and excluded. Memory refers to making the documentary come full-circle for viewers to understand the narrative. For example, The Ivory Game’s detailed opening shot of piles of ivory, and the same piles of ivory set on fire in the epilogue. Metaphorically, returning poached ivory to nature. Nichols’ last ‘department’ is delivery. This refers to who says what, and body language. Nichols’ departments compose a documentary’s voice, which speaks to and activates viewers.
I argue that Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies are not limited to artistic evidence and may be found throughout Nichols’ departments – not just invention. Main characters’ ethical representation is created through cinematography and editing; which influences the emotional effect of characters’ delivery. Additionally, arrangement influences viewers’ emotions and memory as main characters are introduced and elaborated on more than the antagonists. Therefore, this thesis will discuss Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies and their influence on the visualization of the environmental colonial narratives in Virunga and The Ivory Game.
Environmental colonialism includes all the ways in which colonialism influenced (indigenous) people, wildlife and environments. For example, natural resource displacement (trade), people (slavery), and civil wars (drawing of borders disrespecting local territories). This phenomenon is born out of colonialism, or the practice of colonizing and exploiting another country; and is a contemporary issue. Colonialism’s primary goal of exploiting natural resources, resulting in environmental destruction, became adopted by the colonized (Atiles-Osoria 7; Mattei and Nader ix, 1-2; Smith 29). Therefore, environmental colonialism “functions as an ideological system of exploitation that […] operates with the consent and participation of the national elites” and may be seen as postcolonial and neo-colonial in that it is introduced by colonizers (Atiles-Osaria 7). Whereas colonialism exploits resources,
Environmental colonialism has ties to colonialism, and social and environmental injustice. Therefore, the phenomenon is not only of interest to the field of postcolonialism, but also of ecocriticism; and fits in the emerging field of postcolonial ecocriticism (poco-eco). In this field, the postcolonial focus on social justice is combined with ecocriticism’s conservationism. The result is that a text may be close-read according to concepts such as ‘othering’ and ‘ethics’, and ‘appropriation’ in relation to the environment (Huggan and Tiffin vii). This may be seen in Virunga and The Ivory Game’s ‘othering’ of antagonists, as their environmental colonial acts are presented as unethical due to their appropriation of animals.
Examples of environmental colonialism include the ‘resource curse’, ecotourism and reserve parks. The resource curse theory proposes that countries with natural resource
abundance are cursed with low economics, unstable politics, and armed conflicts (Cockx and Francken 7; Osuoka and Zalik 244; Sachs and Warner 1-3). From a postcolonial ecocritical perspective, the resource curse justifies ex-colonial intervention. Stating that a country with an abundance of natural resources is doomed to fail, allows Western countries to intervene. For example, donating money to an African country such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (now on referred to as Congo) allows for Western donating countries to influence how that money is spend. The curse therefore allows for the “legacy of historical relations of rule” by reinforcing dependency (Osuoka and Zalik 244, 246). This is not only with ex-colonial power; it now-a-days includes any country with more power than African countries.
The African resource curse is apparent in both Virunga and The Ivory Game in the form of oil and ivory exploitation. The African countries shown in the eco-documentaries have oil and ivory. Due to these resources, the countries are supposedly cursed with instability. Although instable politics, civil wars and low economies do exist in African countries, this is not without fault of environmental colonialist acts that have dislocated people and wildlife and advocated the narrative of nature as subordinate.
It is of essence to remember that the resource curse justifies ex-colonial intervention, which allows for environmental colonialism. In this respect, the resource curse and
environmental colonialism are examples of neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism is a dense concept. To break it down: neo means new, and colonialism is the act of colonizing another country. Neo-colonialism is therefore in essence, new colonialism. The difference between colonialism and neo-colonialism is that theoretically the country in question suffering from neo-colonialism, is independent. In neo-colonialism, ex-colonies’ “economic and financial systems are linked, as in colonial days, with those of the former colonial ruler” (Nkrumah, “Imperialism” 5). According to Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah, this can be seen in
“maneuvering men and governments” and in creating “client states, independent in name but in point of fact pawns of the very colonial power which is supposed to have given them independence” (“Africa” 174). The “classical relationship of a colonial economy” continues as Africa remains a provider of primary products for its ex-colonizer (Nkrumah, “Africa” 174). Thereby increasing the gap between rich and poor countries. Neo-colonialism can only exist by obtaining the global rich-poor difference and aims to preserve “the colonial pattern of commerce and industry” (Nkrumah, “Imperialism” 7-8). If the neo-colonialized country becomes rich, it will be independent of its ex-colonizer resulting in the ex-colonizer losing control. In this light, environmental colonial phenomenon such as ecotourism and reserve parks are not only forms of environmental colonialism, but also of neo-colonialism.
