Ethics of Wildlife filming
 

Thanks Brian for clarifying the matter and attempting to differentiate 'Grizzly' from the crock and snake stuff for me; is Herzog one of your favourites.

I agree with you completely about being committed to your subject. The notion of an alchemy in your craft draws together the subject with his film maker in a completely intimate embrace, which in time should result in a higher synthesis. Thereby, we are always in the process of becoming.

When I referred to a 'myth maker', I was trying to differentiate an ideal of film making, which went beyond the prescriptive Archetype and truly touched the humanity or natural character of the subject. Obviously, since we are all so wrapped up in mythology, we are always being presented with a fusion of metaphysical and material entities. However, my experience of Archetypal possession in the human field leads me to understand that it is characterised by a sort of 'inflated drama personality'. The reason I mentioned Jung's anonymity factor is because of a tendency for famous humans to personify, or, more to the point, be possessed by archetypal forces. It seems to me that, the more famous a person becomes, the more open to this type of inflation they become. In the UK media and politics, it is so clear to me that this process is taking place. Symptomatic of this transformation, is where the individual politician unconsciously starts to change so as to personify their public image. In effect, they become a caricature of themselves. Politicians seem most prone to it, though TV presenters are also implicated too - it's as if the clothes they are wearing don't quite fit. I see it is a sort of archetypal imprinting and as such it enthrals both subject and audience alike. I believe most people not only like stereotypes and icons, whether of the human or the animal type, they actually crave them. Its as if they are attention seeking children, who having been given some goodies to start with will subsequently put up with all manner of other less appetising stuff because it comes from the same source.

I am basically talking about the craving for recognition that most people want and that includes film makers, whether in the social or natural history field. Many will bend to the prevailing wind in what they try to achieve and in the process cross the line. They know when they are doing it, but by habit they will become less and less sensitive to the impact that it creates with their subjects. The purity and innocence of natural history work mostly immunises against this, but the perseverance of scenes of death, where time after time we are shown antelope being dragged down by animals of prey, is just pandering to the morbidity of an anaesthetized public and achieves nothing more for the subject. I heard recently, through the trade, that around some water holes in Africa you can't point a camera without getting another crew in shot - this is the sort of pressure I am talking about with the phrase 'prevailing wind'.

I have given up a career in which I sometimes met and photographed famous people to go back to my first pure love: Nature; but even here it seems I am pursued by demons from the past.

Rod Compton

P.S

In the UK we satire ruthlessly to slay as many inflated icons as we can put our pens to. In the UK a certain world politician and a primate are often compared. I have to recount a pair of pictures I recently saw in a magazine in which a famous politician was being lampooned by comparing him with his comedic equivalent. No, it was not the current world leader, it was Picture Post, Summer 1939 and of Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin.

I was going to comment on the Grizzly Man but on the page provided by Jacques we get:

Starring Timothy Treadwell, Amie Huguenard

'nuff said...

Actually, Jacques, Herzog didn't shoot any footage of Treadwell; I don't believe they ever met. Treadwell routinely carried a VX-2000 camcorder and a tripod with him on all of his sojourns to grizzly country. Treadwell shot hours and hours of DV tape of himself before he died. Herzog edited the movie from Treadwell's tape, supplemented with new interviews with Treadwell's friends, family, opponents, game wardens, coroners, etc. And yes, there is quite a bit of discussion about the risk to the bears Treadwell was creating.

Rodney, I think Werner Herzog, Errol Morris and Les Blank are the holy trinity of modern documentary filmmaking, so yes, Werner's one of my favorites. Though, I should note, I don't care for Herzog's fiction films nearly as much as I like his docs.

I think you're right; people do like stereotypes -- they're easy to understand and very convenient. What I have always found fascinating, and one of the reasons I do documentaries, is that EVERYONE and EVERY situation is far more complicated than the convenient stereotype would have you believe. There's a Zen koan that says "All categories are wrong." I think this applies to animals as well as people. You spoke of ego-centricity: what could be a bigger egocentric fault than trying to make animals appear like humans?

I have a couple of ideas about some wildlife docs I'd like to do; they all involve commonplace animals people see every day in suburban environments. I'd like to explore the complex, hidden life of these critters that everyone thinks they know well.

The Ethics of Wildlife Shooting
 

Oops -- double post.

THanks to this thread I made my girlfriend rent "Grizzly Man" tonight.

Fantastic! I look forward to the sequels: "Great White Man", "Crocodile Man" and "Tiger Man".

Even if the filming is done with all due regard for the welfare of the wild subjects, the results can still be diastrous. Last Novemner the BBC broadcast a film about a pair of Eagle Owls that had been nesting in the North of England for twenty years. From what one could see of the broadcast, the filming had been done to the highest ethical standards, and the birds appeared unaffected.

Efforts were made to conceal the whereabouts of the birds' territory by including a shot of a conspicuously shaped hill some 25 miles from the site ( I think I recognised the location of the nest site). This hill was carefully chosen as it was said in the film that the nest site was on Ministry of Defence land. The hill is close to another area of MOD land.

The male bird was found dead early this year. Initial reports were that it had been shot, though subsequently other reports have cast doubt on this.

I suspect that if the film had not been made, the bird would not be dead.

