Time is Money

Andrew Niccol’s In Time (2011) presents a modern twist to classic philosophical, economic, and political themes. Without forewarning, the audience becomes part of an age-old debate; is there enough to go around for everyone, or must many suffer for the comfort of a few? Instead of the current-day paycheck to paycheck, the film’s protagonist, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), lives day to day in the futuristic ghetto of Dayton (zone 12). Time is the currency of the future, and “timing out” becomes the primary method of population control. Yet, despite needing time for himself and mother, we witness Will’s generous acts of kindness from the beginning of the film, as young Maya (Shyloh Oostwald) requests and is given a donation. Timberlake’s character also places himself in danger while lending aid to a wealthy visitor in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) has spent lifetimes profiting from the system he now knows to be wrong, and he has had enough of life. His involvement in Will’s fate is a key turning point, not only for the leading man, but for society; consequently, Hamilton can safety be deemed a supporting protagonist. Traveling to and partying in zone 12 is actually a suicide attempt. However, Salas intervenes before thuggish Minutemen, led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), one of the film’s numerous antagonists, can strong-arm the aristocrat’s time. Again displaying heroic qualities, Will Salas disregards his own safety to help a complete stranger in need. Once safe from Fortis’ nefarious intent, the wealthy 105 year old opens Will’s eyes to the inequity of the current system. He tells Salas, “For a few to be immortal, many must die.” When questioned, Hamilton elaborates, “Everyone can't live forever. Where would we put them? Why do you think there are time zones? Why do you think taxes and prices go up the same day in the ghetto? The cost of living keeps rising to make sure people keep dying. How else could there be men with a million years while most live day to day? But the truth is... there's more than enough. No one has to die before their time.” This Marxist innuendo plants a seed; however, Hamilton feels his time is long overdue, and he gifts all but five minutes of his fortune to the sleeping hero. “Don’t waste my time” is written in the grimy window’s accumulation of dust. A man on a mission, Will then races to save his mother, but she times out a fraction of a second to soon.

Niccol cross cuts to introduce the second of the film’s antagonists, as Time Keepers locate Hamilton’s body with black zeros tattooed on his arm. They initially inquire what he was doing in zone 12, but this rather important detail is disregarded once robbery and murder are suspected. As the hand and might of the establishment, these law keepers don’t keep the law; they keep the time, ensuring that the social order remains as it was designed - not to serve the masses, but to protect the elite’s property and right to empowerment. Political power for the established social institution has been assigned to the Time Keepers, and one of their ranks is a 50 year seasoned veteran of the job.

While Time Keeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) fills the definition of an antagonistic role (by providing conflict for the protagonist), his position and character are more complicated. Obvious internal conflict is apparent after Leon is gifted time by the fugitive he is chasing, but his entire existence is is very simply to uphold the law, to which he has dedicated his life. Yes, he does chase and fire shots at Will, and yes, he does erroneously arrest the protagonist in the first place, but his unwavering morals request respect. The officer is incorruptible (as Weis learns), and he is so dedicated to upholding the indoctrinated truth that he foregoes his own per diem time-allotment in order to fulfill his mission, purpose, and duty. Through a twist of fate, Leon is upholding the very system that results in his death. Had his back-story been different, one could imagine that he and Will may have been friends. With his unwavering ethics and dedication to principles, Leon would have made an excellent third man in the vigilante robberies to come.   

One must rewind to meet the second of the film’s vigilante heroes. Upon receiving the century of life from Hamilton, Will crosses time zones after being unable to save his mother. He checks into a swanky New Greenwich hotel, sleeps in for the first time since turning 25, eats a breakfast worth over two months of time, and sees the film’s leading lady for the first time. Meanwhile, the Time Keepers have located him in their database, and Will Salas is now the prime suspect in Hamilton’s murder. Nevertheless, it’s not too early for a little gambling, and Will heads to the casino where he meets the film’s ultimate villain; however, just like a James Bond film, the audience doesn’t know who the villain is yet, and a lovely leading lady is present. The lady is Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), soon to be the film’s second protagonist after she renounces privilege and security in order to assist Will and her fellow man. Much to her father’s dismay, it is not Stockholm syndrome but an awakening that causes his daughter to veer to the path less traveled. 

The antagonist extraordinaire is Sylvia’s father, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser). Though snobbish and elitist, the millionaire initially seems like a fairly decent fellow – at least to those in his social class. It is not until the movie progresses (and the audience witnesses the level of his corruption and involvement within the established social structure) that his role as antagonist is confirmed in concrete. He might as well have quoted John Locke directly in a credo to Will, “You might upset the balance for a generation. Two. But don't fool yourself. In the end, nothing will change. Because everyone wants to live forever. They all think they have a chance at immortality even though all the evidence is against it. They all think they will be the exception. But the truth is: For a few to be immortal, many must die.” Weis’ comment is easy to make when standing amongst the immortal few.

