Trophy (I) (2017) User Reviews (14)

conservation and commerce

[ferguson-6 · 8/10 · 27 September 2017]

Greetings again from the darkness. Totally unexpected is a documentary on big game hunting that doesn't come down squarely on one side of this argument. Co-directors Christina Clusiau and Shaul Schwarz do an admirable job of laying out the facts and leaving the viewer to contemplate how these moving pieces create a blurred line between conservation and commerce.

Expect a couple of scenes that might be difficult to watch – after all, it is a documentary on hunting animals. There are plenty of facts and statistics provided, with one of the most staggering being since 1970, the world has lost 60% of its wild animals. Rhinos alone are down from 500,000 to 30,000, and we meet a rhino breeder who has devoted his life and fortune to saving the species. On the surface, his stance seems difficult to debate, but African law prevents the sale of rhino horn, which means this breeder is sitting on millions of dollars of warehoused horns, while poachers profit by picking off his animals and selling the horns on the black market. Not so clear now, is it?

Additional segments involve elephants, alligators, and other species. We visit the massive Safari Club hunting convention in Las Vegas, as well as stock auctions where breeders battle over the next generation. The safari clubs argue that much of the money big game hunters pay is distributed back into the conservation efforts of the country, though the corruption of politicians can't be ignored.

The contrast between shooters and hunters, killers and sportsmen, is noted and legitimate detailed information is provided. Focus goes to the "Big 5": hunters trying to bag each of water buffalo, leopard, elephant, lion and rhino. The process is slow and expensive, and the three affected tentacles – hunting, breeding, conservation - have evolved to facilitate the future of the species and those dependent on the industries.

Hunter's remorse is admitted, as is a connection to the animals by the otherwise stoic and businesslike breeders. When one hunter quotes the bible in saying that man shall have dominion over animals, it's a reminder that no matter one's stance on these topics, there is always an argument to be had and a defense to be made. The still unanswered question is, can the industry be run in a manner that allows the animals to survive, the villagers to benefit, and the vendors to profit? In theory, this seems doable … but reality and self-interest often destroy best intentions.

Killing Saves Nothing

[thirtyfivestories · 6/10 · 4 October 2017]

Is killing an essential ingredient in conservation? Big game hunters argue that the hunting industry provides the largest refuge for endangered species. Paradoxical and controversial, this notion has birthed an African goldmine: Zoos with a twist, murder vacations with live souvenirs.

A pricey gift shop of blood thirst, hunting resorts offer a controlled and abbreviated experience of inter-species domination. Some defend the slaughter party with an ancient book, others with a love for the very animals they auction off to North American bullets.

Outside of these death camps, lay sanctuaries that bleed money rather than bathe in it. They too are sitting on a goldmine, however. Their goods just are not as easy to push. The resorts believe selective killing will ensure a species' survival, while the sanctuaries engage in non-lethal harvesting of the majestic animals.

Both parties take in order to preserve. Whether lives or horns, these operations require revenue to fund sustainability. When these two pools of thought intersect, an ugly debate sparks, and the well- being of the animals gets pushed more and more to the periphery.

Hunting is becoming less and less a sport as the commercial appeal grows. But was the sport ever rational? Did it possess an ecological merit? The dangerous five have their nomenclature for good reason. Perhaps wildlife does require a sportsman's buffer to protect native's livelihoods.

Industry shapes legislature. A brutal reality that puts wild animals' futures in the balance. Humanity has ascribed themselves with the responsibility of protecting these beasts. A noble pursuit that has brought division and bickering. Humanity is most concerned with their own offspring, no matter how much it preaches conservation.

Trophy hunting from an American point of view

[geo_pahas · 7/10 · 20 November 2017]

I watched this documentary in Amsterdam documentary festival. It is certainly very hard to watch and the director(s) have made a good job shooting this film.

In our case they were present on the screening and in the short discussion that followed they confirmed my view that they approached hunting and conservation almost exclusively from a financial point of view. Also the co-direct (who is American) mentioned in the discussion that there must be a financial intensive to preserve wildlife. This might be true when the human habitat extends to the animal one but the conservation discussion should not be based on financials but on the greater cause of animal survival. There was certainly no such intensive for thousands of years and i wonder why it should be now. There is absolutely no justification on killing an animal to make a selfie with it.

