Rebuttal to side-by-side critique of Blackfish

General comment: Several of these numbered criticisms seem to misunderstand what actually is on screen. This misunderstanding is either deliberate or the result of poor viewing comprehension. Either way, these particular criticisms do not stand up, as they are rebutting something that is not actually in the film.

In addition, this critique never once addresses the central premise of Blackfish that keeping killer whales in captivity is inherently wrong because their welfare suffers. It does not address the very real and immediate issues of trainer safety. SeaWorld simply ignores these points and criticizes, in a remarkably picayune and often illogical way, 69 different sequences in the film. This critique suffers on the whole from a lack of understanding of filmmaking 101.

1. This criticism is incongruous and not inconsequential. The film reveals that the trainer in the water was in fact NOT a victim of an attack at all, but that the interaction was part of a SeaWorld show. It is likely SW understands the intention of the opening, which suggests that underneath the spectacle lies the reality that any interaction between a killer whale and a trainer can go wrong at any given moment.

In addition, the voice-over clearly states that someone is in the pool with the whale that theyre not supposed to be in the pool with, so there was no attempt to mislead people into thinking trainers did waterwork with Tilikum.

2. Throughout this critique, SeaWorld implies that if trainers did not work with Tilikum, then they had no grounds for discussing their experiences in a film that focuses on Tilikums story. One does not follow from the other. The former trainers in the film talked about their OWN experiences, which they are qualified to do. In fact, the story John Hargrove tells that is most affecting has nothing to do with Tilikum it is about his experience with Kasatka and Takara.

Many of these criticisms are straw men raising points (and then rebutting them) that were never made by the film. The filmmaker did not ask former trainers who did not work with Tilikum to talk about Tilikum. She asked them about their own experiences and memories. The film was not just about Tilikum it was about the entire practice of holding this species in captivity.

3. OSHA counsel did not reject Samantha Berg as a witness. OSHA counsel did not call any of the former trainers seen in Blackfish as witnesses at the Sanford hearing, as their legal strategy took a different tack (their decision had nothing to do with the qualifications of any particular former trainer). In fact, OSHA counsel called current SeaWorld trainers to the stand and THEIR testimony, under oath and under penalty of perjury, led Judge Ken Welsch to rule in favor of OSHA and against SeaWorld.

4. See #2.

5. See #2. SeaWorld also implies throughout that if a trainer did not have senior management or decision-making authority, then their stories about their time as trainers at SW have no validity or should carry no weight. This is a very strange view of their trainers, which they otherwise often refer to as experts. Indeed, it suggests that any of the videos they have posted on their Truth about Blackfish page with trainers who are not in supervisory positions should be discounted.

6. See #s 2 and 5.

7. Ms. Ashdown was speaking of her own experience. In fact, the entire opening sequence, with each trainer (including Mark Simmons, who supports SeaWorld) telling their story of how they got their start at SW, suggests that qualifications for becoming an entry-level trainer are very minimal. While clearly becoming a supervisory killer whale trainer requires more years of experience, this is not what Ms. Ashdown was describing. An important note about Ms. Ashdowns experience with regard to Tilikum: While at Shamu Stadium in SW Orlando, Ms. Ashdown voiced that she was uncomfortable and frightened of working not just with Tilikum, but with all killer whales. She requested a transfer out of Shamu Stadium. SW rejected her transfer and furthermore claimed that any mistakes she might make while working at Shamu Stadium would be grounds for termination.

8. See #s 2 and 5.

9. This is absurd. This is a standard film technique, where b-roll illustrates an event being described in voice-over. The film is describing a universal experience many trainers share. SeaWorld is essentially accusing Ms. Berg of lying about her own personal memory. This is an ad hominem attack.

10. This is extraordinary. The interview between the sheriffs office representative and the paramedic did occur and this is what he said the filmmaker did not doctor this interview, she merely included it, to illustrate the kind of chaos and stress that were evident that day. To quibble about whether the whale actually ate Ms. Brancheaus arm or merely tore it off (which he did as SW admits here, Ms. Brancheaus arm was recovered) is bizarre.

11. SeaWorld is correct the company voluntarily suspended waterwork and kept its trainers out of the water before the OSHA ruling was final. However, this sequence of decisions has not been clarified by SW in any media. Trainers were back in the water in a matter of days after SWs male orca Keto killed Alexis Martinez, so there was no presumed protocol about what SW might do with respect to their trainers after someone was killed.

