Trophy

It's always neat when a documentary takes the audience's preconceptions and uses them to reveal their ignorance. The film will punish the audience for judging too quickly by deliberately omitting information and revealing some unseen truth that changes what was already shown. This film will make you feel like a hypocrite and it completely reinforces the film's message. Beyond the superficial topic of hunting, this film is ultimately a cautionary tale for what can happen if people make uninformed opinions, and it certainly has the power to move people in that direction. It's incredibly entertaining watching a sprawling web of moral ambiguities unfold, even if it gets so dense that even the filmmakers seem incapable of navigating it. The film certainly asks a lot of questions and asks them in an exceptionally articulate way, but the film can't seem to offer anything resembling a definitive answer.

Is killing an essential ingredient in conservation? Big game hunters argue that the hunting industry provides the largest refuge for endangered species. Paradoxical and controversial, this notion has birthed an African goldmine: Zoos with a twist, murder vacations with live souvenirs.

A pricey gift shop of blood thirst, hunting resorts offer a controlled and abbreviated experience of inter-species domination. Some defend the slaughter party with an ancient book, others with a love for the very animals they auction off to North American bullets.

Outside of these death camps, lay sanctuaries that bleed money rather than bathe in it. They too are sitting on a goldmine, however. Their goods just are not as easy to push. The resorts believe selective killing will ensure a species' survival, while the sanctuaries engage in non-lethal harvesting of the majestic animals.

Both parties take in order to preserve. Whether lives or horns, these operations require revenue to fund sustainability. When these two pools of thought intersect, an ugly debate sparks, and the well- being of the animals gets pushed more and more to the periphery.

Hunting is becoming less and less a sport as the commercial appeal grows. But was the sport ever rational? Did it possess an ecological merit? The dangerous five have their nomenclature for good reason. Perhaps wildlife does require a sportsman's buffer to protect native's livelihoods.

Industry shapes legislature. A brutal reality that puts wild animals' futures in the balance. Humanity has ascribed themselves with the responsibility of protecting these beasts. A noble pursuit that has brought division and bickering. Humanity is most concerned with their own offspring, no matter how much it preaches conservation.

I watched this documentary in Amsterdam documentary festival. It is certainly very hard to watch and the director(s) have made a good job shooting this film.

In our case they were present on the screening and in the short discussion that followed they confirmed my view that they approached hunting and conservation almost exclusively from a financial point of view. Also the co-direct (who is American) mentioned in the discussion that there must be a financial intensive to preserve wildlife. This might be true when the human habitat extends to the animal one but the conservation discussion should not be based on financials but on the greater cause of animal survival. There was certainly no such intensive for thousands of years and i wonder why it should be now. There is absolutely no justification on killing an animal to make a selfie with it.

For reasons not entirely clear, they failed to mention in the film the ban of all hunting in Botswana since 2014. A close view to what is happening in that country might give some answers to the good questions posed in this documentary.

Having said that, it is a must see. I was even convinced (to a certain degree) of Mr. Huume's initiative.

Big game hunting will go the way of smoking. Hopefully any form of hunting where a rifle is used 'to give an animal a fighting chance', will also stop. As a sport it's time has passed. This documentary is good in that it allows for the differing points of view to be expressed. I am a Christian and I understand when the hunter, who shoots the elephant and the lion at the end, quotes the reference to the Bible that states man has dominion over the animals ... but screw such Christians ... I'm glad I get sick and tired of listening to this statement in reference to a blood sport ... that screwball is crying at the end as he crouches by the lion he has just killed; psychopathic tendencies requiring emotional release through killing a living creature ... dominion over animals in this situation is a lie and shameful that he believes it. I'm an Aussie so I watch with some interest the fat, emotionally backward hunting fraternity foam at the mouth about their next kill ... most of the portrayals are about American hunters ... what's wrong with them and their love of guns, killing animals that are innocently grazing? They are ugly. In Australia we do just fine with a highly restrictive access to gun culture. In Yankeedoodledandy land they have the 2nd Amendment which inevitably is quoted endlessly as a right ... just straight out psychopathy. During the production the hunter lamely accuses the protesters against said blood sport of eating chickens that someone else has slaughtered for them ... of course this is going to be quoted. It always is. However it doesn't change anything about the unfolding attitude towards killing wild animals for sport and trophies. What's wrong with the mentality of people who love weapons, love killing and generally can't find any other way to express themselves? Is this the 18th Century? I can't help hate these hunters which leads me to hating all countries that engage in weapon worship and justify it with 'rights' and self defense manifestations and possibilities. It's disgraceful. The one thing I really liked is the tough guy with tattoos who was visibly unhappy with the dentist who shot Cecil the lion. Someone like him is going to attitude assist these dumb hunters, who stupidly allowed themselves to a part of this documentary and make themselves known ... how careless!

2/22/18. There is just no way to justify the senseless slaughter of wildlife by saying quoting the Bible and saying man has dominion over Earth. Please! Really? And, talking about crocodile tears shed by the hunter who just had to kill that one-of-a-kind lion just for a trophy. I can understand if you hunt because you need to eat, but to just shoot animals for sport is heinous. It's just blood lust. And, then another one had the audacity to justify hunting as leaving Earth a better place. Really? How does slaughtering animals for sport leave this Earth a better place? Despite my dislike for such hunters I found this documentary to be worth watching.