If the old saying “time is money” is true, then “actions speak louder than words” may also be true. We are able to make judgments regarding the characters in the film based upon their actions; are they altruistic or antagonistic, compassionate or cruel, selfless or selfish? Good guys need not wear bright colors and change clothes in phone booths, and bad guys need not wear black and be hideously ugly. In fact, two of the film’s most malevolent characters (Fortis and Weis) break the Disney stereotypes of “handsome is good and ugly is bad.” Only their actions against mankind make them ugly, and the conflicts they cause the protagonist define them (by literary standards) as the film’s antagonists. Conversely, generosity, concern, charity, and simply - love override greed and selfishness, as Will and Sylvia place themselves in mortal danger to help others. They are “good people” helping all people, and are clearly classified as protagonists in the film.

Whether by coincidence or by design, Niccol aligns the antagonists with John Locke’s theories of capitalism and the protagonists with Karl Marx’s socialist ideals. The prevailing social institution (and emphasis of the film) is similar to today’s capitalist “free market” where each individual allegedly has the opportunity to succeed. Instead of money, time is the currency; instead of wealth, immortality is at stake, but the basic idea is the same. By revolting against the establishment, Will is revoking Locke’s tacit and voluntary consent, which is understandably questionable because of the genetic engineering and unauthorized arm implantation. Per Marx, “But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning.” Individuals in our off-screen society could technically live off the land, perhaps hiking the Appalachian Trail (or practicing what we see on the Discovery Channel’s subsistence living programs) without income or taxes, but there is no such option in the film. The clock counting down removes all but death or theft to opt out of the established social institution, and Will is the spark igniting Marx’s proletariat revolution.

Lethal force, sanctioned by political power, is used in response to Will and Sylvia’s disobedient theft when they forego conventions established by the social institution. Locke would deem such force as appropriate for the protection of property, even though he contradicts himself by stating, “Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.” Does the theft of time without bodily harm to another justify the death penalty? Who determines the severity of any punishment beyond those in power with wealth? As surmised by the father of capitalism in his Two Treatises of Government, "Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws" (268). Therefore, the state and its appointed Time Keepers have the political power to kill in order to protect said property; property is therefore valued higher than life, and laws are created for the landowner’s benefit. Marx declares, “Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones?”

Marx would be disgusted with the entire situation, as there is no need for such lethal action when all work and all receive fairly. The inequality of the situation breeds contempt, and the labor force is not to be oppressed as a fleeting resource. Furthermore, the slave labor required to sustain life would be an abomination to Marx, as he relays, “the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of [time] the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.” No situation could illustrate the problem more effectively than a clock ticking down to the last seconds of life. Marx would also see each zone’s value in terms of the land and nature that their respective spaces occupy; nature is the resource, and the individuals providing labor are the well-valued tools. Further, Marx would argue that the time clock is obviously a source of life, which should not be owned by the likes of Philippe Weis and his anonymous time zone controlling peers.  If all men only have their own labor, then no man becomes a slave to another in order to survive. Working (and consequently surviving) only with the permission of a land owner (or capitalist) is like paying four minutes for a cup of coffee; one can manage for a time, but the system is not sustainable if the masses are educated.

One can imagine a hypothetical time machine by which Locke and Marx are joined beyond space and time (as written by the Transcendentalist Walt Whitman) for a viewing of In Time. Locke would see Philippe Weis as the protagonist; Marx would identify with Will Salas and Silvia Weis. Others yet unknown may relate with Raymond Leon for his unwavering dedication to honor, duty, and work ethic. Who is right? Who is morally just and seen in the eyes of an omnipotent creator as righteous? While we may not be able to ascertain God’s opinion, we can certainly state that John Locke’s views on labor and money have continued to influence the economy for centuries, and Karl Marx’s dream of utopia remains an unfulfilled hypothetical taught as the Antichrist version of democracy. Niccol’s In Time bring the philosophical, economic, and political themes into the realm of futuristic science fiction to break down preconceived boundaries and teach via a modernistic version of Jesus’ parables. Metaphor, synonym, allegory, and analogy are all employed to bring forth Marx’s taboo message of equality – for any with the time to watch and listen. 

Let’s Get Physical: Whitman & Ginsburg

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

To A Whitmanfowl

William Cullen Bryant (1794-1878) “alerted the English-speaking world to an American voice in poetry,”[1] and Walt Whitman (1819-1892) wanted to be that American voice. Endeavoring to fulfill requirements set forth by Ralph Waldo Emerson in the 1844 essay entitled “The Poet,” Whitman’s work reaches out beyond the page to each American individually. As required by Emerson, Whitman wrote about that with which he was intimately familiar, put content above poetic structure, and both saw and named on behalf of the people in an “organic” manner[2].

