An interesting commentary on new animal programs with their shifting narrative arcs designed to satisfy human agendas. I think wildlife programs are a double-edge sword. On the one hand it gives us a more intimate understanding of the animal world, on the other hand if further promotes a sense of separation, first by “othering” animals as something “out there,” second by making nature into an entertainment spectacle, and third excluding humans from a relationship of partnership.
AlterNet: Movie Mix: The Animal Kingdom Storms Reality TV and the Documentary Industry:
But for as much as Meerkat Manor sounds like Laguna Beach and Arctic Tale looks like Survivor, such word play might not be enough. Roger Scruton, a research professor at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences who writes widely on animal rights issues suggests we need a new framework for our animal-human relationships. He argues that “negotiation, compromise and agreement” are the foundation of all human communities and that rather than assigning animals rights based on a moral framework, we should give them rights based on how we use them: as pets, food or scientific study.
BTW, if the subject of nature and media are interesting to you, I highly recommend the following book,
:
Guys, We make narratives out of Animals lives, because we are human beings.
This is how we speak, this is how we understand the world, we use language and stories to describe things. This is not new.!
Do not kid yourselves, that there is some sort of “Pure” animal documentary. The very act of making film implies choices that the filmmaker is making. They tell a story. If they didn’t the film would be boring and have no point and no one would watch it. All wildlife films uses several diferent animals to tell their story, including March of the Penquins and BBC Planet Earth. They all have a distinct narrative that is “made up” to illustrate what is happening to these animals. They are representations. There is much science going on today about animal emotion - which is very real. Anyone who ownes a pet can see that. Also in “Artcic Tale” the ice is shrinking and bears have never in their life time had to face the challenges that they currently face. Thats not anthropomorphic thats fact. When bears are cast off from their mom - scientificly it is the hardest time in their life - it’s when most of the sub-adult bears die - fact. There is very little anthropomorism in the movie. Just because it is not written in didactic, scientific languge does not mean that it is not an accurate depiction of what it’s like for bears and walrus living in the arctic today.
First of all, you should know I’m not attacking your film, but just pointing out questions that were raised in the linked article. Perhaps this is a cut-and-paste response against the article I quoted. Secondly, I think it’s valid to challenge our assumptions regarding nature and media. It’s true that animals have emotions, I don’t deny that. I also think a scientific jargon-laden film would be boring as well. But humans symbolize, nature does not. We need narrative, nature does not. I think these are valid concepts to think about. Our media is a product of Western thinking, and Western thinking is not in sync with nature. We do not see it holistically and as a part of ourselves, but as something as separate, a spectacle.