According to environmental scholar Robert Nelson, environmental colonialism continues to persist through environmentalists who claim to ‘save’ wildlife by implementing reserve parks. Although protecting (endangered) species, they serve an eco-capitalist role in creating an exotic fantasy ‘other’ for tourist pleasure – at the expense of indigenous wildlife, nature, tribes and practices (Nelson 73, 84). Besides its conservation efforts, reserve parks for the purpose of ecotourism disrupts indigenous balance between nature, people and wildlife – and serves a neo-colonial role. It commodifies nature, relocates locals, and breeds specific species as ecotourism relies on Africa’s exotic image. This upholds African instability and underdevelopment. Taking away land that may be used by African locals to produce crops, slows down local economic growth and intensifies “poverty of local inhabitants” (Smith 21). Additionally, ecotourism is meant to attract Western tourists to visit the exotic continent known as Africa. In that sense, ecotourism is an accepted continuation of ‘othering’. Then again, ecotourism produces money and allows for a continuation of conservation. Regardless, it objectifies and controls animals and nature and is a form of environmental colonialism.
Eco-documentaries carry the responsibility of encouraging environmental awareness through reminding viewers of their ecological position. An encouragement to viewer activism requires persuasion, in the form of rhetorical strategies. My postcolonial ecocritic reading of environmental colonialism shows that its effects on people, wildlife and nature persists in the form of ecotourism, natural resource exploitation, reserve parks and is neo-colonial. This is exemplified in Virunga and The Ivory Game, which fit Willoquet-Maricondi’s definition of eco-documentaries by encouraging environmental awareness, conservation and action. The two eco-documentaries centralize narratives of (contemporary) environmental colonialism and use rhetorical strategies to encourage viewer activism.
Chapter 2 – Virunga, Viewer Activism and Aristotle’s Rhetorical Strategies
Virunga follows park rangers protecting Congo’s Virunga National Park from M23 rebels
and oil company SOCO International Plc. Virunga centralizes these threats and the courageous park rangers. At stake is not only the preservation of the park, but also the protection of the endangered mountain gorillas. Half of the remaining several hundred mountain gorillas reside in the park. Environmental colonialism is not mentioned in Virunga, although does form the basis of its natural resource exploitation critique. The
eco-documentary encourages a specific perspective on SOCO and M23 rebels as the antagonists participating in environmental colonialism. These aspects emphasize emotional effect on viewers by showing the consequences of modern-day environmental colonialism and neo-colonialism. In this chapter, I will analyze how Virunga persuades the narrative of
environmental colonialism by using Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies as a critical lens.
Environmental colonialism and the resource curse are central themes in Virunga. The opening sequence sketches Congo’s history using contemporary and archived footage, set to a song by African artists. Shots of beautiful green African landscapes and bodies of water transitions into black and white archived footage of presumably the same area showing Africans doing labor for white settlers. Text guides the footage stating that Congo has
suffered from natural resource exploitation since, at least, 1885 when Africa was “carved into colonies ruled by European nations,” resulting in their resources being pillaged and millions of people killed or mutilated. This is shown with archived footage of massive trees being cut down, chest-baring Africans carrying large ivory tusks alongside a river, rubber trees, and mutilated Africans lined-up, chained by the neck. The next shot is British news footage showing a high-angle shot of prime minister Patrice Lumumba leading Congo to
independence in 1960. This high-angle shot from a British news station communicates that England was overseeing this independence. The shot is quickly followed by scenes of foreign mining interests rallying against Lumumba, with one white soldier stating: “A black man is like an animal to me.” Text guides shots of Lumumba on the ground force-fed and
humiliated, with a close-up of his angered face, stating that Lumumba is executed in 1961, with “support of Western governments.” As a result, “law and order broke down […] mining continues. Vast quantities of precious metals exported.” This text is guided by shots of mining activities conducted by African laborers, or slaves. Footage gains a graded color and skips to the 1994 Congolese civil war, showing blood, dead bodies, fleeing people, and guns. Text guides footage of African soldiers and laborers, stating that “rebel groups profit from trade in rare minerals. Global electronics industry continues to buy them.” Footage of a white
man holding up a piece of electronics, surrounded by cheering photographers and people, is juxtaposed with images of fleeing Congolese people: “over 5 million Congolese die from the fighting.” This shows the devastating effect that war, inspired by European influence, has on Congo. The shot skips to 2003, when a peace agreement is reached; and 2006, when the first democratic election in 40 years is held. Images of voting Congolese transitions back to the opening shot a beautiful body of water slowly introducing the Virunga National Park, its fishing inhabitants, and mountain gorillas. This footage is guided by the following text: “2010 – oil discovery claimed in Eastern Congo under Lake Edward in Virunga National Park. A home to thousands of people and the last mountain gorillas. 2012 – instability returns.” This is the point at which Virunga begins.
