So I saw the film recently and my overall impression was this is the finest work I've seen on the issues, so great job all around on the production of this important film. I thought Phil Glass did a fine job of representing his values and I saw no sign that the director made efforts to put him in an unfair light or slandered him by the typically sensational editing we are accustomed to in documentaries.
My two disappointments with the content I wish the director did better:
1.) There was a vulgar imbecile in the film that had really disgusting hunting ethics. We just saw his deeds, we never got him to define his ethics so the public can assess his motives, not just his actions. Whereas Phil Glass was not an outlyer and had a consistent values system that represented a large demographic, the imbecile was just that, an imbecile. I'm not sure what broader brush can be applied to him that would inform anyone on a reasoanble subset of the population.
2.) The anti commercialized rhino poeople never were compelled to divulge their solution. They were a weak straw man argument but they were not forced with the same rigor as the pro-commercialization camp to explain and defend their position. What solution do they have that is an alternative to John Hume that could be explained or defended to suggest the species can be saved without the pro-commercialization position? Leaving this unaddressed will leave the public thinking there is an alternative that many people prefer but without describing what it is and how they theorize animals will be saved without hunting as a means of funding.
In these two instances I think the general public missed out on getting to the core of some of the issues so they could be informed better.