For reasons not entirely clear, they failed to mention in the film the ban of all hunting in Botswana since 2014. A close view to what is happening in that country might give some answers to the good questions posed in this documentary.

Having said that, it is a must see. I was even convinced (to a certain degree) of Mr. Huume's initiative.

No justification for this "sport"

[bettycjung · 22 February 2018]

2/22/18. There is just no way to justify the senseless slaughter of wildlife by saying quoting the Bible and saying man has dominion over Earth. Please! Really? And, talking about crocodile tears shed by the hunter who just had to kill that one-of-a-kind lion just for a trophy. I can understand if you hunt because you need to eat, but to just shoot animals for sport is heinous. It's just blood lust. And, then another one had the audacity to justify hunting as leaving Earth a better place. Really? How does slaughtering animals for sport leave this Earth a better place? Despite my dislike for such hunters I found this documentary to be worth watching.

An Excellent Portrayal of the Emotional Issue of Big Game Hunting

[JustCuriosity · 9/10 · 11 March 2017]

Trophy was well-received at the SXSW Film Festival last night. It presents a surprisingly nuanced picture of the complexity of a subject that is usually viewed through memes and brief clips about the killing of Cecil the Lion. The filmmakers provide a nuanced and complicated explanation of the issues around the economics and conservation of wild game. They spent a long time filming and interviewing some of the participants in this complex industry. They clearly show those who are there simply to assuage their egos – and usually their masculinity – by killing lions and rhinos. They show those who seek to profit off of commodify these beautiful animals. But they also show those who are trying to save these animals and sometimes are doing so in surprising ways. The positive effects on the local African economy are also worth observing. I was particularly intrigued by John Hume who has preserved hundreds of rhinos, but is trying to sell the rhino horns (which are removed from living animals) in order to support his rhino preserve. Ironically, the laws that are designed to save the rhinos by banning the sale of the horns are creating a black market and may be endangering them.

I can't say that I came away more sympathetic to the big game hunters who seem to be killing wild beasts more for their own pleasure than to help conserve them. Human beings need to live in greater harmony with these great animals rather than kill them for sport. It isn't sporting and it isn't fair competition. I don't see how the benefits outweigh the costs. Living creatures shouldn't be murdered as commodities of the market.

The filmmakers exploration is commendable. They are trying to educate the public on a complex issue. The African filming in South Africa and elsewhere is beautiful. I did find that it ran a little long and probably needs to be shortened from its current 108 minutes. The film is scheduled to run on CNN and I hope that it gets a wide audience which begins to help those on either side of a polarized issue begin to re-examine the complexity of the situation so that we can work to better preserve these animals and regulate their environment and protect them from poachers and others seeking to exploit them for ego and profit.

Riveting but often hard to watch

[howard.schumann · 9/10 · 13 March 2018]

Directed by Shaul Schwarz ("Aida's Secrets") and Christina Clusiau who is also the cinematographer, Trophy is at riveting but often hard to watch documentary that examines the debate between hunters, breeders, farmers, and wildlife conservationists over species preservation, ultimately allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusion. The issue of trophy hunting became a leading news story in June 2015 when Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer killed a male lion named Cecil, a popular tourist attraction, outside Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park, setting off worldwide protests. Though many argue for the banning of all trophy hunting, others contend that legal, regulated hunting can benefit conservation, support the local population, and stop the accelerating loss of species due to poaching.

The position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to support "legal, well-regulated sport hunting." For the hunter, killing an animal is a source of pride, a knowing that they are carrying on a tradition romanticized by Theodore Roosevelt and Ernest Hemingway. The goal for the hunter is killing as many of the "Big Five' - buffalo, elephant, leopard, lion, and rhino - as they can. The film shows, however, that there is no longer anything romantic about big game hunting. It has become a commercial enterprise where people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to kill the animal they buy at auction during yearly conventions. According to the film, the going rate for a 14-day, single elephant hunt is about $80,000.

One of the film's "good guys" is John Hume, who runs the Buffalo Dream Ranch in South Africa as a sanctuary for Rhinos. Home to 1,500 rhinos, Hume strives to breed two hundred new ones each year. Using a stun gun to tranquilize the animals and remove their horns without killing them, he claims that this action protects them from poachers who will kill them for their horns, which can bring in millions of dollars in some Asian markets. Unfortunately, however, he cannot legally sell the horns and complains bitterly about all the restrictions. Another of the film's main subjects is sheep rancher Philip Glass (no relation to the composer). For him, hunting has always been a part of his life.

