I am really tired of a certain type of wildlife movies. Are the edited by rock video editors? Short scenes - 5 seconds or less - and accompanied by rock music.

A few days ago I saw a National Geographic sponsored movie depicting lions in the Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania. Since we are planning to go there next year, I managed go get my wife to see it, too.

But it was such a disappointment. My wife couldn´t watch it because she was blinded by some of the transitions. Believe it or not, but the transitions went to white, giving the impression of a photographic flash in your face.

Then there was the irritating use of music, the short duration of clips and also the stupid narration. The accompaning text was sort of humanizing the lions - "the lioness knew that the pride could face famine if her daughter didn´t help with the hunt" and other stuff like that. The lions was even told to have not eaten for several days when showing them with bellies full of food.

Another stupid line was that some wandering males did intrude in the prides territory "covered by the darkness of the night".

What has happened to wildlife movies?

Am I the only one feeling like this?

You are not at all alone. With the proliferation of natural history and wildlife programming on cable and satellite channels, there is a very real race for ratings.

I went to the Jackson Hole Wildlife film festival and people there talked a lot about the crazy and unnatural depictions of land predators and sharks. I've even heard some people call setup stuff like feeding frenzies "wildlife pornography." A short promo video in contention for some awards was called "ReThink Sharks" if I remember correctly. Basically, sharks are one of the most feared animals on earth, and yet account for a pitifully small number of attacks or even fatalities annually. We can thank more than the film Jaws for our fear of them.

I personally have an aversion to reality based television because it more often than not insults my intelligence and I actually get stupider watching them. Hehe. Unfortunately, that style has made its way into some mainstream wildlife programming.

I honestly think that some of the producers and narrators of these inaccurate or obnoxious programs would have been snake oil salesmen 100 years ago, doing their crazy act to drum up interest and intrigue without a clue what they were actually talking about or selling.

This is the way to do it.

YouTube - The Blonde Antelope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWENTr18u9Q)

RAY,


Thank you ever so much for that linc!!! I laughed so hard!!!

I watched this before going filming for the evening, and I will have to try to get something like that, EH?

Joking aside, I think that far to many films have far to short of clips. People crticise you if you have clips over 5 seconds. Personally, I feel that you can totally lose the mood and the great feeling of being out doors by making it feel rushed!!! Now if you have a multi camera shoot of the same subject in the same shoot then that is all right because of the continuity of action, or in some cases inaction.

Perhaps it is the RUSH RUSH society!!


I agree!!!!!


dale guthormsen


going out to enjoy the even pace of nature and perhaps catch a bit of it on film!!

It's the younger generation. Short or even lack of a attention span. Every day I walk through a park consisting of old grouth timber, unusual fauna, song birds, waterfowl, and small animals like mink. I see something new every day. Sometimes I just stand or watch, or even put my face to the ground. Sometimes I can sit and watch for hours. But, 95% of the people who use the park, are 20 or 30 somethings, jogging along with headphones blazzing away. They have no idea what they are jogging past. They have no idea what's right under their feet, or above their heads in the trees.

Your lucky today's viewers are not requesting computer generated graphical special effects in the nature shows.

The world has changed.......

I do agree David but a significant factor in being there is that your other senses come into play. You can feel the warm/cool breeze on your face, smell the damp grass, hear the sounds around you (better than a mic. can) and of course, we are equipped with superb 3D wide angle vision (one of the reaons that beginners tend to hosepipe). The film maker has to compensate for this and one way is very short clips and obtrusive background music.

Most of my footage is 20 minutes. When making a program of 1,5 hours (DVD) it seems like clips of 5 minutes are not too short and not too long. I have tried it on middle aged people and they love it.

But even young people (12-15 years old) appreciate my different approach with long clips and a fixed camera.

So now the problem is to find the channels that could reach the public in a bigger scale than my colleges and friends. Any tips are welcome.

You might check the kind of footage I am talking about at Pictures-come-alive from LentoVision (http://www.lentovision.com/index_e.htm) .

I can find colleges and friends who will watch long nature clips, and enjoy them. But in the competitive world of television, programs are produced based upon ratings and not artistic content. Only reaching the masses who buy the pizza, softdrinks, and weight loss products seem to count. 2-3 second clips seem to now be the norm, even though they are far to fast for my old eyes. I have heard that many people watch television with a remote in their hands, and will decide within 2-3 seconds whether to change channels or not.

