Wildlife

The moment you venture into wildlife filmmaking you’re bound to find an ethical dilemma behind virtually every bush.

First though, is there anyone out there who still assumes that wildlife filmmaking consists of little more than waiting at the waterhole for the local fauna to come and perform bloody deeds in front of your camera ?

Well, come to think of it - local fauna & bloody deeds might well occupy a prominent place in your schedule, your budget, your insurance & your anger management programme - but that’s the wrong kind of fauna & the wrong kind of bloody. So we’ll leave it there. Also the Hades of a camera-hide in which you’d have been set up since before dawn, the hordes of insects feasting on the only insect-repellent-free human skin in this whole stretch of savannah, and a collection of assorted cramps, itches & other bodily discomforts.

Oh, and the other thing the viewer doesn’t usually see is the amount of garbage that might have had to be removed from the scene of pristine undisturbed African wilderness before filming started. We’ll leave that issue there, too.

So, the camera’s rolling, the animals are doing their thing, the lighting is magical - it’s Africa at its wild & bio-diverse best; stunning footage which gets shaped into a compelling film which brings the wonders of the natural creation to a world-wide audience. All good. Especially if the filmmaker’s been paid.

And right there is where I stub my toe on the biggest ethical dilemma of all. And no - it’s not the beneficiation of local communities; it’s not even the side-effect of encouraging an already unsustainable tourist load on the pristine undisturbed African wilderness.

Here it is: it’s the food-chain in which our familiar top-predators occupy only the bottom-most rung. The rung above ? The poor filmmaker, who (like everyone else) works to feed a family; Above him: the commissioning editors (as much victims in this as anyone else) who will only issue contracts, commissions, funding for the making of wildlife films of a kind which they believe their audience would watch. Anything contentious, disturbing, uncomfortable ? Sorry No - not in the mood. Pristine, happy nature - that’s the thing. Leaves everyone happy & entertained.

What the viewer wants, the viewer gets. What the viewer wants to see, gets funding & gets filmed. The pretty, & safely remote, animal-on-animal violence. Any other kind of reality belongs in the news.

So why is this a problem ? Because this little collusion leaves the viewing audience with the illusion that “things must be OK” - there are still wild dogs to be filmed, lions apparently everywhere, roaring into the African night. No need to be all that concerned. And in any case, what about the stories of heroes who rescue animals in trouble ? Sure, positive human stories, with a triumphant & hopeful ending. Just don’t ask the editor how much of the real story got trimmed & tidied up & sanitized so that it would be watchable by “a general audience”.

Occasionally - just occasionally - some passionate soul will go out & pour his life savings into bringing an in-depth, hard-hitting real documentary to the screen. But he will probably only manage to do so with private funding, a good deal of sacrifice - and the viewing figures will depend on the inclusion of a Hollywood celebrity to front the story.

So we’ll keep watching the good & happy stories, because they get made & shown; and such stories will get made & shown because at least they will get watched, which will mean that there will be enough money to pay for the making of more good & happy stories which… you get the picture.

The truth is that all is not well with pristine, undisturbed African wilderness. But we will keep on chasing the ever diminishing bits, and make stunning, happy films about them, while our hearts are breaking.