Die, Shark, Die

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 8.54.53 PM

 

This post originally ran on CiCO3

Jaume Coller-Serra’s new film The Shallows follows Blake Lively in a test of wills against a great white shark. Apart from an unintentionally farcical and groan-inducing last act, it’s a pretty well shot and acted story. It is one of countless stories about wild beasts threatening the lives of humans. Most of these are, from a statistical or scientific perspective, no less ridiculous than The Shallows‘ silly conclusion. These stories almost always involve absurd science. And towards what end that bad science is deployed tells us a lot, as does the selection of which killer animals are portrayed.

In The Shallows Blake Lively’s character is out surfing when she happens upon a whale carcass. A shark near the carcass sees her as a potential meal and decides to have a bite to eat. Over the next day the shark ignores the massive quantity of food available with the whale carcass while stalking Lively, and during that time eats two and a half other people.

All this is exceedingly unlikely. The shark ate somewhere around 200kg of people over those two days which is, using the most conservative estimates, around two months of food for an adult great white (other studies suggest this is closer to six months worth of soylent green). So the shark ignores (or leaves, it’s not clear) a massive whale carcass which could feed a host of sharks for months and instead goes after a bunch of swimmers and surfers that don’t have the yummy (for sharks) smell of rotting meat. And it does so in order to overeat by quite a bit! For contrast in the infamous 1916 New Jersey shark attacks a shark ate a maximum of .3 people over twelve days (though it killed four).

This is common in these kinds of stories. For example the T-Rex in Jurassic Park should be done eating after she eats the company stooge. That’s (probably) enough calories for a T-Rex for two days. That it keeps hunting seems pretty unlikely. The shark in Jaws eats even more beyond its likely diet. And it is exactly this voraciousness that identifies the creatures as antagonists in these stories.

There is a species power dynamic in play obscured by this. My back of the envelope math says humans comprise about .0000042% of deaths in fatal human-shark encounters. No big surprise here. It’s common enough knowledge that humans kill exponentially more sharks than the other way around. And given the challenge in imagining a shark’s point of view, it isn’t all that surprising that humans with almost no exceptions tell the stories of those .0000042% of fatalities rather than the 99.9999958% percent of them. Sure, the Discovery Channel trots out the annual shark slaughter statistics during “Shark Week” but they’re invariably mixed with stories of shark attacks lending a false narrative symmetry even as the statistical symmetry is denied. Man-eating bear, wolf, lion, snake and other such stories all follow this same pattern.

This is how power generally works, both between our species and others and inside our own species. The oppressive relationship is inverted no matter what the science says. So despite all populations using and selling drugs at nearly identical rates, it is Black people who are portrayed as the drug-dealing criminals thus positioning them not as victims of racist mass incarceration, but as justifications for the oppressive system. Despite Israel dispossessing Palestinians on a daily basis, it is Palestinians who are portrayed as the violent aggressors, much as natives are commonly portrayed in US Western stories. The dynamic is analogous to how the tv show Zoo tells of a worldwide animal revolt that threatens humanity while we are in the midst of an anthropocene/capitalocene mass extinction event. The bad science of insatiable predators is deployed to justiy the bad practice of exterminating them.

The inter- and intra-species analogies are, of course, imperfect even as the racist narratives invoke a certain dehumanization. But the racialized component of which killer animal stories are told tells us just as much about inverted narratives of threat and power. For some animals do kill, and even kill and eat, vast numbers of people every year. Blake Lively will likely never star in one of these stories.

Nile crocodiles kill somewhere between several hundred and several thousand people every year in Africa throughout their range. We don’t even have sound estimates because relatively few resources are dedicated to tracking African deaths. Crocodiles eat people on a daily basis because people have to spend so much time in crocodile habitats with minimal protection. This isn’t a problem of reptilian predation, this is a problem of capitalism and colonialism. The stories told of crocodiles eating humans are instead like Lake Placid, a fun film that is science fiction both because of the vast numbers of people consumed and because of which people are consumed. Out of some three dozens feature length films about killer crocodiles and alligators, I know of only one that takes place in Africa, 2006’s Primeval, a racist story of white people in constant danger from both Burundians and the crocodile.

Though not eating us, snakes kill tens of thousands of people every year, predominantly in South and Southeast Asia (and to a lesser extent in Africa and parts of South America). These incidents are tied to poor labor and housing conditions which are, again, a problem of racism and colonialism. The Anaconda tetralogy and Snakes on a Plane do not tell these stories.

The most deadly animal, though, by a wide margin, is the mosquito. Mosquito-related deaths which number in the hundreds of thousands every year despite malaria being, for the most part, easily treatable were resources dedicated to the task.

These killer animal stories are not told on screen because the victims aren’t fully human in the eyes of those choosing what stories get produced. And those stories with fully human victims like The Shallows invariably invert the material world predator-prey relationship. The exceptions are exceedingly rare and even then are told with circumscribed or regressive politics. The Ghost and the Darkness and Prey for example, are pro-colonialism stories of animals preying on humans based upon the man-eating lions of Tsavo. The body count is attributed to lions and not the colonial railroad project (a dam in Prey‘s version) that brought people into the lions’ habitat in the first place. But telling such stories can illuminate vast political economic problems and indicts the systems that produce the death tolls. Capitalism and colonialism continually produce horror stories of animals killing people with body counts beyond all but apocalyptic imaginations. Jaws simply cannot compete.

7 thoughts on “Die, Shark, Die

  1. Thanks! It was fun to write and think about. Thinking now about maybe doing a project just about the lions of Tsavo narratives.

  2. I had the exact same thought as Osvaldo: this is an insightful take on these sorts of films that had not occurred to me before (and, it seems, had not occurred to others either). But now it does seem incredibly obvious.

    Reminds me of when I first read some of Henry Giroux’s stuff on violence and race in film — like his point that typically when a white person is a killer it’s bc s/he is singularly deranged, but when a person of colour kills s/he is representative of their group.

  3. Hey thanks! Blame F Murray Abraham, Keith David, David Attenborough and whoever else narrates nature documentaries for making me wonder how a shark could possibly eat so much.

  4. Ooh thanks! Will check it out. I have an essay that looks at settler colonial ecologies in a book I’m putting together. This could turn out useful!

  5. This is lovely.

    I wish I could offer a good book to you on the relationship between humans & animals in Medieval Europe, which is a fascinating subject. But I can offer a couple of resources.

    The story of the Wolf of Gubbio found in the hagiography of Saint Francis is often cited (http://www.guidetopsychology.com/gubbio.htm). In Medieval Europe, where 80% of forest cover was destroyed (over a longer period than, say, the great forests of the United States – but this was due to a lack of technology rather than a lack of willpower), you see similarly destructive relationships between humans and the natural world that suggests something sinister that either predates capitalism, or can be portrayed as an early incarnation of it. The Mappa Mundi of the late middle ages often depicts fantastic beasts and “monstrous races” of humans in the “hot” countries outside of Europe.

    In a very influential article in the 60s, Lynn White argued that Christianity bears a great deal of responsibility for “desacralizing nature” (it’s still a fantastic read: http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf) . But the extinction of the European lion, wiped out by humans during Roman times, predates Christianity, and there are examples of other new religions being used in Japan around the 9th and 10th centuries CE to supplant animist traditions in order to induce villagers to cut down ancient cedar trees to create roof shingles, a highly demanded commodity at that time.

Comments are closed.