Interestigly during the film more than one "wildlife expert" who was interviewed took a very negative view to the arrival of these birds in the UK. The allegation was that they were released pets! There is clear evidence that the Eagle Owl is extending its range in Europe naturally.

Ethics of Wildlife filming
 

Hi Alan

What a tragedy. I have long held the view that there is almost an unwritten law of the opposites, that as soon as something wonderful enters general consciousness, its negative aspect will follow suite. I have expressed this view privately to another member on this site, who I think shares a similar range of sensitivities: 'to drag all that is sublime into the dust' - these are the risks we run by revealing the beauty of nature.

I think some of our American friends would be aghast at the horror stories that constantly pour from the Highlands of Scotland, where barbaric gamekeepers regularly persecute some of Britain's most majestic creatures to the tune of a 'slap on the wrist' from a court if they are discovered.

What is needed in our overcrowded Island is a more coherent practical approach to conservation. We need to get real about the abuses that are going on, and I can't see that happening while the official bodies are populated by volunteers, do-gooders and nice guys, who are being ridden roughshod by career politicians that have degraded public office to a semi-media circus.

In the meantime, I am considering very carefully how much exposure my latest film will get, since it concentrates on a creature in a very public breeding site. Thanks Alan.

Rod C

Alan,

I think to say (that we need to get real about abuses) is maybe an over statement judgeing by the number people belonging to animal groups..
There are many organisations highlighting abuses and lawbreaking here in the Uk. The RSPB, RSPCA, League against cruel sports, Badger Federation etc all these have full time paid staff. The first 2 also have investigation units.
Most Police forces have Wildlife Liaison Officers (I being one before I retired 8 years ago). If it were not for the the public and volunteers drawing abuses to our attention then the prosecutions that do happen would not have come to court in the first place.
I have to agree with you that enforcement needs to come higher up the agenda. this can only happen when, as you say, it becomes politicaly topical to do so.
The Metropolitan Police have a very strong section dealing in wildlife crime, not only for crimes commited in this country, but working closely with organisatons abroad and enforcing CITES regulations.
Worldwide wildlife crime is second to drug crime and therefore a major issue though out the world.
Please do not under estimate what is already being achieved in this field. There are several egg collectors and gamekeepers who have either been imprisoned or heavily fined as well as a well top London store prosecuted for selling Shahtoosh. The metropolitan police wildlife unit web site is well worth a look.http://www.met.police.uk/wildlife/ne...docs/index.htm
On lighter note getting back to ethics and disturbances I have just returned from Kenya where in the reserves it is sometime like rush hour with the number of vehicles chasing around. We were watching some distance away fr a converging group of vehicles wathching two lions stalk a Zebra they were crouched low creeping through the grass that deliberately detoured so they could get the vehicles between them and the pray, where they promptly rose and used the vehicles as a sheild to get even closer to make their attack.
The irony was not lost on me that we can also be used by animals to their advantage.

Ethics of Wildlife filming
 

Hi Mick

Thanks for that repost, and I have to agree that the police are doing a great job - as are the RSPCA, its a shame that some of the court sentences are so lenient, but I guess you know that one. To illustrate my point though, when I filmed some netters up on my local butterfly patch - SSSI and all, my local Butterfly Conservation branch didn't even reply to my emails and phone calls, even after I mentioned that I had filmed butterfly maps from the internet that had been left on the rear seats of the netters car. These people might have been monitors for all I know, but they certainly were very camera shy; I call that response apathetic. There is also the matter of actually getting an SSSI, which took forever, even after I produced film evidence of the number of rarities on the site.

I have also sat on local area conservation committees in my area and been appalled at the lack of real determination in the people around me. Unless it concerns them or is near there property they are not interested in really committing themselves - they are too nice. As for farmers, I have never come across such a bunch of vandals in any other walk of life. In my own experience I know of at least one registered colony of bats that was wilfully disturbed, just so a roof could be done cheaply by a farmer. This is not to mention the havoc that was created in the local woodland on the pretext of thinning - it was a blatant money making adventure.

I have to agree that the younger generation are better all round when it comes to a real commitment, they realise they have most to lose if the current assault on the countryside continues, especially in our patch down here in the South East - how many new homes... If you are amenable, the next time I come across any blatant acts of countryside vandalism, maybe you would not object if I dropped you an email.

Thanks

Rod C

Wow, what a read. I've just spent quite some time going through this thread and it seems that there are many different opinions on what is deemed acceptable and right when it comes to filming wildlife. For my part, if I can add my two pennies worth, I have had to make decisions in my work thus allowing me to continue in my chosen field of filmmaking with a clear mind. I basically work underwater and without going into a long drawn out post I would just like to explain my mind set when it comes to my working ethic.

Initially I would just like to say that it is, IMO, impossible for any wildlife filmmaker to say that their practices have 100% zero impact on either their subject or that subjects immediate environment. As someone mentioned earlier, point a lens at an animal and it will react. Positively or negatively, either way you have made your impact on their lives.