He talks about his love for the animals he kills, saying that the bible tells him that man shall have dominion over the animals, a passage he claims gives him a license to kill without feeling guilty. One can only wonder at the thought process that equates loving an animal with putting a bullet through its head. Chris Moore leads a campaign against poaching in Zimbabwe, trying to protect elephants but we later find out that Moore works for hunters, earning fees that ostensibly support conservation efforts. The film maintains an "above the battle" approach but occasionally reveals its point of view. One woman says that she does not mind killing crocodiles for handbags because they are so mean.

We see a different view of the menacing animals later in the film, however, when the camera zooms in the eye of a crocodile bound for transport that says all we need to know about the importance of handbags. If we learn one thing from Trophy, however, it is that hunting is a thorny and complex issue which does not lend itself to simple solutions. Even someone whose job it is to protect the wildlife knows that there are times when he has to kill an animal to protect the local people from predators or simply because there is a need for food. His feeling, unlike the exhilaration of the hunter, however, is one of sadness and remorse. In one scene we see lions attack and kill a family's livestock, an act that prompts the family to move its last cow into their home and also puts their own lives in danger.

In spite of the moral ambiguity the film reveals, the fact is that wildlife populations in Africa are declining. Scientists believe that Africa may at one time have held as many as 20 million elephants; by 1979 only 1.3 million remained -- and a recent survey found that, in the seven years between 2007 and 2014, the numbers plummeted by at least thirty percent. Not only African elephants are threatened, but the population of rhinos and lions are steadily decreasing. The culprit is not any one group or way of life but a system that looks at animals as a commodity with a price tag, not as sentient beings whose life is sacred. In that regard, we can thank Schwarz and Clusiau for allowing us to look at the options that are available to preserving these species before they exist only in historical photos we will one day show our grandchildren.

A fascinating exploration of moral ambiguities

[gholderbach · 7/10 · 23 June 2017]

It's always neat when a documentary takes the audience's preconceptions and uses them to reveal their ignorance. The film will punish the audience for judging too quickly by deliberately omitting information and revealing some unseen truth that changes what was already shown. This film will make you feel like a hypocrite and it completely reinforces the film's message. Beyond the superficial topic of hunting, this film is ultimately a cautionary tale for what can happen if people make uninformed opinions, and it certainly has the power to move people in that direction. It's incredibly entertaining watching a sprawling web of moral ambiguities unfold, even if it gets so dense that even the filmmakers seem incapable of navigating it. The film certainly asks a lot of questions and asks them in an exceptionally articulate way, but the film can't seem to offer anything resembling a definitive answer.

You know you will be moved emotionally even before seeing this

[stevojaxon · 9/10 · 10 February 2020]

Big game hunting will go the way of smoking. Hopefully any form of hunting where a rifle is used 'to give an animal a fighting chance', will also stop. As a sport it's time has passed. This documentary is good in that it allows for the differing points of view to be expressed. I am a Christian and I understand when the hunter, who shoots the elephant and the lion at the end, quotes the reference to the Bible that states man has dominion over the animals ... but screw such Christians ... I'm glad I get sick and tired of listening to this statement in reference to a blood sport ... that screwball is crying at the end as he crouches by the lion he has just killed; psychopathic tendencies requiring emotional release through killing a living creature ... dominion over animals in this situation is a lie and shameful that he believes it. I'm an Aussie so I watch with some interest the fat, emotionally backward hunting fraternity foam at the mouth about their next kill ... most of the portrayals are about American hunters ... what's wrong with them and their love of guns, killing animals that are innocently grazing? They are ugly. In Australia we do just fine with a highly restrictive access to gun culture. In Yankeedoodledandy land they have the 2nd Amendment which inevitably is quoted endlessly as a right ... just straight out psychopathy. During the production the hunter lamely accuses the protesters against said blood sport of eating chickens that someone else has slaughtered for them ... of course this is going to be quoted. It always is. However it doesn't change anything about the unfolding attitude towards killing wild animals for sport and trophies. What's wrong with the mentality of people who love weapons, love killing and generally can't find any other way to express themselves? Is this the 18th Century? I can't help hate these hunters which leads me to hating all countries that engage in weapon worship and justify it with 'rights' and self defense manifestations and possibilities. It's disgraceful. The one thing I really liked is the tough guy with tattoos who was visibly unhappy with the dentist who shot Cecil the lion. Someone like him is going to attitude assist these dumb hunters, who stupidly allowed themselves to a part of this documentary and make themselves known ... how careless!

