The film examines the nature of those who participate in whistling events as much as it looks at the act of whistling for what it gives to those who whistle. In creating a setting and providing a framework, the filmmakers give context to a part of life through its mundane and through the extraordinary.
As the documentary gives moments to those who whistle, the interesting takes on the topic of whistling are explored through interviews. One man has an affinity to birds and seems to be able to communicate with him. As he tells his story, the nature of his life unfolds through the beauty of this skill. How he does what he does is not clearly given, but that he does it creates a certain type of magic spell as he relates his story. That spell is grounded, however, when it is realized that what he does for a living is kill chickens.1 This contrast is startling and has a bit of dark humor when it is considered. Another interviewee lists off a series of tragedies that have occurred in his life, including having lost everything he owned to hurricanes, not once, not twice, but three times in his life. These tragedies are offset by his claim that whistling gives him a way to forget his problems.2 He imbues the nature of whistling with a power to heal, his way of getting through the tragedies he relates.
The New York Musical Gazette states of whistling that “as a rule, a ploughboy will outstrip any well-bred man in whistling. The reason is, probably, that he is never haunted by a sense of the ridiculous”.3 This point of view, the sense that this is a common man sort of pastime is the focus of the film, giving ordinary people with an extraordinary gift a moment to present what they can do to the public. The nature of revealing such a skill in this type of film is defined by the way in which the people tell their stories. As the editor cuts the excerpts, he is creating a sense of how this