Over the years I have provided nature footage to the Animal Channel, OutDoor Channel, TV Stations, and to some Cable companies. My material would be on television 2-3 times, and then occassionally re-run. Then it's over. It's like giving someone a DVD of some unusual footage that you have just taken and excited about. They look at it go wow, then drop the DVD into a drawer, and never watch again.

I think our future is the Internet. Where content is in cyber space forever. Always out there "fishing" and always available for viewing. I have been experiementing for the past year trying to figure out how to work with the Web. How do get nature/wildlife content in front of the people "who want to look at nature/wildlife content". I haven't figured it out yet, so if anyone has any suggestions?, I would like to hear them. Personally, I would like to see some kind Internet Nature/Wildlife Network created that can somehow montetize content. But, I don't have those abilities or resources.

Currently, I am uploading video to promote my own community of Sitka Alaska. I do it with my own resources, at no cost to anyone. Sitka Alaska Video (http://sitkaalaskavideo.blogspot.com/). I could be just another of one of my experiments that may be going nowhere.

Anyone out there with any idea's?

The average television viewer may eventualy tire of the rapid scene changes, and the industry may begin to swing back the other way. Let's hope so.

2-3 second clips seem to now be the norm, even though they are far to fast for my old eyes. I have heard that many people watch television with a remote in their hands, and will decide within 2-3 seconds whether to change channels or not.
We have got old eyes, yes :-(
It's like giving someone a DVD of some unusual footage that you have just taken and excited about. They look at it go wow, then drop the DVD into a drawer, and never watch again.
Well, I seldom watch a feature movie more than once, even if it is a good one. The thing is that many films craves your attention and if you have already seen it, then something else could be done. I make movies that doesn´t have a plot, you don´t have to see all of it. I call the pictures-come-alive. Have them on your big TV-monitor and use them as paintings - but alive and changing motifs now and then.
I think our future is the Internet. I haven't figured it out yet, so if anyone has any suggestions?, I would like to hear them. Personally, I would like to see some kind Internet Nature/Wildlife Network created that can somehow montetize content. But, I don't have those abilities or resources.
In Sweden I have contact with a guy who is about to start a "channel" for companies. Companies can search and select what footage to show on their intranet. That means I can sell my footage in Sweden and even Europe. The idea fits me perfectly, I hope that it emerges withing the next few months. I will tell you if it does. Maybe the idea will spread to the US.
Currently, I am uploading video to promote my own community of Sitka Alaska. I do it with my own resources, at no cost to anyone. Sitka Alaska Video (http://sitkaalaskavideo.blogspot.com/). I could be just another of one of my experiments that may be going nowhere.

Nice videos, Old Duffer :-)

But Vimeo stutters (I have ≤5 mbps), so it is obvious that our customers need at least 20 mbps or more for us to show nice footage in HD on the internet. How common is that?

The average television viewer may eventualy tire of the rapid scene changes, and the industry may begin to swing back the other way. Let's hope so.
I agree.

Most of my friends are over 40 years old, and hunt and fish. About once a week we cruise the Outdoor Television Networks (3) of them to watch some of the latest shows. If the hunting and fishing show has too much loud rock or rap music, we turn it off.

I think we need to think past television. I believe the Internet will replace television as we know it within ten years. Somehow we must be able to get Nature/Wildlife comtent to the people who are interested in it. A couple of areas may be in the science and education fields. All High School and Colleges are interested in education based video. Education based content cannot consist of 3 second clips in order to be effective.

There are now sites on the Internet that share science video for science research.

There is also limit grant money out their. A person I know In alaska received a grant to develop a video documentry on women hunters.

But, even with all the government money give away going on, not much seems to be direct toward video production.

Interesting comments from everyone. In my opinion the most interesting wildlife films are edited in such a way that they would tell a beautiful story even without narration and music. Of course professional narration will make it more powerful as will the proper use of instrumental. When a wildlife film is produced with rare and exciting footage, a 48 minute program zips by in a flash, however, a watered down film is boring which they may have tried to spice it up with fancy transitions or use short clips scattered here and there. If you see short clips of rare and exciting footage you can bet they had to buy the footage at a premium price of $50 plus per second used and / or the editor didn't have a clue what he was doing. I hate when rare footage is butchered with peek-a-boo shots, than they often have long boring sections of someone standing in front of the camera talking your arm off.

