In Grizzly Man,among the contention stirred by the behaviour of Treadwell. the cardinal thought expressed in the movie is that the nature is so apathetic and adult male should non traverse the boundary line between adult male and nature.
Wild animate beings are non friends of homo. Treadwell put all his bosom to the cause of protecting the bears. He repeated in his movies for many times that he loved them and he was willing to decease for them. He tended to anthropomorphise them like many people do to the Canis familiariss and cats. but he forgot they were non those tame pets. He touched bears in a manner that seemed to annoy them. He possibly had a belief and assurance that the bears besides saw him as their friend and treated him otherwise. But in fact they didn’t. In the narrator’s sentiment. “the common denominator of the existence is non harmony. ill will and slaying. ” Treadwell spent 13 old ages with the bears and he thought it was a fantastic and simpler universe. he even wanted to go a bear. but in world it is a hash universe. In those large and fierce bears’ eyes. they see merely nutrient and they ne’er regard him as a friend. The storyteller tells this observation at the terminal: ”from all the faces. all the bears that Treadwell of all time filmed. I discovered no affinity. no apprehension. no clemency. I see merely the overpowering indifference of nature. ”
There is an ultimate unseeable line between bear and homo. The line has been respected by native people and the bulk of the populace. They know it is a really different universe from the one where human lives. “when you cross the line. you pay the monetary value. ” the conservator of the Kodiaks Alutiiq Museum mentioned this rule that has been purely observed for 7000 old ages. He doesn’t agree with Treadwell’s behaviour of remaining excessively closely with bears. He believes that “he has crossed the unseeable boundary” . that is. the line which has been mentioned above. So even if Treadwell was repeatedly declaring that his chief intent was to protect bears from poachers. he didn’t recognize that his behaviour was another sort of invasion of their home ground and he was making a batch of harm to them. He got close to those bears insanely and in un undue manner.
He violated the sensible regulation of the park that one should keep at least 100 paces of distance from the bears. He lived with them and tried to do the bears get used to the being of homo. which was really unsafe for bears. and so on. As the storyteller says in the film. the best protection for the animate beings is that of their home ground. Any action of protecting animate beings by occupying their home ground is non persuasive and of class can’t do any good to them. Like Treadwell. during his 13 old ages. he didn’t give bears any practical protection except functioning them a delightful dinner with his and his girlfriend’s organic structures.
Life of Pi
The position presented in this film is that human and fierce animate beings can co-exist peacefully if human can run into the endurance demands of the animate beings and nature can give human hope and way to last.
Darwin’s theory—the endurance of the fittest. emphasizes the ferocious and slightly pitiless battle of endurance among the species and the persons. It is so true in most instances. But in Life of Pi. it describes a image of human and animal’s co-existence in a more harmonious manner and proves that their battle and contradiction are non so unreconcilable. In this film. Pi was taught at his childhood by his male parent. that the animate beings. clairvoyance. the tiger. etc are non his friends. So at the first of the impetus. Pi didn’t intend to co-exist with the tiger. He had had the opportunity to kill it. But his virtuous nature didn’t let himself to make so. So he made the concluding determination to co-exist with this fierce animate being. He supplied the tiger with nutrient and fresh H2O to last so that he himself would non go the dinner of it. The menace to each other and the certain sort of peaceable co-existence helped them persist to be saved at last. Even Pi himself admitted that “the fright of Richard Parker kept me watchful. I wouldn’t survive without Richard Parker. ”
Human really should be thankful to nature. Nature provides them with the animate beings populating in it and hence sustains human’s life. In the film. nature is apathetic by the storm which caused the catastrophe of the ship’s sink and took off so many people’s lives. But on the other side. during the hopeless impetus on the sea. nature besides gave them nutrient in the sea. It led him to the island when Pi had already lost his hope for endurance. which made him recover the hope for life. Nature gave these apparently happenstances to do for Pi’s endurance from this catastrophe.
Which sort of position do you hold with? Comparing two different positions presented in these two films. the former is more persuasive and sensible. Managing the dealingss between homo and nature. people should ever retrieve that nature is so apathetic and maintain a proper distance off from nature. particularly the animate beings. Any human action which interferes with their natural life in an undue manner will certainly arouse the retaliation of nature and pay a monetary value for what they do.
Guess of teacher’s position Teacher may hold that nature is apathetic but to some extent human and can acquire along good with each other unless both of them don’t traverse the boundary line and make injury to the other. Because America is a state which pays much attending to environment protection. They don’t promote excessively much familiarity with nature for they know the ruthless and apathetic nature. so they do a good occupation in set uping the wildlife militias. But on the other manus. they love to be near to nature.