One can imagine Walt Whitman on the Brooklyn Ferry admiring a bird as Bryant did from an unknown location in his poem “To A Waterfowl.” America’s poet would not have adhered to conventional patterns of meter, rhyme, or verse length. Nor would his prose have contained alternating end-rhyme scheme or archaic language, which would not have been understood or appreciated by the common man. While Bryant’s poem requires effort to comprehend during initial digestion, Whitman’s version of the same subject matter would require less interpretation initially; however, masterfully crafted layers would become apparent with subsequent reading of the work. In this way, Whitman would have appealed to a wider variety of social classes and differing education levels. A barely literate rural farmer and a highly educated urban lawyer could each find understanding at a level appropriate to their life experience.

Had Whitman been challenged to rewrite “To A Waterfowl” for the American population, his first task would have been to remove any outdated vocabulary. Rhyme scheme, regular verse length, and adherence to poetic forms would have also been abandoned, but most importantly, Whitman’s work would have reached out to the reader personally in a comforting and welcoming manner. In Bryant’s time, “everyday language was considered too common for poetry.”[3] Upon seeing dost (v. 3), thy (v. 4, 8, 14, 17, 24, 26), thou (v. 3, 9, 22, 27), thee (v. 6), and contractions used in Elizabethan English such as seek’st (v. 9), o’er (24), and thou’rt (v. 28), Whitman would have immediately replaced them with common tongue equivalents. Similarly, uncommon words (unless their use was intentional) that the majority of the population could not grasp would be altered. “Whither” (v. 1) would be downgraded to where; “plashy” (v. 9) would be marsh or wetlands, and “marge” (v. 10) would be shore. At the very least, “chaféd” (v. 12) would have lost the accent, but more likely would have been simply replaced with rough and raw. “Aright” (v. 32) may also have been changed to express the author’s view of life’s virtuous path more clearly.

Whitman would then have engaged in the process of transforming Bryant’s structured stanzas into free verse. His loosely defined stanzas vary in length between a few lines and nearly a whole page, so Bryant’s quatrains would not have been an option. The eight four-line stanzas would likely have been consolidated, with line spacing deleted, and sentences from all stanzas combined into actual paragraphs in order to better paraphrase them. Rhyming verse ends would be removed, and sentences would end with commas unless an exclamation point or question mark was in use.

Most importantly, Whitman’s version would reach out to the reader in a second person point of view. A sense of companionship, support, and love of humanity would have been carefully woven into the fabric of the piece, and readers would know that Whitman was one of them. However, in this third and most crucial point, an irreconcilable conflict arises that would have changed Bryant’s theme too drastically for Whitman to have been seriously considered for a rewrite of “To A Waterfowl”. Bryant’s direct address is to an animal, but though frequently present in Whitman’s poetry, nature is not addressed directly by America’s poet; Whitman reserves that intimacy for humans alone. Further, while Bryant expresses concern for the bird’s welfare against hunters in the second stanza, “Vainly the fowler’s eye mighty mark thy distant flight, to do the wrong,” Whitman himself relays his carnivorous tendencies and appreciation for the hunt commonly.

In “Song of Myself,”[4] he states, “Alone far in the wilds and mountains I hunt…Kindling a fire and broiling the fresh-kill’d game” (p. 29, v. 175 & 178). Whitman also provides evidence of relating on a personal level to the human hunters and not the hunted animals, “My face rubs to the hunter’s face when he lies down alone in his blanket” (p. 64, v. 1264). Even the act of killing itself is shared from the human perspective, “I go hunting polar furs and the seal, leaping chasms with a pike-pointed staff, clinging to topples of brittle and blue” (p. 49, v. 806). Whitman then discusses the hunt for waterfowl specifically, “The duck-shooter walks by silent and cautious stretches” (p. 32, v. 269), and “My tread scares the wood-drake and wood-duck on my distant and day-long ramble” (p. 31, v. 237).

            Nevertheless, though Whitman would not have addressed an animal directly, and his perspective would have been from a human hunter’s point of view, his belief that he “could turn and live with the animals” (p 45. v. 684) will bridge the moral and philosophical differences on hunting that (in theory) would have made an exact thematic rewrite unlikely. Consequently, the hypothetical rewrite of William Cullen Bryant’s “To A Waterfowl” was accomplished utilizing Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself” (p. 24-66), “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry” (p. 67-71), and “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” (73-79) for reference; only minimal changes in diction and syntax were made to ensure the author’s voice was adequately represented while Bryant’s theme remained intact.

  

“To A Whitmanfowl”

To what place in the falling dew, through the sunset you descend?