Leon Lorenz
Canadian Wildlife Productions: Grizzly Bears, Bighorm Sheep in Alberta & BC Rockies DVD Videos (http://www.wildlifevideos.ca)

Good views, Leon.

Recently I saw the "Green - the last orangutan". It had no narration at all, which made the footage more powerful. A story created with pictures only. Myself, I had no problems getting everything, but I wonder about non-biologists. Perhaps they needed some more information like "what is that?" - "palm kernels" and so on.

Another excellent wildlife movie was a norweigan about the lynx, slow footage nicely commented by an expert. I will try to get the name of the movie and the maker of it. Update: "Snölejon" (means snowlion) made by Trond Berg.

Besides the catastrophical film from the Ngorongoro lions, I want to lift the film showing the great white shark in South African waters and its intended prey. A long story with short clips and really tiring comments all the time - "why don´t you keep quiet for a minute?".

Thank you all for your inputs - quite interesting ones.

(I have ≤5 mbps) Wow I wish! On this island all I can get is 1.5mbs. Watching HD isn't even a option for me. Funny, I upload my own Video to HD, yet I don't have the opportunity or ability to view my own material. There is no way that I can determine whether my HD clips work or not. 5mbs must be paradise.

My HD-video (1080p) is in 20 mbps (original is 35) and play beautifully with a WD HD-player. And if knowing that your connection probably never really reach 1,5 mbps you need to have a much, much faster one. Perhaps it takes many years before you can watch HD on your island. I feel sorry for you. My choice is one of economy - I could select a connection that works for HD in this capitol of Sweden.

We saw the movie about the Bear Man - and my wife is now even more afraid of filming grizzly bears. But I still have this picture of salmon fishing bears in my mind - I want to film them! After all, this crazy guy was in close contact with them for several years before he and his girlfriend got killed. And I suppose there are a lot of actions one could take to avoid attacks.

Other creatures I want on video are tufted and horned puffins and bald eagles. There is a chance (but very small) that I and my wife could go to Alaska this summer. Anyway, I hope to get to Alaska sooner or later.

I am really tired of a certain type of wildlife movies. Are the edited by rock video editors? Short scenes - 5 seconds or less - and accompanied by rock music.
But it was such a disappointment. My wife couldn´t watch it because she was blinded by some of the transitions. Believe it or not, but the transitions went to white, giving the impression of a photographic flash in your face.

I'm 100% agree with you, there is so many movies like this, currently, that it becomes really boring. It may be ok for police stories, perhaps, but for nature, come on! It' not the purppose. It's totally UNnatural. Can't we appreciate quietly the peace of nature?

I saw a movie about Yellowstone National Park. It was made only with very speed and quick pans shots of the forest and some flashs with a big sound for transition. It seems it was tryng to hypnotize us. WAOW factor but a very poor movie. Because at the end of the documentary I realized that I didn't saw anything of Yellowstone.
I only saw an editor proudly playing with all his NLE's effects.
Yellowstone deserves better than that. Filmmakers should more work ont the depth of their movies and not only on its formal aspect.
I'm sure these kind of movies will be totallly has been in a couple of years.

Sverker Hahn,

The best and easiest place to film Alaska Brown Bear is at Brooks River, where most professional footage has been shot over the years. But, you won't find any solitude. There may be hundreds of people filming and taking pictures of the bears from constructed and fenced platforms. We call the Brooks River Bears "Zoo Bears". It's a highly controlled area, and nothing to fear, except may be some of the people.

The Brown Bears near my home, sometimes within 200 yards of my home, are wild bears that are still hunted, and fear men. We haven't had a human killed on this island since 1985. We have lot's of close calls, but mostly our bears don't like to be near people, and move off quickly.

Here's a short video of a Brown Bear sow with two cubs crossing a small stream near my home. Starrigavan Bears:Sitka Alaska Video (http://sitkaalaskavideo.blogspot.com/)

Thanks for the bear video, David. Just the kind of wildlife video I like.

Yesterday on swedish TV I saw a danish program from the Kalahari. A guy in a motorized parasail was chasing giraffes, kudus and other hoofed animals from 10 meters height. Poor animals ...