12. Dave Duffus statement about its not a singular event was not in reference to captures it was in reference to Ms. Brancheaus death. Howard Garretts comment, which is quoted verbatim, is in the past tense. The footage on screen and his comment make it clear this was something that happened after 1976 (when Washington state prohibited further captures), but still sometime in the past relative to today.

13. SeaWorld is correct. Mr. Garretts statement demonstrates his own understanding of the events at that time (when he did not live in Washington state). However, the end result was the same SW no longer operated in Washington and went to Iceland.

14. This is SeaWorlds opinion about this sequence in the film. However, although there is ample trainer testimony that present day SW trainers are encouraged to withhold food from killer whales in order to encourage a performance edge, no one in the film ever says that current training techniques involve food deprivation. The interviews about Tilikum at Sealand (and the footage used) are clearly describing the situation in the past (the food bucket commentary later in the film, when the former trainers are assessing what might have gone wrong the day Tilikum killed Ms. Brancheau, is simple fact at some point in every session, the fish bucket becomes empty). SW is watching this footage through a defensive lens. Obviously the film went into Tilikums history. SW seems to be saying that Tilikums history has no bearing on the present, which simply makes no sense when the topic of conversation is an intelligent animal with a long memory.

15. See #14.

16. SeaWorld is selective in its use of Judge Welschs statements. He accepted Dave Duffus as OSHAs expert witness, with conditions. He did the same for SWs expert witness, Jeff Andrews, who had significant conflicts of interest (as a former employee of SW and having received most of his information about what happened the day Tilikum killed Ms. Brancheau from SW staff who were not eyewitnesses to the events). He accepted him, with conditions. That does not change the truth that Dr. Duffus was OSHAs expert witness, so the film is factual here.

17. The interspersing of Dr. Duffus interview with that of the two eyewitnesses, Nadine Kallen and Corinne Cowell, to Tilikums attack on Keltie Byrne was specifically to demonstrate that Dr. Duffus, who was in fact identified as having served on the coroners jury for that incident, did not know about these two women and did not have their eyewitness account at his disposal when he served on that jury. Ms. Cowell and Ms. Kallen claim it was Tilikum who instigated the attack by pulling Keltie Byrne into the pool. Dr. Duffus claims that the jury, having no access to these eyewitnesses, never deduced who instigated the attack. That said, he attests in his full length interview with the filmmaker that (Tilikum) was the main player unquestionably. He had her in his mouth the whole time.

As for SeaWorlds take on how these two witnesses came forward they did not approach David Kirby, who is not a known animal-rights activist, but rather is an investigative journalist who has reported on a wide range of issues, most having nothing to do with animals. HE approached them, after his research revealed Ms. Kallens name in a wire service news article about the incident at Sealand. He was in fact investigating what happened, something SW, in the form of Chuck Tompkins, testified in court that they had never done. SW never looked into Keltie Byrnes death and what role the whales there played in it. They felt that what happened at Sealand was immaterial to what would happen at SW once the three whales who killed Ms. Byrne arrived there, since Sealand did not have the expertise SW had.

18. Bizarrely, this quote from the two women supports Dr. Duffus statements in the film, so SeaWorlds criticism does not make sense. No one investigating the death of Keltie Byrne ever contacted them. David Kirby only contacted them once HE started his own investigation, years later.

19. These quotes from Eric Walters are not about the incident with Keltie Byrne. They are about other incidents. Nootka was more aggressive that does not mean she was the one who pulled Keltie Byrne into the pool. One does not follow from the other. This criticism makes no sense.

20. The conclusion of the jury (on which the film does clarify Dr. Duffus served) is not the same thing as what actually happened. Juries and courts can only render verdicts based on the evidence at hand. Verdicts get reversed all the time when new evidence becomes available. SeaWorld is grasping at straws here and in fact in doing so is confirming that all three whales were involved in a womans death, a death they themselves did nothing to investigate at the time they purchased these whales.