Underwater I guess I don't have the opportunity, nor the desire, to 'set the stage' so to speak. One chance and one chance only at any given time to collect any behavioural shots I may be after. That can also be true for most other natural history filmmakers but in many cases, due to the financial implications (its always about the money) there remain a lot of 'staged' sequences (especially within the macro realm). There are risks involved with my work but being underwater is where I prefer to be. I have been filming for 15 years so far and as such have, during that time, had encounters, so far touch wood all good ones, with many species of animals which in the main stream mentality are termed as potentially dangerous. I guess it all boils down to your personal comportment around those animals. I know for one sharks can pick up on the electrical impulse generated by the muscle spasms of our heart. So in order to come face to face with a Great White, as I did last year in South Africa whilst filming for a documentary on that particular species, my decision to enter the water with these creatures was made after carfeul consideration and study of the immediate conditions and environment. Did the shark react? Of course it did, it wanted to see what this strange bubble blowing creature was in front of it and gave the camera a little nudge. Nothing more, nothing less. I like to think that my intrusion into that environment left as little impact as possible. The shark did react so therefore I changed its natural course of behaviour during that time.

In wildlife filming I can only say that if the integrity of the environment and animals is of the utmost concern of the camera person or production company and that these entities comport themselves in a manner to address and abide by an acceptable code of ethics of wildlife filming in order to produce educational and scientifically interesting studies on animals then I, for one, support their work.

Great thread and stimulating reading,
Mark.

Someone brought up the question of objectivity a few notes back. In my opinion, if you are shooting footage for anything other than your own enjoyment, that you are not going to show to anyone outside yourself, you are by nature doing it for a selfish reason. In this case don't take the word selfish to harshly. Sometimes it's a good thing to be a bit selfish.

What I mean here is, if you are shooting video for anyone other than yourself, there is some motivation to do so. That motivation comes from something other than selfless love and by that I would mean, if you are shooting video say for a conservation group, you have a goal. If you are shooting for a hunting collective of some type, you have a goal.

If there is a goal, the video or film cannot be unbiased. You may attempt to show both or all sides of a question or controversy but, you will always have that goal, that motivation. Even if you claim to be working for yourself on a project, you have a goal and therefore you must have a bias. Nobody would commission an unbiased documentry, in my opinion. People don't pay for a non-opinion. They want an opinion that matches their goal, their opinion.

Even if it were possible to do a documentary as unbiased as possible, there is human thought put into the angles, the overall coloring, the editing, the sound, etc. All of these are psychological tools we can use to bias a story.

Take the colorations in Traffic as a simple example. Everything for the US scenes was as I recall blue while south of the border everything had a yellow cast to the scenes. Do we shoot a person from above or below, 3 point light or Rembrandt? All these things psychologically present a bias.

Mamet tells us in his book the best movies are uninflected images strung together in cuts. While I like this idea, it is impossible for me to imagine an uninflected shot. There is inflection of every shot. Color schemes, background choice, lighting, angles, movement, etc.

I know that migh drag things off topic a bit so please carry on. I just think it's impossible to shoot an "unbiased" anything.

Sean McHenry

uniflected cuts
 

Hi Sean

Turn the equation on its head. The proposition that some of us less material thinkers are putting forward is that the objects in Nature choose you. Its all summed up in the word 'teleology', it means end purpose. If all life originated in the conscious mind, then all it would create is a constant recycling of material components. Creativity actually derives from unconscious synthesis, intuition in other words - which can at its most sublime touch on the very nature of deity. Material thinking: sense perception, is very important for men, but redundant in many women, who negotiate life perfectly successfully relying on intuition and feeling. So the question I am asking is, how deeply does 'your' intuition run.

Bias is a reflection of the personality, the proposition I am making, is that 'mind' is not always fettered by personality and actually derives its origins outside of personality, in a domain where ONLY objectivity can exist. Self reflection does not spring fully fledged into being when a child is born, it grows slowly, layer upon layer as the child becomes an adult. The unconscious components of this process are as important as the material components - which are derived through sense perception. Bias is acquired as we develop, and just as it can be acquired, so can it be shed.

Natural history film-making deals with a subject which is not conscious of itself, i.e, Nature. Nature lacks self reflection, so surely the best approach to it is not an intellectual one. You have a responsibility to feel and be challenged and yes, to show bias, but the process of making the film should affect you and 'your mind' as much as it should affect your audience.

Rod C

P.S 'uninflected cuts' - woke up too early for my mind to catch up.

Rodney,
While I understand what you are saying, in my opinion, unless you approach a god-like state of mind, you cannot shed the accumulation of experiences which have shaped and molded your own perceptions, and bais of the world.

Other than perhaps Ghandi, I think if a person throws a punch at my face, I am apt to respond either in a like manner or at least move out of the way, as in "Kung Fu" perhaps. But the idea that I give any reaction at all based upon an action. Instinct or learning, whichever it could be considered, is going to be guiding an automatic response that I suppose with time could be de-programmed. On the other hand, it would be dangerous to intentionally wipe out prior experience simply to be neutral in all things. Personally, I want that instinct to duck.

In the context of these notations, if we see a small frightened woodland creature about to be devoured by a hawk, we feel sympathy and that sympathy, no matter how carefull we might be on the surface is going to carry over into the shot we choose to use. Is it high angle from the perspective of the hunter, is it close and low for the perspective (and perhaps the shock value?) of the prey? These things can't and probably shouldn't be wiped out of our state of being simply to be neutral.

Someone said the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy. I wouldn't want to give up love for apathy. To remove all human emotion from a thing de-humanizes that thing.

Andy Warhol's mechanical reproductions of soup cans, etc. are about as neutral as I want to see art. He loved mechanical reproduction and so, silk screening and so on. He thought, from what I've read, that if it was good art, it was worth repeating. Hence the machanical reproduction aspect.