Wild gander seek your flock through the cool night, (p. 32, v. 245)

Alone – but never alone. I was with you, (p. 67, v. 21)

Just as you look on the river and sky, so I felt, (p. 67, v. 22)

Distance avails not, I believe in those wing’d purpose. (p. 67, v. 20, p. 31, v. 239)

You hermit withdrawn to yourself, avoiding the hunters, (p. 74, v. 21)

Limitless out of the dusk, out of the clouds and sky, (p. 76, v. 101)

Silhouettes of black on red, against the horizon, 

Soar in the heavens, loose the stop from your throat, (p. 26, v. 84)

Shall I join you in earth of reeds – earth of dark mottling the tide of the river? (p. 38, v. 42)

There in the weedy lake and shores of water – wide, dusk, and dim, (p. 79, v. 206)

Down to the shores of the water, the path by the swamp in the dimness, (p. 77, v. 124)

Or to the gray walls of the granite by the sea, (p. 68, v. 45)

To the ocean shore and the husky whispering wave whose voice I know, (p. 78, v. 156)

Finding purpose and place in the wintry sky, (p. 32, v. 248)

Alone high in the limitless heavens you labor, (p. 29, v.175)

As I watch’d where you pass’d - not lost in your migrations of flight, (p. 75, v. 63)

And the season approaching, your wings busy with purpose, (p. 77, v. 114)

High in the air and the gradual edging toward the south, (p. 68, v. 28)

Not to stop this day and night with me, to loafe with me on the grass, (p. 25, v. 33, p. 26, v. 84)

The time has come, though you stop not here to-day or to-night. (p. 68, v. 53)

You, coming home with the silent and dark night sky, (p. 48, v. 782)

And the summer approaching with richness, shaded ledges and rest await you! (p. 77, v. 114, p. 41, v. 529)

And you with your comrades in the bending reeds, (p. 78, v. 169)

With a nest of guarded duplicate eggs! it shall be you! (p. 41, v. 534)

Concluded, away in the heavens of the night sky, and you were gone, (p. 75, v. 65)

I receive you with free sense at last, (p. 71, v. 127)

A minute, and your flight settles on my brain - but I listened close! (p. 44, v. 657, p. 32, v. 247)

Undulate round the world, serenely arriving, arriving, (p. 77, v. 136)

By your wing, encompassing worlds and volumes of worlds, (p. 42, v. 565)

My knowledge, it keeping tally with the meaning of all things, (p. 42, v. 576)

For life and joy, and for objects and knowledge curious, (p. 77, v. 140)

And for love, sweet love—but praise! praise! praise! (p. 77, v. 141)

---

[1] “William Cullen Bryant.” Poetry Foundation. www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poets/detail/william-cullen-bryant. Accessed 18 Feb. 2017.

[2] “How Walt Whitman Became Emerson’s “Poet.”. Accessed 18 Feb. 2017. https://sites.google.com/site/ishpemingwriter/home/literary-essays/how-walt-whitman-became-emerson-s-poet

[3] “Lone Wandering, But Not Lost: Bryant’s To A Waterfowl.” 17 July, 2014. https://hokku.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/lone-wandering-but-not-lost-bryants-to-a-waterfowl/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2017.

[4] Baym, Nina,   et al.  The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Vol. 2 (1865 to the Present), Shorter 8th  Edition.  W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.

GoPro or Gone?

 GoPro unveiled two new devices in a company press release dated September 28^th, 2017. Entitled, With HERO6, GoPro Sets New Bar For Image Quality, Stabilization And Simplicity, the company communique teases enhanced convenience and performance with (per the article sub-header) a Custom GP1 Processor, Next-Level Video Stabilization and 3X Faster QuikStories. However, while these vague technical descriptions are subsequently explained, the HERO6’s differentiation remains in its “rugged, waterproof, go-anywhere design,” which is and always has been for use by extreme outdoor enthusiasts in their preferred environments. The ability to shoot at 33 feet underwater (or at one atmosphere of ambient atmospheric pressure) without a bulky camera housing allows recreational SCUBA divers to capture their experiences at depth while remaining streamlined to reduce air consumption. Further, the HERO6’s GP1 Processor increases performance, captures twice the video frames per second, and (compared to the HERO5) improves footage transport time by three times. Reduced transfer time equates to faster turnaround between shooting and sharing, and sharing has never been easier.

The company’s QuikStory feature (available on both of GoPro’s new devices) automatically transfers footage directly to a smartphone before editing with music and effects. The video is then available for posting on Instagram, Facebook, and other social media platforms, and QuikStories can also be shared via text or email. This allows adrenaline junkies more time to create new videos out in the world rather than sitting at a PC editing and posting content. Additionally, the device is specifically designed to outperform in low light conditions (a notorious smart phone camera shortcoming) where digital noise or grainy shots prevent clear photos and video footage. Also, GPS features allow GoPro’s aerial photographer (the Karma drone) to either hover or follow, thereby providing ultimate tracking shots, which were previously cost-prohibitive to all but professionals with big budgets. Subjects remain in frame from the air, and Video Stabilization allows mountain bikers, skydivers, skiers and snowboarders (with devices mounted to themselves or their equipment) to produce professional footage without camera shake. Footage ruined by earthquake-like shaking can be common when attempting in-motion shots with smartphones or handheld digital mini-cameras, and adjusting camera settings (or even holding onto a device) during shooting is not an option for participants of extreme sports.