The focus in Virunga is on oil exploitation. Environmental colonialism in the form of oil can be seen in various ways in Virunga. The first way is that oil is found in Congo, and non-African businesses and countries want to exploit it – historically and contemporarily. This upholds the neo-colonial relationship between Congo and the West. The British business participating in environmental colonialism (and neo-colonialism) is called SOCO
International Plc. According to their website, SOCO International Plc. “is an international oil and gas exploration and production company” (SOCO – Main Page). A heading on their website detailing SOCO’s activities in Virunga National Park shows that SOCO signed a Production Sharing Contract with Congo’s government in 2006, in July (FE Investegate; SOCO – Virunga). A Production Sharing Contract details how much a government and a resource extraction company receive of the extracted resource. And in essence allows a ‘classical relationship of a colonial economy’. This contract was signed four months before Congo held its first democratic election in forty years. This means that the Production Sharing Contract was not agreed upon by a democratically chosen leader, Joseph Kabila, but by a transitional government set in place in 2003. Nevertheless, this transitional government wat set in place by Kabila when he stepped down for three years for new elections (BBC).
Additionally, Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), the organization managing Virunga National Park, collaborated with SOCO in 2011-2013.
Virunga was released in 2014; hence, at time of filming, ICCN had approved SOCO’s
activities. Virunga neglects to examine the role of Congo’s government and ICCN. This exemplifies that eco-documentaries may have a bias. In the case of Virunga, a bias oriented towards the rangers protecting the park. This example also shows that environmental colonialism is not limited to ex-colonial or developed countries.
Local governments hence share blame for consequences of environmental colonialism and the resource curse. This is exemplified by SOCO supporters in low-angle undercover footage. The angle is low due to the undercover camera’s position. It nevertheless positions SOCO supporters as powerful. Additionally, the supporters are shown wearing neatly ironed suit shirts; suggesting that they have some form of reliable income – otherwise they could not afford the clean and status related shirts. The well-dressed supporters try to convince ranger Rodrigue of giving SOCO employees access to the park, stating that “even the minister for the environment has authorized” the oil search in the park. Virunga shows that environmental colonialism continues with non-local interests (SOCO), whom are supported by local powers.
The second form of environmental colonialism is SOCO’s disregard for local and international laws, and UNESCO3. SOCO might have the Congolese government’s
permission to search for oil with the Production Sharing Contract, but their activities undermine local customs. For example, instead of asking local inhabitants of oil containing areas for permission, SOCO employees show up and overtake an area. Journalist Melanie Gouby interviews a local named Josue Mukura at Lake Edward, who is wearing an untucked, wrinkled baby blue suit shirt. The minor difference between his wrinkled shirt and the ironed shirt worn by SOCO supporters in the previous shot communicates the large contrast between Congolese poor and rich; and suggests that SOCO supporters have the ability to iron their shirt, as they are financially more stable than locals from the fishing community.
Mukura states that “fishing inside the Virunga National Park is life for the
community. Our lives depend on it. […] SOCO came in like a parachute.” Young children play in water, and locals prepare to go fishing in their wooden boats. These shots
communicate that the 2,000 inhabitants of the Vitshumbi community on Lake Edward are depended off it. SOCO is disrupting their chances at retaining traditional means of survival. SOCO promised them to “build universities, roads, and schools and you will have access to cultivate in the park since at that moment the park will be declassified. All this frightens us locals.” Establishing shots of the Visthumbi community show a small fishing village with fishing boats, old fishing nets, plastic on the ground, and smoke in the background. The shots communicate chaos and instability, which viewers come to associate with SOCO’s
interference when Mukura states that: “In the past, things were much better.”
3 UNESCO stands for United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization; and aims at building peace. Its responsibilities include the protection of natural and cultural heritage sites. The Virunga National Park has been deemed part of the world heritage list by UNESCO in 1979. Since 1994, it has been added to the list of endangered world heritages. Since being added to the list, four other reserve parks in Congo have been added.
The conversation between SOCO and the locals explained by Mukura is experienced differently by SOCO on their website: in 2012, “SOCO commenced a programme of visiting local communities […] to better understand their needs and explain our operations in their area.” Neither perspectives are false, but it does show how situations may be experienced differently and how this influences communication and mutual understanding. To Mukura, SOCO fits the framework of the intervening white (colonial) man. To SOCO, locals are obstacles who require convincing of SOCO’s oil exploitation. This becomes clear in a later statement on the website about the social programme including “more than 10 community meetings to which the response was very positive.” It is up for debate, but ten meetings do not seem like a lot. Additionally, the use of the words ‘very positive’ point to SOCO wanting to convince readers of its press statement of SOCO’s activities in Congo. Regardless of attempts to communicate with locals, SOCO repeatedly ignored local laws and thereby engaged in neo-colonial activities; taking advantage of the resource curse.