So we are not at all on opposite sides or anything but it is amazing how this has developed into such a philosophical issue. I love it.

Of course one can feel sympathy also for the hawk who may be needing that one meal to feed her young or else they might starve.

wow, i skipped town for a week in the jungle, and look, the thread is unleashed! this thread is really developing in so many interesting directions, it's hard to synthesize it. you guys really are the best.

there's so many things i want to respond to, but happily for lucky me, i have so many jungle images which i need to process that i haven't the time.

but a thought on the tim treadwell issue, regarding whether his was an ego-driven endeavor or not:

the guy spent (count 'em) THIRTEEN seasons living with the bear. assuredly, he was trying to learn a few things about himself through these encounters with the wild--who among us, no matter how callow, naive, or misguided is not?

i'm sorry, but that's more than ego. that's committed! certainly ego is in play here. treadwell was overly interested in celebrity, etc., etc. but he had found this project as a way, i believe, of combating ego, of unlocking the hold that his mental illness had on him.

what if treadwell had quit one season early, harvested this amazing, often transcendant footage, been afforded the luxury of editing himself *out* of the video (where herzog edited him *in*, in order to superimpose his own meaning/agenda on the other filmmakers' work), and avoided his tragic fate? we would be having an entirely different conversation about him.

keep in mind that herzog gives us access to the very stuff of the proverbial editing room floor. i find this an extraordinarily interesting layering of points-of-view. here is herzog, who was condemned for his treatment of indigenous people in the making of his film "fitzcarraldo" (he enlisted a tribe to carry a steamship over a large rainforest hill and was apparently a less-than-sympathetic taskmaster about it, as i understand the controversy....) exploring his own mirror in timothy treadwell. the psychology of a famous filmmaker accused of exploitation of human subjects massaging his way through the work of an un-famous (or infamous, perhaps) no-name filmmaker who is accused of exploitation of animal subjects, makes for a very rich psychological layering. is the line herzog walks between his sympathy toward's tim's work as a filmmaker and his condemnation of tim's methods possibly herzog's veiled apologia for his own past abuses? or a meditation on such controversies?

i don't know, but the two things not being included in this discussion are herzog's own history of controversy around the exploitation of human subjects and also, a much-needed reminder that the sorts of things he is able to include--the type of footage which would have been edited out of a finished product--are included in this particular work. in other words, in some ways, tim's voice, which is so present in the shooting of his own video, is, in another way, completely silenced at the editorial level.

i think these are important points to keep in mind. we are given a very privileged view of a videographer's work, ironically, at the expense of his creative control over his own material.

if the "being caribou" team had been gored by the caribou, instead of managing to live harmoniously within their ranks, would they be heroes and award winners, or would they be treated as treadwell?

if we had knowledge that the "winged migration" folks had a collision with one of their ultralight vehicles and one of their bird flocks--and i'm not trying to start any rumors here, i have no evidence that this is the case. but if a bad encounter with technology and animals *had* occurred in this experiment, and, more to the point, made it into public awareness, we would be having a different conversation about that film as well.

we don't see the possibility of what "bad" incidents may have occurred because the artists maintained creative control throughout. treadwell's story is the opposite of these. the focus on his work is on the footage which would likely never had been seen publicly had he not died and by default submitted to someone else's artistic vision of who he was.

okay, so that was rather more lengthy than i have time for....

but i am very heartened to see how this thread exploded and in so many interesting directions in my absence. i should leave town more often.

in fact, i really SHOULD leave town more often! i consumed some fabulous images in the jungle, slurp slurp.....

Keith is also perfectly right. Your sympathy will lie with your upbringing and how you see the world. Exactly. The point about it being you will FEEL something.

Even as mundane a situation as setting out to capture the perfect sunset. OK, you are going to find a great location and camp out for who knows how long until you get the right amount of mist or fog, the right color for the sunset, the perfect cloud formations and people or other animals or lack of said and you are going to shoot that image.

How many bad weather days did you have to sit there? How many slightly less than perfect days? Point here being you have set out to show a perfect sunset and you will use that sunset to represent that place and time when in fact it may well be that you had 15 days of snow and visibility was less than 1/4 mile for a month. Is it then fair to show only the "pretty stuff" as a documantary? Not really. Is it documenting that place if you use only that one slice of time you stalked? How many days of bad weather would you have to show to give "balance" to the piece, or do you bother with a discalimer like a travel brochure?

All bias and stuff we see all the time but don't think twice about. Ansel Adams isn't recognized as a great photographer of nature for any bad weather pics he took. You only see the perfectly clear shots with beautiful snow capped peaks. Is that documenting?

More questions than answers my friends, but hey, that's Philosophy.

Sean McHenry

You have prompted an interesting question, Sean. What would you or any of us give up love for?

[QUOTE=Meryem Ersoz]
<<<<the guy spent (count 'em) THIRTEEN seasons living with the bear. assuredly, he was trying to learn a few things about himself through these encounters with the wild--who among us, no matter how callow, naive, or misguided is not?>>>>
__________
I think the emotions listed above as romantic fantasy. The same
kind of fantasy that got Treadwell killed and probably at least one
of the bears destroyed.

