The Whale (2011)

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I was rather surprised to come across this documentary on "The Movie Network", mainly because Ryan Reynolds (Whom I am not a fan of) seemed to be the man driving force behind the picture. The movie is a beautiful piece of film, obviously made with care. The main question of this film, for me, was how to address abandonment by whales from their pod, in other words, the rejection of the young. Albeit rare, the question remains, should they let this whale be free in the water, where he interacts with humans and floatation devices or should they encapsulate the animal in a facility like "Seasworld." I saw one review saw that the humans are the reason behind the animals split with it's pod, and it was the humans who prevented this whale from reuniting with his pod. In the film it is clear that this whale is interacting with the humans at the marina, there are points in the film where humans are trying to trick the whale to capture it to bring it to a facility, but it's also humans (Native Americans) who help prevent that. The truth is, we are just getting the technology to study these creatures the way we need to, in order to fully understand them, and although this is a story which brings joy, the ending is sad and appears to be avoidable, however to avoid it, would have to be to encapsulate it. (Either way, people who are literally insane about animal rights would blame humans for the situation, be it death or put into a facility).Finally, I ask that people watch before reviewing movies, especially on a film like this, where Blackfish gets a lot of attention, it didn't ask the right questions. When dealing with animal rights, people become insane, but you have to be able to look at the reality of the situation.

One of the earlier reviewers got it all wrong. The people who were excited about Luna and saw his "friendship" as a gift were the people who were trying to get him relocated. The government is the one who said no. The government also made it illegal to interact with Luna (to the tune of a $100,000 fine). There was nothing anyone could do unless they broke the law to get Luna relocated.Long story short, this film really captures this sentient being and the lives he touched along the way. It really makes you question whether we do things because they are for the good of the animal or for what we THINK is good for the animal.The next pill to swallow is when all Luna wanted was companionship and then the people in Nootka Sound left him alone and "ditched" him due to laws being imposed, yet still he continued to trust and seek out the companionship no matter how fickle and fair weather the humans in his life were.I think there is something valuable to be taken from this film no matter age, gender, etc.

"There's more there than most of my guests." Hotel Owner Cameron ForbesI doubt if there is a more authentic and endearing documentary in recent memory than The Whale, the story of young killer whale Luna, separated in 2003 from his pod and spending six years befriending the folks who live in the Nootka Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island.The tension that makes this film more like a drama than a documentary is the dilemma of what to do with this unusually friendly Orca, which experts believe will not end up well because of its affection for humans. Or its need for community, judging from its almost constant desire to be seen, heard, and touched. Watching Luna go nose to nose with humans, letting them stroke its tongue, and virtually singing to them is to understand why even a fish and wildlife pro could violate his own division's ban on interaction.The opposing forces seem to arise naturally: those, especially natives, who want nature to take its course and those who foresee doom for the sea creature unless means such as giving him to a sea-world-type park are immediately taken. Intellectually the latter, especially the marine biologists, seem to have the better argument, but the former are powerful when they argue the whale should be allowed to do what it wants.Although most involved are powerless to effect the right solution, the occurrence of communication between humans and animal is carefully noted, an extraordinary example of a bond that seems to be built on both sides' need to understand and communicate with the other.If you see the film, I dare you to deny that you weren't moved by Luna's playing with humans and uncertain about how to solve his fate. For sure you will not remain unmoved.Praise to Ryan Reynolds as the perfect narrator not channeling Morgan Freeman. Most honors should go to filmmakers Suzanne Chisolm and Michael Parfit, who stayed with Luna through it all. Their devotion and love make this one of the most memorable documentaries ever.

I just (December 2011) got back from watching this at a nearby art-house theater. Too bad its distribution seems so limited, as it's truly excellent. It could be used in a school classroom to prompt discussions about what is consciousness and what does it mean to communicate with aliens. In a theater, it can either entertain and delight, or leave viewers with plenty to ponder. Several relationships with the whale are described as far deeper than one would have with a typical pet (a dog for example). Questions around just what it really means to be "friends" with another species are very much in the foreground throughout the film. The photography is stunning. The shots of landscape and water alone would thrill; lots of shots of different boats -both powered and rowed- and of floating logs for lumber and of people -both groups and individuals- come along with the mix too. But that's not all - there are also amazing closeups of whale-human interactions, whale-boat interactions, and more generally the whale under water. Initially I thought they were fancy special effects shots that were filmed only with great difficulty after lots of careful planning. I expected stand-in whales to be used, and was rather discombobulated when the narration made a point of saying every individual whale could be identified by its pattern of spots. But it turns out the shots are not staged or subbed at all; they're just plain real; this really is a documentary. Just the shots of huge decorated native canoes with singing rowers traveling over these remote waters are worth the price of admission. There are the whale sounds too. Sometimes they're featured, presented as listening to hydrophone recordings, clearly underwater. More often they're presented as just a completely natural and unremarkable part of some whale-human interactions, moving seamlessly from underwater to above and back. The journalists who took the pictures are shown almost exclusively in or near boats. So you might expect all the shots to be from boat height. But it's much more varied than that. Somehow there are shots from a great height (did they climb all day, or use a helicopter?) and very long shots along with all the closeups and the underwater photography. Pacing and sequencing are excellent. You won't be gripping the edge of your chair, but you won't stop wishing to find out "what happened next?" either - the experience stays comfortably in the middle. No violence nor blood is ever shown, and the one bit about an injury avoids closeups and goes by quickly. Inevitably different people have different ideas about how to treat the whale. There's more than one idea about how to "be kind". We even briefly see a completely different point of view: that the whale is just plain an unwanted nuisance or interruption and the whole situation should just somehow be made to "go away". The film is scrupulous about _not_ taking sides, about presenting _all_ the different points of view and not commenting on _any_ of them. When a boat trip was described as a "reconciliation", I was initially puzzled about just what had happened to split people so far apart they needed reconciling; the disagreements -although described quite adequately- do _not_ suffuse the feeling of the film. Despite the film's even-handedness, for myself (most likely it's a personal predisposition) I couldn't help concluding that the government bureaucracy had spent an awful lot of money -remaining politically correct at every point- but failed miserably to achieve their big goal of avoiding injury to either humans or animals. Further, it seemed to me they never ever managed to realize they had "egg on their face" and looked awfully silly.