Hi guys

Surely what's most interesting is Wildlife films of all types, styles and inflection. - Watch something like Micro Cosmos. Without any real narration it takes you on a wonderful journey that changes pace as the action and content dictates. It doesn't need narration and is great because of it. - But I wouldn't want all wildlife films to be this way. Sometimes I sit down and want to be educated, want to be shown something new and told about new discoveries in behaviour or ecology.

I'm not a fan of overtly humanised series like 'Meerkat Manor' or a like. BUT if that gets a different audience to take in something of the natural world and even care about it in a small way then maybe its got its place.

Many wildlife folks I've met didn't like what Steve Irwin did. But I think he had his place, obviously cared about the natural world hugely and brought wildlife to an audience who'd probably never considered it before. - Surely a good thing !?

Vive la difference :-)

Many wildlife folks I've met didn't like what Steve Irwin did. But I think he had his place, obviously cared about the natural world hugely and brought wildlife to an audience who'd probably never considered it before. - "Surely a good thing !?"

Over the years I have seen many producers come to Alaska and film a eye catching documentary, only to turn their production into a enviromental political statement. Lying to the viewing public in the process.

Producing Nature/Wildlife content for public viewing that is manipulated and untrue, is unethical.

Hi David

I don't really see what your response has to do with the quoted sentance on Steve Irwin. Unless of course youre implying that you percieve his programs to have been 'manipulated or untrue'.

While I agree that wildlife programing shouldn't be 'manipulated' its a difficult line to draw in the sand. If for instance you are shooting insects using a set in studio. This is a manipulated situation but may still represent a true interpretation of the creature and its surroundings and show true to life behaviour.

and how about foley sound !?

While I agree that wildlife programing shouldn't be 'manipulated' its a difficult line to draw in the sand.

Sometimes one could strongly suspect that a film is manipulated even if there is no evidence about it.

I saw a video of a pride of lions attacking af fully grown giraffe. The lions were later eating the giraffe, but the actual kill was not to be seen. I think that the lions really was in captivity, in a large enclosure and that the giraff was put there to get a film of the attack and the kill. I also suspect that the giraff was shot, when the people found that a kill was not immediate, the giraffe was putting up a strong resistance but could not escape.

Even if I think that predator´s killings are among the most interesting glimpses of wildlife, that scene really made me feeling uneasy.

Has anybody seen this or something like it?

My concern is with producers who make false or misleading statements, intentualy or unintentualy. An example would be claiming in a production that a species is endangered when it is not, or ignoring proven local wildlife management policies that have worked in a geographical area for over 50 years. Local control always seems to work best.

Keep the clips long, give the people a chance to look at something, and tell them the truth. I guess that makes me old fashion.

Documentaries try to tell a story, or teach a lesson, or transmit information about a certain topic. Surely no documentary, no matter how hard one tries, is truly without at least some manipulation. The mere fact of chosing which parts of the action to deliver on screen is a degree of manipulation. In addition, no matter how hard we try to be objective, our opinions of what is reality are definitely shaped by current culture and beliefs.

Several have mentioned the problem of ascribing what we have come to think of as uniquely human characteristics to other animals. A recent book by biologist Marc Bekoff and philosopher Jessica Pierce: "Wild Justice, The Moral Lives of Animals" uses scientific data to examine many of the actions of animals and challenges the interpretation as accidental or mechanical and instead suggests that many intelligent animals demonstrate moral behaviour. They cite many examples such as the rat in a lab experiment that refuses to push a lever to get food when it sees that another rat receives an electric shock as a result, or a male diana monkey who has learned to insert a token into a slot to get food helps a female who can't get the hang of the trick.

They also note that primates, elephants, dolphins, parrots and corvids (ravens, crows, jays) all have demonstrated "empathy" both for their own kin and species but also for unrelated species.

That is not to say that these animals are just small not-quite-as smart humans -- far from it, but the traditional philosophical and scientific views that justice, morality, and empathy are uniquely human characteristics are definitely being challenged. As some have suggested, this makes it even more important to be as accurate as possible and to take care not to ascribe anthropomorphic characteristics and interpretations where they do not belong, but at the same time, we should be wary not to dismiss actions that stray into human-like behaviour as having no intelligent or moral basis.