SOCO’s overtaking and influencing locals’ areas and traditions is also at times outsourced. Which is the third form of environmental colonialism. By financing M23 rebels to start conflict, SOCO has indirectly dislocated people from their homes. This is shown through various images throughout Virunga showing people fleeing from war violence, gun shots, leaving all belongings behind and rushing to get kids to safety. Virunga therefore seems to communicate that SOCO and M23 rebels uphold Congo’s instability, which justifies the resource curse, sustains poverty and inequality, which in turn is an excuse for
neo-colonial intervention. SOCO has also destroyed nature and caused for distress among wildlife by financing conflict and searching for oil – even leading to the death of gorilla Kaboko.
This brings us to the fourth example of environmental colonialism. Virunga National Park, as Nelson argues, is environmental colonial. Humans preserve nature and control what happens in the park4. The park does allow for jobs and attracts tourists and helps the region’s
development. Tourism, however, is also a form of environmental colonialism: it commodifies nature and in doing so, makes fertile grounds and living spaces unavailable to Congolese locals. Virunga does not use explicit dialogue to communicate environmental colonialism but implies it by narratively illustrating the phenomenon in the forms of SOCO, financed
conflict, and reserve parks. Virunga’s arrangement assists in exemplifying the consequences of these environmental colonial forms and portrays SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists.
4 Additionally, the park falls under UNESCO; protecting them as a cultural heritage. Meaning that an outside force, UNESCO, decides what is and is not allowed in the park.
Chapter 2.1 – Logos: The Logic of Environmental Colonial Antagonists
The first of Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies is logos, or logical reasoning. In Virunga, the arrangement and invention allow for the logic of environmental colonialism. The eco-documentary’s five-act structure introduces the issue of foreign interference in the form of natural resource exploitation and conflict – which is supported by (in)artistic evidence5. I
must mention that persuasion does not go without manipulation. Logical reasoning may be biased, as images’ agency serve to convince viewers of a certain perspective6. In Virunga this
perspective is that Virunga National Park and its mountain gorillas are threatened by
environmental colonial acts committed by antagonists SOCO and M23 rebels. Virunga needs to convince viewers of this to urge activism. Of importance is hence arrangement, and how invention’s (in)artistic evidence aid in protagonists’ and antagonists’ portrayal.
Virunga’s arrangement slowly builds up logic by employing a five-act structure. It
starts by sketching the context by showing Congo’s history from the 19th century until ‘now’.
This inartistic evidence shows that Congo has dealt with colonial intervention for at least 200 years. As this intervention has adopted new forms, Congo is dealing with neo-colonialism in the form of overseas companies exploiting natural resources. After detailing the context,
Virunga introduces the main characters: Rodrigue Katembo, Andre Bauma, Emmanuel de
Merode and Melanie Gouby. The arrangement repeatedly positions these individuals as heroes and uses their dialogue in support of logos. This is due to the combination of evidence such as imagery, talking heads and voice-overs.
For viewers to trust characters’ dialogue, the arrangement must introduce the main characters as ethical and the antagonists as unethical. Virunga shows the main characters protecting the Virunga National Park by documenting the antagonists’ wrongdoings, who indirectly harm Congo’s stability. These individuals are not shown to be engaging in
5 Meaning, artistic and inartistic evidence.
6 This is discussed by Nichols, who acknowledges the “distrust of the visual”, in that filmmakers may manipulate the visual. He aligns himself with Aristotle and finds rhetorical strategies’ success to depend “on the purposes and goals of the interpreter” (Nichols, “Evidence” 30, 36-37). This centralizes viewers’ agency, or active role. An image’s rhetorical agency is hence not a priori complicit with dominant ideology. Meaning that images’ rhetoric is contextual, and its success depends on the persuader and the interpreter. This is not to say that the image is agency-less, or passive. Digital media scholar Lewis Ulman describes photography’s techne as the “art of making […] grounded in formal techniques and aimed at shaping and communicating arguments” (31). I argue that eco-documentaries’ techne does the same. Eco-documentaries are assumed to be objective; yet, may ‘manipulate’ facts by aligning them with imagery or using them in a certain context to urge particular viewer interpretations. For example, The Ivory Game’s denouement shows text detailing ‘current’ ivory trends set to a backdrop of burning piles of ivory. The burning ivory carries various meanings: ash of the burned ivory fertilizes the ground, the destroyed ivory cannot be collected and sold, the burned ivory are the only remains of elephants killed for greed, and the ivory needs to be burned to secure the next step to stopping ivory poaching. If the eco-documentary’s perspective was sculpted from a poacher’s point of view, the end would not carry an activist encouragement. It would likely encourage sympathy for poachers, who are losing the ability to sustain themselves and their family. Hence eco-documentaries appear to be objective but have the ability to construct a narrative in favor of communicating a specific perspective.
environmental colonialism – they are simply protecting the park’s ecosystem. Virunga’s conflict and rising action introduces SOCO and M23 rebels as jeopardizing the park’s future and the safety of the endangered mountain gorillas, the park’s rangers and the people in the surrounding area. Virunga suggests that SOCO paid M23 rebels to engage in environmental colonial practices such as overrunning and conquering oil-containing areas so that SOCO may exploit oil. They were ‘successful’ in relocating people and wildlife, and, in doing so, upset the local ecosystem. Therefore, SOCO and M23 rebels are unethical. The danger that they bring and what their environmental colonial activities are, become more apparent in the structure’s climax, in which people and wildlife flee from gunfire. The war is impending, and the camera captures M23 rebels conquering more land near Virunga National Park.