In order to facilitate a more hands free experience, GoPro not only offers a variety of mounts for both the HERO6 and Fusion, but All-New Touch Zoom. While the feature’s details on the company website were limited, photographers recognize CDC (Compact Digital Camera) specifications rather than the professional’s preference; a SLR (Single-lens Reflex) camera uses a series of mirrors and lenses, and manual manipulation and / or preset modes for zoom, shutter speed, aperture for light, focus, and more. This requires considerable knowledge about the camera’s operation and the ability to manipulate settings based on the environment. Conversely, a CDC camera is your classic point and shoot, but with digital photos versus film. The amount of pixels per square inch (PPI) must be considerably higher for cameras that don’t use a lens to zoom, but rather the photo itself is enlarged to get the closer view. Traditionally, quality photographs require a minimum of 300 PPI, and though HERO6’s specifications describe video related information, the Fusion boasts an astounding 18MP Spherical Photo (MP = megapixel = a million pixels). This allows a cameraman to forego a finger fumbling zoom during filming, as any close-ups needed may be obtained in post-production by enlarging the existing image.

GoPro’s Fusion Spherical Camera does what neither the iPhone nor the HERO6 can. According to the company website, along with 5.2K spherical video and the aforementioned 18MP spherical photography, audio’s importance (which seems to have been relatively ignored by mobile device makers in the past) has been elevated. Rather than the traditional unidirectional microphone common on most digital recording devices, GoPro’s Fusion records in 360 degrees. This allows for more professional sounding content, cameraman commentary, and less post-production editing and / or voiceover requirements. Once again, any feature that can be performed in-camera and in the field reduces time needed for editing afterwards, and this combination puts sportsmen back outside instead of behind a monitor.

Yet, beginning in early 2018, even the most ardent outdoorsman may find reason to saddle up to a screen; OverCapture™ will allow the Fusion’s spherical shots to be shared as “traditional fixed perspective video” or as VR content. A videographer can “capture every angle at once and choose later which perspective they want to share via the GoPro app.”[1] Though the new version of the GoPro App (available for iOS and Android) is not expected to be released until Q1 2018, Fusion’s ability to record both video and audio in 360 degrees, and then transition that footage for use on traditional platforms will likely have adrenaline junkies trading game consoles for GoPro editing on rainy days.

Nevertheless, will new products be able to tip the financial scales for the one-time iconic behemoth of videography? Per Yoree Koh of the Wall Street Journal, “The product launches come as GoPro is trying to rediscover its footing after a rough year that included supply-chain snafus, an embarrassing recall and layoffs. Sales had dropped by half.” [SIC] Product-related myopia prevented the company from being aware of technological advances in the macro environment; consequently, sales plummeted as competition increased in the form of smartphones. According to author and investor Robert Riesen, “There is still serious weakness in the action camera business and I believe it's going to force GoPro to make some tough decisions over the next 12 months.”[2] Though the company’s stock improved after the second quarter, and “GoPro's latest earnings release showed year-over-year sales growth,” decreasing margins, uncertainty regarding cash flow, and diminishing cash reserves may offset any gains HERO6 and Fusion can provide. Consequently, GoPro's relative success in the last few years is based on misleading information. Riesen illustrates that YoY improvements are a relative measure, based on the company’s 2016 (-27%) decrease in growth. Consequently, modest improvements in 2017 are not an indicator of company profitability, but rather, how poorly the company performed in the past.

This poor performance is due (in part) to a plethora of competitors. The action camera market has become as competitive as the events being filmed with “Sony (NYSE:SNE), Garmin (NASDAQ:GRMN), Nikon, and many others” entering the game. [3] Price reductions to increase market share have driven profit margins down, thereby decreasing overall company profitability, and GoPro has consequently narrowed its target market focus. Appealing to a niche demographic of action/adventure enthusiasts, athletes, and aspiring wilderness documentarians, GoPro is positioned on the edge of a cliff; will there be enough high-octane consumers to bungee their books back into the black? While the inferior quality of cell phone cameras may have initially contributed to the company’s success, technological advances at Apple, Samsung, and other smartphone manufacturers have ensured that consumers merely seeking a durable camera remain strangers to the GoPro brand. For individuals (especially intermediate and professional photographers) shopping for digital cameras that are not integrated into a smart phone, Canon’s EOS Digital SLR Cameras (ranging from $449 to $5,999), and Nikon’s low end waterproof PowerShot D series ($329.99) capture moments in time for consumers of all budgets but lack video capabilities. HD Consumer Video Camcorders from Canon, Sony, Vivitar, and countless others are available from $2.69 on eBay to $96,250.00 from Adorama Camera. Should one wish to have a portable device that is able to capture both still photos and video footage while being able to transfer the data to a PC for editing on any number of software platforms, the options are numerous enough to be mind-numbing.