Alan

Keep the clips long, give the people a chance to look at something, and tell them the truth. I guess that makes me old fashion.
Then old fashion rules.

Yeah, challenged by lunitic fringed animal rights minded people with the likes of Tim Treadwell.No doubt card carrying members of PETA.Science with an agenda is fiction at best. Dump the book and take a walk through the real world.

Yeah, challenged by lunitic fringed animal rights minded people with the likes of Tim Treadwell.No doubt card carrying members of PETA.Science with an agenda is fiction at best. Dump the book and take a walk through the real world.Sorry, Anthony, but I do not understand your post. What do you mean?

Hi Sverker,

I suspect Anthony is refering to my post in which I recommend a book discussing the intelligence and behaviour of animals. The context was that documentaries sometimes go way too far in placing human charcteristics on animals while others go too far the other way and view all animals as automatic bio-machines. The book takes an intermediate position and suggests that the beginnings of human characteristics are already present in animals. My post was to suggest that documentaries could also consider that while animals are certainly not human, they may actually display intelligence and even altruistic or moral behaviour.

If I understand Anthony's post, it is to say (without reading the book) that the book is incorrect, that the authors (and possibly me as well) are guilty of carrying out science with an agenda, and are just "lunitic fringed animal rights minded people".

Anthony why not read the book first before rejecting it out of hand? It is actually based on a "walk through the real world".

I believe most people who spend time in the wild with animals come to respect them and to appreciate their place in the real world. I personally don't believe that makes us lunatics or that we thereby belong to a fringe group. At least in my case, I like to keep an open mind and try to make honest observations about the world around us.

Alan

There are good bears and there are bad bears. There are good wolves, and there are bad wolves. Right now we have a bad wolf. It just killed a young school teacher in Chignik Lake., Alaska.

So nice of you, Alan, to speak for Anthony. You might be correct when you translate his strange post to understandable sentences. Let us see if he likes your post.

And I like your thoughts about how we could understand the behavious of animals. One should not humanize animal more than necessary - like giving them names, like researchers often do - and also not make comments that sounds like scientific facts when they are not.

I cannot give any specific examples, but often comments say that animals do this or that because ... and say something that is supposed to be a fact. But often it is just somebody who thinks that it must be an evolutionary advantage to do so.

One example - when males of deers and elks are fighting to get a harem of females it is often told that the winner shows he has the best genes. But the winner is also probaly in his prime age and the loser might just have better genes but is not old enought and has not got the experience. And when the older guy finally is beaten, guy still have his good genes but is not allowed to mate.

If there is no good explaination of a behaviour, there should be no poor explaination. And one should not believe that everything in nature is so perfect and smart.

Sorry guys for my unclear responce, I should have clarified what i was talking about.I have spent most of my adult life in the wild places of this earth. The last eleven years in 7 african counties, mostly in the unicorperaterd parts of Africa with the animals that live there. Correct I have not read the book that you spoke of and should not have passed a judgement on it with out doing so. But I have read plenty of the like and all have distorted wildlife behavior for two main reasons. One, their agenda to humanize wild animals for their animal rights passions. Two, the mistake of becomeing emotionaly attatched to a single animal or subject and losing focus on what really happens in the world of wild spiecies as a whole.In most of these cases the SIENTIST is not studing animal behavior but trying to prove that animals are people too.
I love animals... and often prefer their company over human, and it is only human nature to try and put human emotion and apply anthropomophism to animals.But I have watched a herd of cape buffalo save a young bull calf from lion only to have the very same bull that led the rally, gore and stomp the calf to death 20 min later becuase it was bloody. I have watched hyena pups kill every sibling it has to insure it's place at the carcas. I have seen a leopard kill bushbuck female, leave the cracas at the base of a tree and a male bush buch breed it.Watching baboon males killing and eating a baby baboon,often its own young, not once but on many ocations, leaves not doubt in my mind animals do not posses the same emotional complexity that humans do. when you start to talk about words like empathy and compation and aply those emotions to wild animals you have watched to much Walt Disney . My intention was not to offend anyone and if I did so I appolgize. But so many people take what they read in a book for fact and have no real idea how the world around us really works. I have spent lots of time with film makers in the bush and have seen the way they weave a story line from bits and pieces of footage to create something that didnot happen and would never happen in the wild, to make film more interesting..but fiction all the same, and people take it as fact.
To anthropomorphate animas is human nature, but is completly wrong." One should not humanize animals too much" ....one should not humanize animals at all, it is an injustice to the wild things in this world .
Again I appolojize to any offended I just ge a little crazy on this subject... Regards Anthony

Thank you for your lengthy post, Anthony. Interesting points.

