Aaron Taylor 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.

jwaugh-ethics "The Whale" is a documentary where its subject material transcends what is otherwise a very middling documentary. I think you can get most of how I feel about the movie from that sentence alone. It is a documentary where everything is on cruise control, the narrator guides you from event to event, people are interviewed and sometimes they cry, there are scenic helicopter shots repeated ad nauseam, and some Native Americans show up to say something vaguely spiritual. This really wouldn't be worth much if the subject matter, an orca named "Luna" trying to make some friends, wasn't so strong. As such, it ends up being more than the sum of its parts.This documentary is the story of an orca that got separated from its family. Very early on we learn from a less zany Ryan Reynolds (as the narrator) that orcas stay with their families for their entire life. Alone, and without social contact, Luna stumbles upon, and makes a home of, a place called Nootka Sound. In this stretch of sea it befriends the locals and draws some controversy, as many have differing opinions on what should be done about this whale. The main tension of the documentary comes from the idea that the orca should be left alone, despite its want for attention. Those who hold this view the orca as a liability or safety concern, and state that it is even detrimental to interfere with this whale's life. The other side of this is that Luna is just trying to make a connection, and it is cruel to deny him that.The documentary does a good job at exploring this bizarre relationship that a community has with this orca. It is touching and sad to see how much it desires attention. The orca will come up to side of boats, and seems to revel in the experience of being gawked at and touched. A lot of the documentary is moving because Luna himself is so surreal, and the interactions between him and everyone is playful and practically human. There is something innately understandable to us concerning the want for companionship. Luna just wants to be friends, and it is heartbreaking because he really does not understand the controversy that goes on around him. You get wrapped in the story so much because of this. This is by far the best aspect of the movie, and it is worth watching because of it.Unfortunately, the documentary itself has a made for TV feel to it. Ryan Reynolds does an OK job as the narrator, but sometimes his lines feel corny and lack substance. Actually, a much better fit for narrator would be Michael Parfit, who is he director of the movie and was also a journalist who wrote about Luna. In his brief speaking moments he would often say things that are more profound and thought provoking than anything Reynolds said in the entire movie. Further, while there is tension in the film concerning the real safety concerns that an orca in habituated waters draws, the documentary remains oddly neutral despite an obvious skew. I wish it made a stand, or an accusation, or anything. There was clearly something wrong with how this was handled by the government, but it is only hinted at through slight frustration. I did not want an attack or a diatribe, but it failed to analyze what went wrong and how it could have been better.Lastly, I am tired of watching a documentary where the narrator will say something vaguely scientific and random pieces of journal or newspaper articles will fly toward the screen, sometimes with highlighted words. It is a stupid effect, and it highlights the fact that this movie is only a little scientific and spends too much time on building Luna up as some sort of mysterious entity, almost mystical. The analogy between Luna and an extraterrestrial is made one too many times. We get it, it's a stranger in a strange land kind of story. So, let it speak for itself and stop beating me over the head with it.To sum it up, "The Whale" is worth watching because the story itself is provoking and rightfully pulls at all of those humanoid emotional strings. It ends up transcending a documentary that, by itself, is rather poorly produced.

Tracy Allard It made me so sad watching this movie. Sad to the point of tears, but even more so: angry. I simply can't believe how selfish humans can be. This poor baby Orca so badly wanted to be with his pod. Instead, humans insisted he remain their playmate. The DFO, upon the very first contact, should have relocated him to his pod (instead of three years later). The DFO lady interviewed in the film was thinking along the proper biological lines, but forgot to act upon them fast enough. It's not like his pod was unknown... his pod is known, identified, tracked, his birth was identified early on.We relocate bears, wolves, cougars, reptiles, birds, we relocate all animals in need of their groups if they belong to species which aren't in excessive numbers. We even relocate them sometimes when they ARE in excessive numbers (certain birds, alligators).But no, here the human greed to be able to say "I touched it" was more important than the Orca's need to be with his pod. The idiots in the movie kept talking about "friendship", but it wasn't friendship, it was "acquaintance" only! Luna wasn't looking for friendship in that superficial human way that we see on Facebook or between kids with cell phones. He needed the intense bonding 'friendship' of his pod, something no human on earth can possibly give him.The death of Luna should loom heavily on the conscience of every single selfish citizen who fought to keep Luna away from his pod. It should also loom heavily on the government, for failing in its role of protector of wildlife.Luna was essentially murdered by parasitic misguided human TLC. If we found a child in a shopping aisle (as the movie in the beginning compares), would we pass it along from human to human, for the human enjoyment of gooing and awing over it instead or returning it to its family? In some ways it reminds me of the little Cuban boy who landed in Florida a few years ago, and whom the community wanted to keep away from his family, in Florida, for political reasons... all the while his father in Cuba wanted him back. This poor kid got jostled around the legal system for over a year before he was returned to his Cuban family.

chuck-526 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.