How Environmental Documentaries Have Developed from the Ethnographic - Research Paper Example

? How Environmental Documentaries Have Developed from the Ethnographic Quest Narrative of Nanook Of The North (1921 into Sociopolitical Commentary of The Cove (2009) In this paper I am going to explore the change of characteristics regarding style and content from ethnographic documentaries of the past such as Nanook Of The North (Robert Flaherty, 1921) to contemporary environmental documentaries such as The Cove (2010, Louie Psihoyos). My argument is that documentaries with an environmental theme have developed over the decades from ethnographic films (often structured by a simple quest narrative) into sociopolitical motivated films with a clear message for an audience. Bill Nichols reflects in his book Introduction To Documentary on the role the documentary film is playing in today's media: Documentaries of social representation offer us new views of our common world to explore and understand...these films often are intended to have an impact on the historical world itself and to do so must persuade or convince us that one point of view or approach is preferable to others...these views put before us social issues and current events, recurring problems and possible solutions. The bond between documentary and the historical world is deep and profound. Documentary adds a new dimension to popular memory and social history. (3) In other words, the documentary filmmakers of today are not just concerned with providing the audience with new insights about unfamiliar cultures, people and their environments. Moreover, those filmmakers are driven by clear ethic motivations: to educate our societies about injustices and crimes that are committed amongst us but which are hidden from our views-until those truth are exposed by the camera. These revelations can have major effects on society and politics: When problems that haven't been known to us are revealed we can't deny them any longer or pretend that we didn’t know about them. Hence, I agree with Nichols who is stating that documentaries can profoundly change our world. I believe the keyword in his aforementioned quote is 'solutions' as contemporary documentary filmmakers even go a step further with their message: It's not enough to know about the grievances in our world, we have to become active and do something about them to bring upon real change. Hence, the documentary filmmaker's role has changed as well. He is not simply a storyteller with a camera any longer, but he can become an environmental activist himself. Director Louie Psihoyos is directly involved in the action in The Cove where filmmakers alongside environmental activists plant hidden cameras to reveal the dolphin slaughter committed by the fishermen. Not only does he direct his filmmaking crew, he also leads the group of activists and plays a crucial part in devising the plan how to expose crimes of animal cruelty. The general consensus amongst environmental filmmakers today seems to be that a film alone can't change anything, but the reactions and actions it provokes in an audience can bring upon real change. Captain Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, remarks in The Cove: “You're either an activist or a non-activist. I decided to be an activist.” The filmmakers' clear intent to motivate the audiences into direct action is summed up by one of the film's marketing punch-lines: ‘The Secret Is Out. Spread the Word’. Unlike feature films that make headlines for a few weeks while they are successful at the box office, documentaries like The Cove have an organic 'after-life' where audiences and fans are kept up to date online by the filmmakers about how the story is developing long after the initial release of the film. Most importantly, the world wide web and social networking media can play an active role in defining the outcome of the story by giving audiences a platform to take direct action. The Cove's website lists many options how one can directly support several organizations who are protecting dolphins in Japan by either donating money or by signing online petitions, joining facebook groups or by pledging never to buy a ticket for a dolphin show. To sum up, environmental films of today are holistic experiences that give the audiences the opportunity to become interactive and play a crucial part in the overall cause. The change from merely depicting everyday life in films such as Nanook Of The North to documentaries with sociopolitical concerns is commonly attributed by film theorists to the political and social developments in society during the last century. To begin with, Nanook Of The North is often referred to as the first ethnographic documentary film. In 1921 the explorer Robert Flaherty returned to the Arctic to document the life of the Inuit people he had encountered on his journeys before. He wanted to share his unique observations with the world. Nichols both stresses the films groundbreaking narrative and style but at the same time acknowledges its shortcomings: Nanook Of The North stands as a prototypical documentary even though many films that share its reliance on a simple quest narrative to organize events, its exemplary or representative individual, and its implication that we can understand larger cultural qualities by understanding individual behavior also reject the romanticism, emphasis on a challenging natural environment, and occasionally patronizing elements of Nanook (25). During the 1920's pioneering Scottish critic and documentary filmmaker John Grierson was deeply concerned by what he perceived to be threats to democracy, such as political apathy and anti-democratic developments in international politics such as the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy. A great admirer of Flaherty, Grierson engaged in conversations with him (and other filmmakers) about ways to represent people and their lives truthfully. He summed up his findings and observations as part of a critical film philosophy that was defined by clear ethics and proclaimed