But if a scientist calls an elephant Boadicea it is kind of humanizing, isn´t it? Or is it only to make the animal an individual? I think it is a very smart thing to do when an author wants to make people interested in the beast, as long as it stops with the name.

I agree with you Anthony. I have lived in rural Alaska for 25 years. I see it everyday. Right out my window. Whether it's in the ocean or on the land. It's eat or be eaten. Natures cruelty is unforgiving, and just about the time you think you have something figured out, you get blind sided by some animal behavior that should not be taking place. Do deer eat fish? Most would say no. But, it has been recently discovered here in Southeast Alaska, as bazzar as it sounds, that deer do sometimes eat salmon. Every June in my area, the Bald Eagles kill over 90% of all the young waterfowl. In the fall the Bald Eagles and Gulls feed together on fish. In late winter the Eagle eats the very same Gull. In the spring the Brown Bear feeds along side the deer with it's fawn. A month later the Brown Bear is hunting both of them. The real world is cruel, and very unforgiving. I quit reading the professional produced books because, they are so inaccurate.

I agree Sverker, giving an animal a name to ditigush it from another is perfectly human, espesialy when telling a story. The problem is when a person sees an animal as a individual and has an emotional connection to it from the rest, applying anthopomorphism.They then loose their objectivity when it comes to animal behavior. More often than not the SCIENTIST writing these books are tring to prove that aniamls have human like emotions, not studying animal behavior, and science with a pre determend oppinion is not valid in my book. To believe that animals have complex human emotions such as empathy and forgivness, sympathy and kindness, based on what someone wrote in a book is ignorant.
I'll be curios to see what human emotion they give the captive Orca that just kill his female trainer last week at Sea World...could'nt have been he is a wild thinking animal.

Ahmen David, consider yourself lucky to live in such wildness as Alaska.

Cheers guys...Anthony

Thanks for the reply Anthony and also David for your contributions as well.

Anthony, I am sorry you think I am ignorant for reading that book. I absolutely do not believe something just because another person wrote it. On the other hand, I do feel it is useful to listen to what others think and consider the evidence in the wild as well as from my own experience. Just for the record, I do not believe animals have a human sense of morality or a human sense of empathy. However, I do think those charactersitics in humans came from somewhere. It makes sense that the roots are in the animal kingdom no matter how tough a life they have.

What a great documentary subject this would make: An examination of how trying to interpret wild animals' actions from a human position is misleading. The problem will then be how should a documentary interpret the actions. What is the story the documentary should tell? What does it mean when a deer eats salmon? In fact, why is that bizarre anyway, it just is. Maybe the story is also about making documentaries and how tricky it is to get it right.

Animal "intelligence" presumably suits the needs of the animal's place in its environment. The animal is not smart because the animal is partly human. To interpret this animal intelligence as human is -- just as you point out -- completely incorrect. To deny that some animals are smarter than other animals, however, is just as incorrect. But that "smartness" is not necessarily even similar to human smartness.

I am equally sure you could describe many examples of what a wild dog (or David could describe what a wolf) considers fair in the distribution of food within the pack. It is not the same as a human for sure, but there is a sense of "fair play" in many animals. There are also in those same animals, individuals who do not play fair (they cheat), and in the case of wolves if that individual continues to cheat, it will eventually be shunned by the pack. So in a sense the pack insists on a kind of wild justice -- certainly not a human justice, but a wolf justice instead. The documentary could examine what that means to the wolves and point out that this is not human justice.

Even the word cruel is one that comes from a human sense of moral behaviour. If an animal has no moral sense, it cannot be "cruel" -- intentionally causing suffering for the sake of causing suffering. A lion bringing live prey back to youngsters who then look like they are "playing" with it might seem "cruel" to someone who does not understand that the lions are simply teaching the young to kill the prey they will need as food when they are adults. Although the example may seem gruesome to some, it does illustrate that the adult lion is planning ahead and in some animal way understands the notion of teaching and learning.