The climax is reached when M23 rebels overrun the park, after which the falling action shows powerless rangers who are trying to protect the park despite their contemporary situation. Even though the park might be considered environmental colonial, the act of overtaking it is also environmental colonial. The park has created a controlled nature and ecosystem in it. Overrunning it upsets this ecosystem; making it environmental colonialism. And as the M23 rebels are paid by SOCO, SOCO is engaging in environmental colonialism. Once again, M23 rebels and SOCO are positioned as antagonists, making the protagonists’ ethical work of taking care of the endangered gorillas and the park dangerous.
Virunga’s denouement communicates hope. Park director Emmanuel and rangers cut
their way through thick greenery to look for gorillas that survived the M23 rebels conflict. The camera details their happy faces when they find gorillas, and a new-born. On this note,
Virunga ends by informing viewers how they can help protect the park. For example, visiting Virunga’s website. After this message, six statements of “SOCO international’s response to
the film” are shown. The last statement reads “SOCO insists that none of its employees or contractors have played a part in contact with or payments to the rebels, and that such conduct will never be condoned by SOCO.” This is invalidated by the undercover footage woven into Virunga’s narrative. For example, footage of SOCO employees and local supporters bribing rangers to leave the gates to the park open. Seeing this footage and then reading about SOCO denying its participation, helps prove SOCO is an antagonist to viewers.
Virunga’s arrangement sets up the logic of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists, and
the main characters as protagonists. It does so by detailing how SOCO jeopardizes the park’s and Congo’s stability and engages in neo-colonialism. Their closing statements in response to
antagonistic nature by denying its wrongdoings despite evidence provided in Virunga.
Virunga’s activist message to support the protection of the park, therefore gains strength.
Viewers are encouraged to align themselves with the main characters through their personal stories. The camera follows the characters as they discuss how they became rangers and a journalist. The frame is medium shots and allows little to nothing to distract viewers from listening to the characters. For example, when Melanie gives a talking head about Congo’s history. The setting’s blurred background directs and secures viewers’ attention at Melanie, who is positioned on a white plastic chair to the frame’s left. Accompanying shots of barbed wire protecting broken UN vehicles, inhabitable buildings, and bullet-hole covered street signs support Melanie’s talking head: Congo has indeed experienced violence. The next shot is of Emmanuel, positioned on a chair to the frame’s right. The blurred background again directs viewers’ attention to Emmanuel detailing that SOCO has: “a reputation for going for controversial ventures in difficult environments.” The narrative’s clear antagonists, SOCO and M23 rebels, remain shallow characters7. This style choice secures viewers’
compassion for the protagonists; which secures the adoption of Virunga’s urge to activism. (In)Artistic evidence such as undercover, news and archived footage also encourages viewers to perceive SOCO as an antagonist. Virunga’s epilogue includes archived footage of Congolese people and resources suffering from colonialism. This gives viewers historical context of contemporary natural resource exploitation. Other inartistic evidence includes BBC footage of a static reporter with, in the frame’s background, images of fleeing
Congolese people by foot, car or tank. The white male reporter, wearing an ironed blue suit shirt, states: “They’re fleeing the latest manifestation of an African conflict that seems to have no end.” The foreign reporter stands out reporting on the local situation, dressed in more sophisticated clothing than the fleeing locals. His powerful statement conveys the message that Africa has many manifestations of conflicts, and that ‘this one’ is the most recent. Thus,
Virunga and the BBC footage sketch not only Congo’s, but Africa’s instability. This inartistic
evidence is however manipulated, as it is placed in a particular context to communicate the perspective that SOCO and M23 rebels are antagonists. With that in mind, this might be perceived as artistic, rather than inartistic evidence, as it serves an environmentalist bias.
7 Their personal stories are untold, and they are made fun of when a SOCO promotional video is played with lyrics such as: “We the people love you so much because you bring us development.” SOCO likely used a developmental incentive to gain trust from ICCN and Congo’s government. Their collaboration through the Production Sharing Contract is mentioned once, by SOCO supporters: “even the minister for the environment has authorized it.” There is no elaboration on this and proves
Virunga’s bias. Perhaps done to position Congo, the park and the (local) people involved, as victims. It certainly empowers
the image of environmental colonialism and aids in portraying SOCO and M23 rebels as (neo-colonial) villains disrupting the Virunga National Park’s stability, which indirectly disrupts Congo’s stability. Although seemingly correct in identifying SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists, this is a clear strategy to persuade viewers’ support for the park’s protection.