the sociopolitical responsibility of the filmmaker. Griersons's theories attracted the international acknowledgment of critics and filmmakers alike and have helped to define documentary film-making practices. Grierson's ethics were embraced by international filmmakers of subsequent generations to herald the most significant and influential changes in documentary and fiction film during the 1960's. More and more, fiction and documentary films became political motivated comments on society, often giving a voice to minorities. British director Ken Loach used gritty documentary style realism to uncover social grievances like homelessness and unemployment in his feature films for the BBC. In the USA, documentary filmmaker Alan Pennebaker was one of the first leading figures of Direct Cinema, which was to documentary film what the French Nouvelle Vague (New Wave) was to fiction film. His films encapsulated the connection between political, social and cultural change that defined the 1960's. Inspired by French director Jean-Luc Godard who used newly developed portable cameras and microphones to film directly on the street and on real locations, Pennebaker used similar techniques for his films. “Direct Cinema is the result of two predominant and related factors—The desire for a new cinematic realism and the development of the equipment necessary to achieving that desire. Many technological, ideological and social aspects contribute to the Direct Cinema movement and its place in the history of cinema.” (Monaco 206). During the second half of the last century, it became obvious to especially younger and politically educated generations that industrialism and capitalism had come at a cost. The world was confronted with more and more ecological problems, such as the dangers of nuclear power, the uprooting of the rain forest, toxic industrial waste and commercial whaling. Those very serious issues resulted in environmentalism and a 'green' consciousness that was shared by political and non-governmental movements around the world (e/g. Non-governmental institution Greenpeace was founded in 1971 in Vancouver, Canada; the Green Party was formed in 1979 in Stuttgart, Germany.) Those crucial developments towards a new, environmental friendly consciousness resulted in, and were directly influenced by, fiction and non-fiction films alike. Fiction and documentary filmmakers became more and more concerned with those increasing ecological problems and wanted to raise awareness. British documentary filmmaker David Attenborough is wildly regarded amongst film theorists as the father of wildlife documentary filmmaking. His Life On Earth series for the BBC in the 1970's not only documented wildlife but also drew attention to environmental problems such as the destruction of natural habitat (for one episode, Attenborough had gained privileged access to Dian Fossey's research of mountain gorillas in Rwanda). It has to be noted as well that not only did ecological concerns become the thematic inspiration for many documentary filmmakers in the subsequent years, but the documentary film itself developed from a predominately TV genre into a widely recognized and popular cinematic genre. Michael Moore played a crucial part in this development by making the documentary film more accessible to a wider audience. His entertaining, often very ironic and at times humorous films, introduced documentaries to a mainstream audience and took it out of its 'art-house' niche . Today, environmental documentaries have clearly become a mainstream genre, which is proven by the record breaking success of recent films like An Inconvenient Truth and The March Of The Penguins at the box office. This success is confirmed by the critical acclaim (Academy Awards, screenings at prestigious film festival such as Cannes or Sundance), DVD sales and prime-time TV scheduling of aforementioned films. To reflect on the developments in documentary filmmaking history explored in this essay, I would like to compare two influential films from the past and present, Nanook Of The North and The Cove. I'd like to support my argument that documentaries with an environmental theme have developed from ethnographic (past) to sociopolitical (present) films with an example each regarding style and content. Style The Cove uses practices of Direct Cinema in its most extreme form: “Direct Cinema is also called observational filming, and it demands that the camera is subservient to the action and does not intrude into or alter any of the processes it films”(Rabiger 67) By placing secret cameras all over the cove, the filmmakers were able to film the atrocities committed there. Media access hadn't been possible before, as the Japanese authorities and the fishermen heavily guarded the area to hide the slaughtering of the dolphins from the public eye. The filmmakers had no other choice then to break in at night and plant secret cameras in order to attain evidence of the crimes committed. Louie Psihoyos also uses the participatory mode of documentary filmmaking1 by appearing in front of the camera and by using footage of an interview with himself throughout the film. Nichols defines the participatory mode as a tool for the filmmaker to get his message across in the most direct way possible, and Psihoyos does exactly that when he talks about his motivations for making The Cove by stating that he couldn’t remain inactive when he heard about what was going on in the cove. Robert Flaherty however stayed behind the camera and staged events. He let the Inuit reenact scenes from their every-day lives, which he had witnessed on previous journeys, giving the impression that he was filming their ‘real life’. Consequently, Flaherty was criticized for subjective romanticism and distorting the truth as by 1921 most Inuit had given up their hunting life-style. However, as Flaherty had experienced and filmed the traditional Inuit lifestyle first hand on his previous expeditions but had lost all footage in a fire, he had to reenact the past. Acclaimed documentary film director Errol Morris, defends the