With adventure seekers as a targeted market segment, especially those participating in underwater and/ or hand-occupying activities, GoPro has positioned itself for extreme sports enthusiasts. To engage customers, the GOPRO Movement (available via the company website) allows users to provide an email address for videos, news, tutorials, software updates, special deals, and giveaways. Yet, how well can the HERO6 and Fusion perform in the saturated marketplace? If the aforementioned website is any indicator, one might chose to leave the lens cap on. While GoPro's new devices offer the ease and convenience of point and shoot photography, learning more about the features offered with each proved more challenging. The company’s website (https://gopro.com/) is a pictorial billboard offering very little textual information regarding specifications, features, or product comparisons. In fact, when one clicks to learn more about a product, additional high-resolution photos of the selected device, or images of sports enthusiasts using the product are presented; site visitors’ efforts to Learn More by clicking inevitably leads to videos and testimonials, not text providing product specifications.

One must select Investor Relations at the far bottom of the web page, and then Press Releases in order to locate desired information in writing. For those not familiar with GoPro's devices, the customer effort required to learn on the company’s own website creates a negative first impression. Will troubleshooting be this difficult? Is there an instruction manual, or do I have to watch a video? For the motivated and dedicated seeking simple product information, the September press release offers specifications for the company’s new releases at https://investor.gopro.com/press-releases/default.aspx.

Nevertheless, despite GoPro’s obvious target segment of loyal adventure seeking photographers, new products may not be sufficient to rescue the company from the aftermath of marketing myopia. Technological advances in smart phone video cameras, in-phone camera apps like VSCO (https://vsco.co/), and the reduction in digital camera costs have adversely affected brand loyalty and customer lifetime value. With the HERO6 at $499 (about $100 more than its predecessor), and the Fusion (now available for preorder) at $699, each camera also requires a high-performance microSD card - sold separately for $59.99. Additional mounts and options may add to the overall sale, but some features won’t be available until Q1 2018. For roughly the same price, an entry level premium smart phone can be purchased. GoPro consumers will have to need, want, and demand the rugged durability that differentiates the company from its competitors, but only time will tell if GoPro grows or goes.

---

[1] Koh, Yoree. “GoPro Unveils New Devices as It Faces Heat From Smartphone Cameras.” The Wall Street Journal, 17 Sep. 2017, wsj.com/articles/gopro-unveils-new-devices-as-it-faces-heat-from-smartphone-cameras-1506623263. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.

[2] Riesen, Robert. “This Is Why GoPro Will Be Sold In The Next 12 Months.” Seeking Alpha, 8 Aug. 2017, seekingalpha.com/article/4096409-gopro-will-sold-next-12-months. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.

[3] Riesen, Robert. “This Is Why GoPro Will Be Sold In The Next 12 Months.” Seeking Alpha, 8 Aug. 2017, seekingalpha.com/article/4096409-gopro-will-sold-next-12-months. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.

A LOOK INTO WILDLIFE FILM MAKING ETHICS: LIONS …AND TIGERS… AND BEARS? OH MY!

The killer stalks forward. Its snarling muzzle of razor sharp teeth exposed as black lips curl back. Muscular chops (possessing agonizingly crushing force) twitch in anticipation, and viscous saliva drips.  The hunter’s eyes, without mercy, stare down villainously upon the helpless prey, for whom all hope is lost. 

This ridiculous contrived partial narrative could describe any number of predatory mammals on the hunt, and it illustrates how an author’s bias of a subject or character can completely color and/ or cloud the message being relayed. Is the description referring to a big bad wolf, a rabid dog, one of the man-eating lions of Tsavo? One’s own perspective can either consciously or subconsciously alter the message being conveyed to others. Re-read the first sentence with a feisty puppy and a tennis ball in mind; the meaning changes from horror to humor.

The ability for individual opinion to influence others is as much a factor in wildlife films as in literature. In fact, film’s narrative form, the vessel by which a story is conveyed, owes its origin to the novel, popular when film was first invented and explored. In his book Wildlife Films, Derek Bousé quotes film theory author Robert Ray: ‘‘Cinema’s apparently natural subjection of style to narration in fact depended on a historical accident: the movies’ origins lay in a late nineteenth century whose predominant popular arts were the novel and the theater” (p. 19).[1] Consequently, just as an author transfers a narrative’s reality from the mind to the audience via pen or keyboard, a director does the same with film.

We have seen a lion portrayed as a menacing and murderous nuisance worthy only of execution in the Johnson’s Simba: King of the Beasts (1928). Louis Jean Lumière’s Pelicans, Lion, and Tigers at the London Zoological Gardens (1895) stars a tiger and another lion; both of whom were provoked to provide a good show but equated to the villainization of their species to the public. Despite fathering oceanic conservation, even Jacques Cousteau’s prejudice against sharks is clearly evident in The Silent World (1954) as the narrator states, “All the sailors of the world hate sharks” and "sharks are the mortal enemies of sailors." However, Cousteau (in contrast to the aforementioned filmmakers) had justification for his abhorrence of an apex predator; as a former French naval officer in World War II, he most certainly had knowledge of the USS Indianapolis and its crew’s fate. Conversely, Walt Disney utilized anthropomorphism to alter public opinion (and initiate the commodification) of rodents with Mickey Mouse, even though mice present a greater threat to humans through the spread of disease and waste related illnesses (like histoplasmosis) than lions, tigers, and sharks combined. For better or worse, the attitude and approach a filmmaker takes toward his or her subject matter can positively or negatively impact the public’s opinion of that animal.