21. SeaWorld here admits that Ms. Kallen was in fact a witness to Keltie Byrnes death. The fact that the media at the time interviewed her is how David Kirby learned of her and approached her. The fact that she did not identify which whale it was in this interview indicates that she was not aware of the whales names at the time. She DOES state A WHALE pulled Ms. Byrne under (not whales) and no one investigating Ms. Byrnes death ever interviewed her officially. That is the entire point of the filmmaker including the account of these two women in the film. Again, if

SeaWorld is accusing these two women of lying, its an ad hominem attack that is in poor taste. This incident clearly traumatized both of them.

22. Steve Huxter clearly states it was my understanding that Tilikum would not be used as a performance animal. As the former Sealand director, Steve Huxter was privy to circumstances involving their killer whales, the death of Keltie Byrne, the closing of the park and the subsequent transfer of the whales. SeaWorld claims there was a permit obtained for the whales to be displayed, not necessarily to perform. So it is unclear why SW finds fault with Huxters statement. Furthermore, it is not clear as to whether SW is admitting that they were willing to allow a whale who had recently killed a human being to perform in close proximity to trainers.

23. None of the incidents listed by SeaWorld, other than the surfer who required stitches, is of harm to a person. These incidents were apparently cases of mistaken identity the whales thought they were targeting prey and broke off the attacks as soon as they realized their error (including the incident with the surfer). THERE IS NO RECORD OF A HUMAN BEING KILLED in the wild by killer whales (in stark contrast to sharks, elephants, tigers, and hippopotamuses, among many other wildlife species where there are dozens of records of humans being killed by them in the wild). Thats a simple statement of fact and that is over the course of millennia of encounters between mariners (and scientists and others) and killer whales in the wild. Yet in only 50 years, four people have been killed by wild whales. SW does not address that here.

In addition, SW is essentially proving the point that killer whales are dangerous and unpredictable animals, which seems to contradict their claim that it is safe to have unprotected contact with these animals.

24. SeaWorlds comment on this is simply incorrect. Males do not disperse from their mothers this is an established scientific fact in the Pacific Northwest populations and in several other populations where photo-ID catalogues are being established. SWs criticism here demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the natural history of this species the males do not MATE with their mother, they just live with her. They mate with other unrelated females during social encounters when pods mix there is ample genetic evidence of this. There are clearly (currently unidentified) cultural and behavioral mechanisms that keep sons from mating with their mothers (just as there are in two primate species humans and bonobos that also share this social structure). These mechanisms break down in captivity, where at least one son has mated with his mother. This incest is as unnatural and distasteful in killer whales as it would be in people.

25. This is simply shocking. It is an outright lie. Mr. Garrett says they CAN live (emphasis added), which is accurate. Please see the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, where Dr. John Fords entry clearly notes that Mean life expectancy for females (calculated at age 0.5 years, following the period of high neonate mortality) is estimated to be approximately 50 years, and maximum longevity is 8090 yearsMean life expectancy for males (calculated at age 0.5 years) is estimated to be about 30 years, with maximum longevity of about 5060 years.

26. This is even more shocking. SeaWorld is arguing that orcas are no more intelligent than vertebrates?? (A lizard is a vertebrate. A hummingbird is a vertebrate.) They cite Manger et al. but ignore Marino et al. (with co-authors such as Richard Connor, Louis Herman, David Lusseau, Luke Rendell and Hal Whitehead), which was a rebuttal of this highly controversial paper (which has been generally rejected by the marine mammal science community). Quite frankly, if orcas

are no more intelligent than vertebrates generally, then its not clear why SW thinks they are so special.

27. This is an odd comment. The film never says otherwise.

28. This comment is incongruous. The comments by Dr. Duffus and Mr. Garrett are not mutually exclusive. One speaks of personality while the other refers to their apex predator instincts. Both are pertinent to how human beings have come to understand killer whales.

29. This criticism is without value. Dr. Ventre is simply recalling his personal experience of working at SeaWorld when Tilikum arrived. Everything he says in this quote is factual. SW is implying that if a trainer did not work at Shamu Stadium, then they cant know how big Tilikum was when he arrived. This makes no sense.

30. Again, Dr. Jett was recounting his own memory of Tilikums arrival and what happened between the whales. His claims regarding Tilikums treatment by the other whales are corroborated by multiple trainers and help explain why Tilikum was and continues to be separated for prolonged periods from the other animals.