Let's get back to the facts.
The cold hard fact is this man (Treadwell) entered into a situation where
was dealing with an endangered species. (I guess) He went in
without any professional guidance, knowledge, or PERMISSION.
That is inexcusable imo. The length of time he spent, those 13 years,
only cements in my mind that the damage he caused this population
of bears by acclimatizing them to humans is EVEN WORSE than I
though previously. The real story here would be for one of us to
return to the scene and document the destruction Mr. Treadwell and
Herzog caused the grizzlies he so 'loved'.

I would bet Tim darn well knew he was breaking the law but
went ahead anyway with HIS mission by probably dreaming
up some self designed excuse (his love?) as a means to justify his
ends. THAT is EGO.
__________
<<<EDIT>>>

<<<<what if treadwell had quit one season early, harvested this amazing, often transcendent footage, been afforded the luxury of editing himself *out* of the video (where herzog edited him *in*, in order to superimpose his own meaning/agenda on the other filmmakers' work), and avoided his tragic fate? we would be having an entirely different conversation about him.>>>>
__________

So, as long as we the audience are (in your scenario) ignorant of
Treadwell's criminal acts, we would (should?) therefore speak
of him as some kind of hero? I would hope not and really don't see
the point of this argument.

We might speak well of O.J. Simpson if . . . we didn't know?
Yes, we might but I don't
see that point as having any kind of real value, sorry.

so what's the difference between acclimating bears to humans versus birds to humans or, to put it another way, acclimating birds to the very technology which is *most* threatening to their existence (the airplane)? bears munch us, we munch birds? therefore, it is okay to be a bird, because it's non-threatening to us (though it is clearly invasive on what is natural and wild to them...), but it is not okay to be the bear, on nearly identical grounds?

jacques, i think your response side-steps many of the points i was attempting to make, which was not intended as a defense of treadwell per se, but rather as an opportunity to consider some other angles on what is going on in current wildlife production practices--as well as what is going on behind those practices-- and how we, as audiences, receive what is being done.

<<<so what's the difference between acclimating bears to humans versus birds to humans or, to put it another way, acclimating birds to the very technology which is *most* threatening to their existence (the airplane)? bears munch us, we munch birds? therefore, it is okay to be a bird, because it's non-threatening to us (though it is clearly invasive on what is natural and wild to them...), but it is not okay to be the bear, on nearly identical grounds?>>>>
____________

Whoa, hold on. I *never* said anything about Winged Migration. In fact,
upon a colleague's recommendation, I went to our local theater and
saw Winged Migration. In one of the very first scenes you see a flock
of Sandhill Cranes come into land, except they do not just land, but
THEY COME TO THE CAMERA! That NEVER happens . . . hmmmmm.
"Something just ain't right here," I told myself.

I knew right then that something was different and (to me) disturbing
about this film.
After another five more minutes of footage
I figured out that the birds in this movie had
to be raised via 'parental imprinting'. I didn't know how they did that,
but I KNEW they had.

I was sickened when one of "the filmmakers' bird family" was SHOT
down by a hunter to make a point (That lots are killed . . . oh well, sniff).
That made me realize that these *people* did not really care all that much
about *their* birds.

Although the Winged Migration footage is beautiful, to me it was totally
contrived/fabricated and had the stink of greasy money-loving hands all
over it. That stench made me queasy.

The film WM is at least as much about making
money as it was about bringing home the beauty of nature and the birds'
migration story. This is evidenced by the HORRIBLE narration, weak music
and choppy editing. Let's not even venture into the great story that was
left virtually untold IMO. Again, it would be a great tale to do a follow up
and find out what happened to all the bird flocks that were raised.
___________

<<<<jacques, i think your response side-steps many of the points i was attempting to make, which was not intended as a defense of treadwell per se, but rather as an opportunity to consider some other angles on what is going on in current wildlife production practices--as well as what is going on behind those practices-- and how we, as audiences, receive what is being done.>>>>
_______

Yes, I see that point. That is why those who are in the know need to
honor their natural subjects and their documentarian duty. That includes educating not only the public about nature, but our brother and sister nature documentary filmmakers to the best way to practice the art.

We accompany LICENSED Mich. Dept. of Nat. Resources EXPERTS on
*their yearly nest visits* with permission to tape.
All other times we use long 35mm glass on Canon XL1 to
keep further away than other
park visitors who happen to be walking trails around the lake that
was central to our story.
Nothing is perfect in this life, but one of our main themes is to have as
little impact on the subject(s) as is possible.

Bias and Ethics
 

Sean

I am not sure you do understand Sean, because the comments that follow your acknowledgement seem to miss my point completely. You spoke about your doyen Mehmet and his idea of an uninflected view. Do you imagine that such a person has a monopoly on what is obviously a universal attribute.

You use the argument that your instincts keep you safe from attack by another human. Do you consider yourself at risk in that way? What you are overlooking is that fact that this type of instinct is ‘hard wired’ and not part of the process I was talking about in shedding bias.

Bias is a distortion that we introduce developmentally. It may be that we have a bias that involves self-defence, but that is another matter altogether.

Film making is a process which should have the dual results of redeeming your biases and your audience's, unless you are a propagandist, in which case you are promoting your bias and encouraging theirs.

Rod C

'the palace'
 

Dear Jacques

I am quoting myself here from my original postings.