From lions and tigers - to bears; Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man (2005) provides two often conflicting perspectives on Alaskan grizzly bears. On one hand is the shaky handheld video footage captured by Timothy Treadwell during his years in the wilderness. It is accompanied by the false-accented, falsetto-sounding rantings of an obviously unstable and mentally ill individual who explores taboo topics (from sexuality to the search for self) in a still steaming pile of feces. “I can feel the poop! It's warm! It just came from her butt! This was just inside of her. My girl! I'm touching it! ... Everything about them is perfect!"[2] The childlike enthusiasm and blind adoration Treadwell openly expresses for bears couples with a religious fervor and attachment to the perceived soul-cleansing power of the camera. Proximity related ethical wildlife violations, and the consequences of habituation and domestication are of no concern to Treadwell; he names and blatantly anthropomorphizes the wild brown bears and a resident fox. Per the helicopter pilot that retrieved the couple’s remains, “He was treating them like people in bear costumes.”[3]  The obsessive love for bears melded with Treadwell’s unorthodox field ethics in an effort to increase public awareness and elicit a positive emotional connection between bears and humanity. However, the mission at any cost, and the unhealthy attachment to the dangerous animals demonstrate an unhealthy mind; “I'm in love with my animal friends. I'm in love with my animal friends! In love with my animal friends. I'm very, very troubled. It's very emotional... I'm so in love with them, and they're so f-ed over, which so sucks.”[4] Treadwell lacked logic and allowed emotion to cloud his view of reality; he used the animals and camera as his personal psychotherapists and was in the wilderness for his own needs instead of theirs. The shaky-handheld videography (though successful in obtaining moments of incredible footage), psychologically disturbing banter, and unethical behaviors are in stark contrast to the film’s director.

Werner Herzog’s precision, perfectionism, and professionalism (as one would expect from a filmmaker originating from the home of German Expressionism) bring the film and audience back into a much welcome reality from Treadwell’s trip down the rabbit hole. In a type of human interest exposé, Herzog uses exposition documentary filmmaking to dive into the psychological and personal factors that caused Treadwell to venture into a world ill-suited for human habitation. Though offering informed interpretations, Herzog objectively reports his findings, which show Treadwell’s purpose in both positive and negative lights. However, his opinion of the deceased man’s unhealthy affection for bears and unsafe encroachment upon their habitat is not withheld. In an interview with NPR, Herzog states, “You should not love the bears; you should respect them. Keep your distance and respect them.”[5] Treadwell’s close proximity to the bears was most certainly a defining factor in not only his fame, but ultimately his death. This view on maintaining distance to wildlife is supported throughout the film by experts, and Herzog summarizes, “nature is cold and harsh. Treadwell’s view clouded his thinking and led him to underestimate danger, resulting in his death and that of his girlfriend.”[6] The director’s intended message to the audience is one of cautious respect, “And while we watch the animals in their joys of being, in their grace and ferociousness, a thought becomes more and more clear. That it is not so much a look at wild nature, as it is an insight into ourselves, our nature.”[7]

Looking into the nature of mankind does not always reveal a pretty picture. Fear and ignorance (blended with a healthy dose of fiction and lore) can cause humans to behave badly. As narrated in Bill Mason’s 1971 documentary film Death of a Legend, “We’ve tried our very best to exterminate the wolf. Terror and hatred - the pioneer felt for the wolf, for he had inherited the horror stories - the legends from Europe.” From Little Red Riding Hood of European origins, to the werewolf films of the Universal Pictures monsters series, wolves have habitually been portrayed as blood thirsty savages. At best, they are blamed for slaughtering livestock; at worst, murdering innocent humans. Feared and hunted since early man realized he was competing for the same resources, wolves were deemed a threat, and they are now considered an endangered species.[8] However, changing popular opinion (based on fear, misinformation, and verbal traditional stories) is no easy task.

Bill Mason, an avid outdoorsman, filmmaker, and conservationist, chose to rewrite the apex predator’s story as advocate instead of adversary.  Per filmmaker and author Chris Palmer, “This 1971 documentary broke new ground by refusing to paint wolves as evil killers. As the film depicted them, they were superb predators, but they rarely attacked livestock and almost never harmed humans. They were also loyal and affectionate caregivers and good communicators” (p. 2).[9] Death of a Legend provides perspectives from the farmer, rancher, and secluded wilderness homesteader, but it differs by also representing the wolf’s struggle for survival. Previously, only the inconvenience to humans and animals caused by wolves was emphasized, but Mason allows the audience to identify with the animal by revealing its common characteristics. The wolf mother affectionately cares for her pups, and the father remains present throughout. Further, the pack aids in raising the young, and the adorable pup’s grim odds for survival are solemnly narrated. Should he be lucky enough to reach adulthood, his pelt already has a bounty on it. Mason ties the wolf’s fate to mankind’s heartstrings.