As for SeaWorlds characterization of raking in the wild, this varies depending on the population. Some populations, such as the residents in the Pacific Northwest, have very few rake marks. Other populations, such as some in New Zealand, have many rake marks. Icelandic whales appear to be more like Pacific Northwest whales than New Zealand whales in this regard. SWs whales are either from Iceland or the Pacific Northwest therefore, comparing these animals and their behavior to New Zealand whales is questionable at best.

Also, due to the necessity of having certain whales available for shows, SW constantly moves their whales around and this likely interferes with the whales ability to work out a dominance hierarchy and puts a constant strain on their social situations. They do not get to choose their social companions; management does that. This is totally unnatural for the animals and causes social strife.

31. The Tilikum protocol and the script for the Tili Talk are part of the materials that were turned over during discovery for the OSHA hearing in Sanford. While the Tili Talk makes clear that Tilikum has a history of being possessive of items in the water and that should a trainer find him/herself in the water with Tilikum, you will likely not survive, the actual history of what happened at Sealand is not recounted. In fact, as SeaWorld testified, through Chuck Tompkins, SW never separately investigated what actually happened with Keltie Byrne. SW refers solely to the verdict of the coroners jury when considering what happened at Sealand and then does not actually include those details in the Tili Talk.

32. Nothing SeaWorld quotes here contradicts Ms. Bergs statement. The memo they cite Haida, Nootka and Tilikum were involved in an incident at Sealand of the Pacific, Ltd. in which a trainer fell into the pool with the animals, could not be rescued because of the animals activity and drowned is singularly uninformative about what role (if any) EACH whale actually played in the drowning of Ms. Byrne. In addition, this memo was actually written in 1993 Ms. Berg was at Shamu Stadium in 1992 and therefore could not have seen it.

Ms. Bergs statement that she was under the impression that Tilikum was not directly involved in Ms. Byrnes death is also not contradicted by the quote from the lawsuit mentioned, as this was the rationale for not allowing associate trainers to interact with Tilikum, but Ms. Berg was

describing that she was left with the impression that this was less because of anything Tilikum had done himself and more because of what had happened at Sealand while he was held there.

33. Ms. Berg was describing that after what she had been told about Tilikums involvement in Ms. Byrnes death, she was surprised at the way management reacted to a trainer walking across a gate with her wetsuit down. While it was protocol for wetsuits to be zipped up, Ms. Berg recalls that many senior trainers and supervisors ignored this rule on occasion. As people rose in the ranks, they tended to be more likely to break rules. It was therefore not unusual for her to see senior staff doing things that she was not allowed to do.

Ms. Berg actually downplayed the event for the film. The supervisor who yelled actually seemed rather panicked and used an expletive, and Ms. Berg felt that he feared for the trainers life. This seemed an overreaction, given that she had been told that Tilikum had only carried Ms. Byrnes dead body around after she was already dead.

34. This is SeaWorlds take on this segment of the film not everyone would have the same take, as the film does clarify that trainers were never supposed to be in the water with Tilikum.

35. Again, Ms. Berg is recounting a personal memory. Tilikums animal profile does say he is known to lunge at the control trainer. These lunges do not appear in the corporate incident reports. In addition, Chuck Tompkins testified that we missed a few incidents in the corporate incident log. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that Ms. Bergs memory is not accurate simply because there is no corporate incident report.

36. SeaWorld is accusing Dr. Ventre of lying about his memory of taping a show and being told to destroy the tape. This is an ad hominem attack. SW has no evidence to support their claim that this incident never happened all they have is their word. They have much more to lose than Dr. Ventre has to gain by denying this incident.

37. Ms. Clark did make this statement. The statement is perfectly in context. SeaWorld seemed to be distancing itself from the death of Alexis Martinez at the hands of a SW whale under the supervision of a SW trainer. It was a tense moment during the hearing. SW may not like it, but the film was perfectly factual about this.

38. SeaWorlds view of disruptive is not substantiated by any biological, behavioral, or natural history information. Calves at that age in the wild are very active and can be disruptive this is normal and natural and the solution in natural orca society is to put up with it, just as it is in human society. Children are not permanently sent away to another household if they are disruptive at 4-5 years of age and orcas should not be either. This was a decision on SWs part that was completely inappropriate it is always inappropriate when they separate mothers and calves, AT ANY AGE.