‘Our biggest problem is that natural talent tends to narrow us into specialization, thereby robbing us to some extent of a more contextual view of what we do.’

This is the voice of reason. You note I say ‘our’, because I include myself in this context. I have admired your passion a great deal and can identify with it; when I have seen sickening acts of vandalism, I want to tear the perpetrators limb from limb, but can I apply the same rules to myself when I transgress - as surely I do when working closely with animals.

I come back to my point about specialization and quote the bible on two accounts: ‘and lead us not into temptation’ – ‘let he who has no guilt cast the first stone’.

I am as certain as I can be that your comments about money are justified, nevertheless one cannot discount EVERYTHING involved in the process of the two movies under debate because of money.

It then becomes a matter of degree. This is not an academic debate, this is the life of a man and the life of a natural community of animals. Weigh the man’s transgressions against his achievements by all means, but then consider how big business and institutional graft wipe out whole ecologies without even a blink - I think that then puts the matter into context.

If you are whiter than white and you don’t transgress, you are not part of this specialized community of criminals and therefore outside of the scope of the debate.

Rod C

‘The liberation of the people is the cost of the palace’

A baby will walk right off the edge of a high place, like the stairs or a piece of furniture without reservation. They can catch a baseball on the nose if they aren't trained to use their hands. Self defense is not necessairly hard wired. It is a learned response that can be undone or altered with mental training.

I am simply saying that you cannot possibly rid yourself of all bias. You will always have a <bold>reason</bold> to get out of bed in the morning, to go to work, to eat food, to walk the dog. Those actions are motivated. The root of the motivation will create a bias in how you do an action.

If I am motivated to go to work because I need the money to pay rent on a tiny apartment that I hate, to pay for a car I don't really like, etc, my motivation is somewhat negative. I don't want to do it for my betterment or anyone elses. If on the other hand I go to work in a car I like, have friends I enjoy working with and will use the money to build a homeless shelter and to buy "toys" for myself, I am positivly motivated. Which motivation do you think will have me producing better work?

Same for the motivating factors of why one would shoot wildlife I should think. If it's just a job, I treat it as one and have less respect for the participants in the thing. If I am doing it for love, there is positive motivation and a reason to want to do it so I do not impact the relationship with the enviornment I am in. Sometimes that love can indeed be mis-channeled, perhaps as in the cae of Mr. Treadwell.

I am simply saying, as a human being, you cannot possibly rid yourself of all bias in what you do. It's not possible to be that neutral.

Sean

i think what is sort of evolving is a discussion of motive and intent. and there are two drives being discussed here, the drive of ego and the drive of intuition, soul, higher self, call it by whatever name resonates.

both are linked to issues of intent (e.g. shooting wildlife for money, love, conservation concerns, education, etc.)

while i am very, very interested in learning how to listen to and understand my own intentions on a personal level--that is, i desire to listen to my higher self, my intuition, and do no harm, there are definitely moments when ego interferes--when getting the shot means more than, say whether i'm spooking the fox. ego isn't an all-bad or all-evil proposition. saying something is ego-driven carries a negative connotation. but really, survival, as sean points out, has its obvious use value to humans. but also, its greedy, over-reaching downside.

but...in my view, ego tries to lead (to money, to generating identity, to celebrity), whereas intuition follows (to destiny, to love, to non-separation from our planet). ego tends to be the treadmill we run on, like a hamster. intuition is the escalator which carries us to our appointed destination.

i always notice a difference between the quality of a project that i have sought out, versus the projects which have somehow sought me out.

i think there is a big difference in my experience between when i hunt for shots of animals, and when i feel the experience unfolds itself for me.

having said that, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i think timothy treadwell had good intentions. he was a most earnest, eager, loving fellow (i've mentioned before that, having seen him live, his being and, i believe, his intentions are flattened considerably by the medium of film). i'm sure the "winged migration" folks claim educational intent for what they did as well.

but i would submit that the outcomes of these experiments actually seem to be almost completely unhinged from intent. does intent even matter on any level beyond the personal? in other words, my intent deeply matters to me. i want to be in my integrity when i pursue animals for the purpose of mechanically reproducing their images. but is it even visible to anyone else in the product or the outcome?

now i find myself siding with richard that these boil down to personal choices, i suppose. but the debate still matters because what others are doing is still an important measure of the practices we choose ourselves.

Sorry I can't read through this whole thing!

Here's my take. As long as you aren't interfering with wildlife or influencing their behaviour in a detrimental manner then photographic animals is perfectly ethical.

It's when you stage animals or use animals for your own purpose and at the same time take away from their ability to survive that the ethical line is crossed. For example, if you live trapped birds put then in a pen to obtain close up shots, later to release them. You must remember that birds work day to day to collect food. One day lost in collection could result in loss of yearly clutch. If the animals is free to move about then it really shouldn't make a difference.

Christopher sums up the actual answer to the question, as I recall it anyway.

Let's not forget that these same philosophical issues we are debating are universal in that they don't just apply to scenic wildlife shots. To be philosophical about your day to day activities, and even to spill over into some religious practices, you must always examine your intent and know the "why" of something.

Meryem also mentions something we probably all realized at one time or another and that is, if I do it for me, and it makes me happy on some level, it is a better project. If I am asked to do a wedding, at this point in my life, I may take the job and the money but it is not a job that makes me happy. If I volunteer to shoot a wedding out of interest in the couple or the families involved, I do an much better and more satisfying job, money or no.

