I agree there's little point to critiquing the movie until we've seen it, and I doubt anything we said would get much attention until it came out anyway. But, as has been noted, if we wait until "summer," it will be very old news.
I also see little to be gained in criticizing a cartoon for its lack of realism (in avian anatomy, slapstick violence, or other broadly accepted conventions in the medium of animated fables); doing so potentially reinforces an image of us as strident, humorless, politically-correct fanatics.
That's not to say the release of "Rio" isn't an opportunity for consciousness raising. But I'd rather we set our sensitivity bar fairly high and target only misrepresentations that seem so distorted or "evil" that they could cause harm. We can and should use whatever issues the film raises to make broader comments about parrots and parrot welfare. For instance (assuming it's not a terrible film):
"It's great to see a movie with a parrot hero. We appreciate that the film-makers address the extinction of parrot species, habitat destruction, the abuses of animal traders, conservation efforts, etc., etc." (whatever they do decently). "We also appreciate the portrayal of a responsible and caring relationship between Rio and his human companion."
"However, we are concerned that the movie may encourage people to purchase Macaws or other parrots without understanding the tremendous amount of care these birds require. Many large parrots like Rio suffer trauma from neglect by disillusioned owners. Some end up dying from inadequate care or develop severe behavioral problems because of confinement, isolation, and inadequate care. Many are abandoned or surrendered, overwhelming shelters and rescue groups. Moreover, the commercial breeding of these highly intelligent birds is often cruel, as bad as 'puppy mills' in the inhumane treatment the animals receive." (etc. etc. — our standard spiel).
"Please visit the Web site of Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue to get a fuller picture of these problems and their scope; and please check the histories of some of the individual rescued birds, especially Macaws, for examples of the hardships they have suffered. For more information on the problems of companion parrots, we strongly recommend investigative journalist Mira Tweti's excellent book, 'Of Parrots and People.'" (... and/or any other resources we want to recommend)
A basic question to consider is who the intended audience for our comments will be: the general movie-going public? other bird lovers? movie critics?
Speaking of which, does anybody know any of the local critics? Could we get one of our people into an advance screening? Could we talk to the reviewer(s) about some of our concerns? I was very discouraged by Ruthie Stein's review of 'Happy Feet,' one of the better (imho) recent animated animal pictures, which I liked in part because of its explicit consideration of ecological issues — one of the very things she disliked about it (too heavy for kids, she said — REALLY???).
-----Original Message-----
From: "Vincent J. Hrovat" <1217@vhrovat.org>
Sent: Jan 10, 2011 7:30 PM
To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team' , 'Patricia Blau'
Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Rio (macaw movie) teaser
> include such a review in the Fall issue
How about the summer issue. Brain overload here, sorry.
--VH
From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Vincent J. Hrovat
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:26 AM
To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team'; 'Patricia Blau'
Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Rio (macaw movie) teaser
If nothing else works out, we can at least have someone write a review of the movie after seeing it in a theater. Such a review could include a fact check, some background about the “blue macaws” (hyacinths, et al) and could expound in a positive tone on topics germane to our mission and principles.
Since the movie’s scheduled release date is April 8th and our next quarterly newsletter is scheduled for publication on April 1st, it seems that the timing for the newsletter is not good. We’d either need to delay the release of the Spring issue, which is possible, or include such a review in the Fall issue, by which time it would be old news. However, we could instead post the review on facebook, on our blog, and/or elsewhere on our main web page.
Thoughts?
--VH
From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Vincent J. Hrovat
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:27 AM
To: 'Mickaboo media advisor team'; 'Patricia Blau'
Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Rio (macaw movie) teaser
I agree that we will probably not be able to see the movie but, as they say, it won’t hurt to ask. I also think that we will be facing a huge culture gap when we ask them whether the content lends itself to parrot rescue. They don’t necessarily know anything about the reality of what we do, and, since they’ve been up to their elbows in making and promoting this movie for months, they’ll probably be thinking mostly in terms of whether partnering with a rescue will lead to bigger receipts! But, again, it won’t hurt to ask, and more specific questions about captive breeding, etc. may help shape the answers. It’s possible that this type of Q&A will give us enough to make a reasonably informed decision.
I am still inclined to think that:
1.) We should error on the side of caution, which would probably mean choosing not to partner with the movie if we can’t get sufficient disclosure about the contents thereof.
2.) We would need to tell people, politely of course, that the leg shackles displayed in the movie are barbaric, and the “any bird can fly” schmaltz is nonsense. There are almost certainly other examples of bad advice or husbandry in the movie that we may want to address.
So, Patricia, I don’t disagree with your pragmatism / negativity, but, like probably most of us, I hope there’s something here that we can leverage.
--VH
--VH
From: media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org [mailto:media-advisors-bounces@mickaboo.org] On Behalf Of Patricia Blau
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:06 AM
To: Mickaboo media advisor team
Subject: Re: [Media-advisors] Rio (macaw movie) teaser
I would say that we will not get much attention if we insist on seeing the movie before asking for a partnership. I say this from my experience with filmmakers and the industry generally.
Perhaps another way to approach it might be to ask them-- we are a bird rescue involving bird types that seem to be featured in your movie; if you partner with us, we can be another venue for promoting your film (among rescues)-- do you think this is appropriate, or does the content not lend itself to parrot rescue?
If they actually are willing to talk to us (already a long shot), we can inquire whether any part of the movie is encouraging of people breeding birds for the pet market? - and if so, politely back away.
I realize it sounds a bit obsequious, but we are not bringing a lot to the table from a filmmakers' or studio's point of view; even if we encourage our followers to go to the movie, the numbers of potential moviegoers we might influence is simply not on a major-motion-picture scale. If they think they have a huge hit on their hands, they'll think we're unimportant; if they think they have a dog that needs all the help it can get, we may not want anything to do with it anyway.
I'm sorry to be a bit negative about this- I worked in film for 25 years, and not too many people in that industry do much for anyone who can't reciprocate in kind.
p
On Jan 9, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Vincent J. Hrovat wrote:
Here’s a recently-released teaser for this movie:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rio/trailers/11111382 (You have to sit through a short, loud and annoying ad first.)
It consists of many of the same scenes that have been in previous trailers, mostly schmaltz and slapstick. However, this one also reveals that the “blue macaw” pair is captured and stolen by poachers as part of the story (“they must be worth a fortune”), which might make a good platform to talk about illegal trafficking of birds, wild-caught v corporate bred birds in the pet market, etc.
I still think we’d need to see the whole movie to determine its feasibility as a partner, but this does make it look a bit more substantial than what I had previously seen.
--VH