Other artistic evidence includes undercover footage detailing SOCO and M23 rebels’ environmental colonialism. Virunga’s undercover footage shows local SOCO supporters bribing rangers, and SOCO employees judging Congolese and African people. The footage may be argued inartistic as it captures the ‘real’ as it unfolds. It is however owned by the filmmaker, who positions the footage to convey a specific perspective of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists. For example, the use of Melanie and rangers’ authoritarian voice-overs and talking heads to explain the undercover footage: “At the same time as the M23 conflict is starting, a British company is also exploring for oil” (Melanie), and “People are being approached by SOCO supporters and offered money. Even people in Virunga’s organization are working to undermine the park” (Rodrigue). These, among other, statements show a correlation between SOCO, M23 rebels and the aim to overrun the park. The evidence thereby clearly positions SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists, of which SOCO the worst. As a non-African, specifically British, company, SOCO is participating in neo-colonialism by interfering in local relations. Although a rash statement, it is likely that if SOCO was not to have found oil in Congo, the ‘latest manifestation of an African conflict’ would have been avoided. The artistic evidence therefore persuades viewers of a perspective in which SOCO and M23 rebels are antagonists, endangering the park, its gorillas, and Congo’s stability.
The (in)artistic evidence and arrangement allow for Virunga’s logic: they provide context, set the tone and encourage viewer alignment. The logic is that Congo has a history of colonial intervention and natural resource exploitation influencing its (in)stability due to environmental colonial practices; and that this continues with SOCO’s neo-colonial
intervention. There is a logic of cause and effect, in which SOCO causes Congolese conflict, which effects the stability of the park, nature, people, wildlife, and Congo. This is shown through undercover, news and archived footage, and through guiding text in Virunga’s prologue and epilogue. Introducing the main characters in the beginning of Virunga’s
arrangement allows for viewer identification and alignment. The consequence is that the main characters’ emotions and perspective become adopted by viewers, which aids in encouraging the perspective of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists. For example, anger and sympathy when Andre informs viewers of Kaboko’s passing. Aside from logos, Virunga uses pathos to support this argument and to persuade viewers of this perspective.
Chapter 2.2 – Pathos: Emotional Alignment
Pathos is the emotional affect used to convince viewers of an argument or perspective, and Aristotle’s second rhetorical strategies. Whereas logos looks at the narrative’s logical
arrangement, pathos concentrates on creating emotional effect on viewers. For example, anger prompts action or empathy which leads to support. With pathos, I focused on Virunga’s location, cinematographic style, and the use of pronouns such as ‘I’ and ‘you’, which affect viewers through familiarization and confrontation. These techniques align viewers with the main characters and encourage the adoption of the environmental colonial perspective.
Virunga mostly takes place in the arena of the Virunga National Park, and Congo.
Therefore, environmental colonialism seems national, even local; not continental. Meaning the eco-documentary neglects to place environmental colonialism into a wider frame of African history. This makes sense considering Virunga aims to raise awareness on the protection of mountain gorillas and Virunga National Park. The limited location allows for the visualization of a concentrated cause and effect of environmental colonialism. Thereby, the complicated topic of environmental colonialism becomes more comprehensible. Viewers with knowledge of African history may place Virunga’s narrative in the wider frame of African and colonial history. The chosen location therefore aids in the persuasion of an environmental colonial narrative by making it more comprehensible. Africa has a colonial history with natural resource exploitation. Virunga is simply a contemporary example. Focusing on one particular area, allows cinematography concentrate on characters,
environments and regional wildlife species. This allows for greater emotional affect, and an easier persuasion of Virunga’s perspective of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists.
Virunga uses medium shots to introduce the main characters to the viewers,
encouraging alignment from the onset. The prologue introduces the main characters through personal stories. For example, sad music accompanies Andre as he painfully explains that his father passed away during war. During his voice-over, images of the orphaned mountain gorillas are shown, creating a link between human and animal loss of family. Andre looks out over the park as his voice-over states that his father “taught me how to respect animals. So, today, I am doing what my father created in my heart when I was a little boy.” The main characters’ stories are of loss, courage and commitment to the Virunga National Park.
Introducing the main characters and incorporating their personal stories, familiarizes viewers, making the characters relatable. Thereby the main characters’ voice-overs carry a certain authority due to the built-up trust with viewers.
(In)artistic evidence that accompanies voice-overs have a larger impact on viewers. For example, when Andre’s voice-over accompanies images of the park: “This is the only region in the world, where you can still find mountain gorillas […] Now if we lose them, we will have lost something very important for humanity.” Andre was introduced in the first 12
minutes as a gorilla caretaker. His story of how he became a ranger, and why he loves
mountain gorillas, have at this point introduced Andre as a big-hearted man. He, for instance, states that losing gorillas in the 2007 massacre was “like members of the family had died.” This statement is accompanied with images of Andre lovingly playing with four gorillas. His personal story, and statements such as these, introduce viewers to a man who loves mountain gorillas like they are his family. Hence, when he states that losing mountain gorillas is a loss to humanity, viewers are likely to believe him. This arrangement allows for alignment due to a previous introduction and built-up of trust between Andre and viewers through the sharing of personal stories and images of his interaction with the gorillas.
