Professional Documents
Culture Documents
79
Jan-Christopher Horak
Film History: An International Journal, Volume 18, Number 4, 2006,
pp. 459-475 (Article)
Published by Indiana University Press
DOI: 10.1353/fih.2007.0000
Access provided by ULBRA-Universidade Luterana Do Brasil (18 Aug 2014 13:37 GMT)
Film History, Volume 18, pp. 459475, 2006. Copyright John Libbey Publishing
ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America
Wildlife documentaries:
from classical forms to
reality TV
Wildlife documentari es: from classical forms
to reality TV
Jan-Christopher Horak
Take a good look. Were not going to see this
kind of thing much longer. It already belongs to
the past.1
Thanks for vast herds of Bison to kill and skin,
leaving their carcasses to rot in the fields.2
460
Jan-Christopher Horak
part of a campaign of genocide against Native Americans. Almost immediately the nascent moving image
suggested that the remaining species be saved by
placing them in zoos. A Lubin Film Company catalogue comments on Buffaloes Born in the Zoo Gardens (1907): Here is all that remains of the once
numerous buffalo of North America, the species being almost extinct.4
As a casual subject of moving images, animals
have been present ever since Edweard Muybridge
photographed his animal locomotion series, yet
within classical documentary forms, animals have
seemingly remained ghettoized in the scientific and
educational sphere, only intermittently the subject of
mainstream theatrical experience. The filmed adventures of famous explorers, big game hunters, or
scientists (or pseudo-scientists), like Jacques
Cousteau represented exceptions, even if they became box office hits, like the German wildlife film,
Heia Safari (1928) by Martin Rikli, which out performed Fritz Langs Spies in some markets.5 With the
introduction of television and cable, with its insatiable
demand for content, wildlife documentaries have
become ever more popular and ever more numerous. Countless animal film festivals are in operation
these days, giving animal lovers, ecology freaks, and
the movie-going public an opportunity to commune
with nature, whether the Festival International du Film
Animalier in Albert, France, the Jackson Hole Wildlife
Film Festival in Wyoming, the Japan Wildlife Festival
in Tokyo or the European Nature Film Festival Valvert
in Brussels, Belgium. The production of animal films
for television has expanded geometrically with the
establishment of a number of cable channels specializing in such fare, notably Animal Planet, the National Geographic Channel, and The Discovery
Channel. These networks broadcast animal documentaries almost 24 hours a day. There can be no
doubt that these programs are popular, given the fact
that National Geographic Channel has expanded into
dozens of new markets since its founding seven
years ago.6 In the winter of 2006, the French documentary La marche de lempereur (The March of the
Penguins, 2005, Luc Jacquet), which took anthropomorphism to new heights, earned over $80 million in
the domestic American market, making it the second
highest grossing documentary of all time.
In crass contrast to the insatiable fascination
that viewers bring to the experience of viewing wildlife
films, the rate at which animals are becoming extinct
is accelerating, victim of a civilization that places little
461
Fig. 1. Paul J.
Raineys African
Hunt (1912).
[Richard
Koszarski
Collection.]
turned on, until finally the animal falls over and dies.
However, before the elephant dies, it dances in
pain as smoke rises from the burning flesh on its
giant feet. Such horrific scenes were hardly a rare
occurrence in early cinema, since their sensationalism drew audiences in droves. Ten years earlier, the
Edison filmmakers W.K.L. Dickson and William Heise
had shot a series of films about the extermination of
rats: In Rat Killing (1894), a fox terrier is let loose in a
rats nest, the camera capturing a gruesome carnage
as the terrier does its work.10
The perverted visual pleasure in seeing living
things being slaughtered is apparent throughout the
history of cinema and seems to have increased significantly in the late twentieth century.11 While animals
in nature spend much of their lives resting or in static
poses, moving images portray them in ceaseless
activity. This emphasis on violent thrills is endemic to
wildlife documentaries, at least those produced under commercial imperatives, because such images
are perceived to hold an audiences attention. According to Bous:
Anyone who spends time outdoors has probably realized that most real experiences of the
natural world, away from cities and develop-
462
Jan-Christopher Horak
see in such detail in nature, but also helps to create
an artificial emotional relationship to animals. Just
as important is the work of the film editor, since
animals seldom follow directions, while repeating a
scene in nature is also impossible. As a result,
nature filmmakers produce at very high shooting
ratios, then construct specific events through editing,
utilizing images which may indeed have no spatial
and temporal relationship to each other and may
involve dozens of animals, rather than the one example ostensibly being depicted. Indeed, the unity of
space and time is only established artificially through
cutting, much as is the case in classical documentaries.13 It matters little whether the film in question is a
scientific documentary or a nature film that emphasizes entertainment values. What kinds of relationships do they construct between the animals and
audience? Animals in documentaries are constantly
subject to misuse.