I have sought out several forms of wildlife here in central Ohio, including the Blue Heron that seems to love our end of Hilliard. Interesting birds simply because they remind me of pteradactyls in their flight style. (This is imagined naturally never having seen a living pteredactyl fly).

I have yet to get a shot that pleases me but my motivation is lower than some of you out there.

I don't think I have anything more to add on this one except, to sum up my position once again, examine your motivation for a project of any type. This will help you discover any tendancies/leanings/bias in the project you may unwillingly be adding to the "coloration" of the subjects objectivity. This goes double for anyone claiming to do an impartial documentary.

Last words: I don't think I anyone can do an unbiased documentary. Shots selection, backgrounds, coloring, audio, voice inflection, personal upbringing and POV, political climate, is the job paid for by some agency with an agenda? Too many variables that color the outcome.

We should still strive for it and thank those that come close to it.

Great discussion everyone.

Sean McHenry

While I've done very little video work with wildlife, I've done tons of wildlife observation and taught other people how to do it, as well.

So... its impossible to walk out your front door without "interfering" with the wildlife. Or get out of your car when you pull up to the trailhead for a nice hike. Chip, CHIP! Twitter! And off flies the little bird that was eating before you so rudely interrupted.

And 20 yards away the deer that was feeding looks up and focuses her ears in your direction. She stops her rythmic eat-watch-eat-watch-step-eat-watch routine to figure out if what interupted that bird is a threat to her.

And 20 yards from her the fox notices that she's distracted by something (and probably heard the bird alarm, as well.) He's not waiting around for you to come up the trail- he just quietly moves off long before you ever knew he was there.

(Maybe this isn't news to wildlife videographers, but the trick is to not scare off that bird in the first place. Its like disarming the alarm system of the wild.)

The idea of NOT affecting the wildlife (or anything else) that you are interacting with is pretty far fetched. Even your presence has ripple effects that you may or may not be aware of and that affect the behavior of whatever you're trying to shoot.

Since the intention of most wildlife video is to educate and impact the viewer... they're going to be affected, too. And I think its worth the risk and ethical questions about interfering with and harming the animals. Most moderns folks I know of today have very little idea what the natural world is about, and most of their ideas are misinformed. Very few have any experience with "nature" other than walks in the park and weekend camping at KOA. Or even backpakers storming through a deserted, but beautiful, landscape- pushing the wildlife away from them without even realizing it. It all happens before they got there and after they left.

Animals die. It happens with alarming regularity and its really only our own squeamishness about it that makes it seem somehow wrong.

More of them will die if people don't understand them or think to consider them.

Take care,
Chris

Not bad for a first post, Chris.

Thanks for your observations; first of many hopefully.

Brendan Marnell
 

Who is Brendan Marnell?

The soul of wit, Rodney. Brevity, not me, of course.

To film, or not to film
 

Hi folks,

I have not edited anything for a couple of weeks since embarking on this thread. I have however learned a lot about myself, my film and my creativity. In replying to some of the points raised, I have been able to crystallise my intuitive thoughts into a 'philosophical standpoint'.

I am very lucky in having been given a talent to create wonderful images. This has been great with photography, but my film work challenges my personality in ways photography never could. The first time I completed a film of my own, which had one good shot in it, I got a physical sensation; which I can only say amounted to a feeling of 'completeness' - and of course I was then hooked...

I spent all of last spring and a lot of the summer filming one subject and ended up with a huge amount of material. Editing it has been a challenging task: knowing I had key shots, but doubting sometimes that the real story would remain hidden. I discovered that 'structure' was evidently not included in my package of talents and in film-making it is indispensable. Overdoing structure from the start would have been an undoubted straight jacket to my intuition, the manufacturer of the magic shots, but without structure all I had was a succession of great clips. At one point I thought perhaps that was all I could produce and subsequently considered just supplying my 'great clips' as pieces to be included in other peoples films.

We all need help. Sometimes it comes from within, sometimes from without, whichever way it comes, we need to sharpen our sensitivity to such hints.

In answer to Meryem's question about the effect of a film-makers care in the end product. Sometimes you can actually see the 'love in every shot', it is certainly my aim from now on.

To all concerned: thanks, it has been an interesting ride.

Rod C

So now the question of the intent of your hitting the hills to shoot all that footage comes back as a question it seems. Why did you shoot all that lovely footage if you had no established goal for the footage? Perhaps the goal changed over the time period of when you started until now? (not being critical, just trying to help you think about what to do with the footage)

Eithere way, inspiration will strike, probably in the shower like a lot of us, and you will find a good home for your great shots. Listen to some music. That's what I do when I am feeling uninspired. If you want to hear some new creative music, hit unsignedbandweb.com. I suggest the "Ambient" catagory to give you some mental imagery to go along with your video. It helps me sometimes. New music can send you a direction you didn't think of.

It will come to you when you stop thinking about it so hard.

Good luck, and remember, we're all pulling for you.
In more words of wisdom from Red Green, keep your stick on the ice,

Sean McHenry

To Sean
 

Thanks Sean,

There was never any question of intent, I was simply drawn to it by my instincts. If you read my threads you will know I have been around a long time. During this time, from the late sixties onwards, I have been manouvered by my instincts - or fate, into one craft after another; the next beckoning carrot or green field just over the brow, each one sharpening and shaping my abilities. Diverted sometimes for long periods of time, as with my second unsuccessful marriage and twenty year career in commercial advertising and photography, but always moving towards an inexorable goal and always subject to the power of self discovery.