common practice of reenactment in documentary films in an essay: “Critics don’t like re-enactments in documentary films – perhaps because they think that documentary images should come from the present, that the director should be hands-off. But a story in the past has to be re-enacted” (The New York Times). In other words, Flaherty had to restore to documentary filmmaking practices that today are commonly accepted by critics and audiences alike, and can therefore be seen as a pioneer of the medium. I argue that the different filmmaking practices in aforementioned films are down to the directors’ different motivations: Flaherty wanted to produce an ethnographic film and wanted to present the traditional lifestyle of the Inuit to the rest of the world before they would disappear forever. Even though he stages events and used reenactment, he also used real Inuit as participants and filmed on location in the Arctic, thus giving the film a high level of authenticity. Psihoyos on the other hand, wanted to uncover the most horrendous crimes of animal cruelty and reveal the culprits to the rest of the world. In order to uncover illegal procedures he had to restore to illegal practices as well, like breaking into the private property. His motivation therefore was political and he had to use the most powerful documentaries filmmaking techniques of Direct Cinema to get across his message and make an impact on an audience. Content In Flaherty's film, he shows Nanook's hunting practice, which even by today’s high standards can only be described as humane. First, Nanook catches the fish, not by piercing it with a harpoon, but by trapping it in a kind of rake that doesn't injure the fish. He takes the rake out of the water and kills the fish instantly with a knock on the head. This scene represents the Inuit as a skillful tribe that lives in harmony with its environment and thus supports Flaherty’s desire to present them in a romantic way. The scene focuses on Nanook's skill and patience, the actual killing of the fish is a very brief moment in the sequence. Most importantly, the scene isn't graphic and hence doesn't appear to be cruel. Flaherty shows how hunting and killing animals is a normal part of Nanook’s way of life and a necessity to ensure his own and his family’s survival. Hence, an audience can accept the killing of animals in order to survive as a natural part of Inuit culture. The dolphin slaughter sequence in The Cove couldn't be any more different. The slaughter is brutal and merciless, nearly sadistic. The footage is graphic (the seawater turning into a bright red), the shots are long and detailed (the fishermen's faces are visible while they slaughter the dolphins). Psihoyos showed the full dimension of the atrocity. His aim was to shock an audience and to fuel their motivation to actively get involved in the cause of protecting the dolphins. The comparison of those two 'fishing scenes' not only represents the different motivations of the filmmakers but it also reflects the historical development and the impact industrialization and capitalism had on humans’ behavior towards animals in general, and the effect on the fishing trade in particular. While Nanook killed animals humanly and only so many he needed to feed his family, the Japanese fishermen commit a cruel mass-murder of dolphins solely for financial gain. They justify their action by stating that it is part of their hunting traditions. However, the film clearly depicts those statements as being part of a national myth, even propaganda by the authorities. When Japanese people are questioned on the street by the filmmakers, no one claims to be eating dolphin meat, on the contrary, they interviewed people all clearly state that dolphin meat is not part of the Japanese diet at all. To conclude, films such as Nanook Of The North introduced audiences to the new possibilities of visual communication cinema presented, by depicting every-day life of cultures unknown to them. Filmmakers aimed to produce films with ethnographic content, which in general didn't include any political or social commentary. The development of Direct Cinema documentary filmmaking practices and the advent of documentary film theory and criticism (defined by John Grierson) resulted in more sociopolitically motivated films with a clear message. The emerging environmental movement during the second half of last century was consciously reflected in documentary films to raise awareness of 'green' issues, for example as part of the 'wildlife' sub-genre pioneered by David Attenborough. With ecological problems becoming more and more serious the environmental documentary was born and became a new sub-genre of documentary film in its own right. Today, the environmental documentary film enjoys not only critical but also commercial acclaim, as An Inconvenient Truth and The Cove have proven. Confronted with the countless ecological problems we have to deal with today, the environmental documentary has taken onboard a crucial, new goal alongside the traditional motivation of its genre to educate and show life as it is: to motivate audiences to take direct action and change life to what it should be. Works Cited Books Monaco, Paul. The Sixties, 1960-1969. Berkley and Los Angeles: University Of California Press. 2003. Print. Nichols, Bill. Introduction To Documentary. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2001. Print. Rabiger, Michael. Directing-Film Techniques and Aesthetics. London: Focal Press. 2003. Print. Online Sources The New York Times. ‘Play It Again, Sam-Reenactments Part 1. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/play-it-again-sam-re-enactments-part-one/ 3 April 2008. Essay. Films and TV An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Pramount Pictures ,2001. Film. Nanook Of The North. Dir. Robert Flaherty. Pathe Pictures, 1921, Film. March Of The Penguins. Dir.Luc Jaquet. Buena Vista International 2005.Film The Cove. Dir. Louie Spihoyos. Lionsgate, 2009. Film. The Earth Series. Dir. David Attenborough. BBC, 1979. Television series. Read More