Obviously, a scientific film constructs a different set of audience expectations than many entertainment-oriented wildlife documentaries. However,
some animal film commentators have concluded
that wildlife films should not be considered documentaries at all, while others, including Greg Mitman,
note that seeing animals on film cannot be equated
with knowledge of animals in nature, despite the
ideology in classical documentary that equates seeing with knowing.14 Like most classic documentaries,
wildlife documentaries rely on narrative to construct
meaning from disparate shots of nature, and to allow
for viewer identification. In point of fact, wildlife films
conform to most of the tenets of classical documentary as we now understand them: the creative manipulation of real images carrying with them highly
charged ideological texts. As Cynthia Chris notes,
animal documentaries and television are always informed by ideology: The wildlife genre in particular,
and the extra-media discourses that inform it, are
sites of both purposeful ideological work and unconscious elaboration of beliefs so normalized as common sense about nature, animals, race, gender,
sexuality, economic and political formations .15
Only in recent years, as a result of reality shows
have cinema verit techniques crept into the formal
and technical arsenal of wildlife filmmakers, yet
these, too, transport ideology within narratives.
My goal here is to survey wildlife documentaries that have been screened in theatrical and commercial television contexts, while outlining the
transformation of their master narratives in recent
The beginnings
Even in the earliest actualits at the end of the nineteenth century, animals were subjects of interest.
Oskar Messter, the pioneering German film producer, lists four films with animal subject matter in his
catalogue of 1898: Auf dem Hhnerhof (On the
Chicken Farm), Junge Lwen im Zoologischen
Garten (Young Lions at the Zoo in Berlin), Die zahmen
Affen mit ihrem Wrter (Tame Monkeys with their
Trainer), and Der dressierte indische Elephant (A
Trained Indian Elephant).16 As indicated by its title,
the first film was shot on a chicken farm, and, like
numerous other titles in this category from the United
States and France, was probably conceived as a way
of presenting urban audiences with scenes of farm
life. Edison, as well as Siegmund Lubin and American
Biograph, also shot films on an ostrich farm (Ostrich
Farm at Pasadena, 1901), since at the time there was
an attempt to create a market for ostrich meat.17
Selig, meanwhile produced a series of approximately
sixty films in the Chicago stockyards, which visualized the industrialized process of animal slaughter
and meat packaging (e.g. Koshering Cattle, 1900).
The other three Messter titles mentioned
above were shot in a zoo (probably the Berlin Zoo).
As in the case of other actualits, the goal was not so
much the scientific observation of animal behavior as
the creation of interesting views, especially for audiences far from urban zoological gardens. As Kerstin
Stutterheim notes, filming in zoos would become a
tradition.18 Some of the most well-known animal
documentarians in Weimarer Germany and the Third
Reich were either former zookeepers or zoologists,
including Lola Kreuzberg, Wolfram Junghans and
Ulrich K.T. Schulz, all of whom then raised animals
or established film zoos, in order to produce their
documentaries more efficiently. Filmed zoos had
become a global phenomenon by the turn of the
463
464
Jan-Christopher Horak
order clearly underscores the societal analogy. The little state of the bees is organized in
a manner in which the National Socialists
would like to have theirs organized every
member takes his appointed role, without worrying about the meaning or purpose of his
actions. Each role is fulfilled, even if certain
death is the predictable outcome.39
In fact, while the production of wildlife films
flourished in Germany thanks to its ideological function as metaphor for nationalist and fascist messages, the genre languished in 1930s America, the
victim of repeated scandals, as those swirling around
Osa and Martin Johnson.40
Like the Nazi films, many wildlife documentaries made by European and American filmmakers in
the first half of the twentieth century were primarily
concerned with visualizing animals that would have
been familiar to local audiences from their immediate
surroundings and could also function as expressions
of nationalist sentiment. This was also true for the
Swedish filmmaker, Arne Sucksdorff, who, in a series
of films produced between 1941 and 1957, created
intimate portraits of the animals of his native country.
For En sommarsaga (A Summer Story, 1941)
Sucksdorff photographed wildlife around a small
lake during one Swedish summer. The Swedish film
historian Gsta Werner comments on the film: The
individual images are not only beautiful, they are
romantic and glowing in their dreamy beauty. At the
same time, they are surrounded by a dense aura of
465
466
Fig. 4. Disney
True Life
Adventure
photographer,
Stuart Jewel.
Jan-Christopher Horak
467
468
Jan-Christopher Horak
Again and again the film points to the fact that humanity is the only species not living in tune with the
natural environment, while insects are super-attuned, often changing colors or behaviors within a
few generations, in order to better fit in. The insect
world lives only to feed, to reproduce, and to die,
while human beings always behave egoistically. Civilization still has the upper hand, but not for much
longer, the film claims.
