The woman was also doing something illegal, and apparently passionate about, otherwise she wouldn’t have been there.
Surely you can’t believe that he was solely responsible for his girlfriend’s death. She was well aware of the danger she put herself in.
Furthermore, in some places it’s illegal to speak against the government, so people who do so anyway are wrong for voicing their opinion?
As for the death of the bear, who was it, the park ranger that shot it, in its natural habit? Treadwell and his girlfriend were already dead, doing something they shouldn’t have been doing anyway (according to the law), so was it really necessary?
Because the woman is partly responsible doesn’t mean he’s not.
Show me where I said “he was solely responsible.”
Your third paragraph is completely irrelevant. Check out my support for Jafar Panahi for my thoughts on the subject: Cinefoundation International
Once a bear has eaten a human, they are put down in case they develop a taste for them The risk is deemed too great. Treadwell knew this as well.
That the result of viewing Werner Herzog’s documentary is to firmly believe that Treadwell got what he deserved (and is 100% responsible for his girlfriend’s death) is not due to anything attributable to Herzog. If I had simply seen Treadwell’s video diaries (to call them a film-in-development would be like calling the video of my daughter’s third birthday the same) without any commentary, I would still have the same opinion.
- You
For some reason it won’t let me put quotations in, but you said that in your first post.
My third paragraph was to prove a point, just because a law says something doesn’t mean one who breaks it should be looked down upon (depending on the circumstance). I guess you agree with this yourself, given your support for Jafar Panahi.
Regardless, you’re entitled to your own opinion, as am I.. Again, I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. I can certainly see where you’re coming from, and it is justified, but I choose to look at it a different way. It seems like neither of us are changing each other’s opinion (which is perfectly fine), so it seems a little silly to continue.
Hah—so I did. I was impassioned, but obviously one who allows themselves to be put in such a situation bares some responsibility. Still—Treadwell was the ‘expert’, the trustworthy guide she followed. She would never have been there were it not for him.
I do agree with that—I only pointed out that it was illegal to underscore the stupidity of his actions. I contrast his illegal actions with Panahi’s because the former’s served no purpose but selfishness, and the latter’s serve to point out injustice. Big difference, which is why I took exception to your statement.
I love your last paragraph—it elucidates something missing on many of these threads. Whether any of us convince anyone else of our point of view is utterly meaningless. The more useful point is for people of differing opinions to state them clearly, and for each side to understand where they’re coming from. Whether we agree is completely secondary to reaching an understanding between us.
In this case, we’ve succeeded, respectfully. Feels good, doesn’t it? ;)
House of Leaves
The man died doing [something illegal, something he’d been warned not to do, something that led to his death, and the death of someone who cared about him, and the death of a bear] something he loved.