I had an operation last Spring that freed me from a substantial physical inhibition and I feel now as if I have started again, but with the bonus of all that acquired knowledge, discipline and skill. I am fitter, because of the physicality of walking, carrying and cycling, and although I am ageing, now I have the time to take charge of my diet and manage my health, which is an amazing bonus after being at the whim of other peoples requirements for so long.

When I came to start filming, I knew that if I wanted to produce the best it would take at least a year, possibly two. I will be switching to HDV this year and filling in gaps that were left by last years work, perhaps re-shooting key shots in the process. The main issue is that I have discovered my own style, which is unique to me and my synthesis of life and quite unlike anything in our genre. It brings together my love of images, still and moving, my love of music - modern and classical, and my love of modern art and classical dialogue; I couldn't ask for more. When I had my first bite at the cherry in the 1980's, I was simply not equipped for the challenge, now I am, being much older and a little wise one.

I read your piece about the mortgage, the car, the life. Let me tell you my friend: it's a trap, it's slavery, it's the loss of self. Start by thinking it can be different, and it will be. Make the inevitable sacrifices to follow your goals; put one foot beyond the other and take the path to freedom and creativity. That is the best advice I can give you; let Nature be your guide and you will succeed.

Oh, and I want a royalty when you crack the big time.

For myself, I am quite happy to live and work in relative obscurity, perhaps sharing my work with an admiring and constructive few.


Rod C

In case any of you is interested and lives in Canada, 'Grizzly Man' is showing on Discovery channel tonight at 9pm and then repeat 12am. Pacific Time.

Rod, everything you said in the above message about fitness and ageing is familiar territory to me. I seem to start going downhill about once a year and then wake up and save myself, once again. Eventually, I'll run out of chances for full recovery, if I let myself slip out of shape, too much and once too often. And yes, being able to walk and cycle becomes much more of a blessing, if you've lost it for a time and can no longer just take it for granted. Seven years ago, I was hobbling for awhile, but nowadays, I've been packing 30 lbs. of video gear for 10-15 miles a day and enjoying it. Thirty years ago, I would have been annoyed at having to pack it that far, but now, I'm thrilled at being able to do it.

the US of A
 

Thanks mate

You folks on DVi are re-deeming my view of the States. The whole world is affected by the circus up on Capital Hill, but you guys you are real - I suggest you run for President and give the world a tonic.

Rod C

p.s I lost a stone last month - do you think they would let us start a thread for old timers

Chris,

Man, I love your forum, but I've got to disagree with you on this one. The filming of animals cannot be compared in the same class as the abuse that happens in the filming of some people. Even the IMDB description says it is abuse by including this in the listing: "This documentary exploits the happenings of a small town West Va. resident..." If you want to see unethical film making, watch this film.

Its like all the folks who were crying like babies over two bears that had to be put down when they bit a child but the same folks don't care a lick for the people in their community that are dying. Animals come in a distant second to people in my book, but before you go off, I do not film any animals beyond household pets that wander into frame when filming people who asked to be filmed.

I lost a stone in a month about a year ago, but that was too fast to sustain. Maybe about 3-4 lbs. would be a better rate over a long period. How many people besides me in the U.S. even know how much a stone is? I'm packing about 14 now and still have about 1 stone to lose (one stone of fat, that is). I thought this already was an old-timers thread.

Oh Patrick you might have been shocked at the animal idolatry apparent on The Dog Show on BBC over recent weekends; at least I was, but then maybe it was something other than idolatry and I misunderstood it? I have stared in amazement for minutes at a pot of dionysia smothered by its dome of tiny flowers ... I still gawk at girls who project their loveliness without flaunting it, and last spring I gasped at my ultimate altar rails when confronted with 2 pot-fulls of scented dionysia domes side-by-side ... sinking my nose into that lot was very pleasant indeed ... but was it idolatrous (a still would appear if i knew how to link it)? What would I have done to care for the gentleman from Kidderminster who grew those dionysias ... well that's easy 'cos I admire him and his botanical deeds; I have so much to learn from him it would be a win/win.

But what about my elderly neighbours who don't get around at all ? or my younger neighbours who get around too much ? thanks for reminding me not to slink away without being aware that I must do better. So, is it a matter of each of us figuring out and refiguring our own priorities? Would it be as simplistic as: 1. People we like 2. Wildlife we like. 3. Wildlife we don't like. 4. People we don't like. 5 People we're afraid of. 6 Wildlife we're afraid of.

It's chilly enough withstanding a blast of real self-scrutiny? How would we survive some mutual inspection of our priorities? But then it was a wise man, Jack Dominion, who upset many people years ago with the revelation that "The process of growing-up was not matter of progressing from baby dependence to adult independence but from baby dependence to adult inter-dependence." Should we discuss "sore things" under a separate thread? If not, then I guess we'll stick to discussing less threatening subjects like wildlife.. semi-domesticated and otherwise. Or what did Patrick say?

Brendan,

Surely, whether one individual "likes" or "does not like" is hardly an acceptable measure of quality, ethics, etc.