Virunga’s rising action shows how the main characters risk their lives gathering
undercover footage of SOCO’s involvement in disrupting Virunga National Park. Virunga’s climax shows the rangers risking their lives in war, as they stay behind at the park while M23 rebels are closing in with militia: “danger is near us.” Viewers are thus first introduced to the characters and allowed to identify with them. We can all be the park ranger, or the ranger could be family, a friend, or a neighbor. The likeable, charismatic and relatable characters show their love for mountain gorillas, and thereby encourage and persuade viewers to care. The rising action and climax then show the commitment to the Virunga National Park and triggers feelings of empathy. The characters’ love for the park and its wildlife cannot be denied. Admiration for their work increases when SOCO and M23 rebels are introduced as antagonists in (in)artistic evidence such as undercover footage capturing SOCO employees discussing Congo. Julien states that African countries should be recolonized: “they are like children.” And John does not understand protecting gorillas: “Fuck me, it’s a monkey, who gives a fuck about a fucking monkey?” These statements trigger anger in viewers. It is not up to the foreigner to judge over a local activity, especially ex-colonizers who have played a significant role in contemporary African instability. As the SOCO and M23 rebel conflict reaches its climax, so do viewers’ anger with the situation. The result is that by Virunga’s denouement, when there is an element of hope with the discovery of healthy mountain gorillas hiding in the park, viewers are prompted to action. This action is inspired by the portrayal of Virunga’s likable main characters as ethical; who persuade viewers to see SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists, and to join the fight to protect Virunga National Park.
Of importance in convincing viewers of the antagonists are Virunga’s animal
characters. The orphaned mountain gorillas were rescued from poachers and cared for at the Virunga National Park. The love and trust between the rangers and gorillas is communicated through shots of the gorillas hugging and playing with their caretakers. Andre introduces and
describes the gorillas one by one through a voice-over: Maisha, Kaboko, Ndeze and Ndakasi. The voice-over is accompanied with images of each individual gorilla moving through or playing in the park’s vibrant greenery. This introduces the gorillas as individuals with personalities. Their naming is however anthropomorphic yet has the ability to establish an emotional connection between viewers and animals. This is due to the animal becoming an individual in a group; allowing viewers to identify with the individual, reflecting human emotions onto them. One might therefore speak of a human gaze. For example, when Andre informs viewers that Maisha, Ndeze and Ndakasi miss Kaboko. The emotion ‘missing’ is known by viewers, resulting in relatability to the animal8. However, according to ecocritic
Sune Borkfelt, naming animals objectifies them and allows humans to categorize them accordingly (123). In this sense, naming is a form of exercising power. Filming them
summoned by their name might seem endearing, it may also subconsciously be an act of the human gaze giving human attributes to an animal and expecting it to listen. On the other hand, this anthropocentric anthropomorphism encourages empathy and persuades viewers to care. And this aids in the adoption of the perspective of SOCO as an antagonist.
The camera style switches from steady, tripod style to shaky and handheld style when filming ‘live’ events. This communicated the war’s impact on the park’s stability. In
Virunga’s prologue, camera work is stable and observational – simply recording rangers’
activities. When the conflict begins, and the rangers and journalist are wearing undercover bodycams, camerawork becomes shakier. This shaky-ness can be found in the ‘normal’ camera too and increases as the war becomes more impending. Shaky-ness communicates war’s instability and chaos – due to SOCO’s neo-colonial intervention. When the camera style becomes shakier, the identification between the main characters and viewers increases. This is due to Virunga’s arrangement. By allowing identification with the characters in a time of ‘peace’, symbolized by stable camerawork, viewers care for the safety of these people in time of conflict, symbolized by shaky camerawork. As the conflict increases, camerawork becomes shakier, allowing for more emotional effect. Viewers feel restless with the idea of the park and its brave rangers being attacked. Viewers are helpless: they can simply watch as
Virunga unfolds the harsh truth of SOCO and M23 rebels’ environmental colonialism.
8 Due to the arrangement, viewers are introduced to and get to know the main characters and animals, and their relationship. The main characters come to serve as our examples for how viewers must treat animals. When one of the gorillas, Kaboko, falls ill, viewers are encouraged to feel afraid and to care about its health. For example, by following Andre, whose emotions are captured on camera when the mountain gorilla passes away. When Kaboko dies, not only Andre loses him, so do viewers. This feeling of loss, exemplified by Andre and the gorillas, encourages viewers to feel like they too lost Kaboko. Thereby urging empathy, and persuading support for the park. The success of emotional effect, such as feelings of empathy, require help from Virunga’s raw cinematographic style.
