Watching Grizzly Man I was torn between thinking
Timothy Treadwell was insincere in what his real “mission” was, or if he was
completely sincere but also completely delusional. In his videos, Tim often
took multiple shots of himself because he messed up some portion. He also would
do action shots of himself running through the brush as if he were some kind of
action hero. He would take some videos while he was wearing one bandana and
then another when he was wearing a different one. At one point he even said
that maybe some of his shots could be used for a TV show. It was instances like
this that I thought he was in Alaska for more reasons than just to “protect”
the bears and to bring awareness. Yes, he went to schools and made
presentations without asking for any money, but it seemed like he was trying to
make himself famous. Why else would he need to spend thirteen summers with the
bears? Did he honestly think the bears—bears that were on federally protected
land—needed protection? And if he did, did he really think that he could be the
one to do this? It seemed like he thought it would make a good story. He calls
himself the “protector” and the “boss”; deluding himself into thinking he was
needed where he wasn’t. Additionally, although
he claimed he was there to protect the bears, he was actually doing them more harm
than good. One person Hertzog interviewed talked about how Treadwell was
getting the bears habituated to humans by being there, which would actually
endanger them more. Also, Treadwell said that he saved the bears and the bears
saved him. But in reality, the bears killed him, and his death brought about
the death of the bear that killed him. At the same time, there were instances
where you could really see how much Treadwell loved the bears. He spoke about
them like they were family, giving them pet names. It really did seem like he
would rather die for the animals than intentionally harm them.
If I had commented on this blog post before we watched the film in its entirety, I would have had agreed with the confusion you're dealing with. But, by now, I'm starting to see another way to play with the semantics - perhaps he was completely sincere in his delusional bent on self-salvation, to the point where self-salvation coming in the form of self-destruction is no longer a problem. It's a little morbid. But if one were to play along with Treadwell's fantasy of being a samurai, invoking a teaching of Zen tolerance seems appropriate.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the cynical part of me keeps thinking of Herzog's comparison between Treadwell and Thoreau, which is on point, but not because they both genuinely relish the idea of social nihilism, but because they both portray characters that relish the idea of social nihilism. Thoreau himself was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. So was Treadwell, or Dexter. Both seek out nature as a way to escape their "selves" - identities imposed and sustained by humanoid constructions within which they partook til they no longer did, til they wanted to live a life they have never lived.They enjoyed their characters. They were committed to the roles. And they were being productive playing those roles, too. Thoreau, in Walden, gave us what he thought were the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, fuel). Dexter gave us his footage of the bears and the foxes and the pride and the vulnerability of a male character in possession of nothing and everything. Both men are deplorable and commendable for reasons best not ranting on. Yet, the cynical part of me pitied Dexter more because he went full methodical in his portrayal, and thus the line he crossed wasn't just the invisible line between men and bears like what the Ph.D guy was referring to, but also the line between willing ignorance and unyielding infatuation.
Then again, it is Dexter and Treadwell that make the naive part of me wish I have the brilliant stupidity to abandon it all and die for living's sake. Not the kind of human stupidity that Vonnegut sneers at, I don't think. But the kind that makes Vonnegut become Vonnegut the writer, but not, say, Vonnegut a 2-sous-a-copy philosopher.
Hope my rambling makes sense.