In the same year that The Hellstrom Chronicle
opened, Blue Water, White Death (1971), directed by
Peter Gimbel, appeared as the first of many films to
deal with the great white sharks. As the title indicated,
the film depicted an animal who represented both a
mystery and a mythical threat to man. The great white
shark is stylized as a symbol of the unbridled violence
in nature, just as Steven Spielberg would in his fictional feature film, Jaws (1975). However, much of
the film visualizes the hunt of several divers for the
great white shark, while only the last reels of the film
actually show audiences underwater footage of the
shark. As is the case with many modern documentaries, the line between real and fictional scenes is
purposely blurred, in order to stoke the fears of the
audience. The film offers a vision of nature that is both
unpredictable and uncontrollable, while attempting
in its final scenes to prove the opposite.
The demonization of sharks is, of course, an
attempt to control nature through anthropomorphism
at a time when it seems that civilization has lost all
control over the environment. A regressive film like
Animals Are Beautiful People (1974) by Jamie Uys
must also be seen against this background, since it
pretends in the best Disney fashion to introduce the
Kalahari Desert and its wildlife to movie audiences.
As in The Living Desert, the filmmaker succumbs to
the temptation to anthropomorphize every creature
depicted, whether through narration, musical accompaniment or editing. Tchaikovskys Nutcracker
serves as a background for gazelles jumping and
Baboons dancing, while the bobbing heads of ostriches visualize Bachs Toccata, Smetanas
Vltava provides acoustics for crocodiles swimming
in the river, and Wagners Meistersnger gives a
cloudburst mythic stature. The triviality of these musical analogies is on par with the banality of showing
almost every animal in the desert behaving just like
a human being, whether a porcupine that has lost its
mommy or a mother duck that manages to theatrically distract a hyena from her own brood by playing
a wounded animal. According to Bous: the
469
Fig. 5. Animals
Are Beautiful
People (1974),
directed by Jamie
Uys.
Japanese footage demonstrates medical experiments in which a dogs head and legs are attached
to the back of another dog. Finally, the film points to
the fact that Americans abandon twenty million
house pets a year, who then of necessity land in the
gas chambers of the humane societies for lack of
families willing to adopt them. Furthermore, 250 million animals are hunted and killed by either hobby
hunters or professionals working for the fur industry.
Never has so much blood flowed in an animal documentary.
Much more consumable for television audiences was the twelve-part television documentary
series produced by Keenan Smart and David Attenborough for the British Broadcasting Company, The
Trials of Life: A Natural History of Behavior (1990),
which depicted nature in complete harmony in terms
of its structural logic. The film theorizes a planetary
system in which every force is matched by an equally
powerful counterforce, while human beings are depicted as a relatively insignificant element in this
system. The production of the series took more than
two and a half years, during which Attenborough
supposedly traveled 250,000 kilometers. Wildlife on
the planet is minutely dissected, from the tiniest fleas
to the largest primates, as the titles of the individual
thirty-minute episodes clearly indicates: 1. Arriving,
470
Jan-Christopher Horak
males and children who have not taken part in the
hunt, let out a victory hoot. Attenborough concludes:
blood lust and team work is also a sign of human
activity. And because these primates are so close to
humans on the evolutionary chain, the scene has an
uncanny feel to it.
On the other hand, signs of human civilization
are completely invisible in the series, apart from
Attenborough as on camera host. Typical, not only
for this particular BBC series, but for wildlife documentaries in general over the past twenty years, the
narrator is no longer heard from off camera, but s/he
relays her/his impressions to the audience by directly
addressing them on camera. Influenced by cinema
verit, filmmakers foreground their own activity, in
order to also convey a sense of immediacy and
reality, even when much of the surrounding footage
is still captured by traditional documentary means. In
other words, documenting nature is communicated
to be a subjective experience, whereby the narrator
directly relates all the difficulties involved in the production, rather than leaving that task to the publicity
department. During the chimpanzee hunt, for example, the camera focuses both on the monkeys giving
chase, as well as on the narrator Attenborough huffing and puffing, in order to keep up with the hunting
party. Filming is thus integrated into the adventure.
The narrator establishes a personal relationship with
the animals, as well as with the viewers by maintaining eye contact with the camera. The narrators subjectivity becomes that of the audience.
This technique is especially effective in films
where the narrator is directly appealing to the audience to support the work of naturalists and filmmakers, e.g. in Orangutans: Grasping the Last Branch
(1991), made by David Root and Evelyn Gallardo.
