My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ("Powerful Message but Lacks Focus."). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that "a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.

The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.

The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word "women" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.

Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.

The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a "decide for yourself" approach.

If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them "a chance for a better life," it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it.

Sentiment: negative