NYR More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Wayne Pacelle

Wayne Pacelle

Posted: May 18, 2010 04:00 PM

As someone who grew up with the first and second generations of nature programming in American television, I am a fan of documentaries on wildlife and other animals. Movies like March of the Penguins, Winged Migration, and the recently released Oceans are among my all-time favorites.

A few months ago, Ted Williams, a brilliant columnist with Audubon magazine, wrote a devastating critique of nature fakery in wildlife photography. I confess that I have long viewed certain footage or photographs and wondered to myself, "How did they get that shot?" It seems so hard to get a glimpse of these animals. It seems all but impossible to get this extraordinary, extended footage or these perfect photographs.

Shooting in the Wild by Chris PalmerStill, I see wildlife film programs as a powerful force for good, and so does Chris Palmer, author of Shooting in the Wild: An Insider's Account of Making Movies in the Animal Kingdom.

Palmer's new book is a sharp and searching assessment of the contemporary wildlife media universe from someone who loves the field and wants to see it live up to its promise. It's a passionate plea for whole-hearted conservation from someone who has produced some of the strongest pro-wildlife programming there is. And it's chock-full of good ideas for addressing the ethical problems that arise in wildlife filmmaking.

Shooting in the Wild offers a great short history of the wildlife film genre, from the earliest efforts to the current IMAX blockbusters. A 30-year veteran of nature programming, Palmer presents a true insider's view of what goes on behind the camera, and the challenges of funding, conceptualization, and working with scientists and other experts.

To his credit, though, Palmer doesn't gloss over the difficult subjects; he takes them on, fairly and squarely. His treatment of the deaths of Steve Irwin and Timothy Treadwell, for example, are part of a broader discussion of disturbing trends within the wildlife film industry--trends that involve sensationalism, unacceptable risk-taking, staging of scenes that deceive audiences, and, on occasion, animal abuse.

One of Palmer's most serious concerns is that the popularity of wildlife programming has resulted in the entry of less scrupulous filmmakers into the field, people who are more ready to take advantage of animals for profit. He is especially tough on the so-called "nature porn" and "fang TV" genres, and the recklessness that some filmmakers and on-camera personalities have demonstrated in their quest for "money shots."

Palmer's exposé of the industry's less appealing elements reveals a darker side in which directors use and abuse captive animals to get them to do what they want, when they want it. An increasing number of filmmakers, he argues, are producing films that focus on the most sensational elements of animal behavior--hunting, killing, or being killed--because that is what sells.

Palmer is also concerned about the prevalence of game farms as sources of supply to the industry, and disturbed by the lack of standards and the lack of initiative on the part of filmmakers to reform the sector.

Given his alarming portrait of the recent adulteration of wildlife programming, I was pleased to see Palmer's wonderful vignettes of people who are doing things right in wildlife filmmaking. Palmer singled out The Humane Society of the United States' own Kathy Milani for her work on short-format, small-budget films that have advanced our campaigns, and it's well-deserved praise. For more than 15 years, Kathy has been a pioneer in our efforts to make visual media central to our campaigns and public education work, whether it occurs via humanesociety.org or other avenues.

Shooting in the Wild contains many original ideas about the future of wildlife films as a means for educating the public and shaping popular attitude and opinion, and on the challenges of contemporary technologies like computer-generated imagery. But its real strength lies in Palmer's attempt to articulate a morality of wildlife filmmaking, his recommendations for more skillful, responsible filmmaking, and his thoughts concerning better training, guiding principles and the concept of an ethics ranking system for the industry.

Media has a tremendous influence over the way we humans view the natural world, and wildlife films are essential to the conservation and preservation of wild animals. Palmer's book gives me hope about the future of such films, and I'm delighted with the result of his efforts to distill the lessons of a lifetime's commitment to raising people's awareness about animals in the wild.

This post originally appeared on Pacelle's blog, A Humane Nation.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:43 PM on 05/23/2010
I love nature films as well and would really appreciate the ethics ranking system that Palmer and Pacelle suggest. I already avoid the sensational ones that seem to be the most lacking in ethics and that don't seem to ever have any pro-conservation or pro-animal rights message. I particularly like the nature programs on PBS, as they almost always have great footage that appears, at least to my untrained eyes, to be authentic. They also almost always include discussion of the ways the animals or ecosystems are in jeopardy and what possible solutions can be considered. I think ethics in wildlife film-making is a hugely important discussion to be having and I'm glad Palmer's book is being well received.
02:45 PM on 05/19/2010
Nature films in the purest sense are holistic means of educating the public about the value of the global web of life. I found "Winged Migration" in particular to be a beautiful portrait of various bird species' voyage across the globe thousands of miles to lay their eggs and find suitable habitat for their families. On the negative side unfortunately are mercenary exploiters such as Steve Irwin who invite physical conflict by their manipulative tactics to get higher ratings with the viewing public while they earn lucrative salaries. I could not possibly have sympathy for Irwin, given that he died while attempting to ride on the back of a stingray, any more than I could feel sorry for Ted Nugent if at some point, he would be attacked or killed by one of the nonhumans who he seeks to kill for his own amusement. Such people are textbook examples of why Ingrid Newkirk has been quoted as calling humanity "the greatest blight on Earth" or something similar. I also find it ironic that Ted Williams would write this sort of book that criticizes exploitive practices in the nature filmmaking industry, given the Audubon Society's long history of mocking animal rights activists and denouncing the entire conceptualization of animal rights activism in general. Admittedly, I'm unfamiliar with his work, but I'm all too keen about the Audubon Society's long history of supporting hunting, trapping & fishing, so I'm skeptical of the possibly anthropocentric bias that may orient his presentation of this
photo
Halsey
"There is a price to pay for speaking the truth. T
09:19 PM on 05/18/2010
I can't watch things like fangs, etc....I know nature is cruel..but I can't imagine holding a camera while two stray dogs fight..and making money from the film..instead of throwing cold water on the dogs or something..and yes.how COULD they be in the right place at the right time..I do not want to think of what this could mean..