Shot in the jungles of Borneo, in areas where the last
known Orangutans still live in the wild, the film communicates a horrifying message to the viewers: Due
to massive clearings of the primal forest, the numbers of orangutans has shrunk to a few thousand.
Soon they will only survive in zoos. The narrator, Betty
Thomas, begins her story of the orangutans with her
own involvement: In 1985 she journeyed to Indonesia
to see these animals in the jungle, before they are
finally exterminated. Since, unlike gorillas or chimpanzees, these primates do not live in social organizations, but rather as solitary individuals, they are
particularly susceptible to attack. As the film documents, the orangutan babies are captured and sold
to zoos in Eastern Europe or to individuals as pets,
Animal TV
In 2006, American television offers animal documentary programming almost 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. Founded in 1996, the cable television network Animal Planet consists exclusively of animal
shows, which in terms of their narrative construction
and style not only mimic regular television fare, but
even parody it.50 Animal Planet broadcasts news and
magazine programs (The Most Extreme on the
Planet), variety programs (Pet Star), crime dramas
(Animal Cops, Houston), reality shows (Jeff Corwin Experience), comedies (The Planets Funniest
Animals), hospital soap operas (Emergency Vets)
and family programs (Thats My Baby). In the Star
Search styled Pet Star, we see trained animals do
their tricks for the camera, with contestants competing, as if on American Idol, while viewers vote for
which animal makes it to the next round. In The
Funniest Animals, amateur videographers send
tapes of their favorite pet tricks. A young moderator
introduces the videos with a few jokes, and then
provides a running commentary over a laugh track.
Twenty per cent of air time consists of commercials
for products that speak to animal lovers, including
cat and dog food from Purina, or Meow-Mix. Insur-
471
Fig. 6. Dolphins:
The Wild Side, a
1999 television
documentary
directed by Paul
Atkins.
472
Fig. 7. Disneys
The Vanishing
Prairie (1954),
directed by
James Algar.
Jan-Christopher Horak
private sphere with private means), thus giving viewers a sense that society is making progress in this
sphere and deflecting any discussion of collective
political action to save the environment.
In Awesome Pawsome (2000) the rescue is
narrativized in slightly different form: four white tiger
kittens are raised as house cats, so that as adults
they will play with their keepers in a zoo. The viewer
experiences their first birthday. Despite now being full
sized tigers, they behave like overgrown kittens, instead of like wild animals from the jungle. Again and
again a narrator off camera emphasizes that if these
cats create sympathy in viewers and zoo visitors,
then maybe tigers in the wild will not be doomed to
extinction. In this non sequitur it is not clear just how
this is to occur, or what the connection is between
tame tigers in zoos and wild tigers in nature, possibly because the camera remains exclusively focused on the cuddly tiger children. The rescue of
tigers from extinction, this program, too, tells us, is a
matter of setting up zoos and wildlife parks. In
Crocodile Hunter Diaries (2002) Animal Planet visited the large private zoo of the late Steve Irwin, who
became a celebrity through his show and his insurance advertising. Both Steves wife and new child
were also actors in the show. Indeed, Iwin made
newspaper and television broadcast headlines when
on camera he held his baby in one hand, while
feeding a crocodile with the other, thus exposing the
baby to an unnecessarily dangerous situation.52 But
mostly this show dealt with house-keeping matters
in Irwins Australian zoo, like training camels not to
spit at guests or cleaning a forty-foot python, while in
his other show, Crocodile Hunter, he went out in
Notes
1.
2.
3.
Michel Foucault, Of Other Spaces (1967), Heterotopia, first published as Des Espace Autres, in:
Architecture/Mouvement/Continuit, October 1984,
translated
by
Jay
Miskowiec,
http://fou-
cault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.hetero
Topia.en.html
4.
Quoted in the AFI Catalogue of Motion Pictures Produced in the United States, Film Beginnings
18931910 (London/Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow
Press, 1995), 129.
5.
473
474
Jan-Christopher Horak
6.
7.
8.
See
Redlist
table
for
Primates:
http://www.redlist.org/info/tables/table4a
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Why Look at Animals? in John Berger, About Looking (London: Pantheon Books, 1980), 19.
23.
Charles Musser with Carol Nelson, High-class Moving Pictures: Lyman H. Howe and the Forgotten Era
of Traveling Exhibition, 18801920 (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1991), 205.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Michael Tteberg, Wie werde ich stark. Die Kulturfilm-Abteilung, in: Hans-Michel Bock and Michael
Tteberg (eds): Das Ufa-Buch (Frankfurt am Main:
Zweitausendeins, 1992), 65.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Georges Sadoul, Geschichte der Filmkunst (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1982),
286. German translation of LHistoire du Cinema
(Paris: Editions Flammarion, 1955).
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
475