The style switches from observational to participative – the cameraman now needs to flee, just like the Congolese people directly influenced by the war. This communicates war’s urgency; and aligns viewers with Congolese locals. Additionally, sounds of gun shots are edited underneath shots of animals fleeing to show the impact of war on nature. For example, a long shot of a gorilla slowly climbing a tree, hearing a loud gun shot, and quickly climbing back down. The cinematography therefore contributes to the portrayal of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists who disrupt local stability for profit, in the form of natural resource exploitation – which fits in the format of environmental colonialism and neo-colonialism.
This is also conveyed through sequences’ transition shots of nature and wildlife; showing baby gorillas, bodies of water, greenery, or bathing hippopotamus. These shots communicate that humans’ greed and fighting takes place in and disrupts nature. As
explained above, protecting nature carries with it the underlying anthropocentric ideology of humans having a higher status than nature. Nature is inferior and requires human protection. In that sense, protecting nature is a form of environmental colonialism; as is SOCO and M23 rebels’ attempts at disrupting the protection and preservation of it. The transition shots function to remind viewers that reserve parks, SOCO, M23 rebels and war in general disrupt nature. The conflict disrupting the ecosystem set in place by Virunga National Park is initiated by SOCO, played out by M23 rebels, and endangers the area’s ecological balance. The transition shots and raw cinematography therefore serve as persuasive techniques to convince viewers of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists, jeopardizing the park.
As in most (eco-)documentaries, there is a lot of speech. It is senseless to discuss every sentence and its impact on viewers. Instead, a few important sentences that confront viewers will be discussed. For example, when Andre discusses why he is staying behind to oppose M23 rebels. This statement affects viewers due to his use of various pronouns, such as ‘I’ and ‘You’. Andre states that he is risking his life for the gorillas and the park, and indirectly confronts viewers with their ‘laziness’. What will viewers do from now on? They are compelled to justify why they are on this Earth. Andre’s statement therefore is not only ethical, it also calls on viewers’ ethical nature. This confronts, raises awareness and persuades viewers to think about their position in the environmental debate9.
Further alignment and emotional effect can be found near Virunga’s denouement, when Andre informs viewers of Kaboko’s death: “At 5:00 am, we lost our lovely gorilla, Kaboko.” The use of the pronoun ‘we’, not only communicates that those working at the park lost Kaboko, but also viewers. Viewers, at this point, have aligned themselves with the main 9 Hence, a true eco-documentary following Willoquet-Maricondi’s definition – please see page 9 for this.
characters and animals. Therefore, they too have lost Kaboko. Virunga National Park does not deserve to be protected because it is a simple park. It now deserves to be protected because viewers have experienced what it feels like to lose a mountain gorilla. Viewers care.
Another example is Rodrigue stating: “all I know is that oil exploitation is not compatible with conservation.” This statement is laid over undercover footage of SOCO supporters trying to bribe Rodrigue. Rodrigue’s statement seems logical and serves as a reminder to viewers that oil exploitation and conservation are incompatible. Rodrigue uses the pronoun ‘I’ to share his perspective. This perspective is one that makes sense and
becomes easily adopted by viewers, who have seen various examples of oil spills destroying natural habitats, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The alignment is skewed towards the main characters and helped by using discriminating speech by SOCO supporters Julian and John. Such as, “who gives a fuck about a fucking monkey?” The question is not meant to be answered, but functions as one that viewers should answer for themselves. Who cares about the monkeys? Do you, seems to be Virunga’s question? Due to the buildup of trust with the main characters, it is likely that viewers believe that they care about the gorillas’ fate. Therefore, there is a sense of ‘misalignment’ with SOCO supporters, SOCO and M23 rebels.
Virunga’s limited location allows for a deeper level of viewer identification with the
main characters and animals. The focus lays on the emotions felt by the characters and the vulnerability of the animals, who suffer from SOCO and M23 rebels’ intervention. Due to the arrangement, viewers are introduced to the main characters early on, which creates an
emotional bond; through which viewers are repeatedly encouraged to care for the gorillas through use of pronouns. There is therefore a sense of unbelieve when SOCO supporters or employees state that they do not care about the ‘fucking monkeys’. This supports not only the perspective of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists, but also illustrates that SOCO does not care about the environment, and simply wants to exploit oil. Their ethics are therefore inferior and perhaps non-existent, in comparison to the heroic main characters.
Chapter 2.3 – Ethos: The Ethics of the Situation
As shown, Virunga’s logos introduces and elaborates on the problems caused by
environmental colonial acts, and how this persists in contemporary neo-colonial relations.
Virunga’s pathos may be found in the emotional effect that the main characters have on
viewers. The arrangement introduces the main characters and allows for identification. Therefore, the characters’ emotions are adopted by viewers and support the perspective of SOCO and M23 rebels as antagonists. This can further be found with Virunga’s ethos. In this