Both Tredwell and Mason focused on (and advocated for) what would be considered dangerous predators. They both obtained amazing footage that had previously been unseen. Each found a refuge in the wilderness, but in different ways and for different reasons. Per Canadian communications and film instructor Tom Shoebridge[10] in his 1979 National Film Board Publication His Camera : the Land and its Creatures, Mason “stays in the wilderness during the shooting, sleeping in a tent or under his canoe. To many people, living alone in the wilderness for long periods of time would be a hardship, but Mason loves it.”[11] Instead of psychotherapy and the company of fuzzy friends, love for nature and its inhabitants are the motivation for Death of a Legend; the director explains, "The medium of film is for me a means of expressing my love and enjoyment of the natural world, and of sharing my concern for what's happening to it with anybody who looks and listens.”[12]

Since a major difference between Grizzly Man and Death of a Legend is protagonist related (Tredwell in the former and the wolf itself in the latter), the audience does not learn about what drew Mason specifically towards the wolf; the story was not about the filmmaker but about the actual animals themselves. However, Shoebridge commented, “He deals only with topics which he has either experienced or has thought through completely, and to which he is firmly committed.”[13] Further in contrast to Treadwell’s ethical violations, the effort with which Mason obtained his footage indicates that though guidelines for wildlife filmmaking were in their adolescence, hard work and perseverance replace lunacy and luck. “Once there, he is a perfectionist who tirelessly searches out the ideal location, sets up and then waits for exactly the right lighting or action.” Rather than a human’s personal relationship with a wild animal community, the viewer is able to learn about the complex relationships within a wolf pack from Mason’s meticulously planned shots. Instead of Treadwell’s maniacal exultations at digested organic matter, Mason allows the audience to witness birth in the den; the miracle of life speaks with dignity for itself. By remaining silently behind the camera and focusing on the wildlife instead of himself, Mason makes a stronger argument for his cause and left a more respectable legacy worldwide after his passing.

The audience’s take-away from a film is directly linked to how material is presented. Specifically, in wildlife film, a filmmaker has an obligation to ensure that the animals are safely front and center; ethical violations, egos, and psychosis not only detract from an intended message’s delivery, but may cause others to emulate potentially harmful behavior as well. Further, strong feelings are possible by association; it is possible for an individual to so love or detest Treadwell that his beloved bears are hurt as a result of human emotions. Despite Herzog’s efforts, Treadwell’s distorted reality was evident in Grizzly Man. However, the existence and nature of the Canadian wolf (and wildlife films as a sub-genre of documentaries), were most assuredly enhanced by Mason’s Death of a Legend. Though the Alaskan brown bear is not a stuffed teddy toy, and the Canadian wolf is not a murdering menace, audiences will be influenced by how an animal is portrayed in a film. This key factor is based on the approach taken by the filmmaker, which is influenced by his or her experience. Reality is therefore pliable and may be enhanced or distorted as a result.

---

[1] Derek Bousé, Wildlife Films (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), accessed July 31, 2017, http://0-www.jstor.org.library.lemoyne.edu/stable/j.ctt3fhgg4.

[2] “Film/Grizzly Man,” tvtropes, accessed July 31, 2017, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/GrizzlyMan.

[3] Roger Ebert, “Grizzly Man,” RogerEbert.com, last modified August 11, 2005, http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grizzly-man-2005.

[4] “Grizzly Man (2005),” IMDb, accessed July 29, 2017, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427312/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu.

[5] Scott Simon, “Grizzly Man,' Herzog's Human Nature Tale,” NPR.org, last modified July 30, 2005, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4778191.

[6] “Grizzly Man,” InMotionMedia.Co.UK, last modified February 8, 2007, http://www.inmotionmedia.co.uk/2017/02/08/grizzly-man.

[7] Christopher Orr, “Bear Witness,” New Republic, last modified January 10, 2006, https://newrepublic.com/article/60673/bear-witness.

[8] “Wolf Facts,” Wolf Web, accessed August 1, 2017, http://www.wolfweb.com/history2.html.

[9] Chris Palmer, Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom (Counterpoint, 2010), Kindle edition.

[10] “Tom Shoebridge – Biography,” PEI Screen Writers’ Bootcamp, accessed August 1, 2017, http://www.peiscreenwritersbootcamp.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Tom_Shoebridge.1473031.pdf.

[11] “Bill Mason: About the Film-maker,” Redcanoes.ca, accessed August 1, 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20050218042120/http://www.redcanoes.ca:80/bill/about.html.

[12] “Bill Mason: Film-maker,” Redcanoes.ca, accessed August 1, 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20050211061932/http://www.redcanoes.ca:80/bill/filmmaker.html.

[13] “Bill Mason: About the Film-maker,” Redcanoes.ca, accessed August 1, 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20050218042120/http://www.redcanoes.ca:80/bill/about.html.