And there are examples of animal cooperation ranging from pride and pack attack strategies on prey to cooperative tending of babies by one mother while the others go off to feed or catch prey.

However, the basic question of how a documentary should be presented both from the perspective of accuracy and the best way to present the story would make a great documentary. As Sverker remarks allowing the animal to have an "identity" as an individual can make it easier to present the story as long as it doesn't go any further than a name.

A delicate balance indeed.

Alan

Bravo Alan, Very valid points and a great idea for documentary.I think your correct, there is no cruelty in the animal world. Everything that is done has some purposeful explanation, although I have seen herds of goats killed by one line in one knight in apparent blood lust. But this must have some rational meaning in the mind of the lion, certain it is not killing for the fun of it or to be cruel, which is alone a human trait, just like the other human emotions we try and attribute to animals.Everything that happens in the natural world is so complex to us but so simple the animals that live in that environment and the only way we can understand it is to inject the human equation and emotion. But I think we have completely lost touch with what has made us what we are...the human animal, we're too domesticated.
Wow deep crap LOL.
Seriously,I think it would be a breath of fresh air this idea of yours for a documentary. I would watch it.....Antone

I like turtles!

To believe that animals have complex human emotions such as empathy and forgivness, sympathy and kindness, based on what someone wrote in a book is ignorant.


I'd take that slightly further and suggest that to believe that all humans have complex emotions such as empathy and forgiveness, sympathy and kindness is probably mistaken belief.

Anyone doubting the inhumanity of man has a million non-fiction books to choose from, many of which quote reasonable evidence that diversity has always been with us and that includes inhuman behaviour by humans towards humans. When animals show signs of diversity, among their own species or across species, we need not be surprised.

We do not need another war to remind us of the lessons of the last one.

Hi Brendan,

The best of documentaries examine as many sides of a situation as possible. They also have a solid and often profound philosophical underpinning. Your comments provide a good example of that ability to look at all sides from a solid foundation.

As you say, just because humans have the capacity to show empathy and forgiveness, sympathy and kindness certainly does not mean they all will, nor even that those who do show these charateristics will not sometimes abandon those abilities and go to a very dark opposite, even using the knowledge of what kindness is all about to trap unsuspecting victims. Perhaps if some of the more intelligent animals can display their own type of empathy, it follows that they could also display their own dark side as well.

An exploration of the difficulty for a documentarian to find the correct interpretation of what he or she is seeing might be quite revealing about ourselves and about animals.

There are lots of examples of the more intelligent animals displaying what looks like a sense of animal justice and altruism, empathy and even selfless behaviour in helping others. It is of course highly doubtful that these are identical to what a human might do or feel, but they are examples of that type of behaviour. No wonder the uninitiated might interpret that as "human".

How could one demonstrate the distinction in motivation between human and the animal acts that appear very similar, but which could have a very different basis for the action?

That is definitely a challenge in editing wildlife films.

Alan

Great points Alan and Brendan, all which make prefect scene. There is no animal on earth as cruel as humans. I have watched villagers in Zimbabwe kill Hippo with spears, one of the most brutal and inhumane things I've ever witnessed. Although for food, they did this with no regard to life or the suffering of that life what so ever...in my mind not human.I have also watched hunters kill various game for meat in the village, where the animals quick and clean kill was first and foremost, where an animals suffering turned their stomach. Defiantly both sides of the human coin. The difference is humans are capable of these complex emotional responses and There is no unbiased proof of animals having these qualities, and I have never witnessed any thing that resembles these behaviors in the wild.Where it fall apart for me in with science of these types of animal behavior experts is when you look at there agenda.If you look at Mark Bekoffs affiliations he is a member of some of the most rapid and militant animal rights groups out there..."A boy is a pig is a dog" mentality, where animals are equal in all ways to humans. Philosopher Jessica Pierce like wise. Look, what I'm saying is I can't take the information from scientist or filmmakers with an agenda and assume any of it has an uninfluenced outcome.When someone with the strong emotional bias that animal rightist have, go out with the " need to prove animals have the same human qualities" mind set, will never produce fact in my mind.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, I truly wish the documentary makes of the Hollywood clik mind set, had the same conviction to think things out like you guys.
Animals deserve our utmost respect, even more than some humans, for they are innocent in there place in this world....We are not .
Antone

This topic is really tempting. It is not too hard to prepare an accurate documentary if the subject is about a place, or about a time of year, or how plants work, or even a life history. But as soon as you try to follow an individual animal, or a group of relatively intelligent animals, the temptation is to tell a story. Stories typically have heroes and villains, challenges and struggles to meet the challenges.