39. Takara was still Kasatkas calf. In fact, she had been allowed to form a more natural bond with her mother, by being left with her for 12 years. SeaWorld simply does not seem to understand the natural history of these animals. It is as traumatic to separate a 12-year-old orca from her mother as it is to separate a 6-year-old orca from his mother as it is to separate a 3-year-old orca from his mother as it is to separate a newborn orca from her mother. SW seems to think it is only a problem to separate a newborn from its mother (and yet they do this too, when the mother abnormally rejects her calf), but in fact it is traumatic to separate ANY AGED offspring from his or her mother in orca society.

40. SeaWorld is assuming that trainers do not communicate with each other when they are not in the same place. Mr. Hargrove was in communication with friends and colleagues during his years at Marineland Antibes.

41. See #25.

42. SeaWorld has misrepresented the science on this for years. Full dorsal fin collapse is rare in the wild. Dr. Ventre says less than 1% it can range from

Orlando and OSHA and the judge need only concern itself with what happened/happens at SW Orlando. However, Judge Welsch ruled that what happens at other parks is in fact highly relevant to SW Orlando, as the legal standard is the industry norm so SW Orlando should have realized the risk of working with whales based on what happens elsewhere, not just at SW Orlando.

49. This is absurd. This is like saying guns dont kill people, bullets do. Mr. Hargroves injury, by SeaWorlds own description, most certainly did have something to do with a whale the maneuver he was performing started with propulsion from a whale and he then slammed into the concrete slideover. In short, as the former trainers in the film state, SW blames Mr. Hargrove for his own injury, rather than the fact that there is inherent risk when allowing oneself to be propelled across a stage by an 8,000 lb mammal.

50. This is beyond absurd. The whale CAME OVER the net the net that she was supposed to see as a barrier and NOT come over and Mr. Peters clearly saw this as a threat, because he jumped to his (injured) feet and ran/slipped/slid further away from the waters edge.

51. Once again, SeaWorld is agreeing with what the film says but is somehow presenting it as a rebuttal. Dr. Ventre clarifies HE WAS NOT THERE when Daniel Dukes was killed, so criticizing him for not being there at the time of the incident is redundant/superfluous/illogical. He is recounting his recollection of what he heard.

52. Daniel Dukes autopsy report is publicly available. This was not an accidental drowning. The forensic evidence very clearly shows that Tilikum interacted with Mr. Dukes PRIOR to and AFTER his death in ways that are consistent with actively drowning him, similar to the way the whales (including Tilikum) drowned Keltie Byrne. No one in the film claims this was an act of aggression, so SeaWorld quoting me is irrelevant. Tilikum actively prevented Mr. Dukes from leaving the pool and actively held him under, leading to his drowning. What his motivation was is unknown. The whole point is, a captive whale does not HAVE to be aggressive to kill a human being.

53. This makes no sense. Whether there was a nightwatch trainer or not, the night watchman was making rounds. Missing a BODY IN THE POOL for many hours seems highly unlikely and that is all Drs. Ventre and Jett are suggesting in the film.

54. See #53.

55. The autopsy report was most certainly more detailed than the description offered here by SeaWorld. Notably SW does NOT cite the autopsy report, only the sheriffs report.

56. There were eyewitnesses to the Keltie Byrne incident that were not considered by the coroners jury (this was the entire point of the film including Ms. Cowells and Ms. Kallens interview). Mr. Dukes autopsy report offers considerable forensic evidence that Tilikum was actively involved in his death. SeaWorlds implication that the lack of eyewitnesses means we can never know what happened to Mr. Dukes beyond the sheriffs report is absurd, as forensic science is entirely based on determining what happened e.g., cause of death when there are no witnesses!

57. SeaWorld has repeatedly bred a whale that has a history of killing people (by their own admission, if you end up in the water with Tilikum, you will likely not survive) whether by aggression or playing or whatever is rather immaterial. This would be considered irresponsible breeding by any dog kennel or horse farm. You do not continue to inject questionable genes into your gene pool. SW never addresses this simple fact.

58. SeaWorld distancing themselves from what happened at Loro Parque which they do here and they also did in court, without success (Judge Welsch made it very clear that they most certainly were connected to what happened with THEIR whales at Loro Parque) is deplorable.