I guarantee you, this will make you think!

[FilmFlowCritics · 8/10 · 21 November 2017]

Hands down, one of the best openings of any documentary I have ever seen! I won't spoil it for you, experience it yourself. No matter how you feel about hunting, this movie drags you in from the first second on and will not let your eyes allow to blink just once.

Before seeing that movie, I was disgusted by people, who kill animals for fun. I was asking myself why do they do it, why do people let them do it and so on. I must admit, this is only half of the story. My opinion on hunters is still the same, so this doc didn't changed my view on hunters, but on hunting, especially the "big ones" that you can find in the press so often.

This movie is not an easy one to watch, especially if you love animals, but believe me, its totally worth it! You will meet people with different views and stories and will follow their life for a good bit, trying to understand their motivations and getting a deeper look into the hunting industry. Ideally you can walk away from this movie with more knowledge and you will understand the dilemmas that this industry causes.

For me it was one of the best documentaries I have seen in a while and even if this doesn't look appealing to you from the trailer on, give the movie 10mins and you will be soaked in by the information, stories and cinematography.

Sick, sick, sick...

[Pelezinho84 · 10/10 · 20 August 2022]

Extremely hard to watch. It is almost beyond belief... A bunch of wealthy morons pays millions of dollars to go to Africa and shoot animals?! Just look at the excitement and the thrill in their eyes while they are killing those helpless creatures. They come with a full entourage, rifles and shoot from safe distance... I hope at least one of them will get eaten by a crocodile or a lion. It doesn't get sicker than this...

This film answers nothing and is devoid of fact

[rian-geldenhuys · 1/10 · 8 August 2017]

The main problem is that it kicks off on a false assumption. That wild animals are a "nuisance". Quite simply - in 90% of countries that do not allow hunting wild animals are no more of a nuisance that noisy car stereos.

Total waste of time to see it. No spoilers here.

Game farms reduce biodiversity by killing off all snakes, alarm birds, predators, moles, aardvark and any other animal that may spoil a luxury trip for amateur hunters - while keeping only specially bred animals - not found in actual nature.

The film is best summed up in the film's own social media pages that showcases captive breeders and horn traders. It is a glorification of Single-Specie breeding farms such as John Humes dusty breeding facility where he breeds tame rhino without a single thought given to biodiversity.

While the filming is indeed beautiful - Mr Schwarz is very talented - he could have covered other angles too.

ZERO STARS

[janieleahy · 24 November 2019]

Philip is repugnant and should be sectioned. His kind will be extinct and all hunters beware for there will be vindication for the animals they have hunted in vain. just sickening and inhumane cruelty that money supports. TROPHY HUNTING MUST END.

Great documentary

[ondoin · 9/10 · 26 January 2019]

Showing just facts and not taking any side. Nobody can deny what is going on in Africa and the collapse of wild life in general.

Eurpoean cut flower purchases kill way more African Cecils

[VoyagerMN1986 · 1 February 2018]

Look I am not a supporter of trophy hunting, but really this is another rin a long line of skewed documentaries that dies not come close to looking at the real cause of loss of African megafauna -- habitat loss .Keyna is now the largest exporter of cut flowers, and huge amounts of both savanna and forest has been destroyed to support that industry. An industry that also uses massive amounts of pesticide. Land, wildlife and ecosystems and biodiversity destroyed and not even for food growing. S. Africa nad Namibia 1/3 of all ciut flowers sold in the EU come from Kenya, with hundred of thousands of hectares of former wild areas fenced in and altered to do it. Wetlands and watering holes where wildlife drank are now fenced off. in 1990 8% of all of Europe cut flowers came from subsaahran Africa, now 70% do. The fact is the hunting being mentioned isn't primary, secondary, or even tertiary cause of loss of megafauna, it literally has no effect whatsoever since the megafuna is already dying of overconcentration as habitat is lost. If an area can support 400 lions and there are 600, having 50 hunted is not harmful. If the funds are used to buy more habitat to keep natural, it is a net benefit. And the conflation in this documentary of poaching with hunting is really terrible. Poaching is illegal taking of animals outside of scientifically derived quotas and generally involves killing of animals that are not over-concentrated.