The series "Meerkat Manor" is a mix of mostly accurate photography and a clearly anthropomorphic narration.

The "March of the Penguins" is told with no naming of animals and no real attempt to portray them as human characters, yet the story grabs the human emotions and almost demands that you identify with the penguins.

"Arctic Tale" is an accurate filmic depiction of the events, but the narration includes naming animals with cute names and the tale is distinctly anthropomorphic in flavour.

"Happy Feet" is basically a wonderful cartoon with humans shaped like little penguins.

So in our discussion, Happy Feet doesn't pretend to be an accurate documentary. Arctic Tale amd Meerkat Manor are photographically more-or-less accurate documentaries with an anthropomorphic narration, and March of the Penguins is accurate both photographically and for narration, but is constructed so that it feels like human emotions and reactions are involved.

Is it possible for a human being to tell a story about an individual animal or group of animals facing a challenge without getting all tangled up with human emotions and sensibilities?

What documentary would you choose that is the best example of following the adventures of an individual anmal or group of animals that successfully avoids the pitfalls of anthropomorphising or humanizing the animals in the story?

Alan

"When someone with the strong emotional bias that animal rightist have, go out with the " need to prove animals have the same human qualities" mind set, will never produce fact in my mind."


I wonder if the pack wolves that just brutaly murdered the woman at Chignick Lake Alaska last week will qualify for a attorney.......

Hi David,

You, your community, and especially the family of the young woman killed have my heartfelt sympathies. Losing a young person in the prime of life is a terrible tragedy.

Alan

When we call a tragic killing of a human a "brutal murder" we judge the wolves from a human moral perspective. If so, all of the wolfs kills are brutal murders.

---

In Sweden we have 200 wolves. Hunters see them as a threat to their own hunting, a threat to their dogs and sheep owners also lose a fair amount of animals to wolves (and to lynx). 4000 hunters set out to kill 27 wolves in January. There is also a fear of wolves attacking humans in the rural areas.

Brown bear in Alaska are obviously more dangerous than their swedish relatives. Is that so also with the wolf? And I did not think that mountain lion was dangerous to man until I got that knowledge when I visited California for the first time.

All animals have the capacity to attack man or each other. I guess that's why we call them animals.

Hi David,

Human beings are also completely capable of killing each other or other animals. There are rare occasions when human society feels it is OK to kill another human, war or self-defense (including legal executions). But for the most part, killing people think killing each other is not a moral act.

The wolves probably saw the young woman as prey, legitimate food. Human society never really sees any reason why an animal predator should be allowed to kill a human. So it is completely reasonable to protect ourselves against the animal predators either by being cautious and informed or if necessary by eliminating the threat. However, judging the wild animal predators by human standards presumes that they can judge moral acts in identical fashion to a human. I personally doubt a wild animal can make that judgement according to our human standards.

I am unsure exactly how to approach this and the broader subject from a documentary point of view, but it clearly is an important one.

Alan

Why do dogs like some people, and don't like others? A dog decides within seconds whether it likes a person or not. Once a dog makes that decision, it rarely changes it's mind.

How does a dog make a judgement call when meeting a stranger for the first time? I have seen it happen over and over. Expecially with larger dogs or German Shepards.

Something is going on here.

I have seen the same thing with cats or horses. The horses would be stick to me like glue, but would have nothing to do with the person with me.

Aminals are making some kind of judgement. What it is, I have no idea.

I know of no one in my area that has been threaten by a Brown Bear while jogging. But I know of many occassions were Brown Bear have threatened people riding Mountain Bikes.

I agree!

We have enough trouble understanding why other humans do what they do let alone why an animal does something. To understand an animal means you need to know how an animal thinks and what motivates it to make the decisions it does. It is one thing to guess, to make theories, but it is quite something else to actually "know." Very mysterious stuff.

Alan