Arguments presented
Mathieu’s efforts are aimed at restoring the environment and in his argument; the principal issue that comes out is environmental degradation. The Kouchibouguac National Park is gradually losing its wonder. The principal contention relates to the two categories of people affected, the clam fishermen whose source of livelihood is under threat and people who are witnessing the death of a culture treasured and observed by all. Ideally, Mathieu presents the idea that the pollution of the Canadian coast has to stop. The stakes are high shown by the decline of the clam population in the lake (Gibbs and Pye).
Mathieu attributes this occurrence to several reasons, which he argues have to be addressed. He suggests that the untreated sewage released into the waters, the substantial commercial harvesting practice and the release of industrial effluents into the Canadian coasts, have caused environmental pollution, which is now showing itself in the form of the declining clam population. He posits that eventually, the locals heavily acknowledge the burden whose economy and tradition is getting ruined. Arguably, the Kouchibouguac National Park depends heavily on fishing and tourists’ activities, which may soon be part of history. It is, therefore, paramount to bring the attention of relevant stakeholders to these issues. It is on that premise that Mathieu has developed this documentary (Gibbs and Pye).
The appeal of the arguments
The argument appeals to the logic, emotion and ethical feelings of the audience. Mathieu reports that the clam population is sick and dying. The audience seeks to see a logical explanation for his allegation. He goes further to display the continuous ever-flowing industrial effluent that he correctly credits for the pollution of the coast. The logic is clear, and one does not need advanced biological knowledge to buy his idea (James). The audience is further convinced on noticing that, in addition to the threat to the life of clam and other aquatic organisms, the fact that the sewage released is untreated, poses a risk even to people accessing the coastal waters. The argument that the effects of the effluent release are detrimental, therefore, appears logical, and the audience is persuaded into siding with Mathieu on the need for urgent action to save the environment from pollution.
Emotionally, the argument by Mathieu draws a reaction from the audience. Naturally, all humans would instinctively hate processes that are confirmed as being harmful to their environment. The arguments draw the audience into hating the capitalists responsible for the mass commercial harvesting of the clams. The capitalists do not feel anything for the lower classes represented in this case by the clam fishermen. The argument is that commercial and large-scale fishing coupled with the pollution of the coast is the principal causatives of the decline of the clams. The fisherman’s future is at risk. Economically, he (fisherman) is losing while the capitalist is gaining in the immense profits he earns. The audience naturally reacts with empathy for the fishermen’s plight while wanting to scorn the commercial mass harvesters (James).
Mathieu’s argument imparts or has ethical appeals. Ethics is about what is right usually not in the eyes of the law but the eyes of society. Consequently, ethics depends on the eyes of the public. The argument in the film criticizes the approach taken by industrialists on this Canadian coast. The public perceives them as unethical, by realizing untreated effluent into the waters and indeed Mathieu builds on that concept giving his argument an ethical appeal (Gibbs and Pye).
Writer’s purpose
He brings out the causatives that are sickening and ultimately killing the clams. Further, he exposes societal greed and selfishness. He shows it by the actions of two leading players. These industrialists release untreated effluent into the water that continuously flows, and the commercial mass harvesters whose capitalistic leanings do not allow them to think about the helpless and small-scale clam fishermen.
Who makes the argument?
The argument is made largely by Mathieu himself, in his presentation of the film he focuses his energies on bringing out the untold misdoings in the society. By showing the actions plainly without any digressions whatsoever, he comes out as one who had a clear motive in his mind and has set out to achieve the objective (Gibbs and Pye).
The context of the argument
The arguments are raised in a socio-economic-political context. Mathieu brings out environmental pollution as a threat to the economic status of the people. The decline of the clams puts the livelihood of the fishermen at stake. Where would they earn their livings? Further, the creation of industrial effluent is a consequence of industrial production and the commercial harvesters are also engaging in economic activities. However, the arguments have a social dimension. The release of untreated sewage into the waters is a social issue. The fact that the species are facing extinction is a preserve of socio-biologists who always champion the preservation of nature. To seek a solution, a political process has to be initiated. Ideally, that is what Mathieu has just begun. They would be a need for legislation to regulate, restrict and contain operations of the coastal waters (James).
The use of visual rhetoric
The film employs visual rhetoric to bring out the arguments by showing the methods through which the pollution occurs. Further, it depicts the adverse consequences. When some fishermen eat the raw clams we no longer have to ask about the possible risks that the pollution poses to the people’s health. In addition, the audience does not have to look for the pollutants; the constant flow of untreated sewage is visually presented evoking high emotions.
Soundtrack effects
Mathieu captures the mode of the audience by the soundtrack he adopts. The sound effects stir up the feeling of the need to seek to protect the environment. For instance, when he displays the flowing industrial effluent, the sound stirs anger in the audience. One is indeed inspired to condemn the societal vice at the coastal waters (Gibbs and Pye).
Counter arguments and convincing effect
The film does not present any counterarguments. Mathieu takes the opportunity to advance a strong case for the protection of the environment seldom deviating from that course so that eventually the argument is against degradation without any counterarguments. The film is indeed convincing. One is convinced that there is a relationship between the effluents released into the waters; the sickening and deaths of the clams, after watching the motion picture. Consequently, they are convinced to join for some action to take (James).
Works Cited
- Gibbs, John and Pye, Douglas. Style and meaning: studies in the detailed analysis of the film. 1. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005. Print
- James, Mertice. The Book Review Digest, Volume 102. New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 2012. Print.