59. Dr. Duffus was addressing what Kelly Flaherty Clark said in her testimony. He felt she lied. He was stating his opinion. In fact, during the course of the trial, SeaWorlds own attorney stated, Judge, may I raise an objection to questioning on Loro Parque because Loro Parque is clearly not an issue in this case, and I would like Counsel to explain the basis for the questioning of a park not owned by Sea World in a matter that involves Sea World of Florida LLC specifically. She repeatedly tried to argue that what happened at Loro Parque was irrelevant to the situation at SW Orlando, even though the death of Alexis Martinez occurred only nine weeks before Ms. Brancheaus death and trainers were kept out of the water for only 2-5 days depending on the park. The film depicts this attempt by SW to distance themselves from what happened at Loro Parque (an effort that failed in court) perfectly accurately.

60. Ms. Allee worked at Loro Parque for several years and her claims about the inexperience at Loro Parque are corroborated by Jenny Mairot, a supervisor at SeaWorld Orlando who testified during the OSHA hearing that one of the reasons for the incident at Loro Parque was the inexperience of the trainers. Ms. Allees statement is similarly corroborated by Jeff Andrews, SeaWorlds expert witness during the OSHA hearing. Mr. Andrews claimed that In this scenario, however, due to the inexperience of some of the people there that there were just simply too many mistakesand that that type of scenario would never occur at a Sea World Park due to the extensive experience and greater skill. As for the complaints made to US governmental agencies, they were not rejected. No final decision has been made on these complaints.

61. The filmmaker uses this behavioral sequence in exactly the same way it is used by SeaWorld to take the audiences breath away, to make the audience feel it is an unscripted, rather scary moment. SW is criticizing the filmmaker for doing exactly what they did by including this behavioral sequence in the show. This is hypocritical.

62. SeaWorld continues to claim that the former trainers have no basis for their opinions, given how long ago they worked at SeaWorld and that some of them never worked directly with Tilikum. However, they did work as trainers at SW and that IS the basis for their opinions. SW can disagree with those opinions, but they cannot claim the former trainers have no basis for them.

63. See #62.

64. See #62. Quite frankly the opinions of the trainers who were there that day are more likely to be biased than those of the former trainers, who were not personally involved in the days events. The current trainers, who were there that day, have a conflict of interest (a desire to remain employed) and were also traumatized. One of the trainers who testified at the Sanford hearing, Shana Groves, was almost certainly suffering from some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, as simply looking at a photograph of herself with Tilikum, in the slideout area where Tilikum pulled Ms. Brancheau into the water, caused her to break down into tears. When the judge asked her why (after she had recovered), all she could say was that it was where Ms. Brancheau had been when the incident occurred.

65. Whether Tilikum grabbed Ms. Brancheaus ponytail (which she wore frequently, as did many other female trainers) or her arm is immaterial the fact is, he grabbed her and he pulled her in, by whatever means. Certainly Ms. Brancheaus hair was NOT a novel stimulus, as SeaWorld has tried to maintain (see #67).

66. This is absurd. The Orange County sheriffs office would know only what SeaWorld witnesses had told them in fact, SW representatives were standing WITH the sheriffs office spokesman when he stated that the trainer slipped and fell in. SW did not contradict him. And he would have only reported this version of events based on what he had been told only moments earlier by those same representatives.

67. Mr. Topoleski said that the only reason Tilikum grabbed Ms. Brancheau was because of her hair. One, that is his OPINION he didnt know what Tilikum was thinking. Two, female trainers, including Ms. Brancheau (as the film makes clear) often wore their hair in ponytails this would not be a novel stimulus to Tilikum and indeed Jenny Mairot, who works with Tilikum almost every day, testified in the Sanford hearing that Tilikum was fully desensitized to ponytails (No, he knew how to work with us when we had our whistles on, he knew how to work with us when we had our hair in ponytails, he knew how to work with us with other things). So IF in fact Tilikum did grab Ms. Brancheaus hair, it was NOT because it was a novel stimulus because it was NOT novel.

68. There is a statement now available signed by 35 leading cetacean scientists, including several orca biologists, and most of whom are unaffiliated with NGOs, which clarifies that in fact the quality of life for these animals in captivity is considered poor. Anything claimed by a zoo publication has a clear conflict of interest.

69. The filmmaker has repeatedly clarified that she is not an animal rights activist (she is not that is a matter of record). She went into this intending to make one film and ended up making another, based on the facts she learned while researching the film.