ENVIRONMENT BULLETIN-BRITAIN: Ethics Questions Over Eco- Documentaries

By Neena Bhandari Reprint | | Print |

Neena Bhandari

BRISTOL, England, Nov 7 1998 (IPS) - Film makers and broadcasters from 47 countries at the recent ‘Wildscreen ’98’ – the world’s largest festival of wildlife and conservation films – prompted some impassioned debate here between the north and south.

The top prize, the Golden Panda, was awarded to ‘The Dragons f the Galapagos’, the extraordinary story of dragon-like iguanas which breed in the fiery bowl of a volcano on the islands off the coast of Ecuador. The film was made for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by David Parer and Elizabeth Parer-Cook, who also won the award in 1994.

But at an event dminated by British and U.S. companies, however, many film-makers from the developing world felt their countries had been misrepresented.

As Elda Brizuelaof EB Films from Costa Rica asked: “The species in these films are seen as exotic. But exotic to whom?”

Most of the documentaries at last month’s festival focused on natural history and animal behaviour and not everyone agreed that this was the best approach. “There should have been more films on conservation, such as ‘People of the Sea’, which has a strong message as well as being entertaining,” said Cathe Neukum of Turner Original Productions.

“We follow the National Geographic style of putting people into natural history films,” she added.

The seminars gave rise to lively debate on such subjects as the role of television in changing public attitudes towards the environment. One discussion asked whether wildlife films simply mislead the public with “a lot of pretty pictures” but have no real relevance to people’s lives.

“Television tends to be dominated by the new and the sensational,” admitted Jenny Richards of the Television Trust for Environment. But, she said, it also has the power to reach millions of people and change things for the better.

“There was a time when programmes on famine in Ethiopia, or World Bank road development in Brazil destroying the Amazon forests had a huge impact and led to a change in environmental policies. As broadcasters we have a responsibility to psent and anayse environmental problems and solutions,” she sai.

Journalist and author Ros Coward raised questions about the methods used in wildlife film-mking. Captive animals are sometimes used instead of wild ones, and scenes are frequently recreated rather than being filmed in the wild.

“Such practices are in fact more common than is often believed and go to the heart of an ethical debate that is ruffling feathers in the usually complacent world of wildlife film-making,” she said.

Valmik Thapar, whose film ‘Unknown Seas’ won an award for best music andsound, criticised a National Geographic film on wolves in Uttar Pradesh, ‘The Man-Eaters of India’, for getting its animals mixed up. “They have let two jackals pass as wolvs,” he said.

But according to Jeffrey Boswall, BBC Natural History Unit’s longest-serving producer, the rules for film-makers are clear and straightforward: “Thou shalt not deceive the audience, thou shalt not harm the animals, and thou shalt be willing to disclose how the film was made.”

Alistair Fothergill the head of the Unit, added that, even when they use recreations, BBC films always portray authentic natural behaviour.

The theme of ths yer’s Wildscreen, held once every two years, was encouraging public understanding of conservation.

Jane Krish, chief executive of the Wildscreen Trust said: “The festival is a platform to reward people who are already producing work which increases our love, understanding and willingness to safeguard the natural world and to encourage others to do likewise, by giving them access to new skills, products and ideas.”

Professor Sir Robert May, scientific adviser to the British governent, gave the Sir Peter Scott lecture, named in honour of Wildscreen’s founder. He explained how unaware most people are of the rates at which species are becoming extinct as a result of habitat destruction and other consequences of human population growth and over-consumption. Humans have destroyed more than 30 percent of the natural world since 1970.

In line with the festival’s theme this year, one of the most important debates centred on wildlife programming for children. Michael Lekes of Partridge Films, whose Amazing Animals series is bein hown across 50 countries in 20 languages said: “We always have to keep children’s taste in mind but defining children’s taste is difficult.”

Indeed, research presented at the 1998 World Summit on Television for Children revealed that in general, youngsters actually prefer adult programmes to programmes made specifically for them.

Children clearly are an important audience for environmental film-makers.

John Richmond, vice chairman of the Children’s TV Summit explained: “One political cause which excites children’s passions all over the world is the environment. They realise the need for organised action. It is this passion with a political edge which broadcasters and producers should inform and encourage.”

Children have real concerns about the environment, from the local to the global, Richmond argued.

They understand how difficult it is to get to school safely in cities full of motor vehicles, which also pollute the air and can cause asthma. They are affected by the lack of clean open spaces in which to play; they are angry about the nuclear testing and are concerned about thinning of the ozone layer causing cancer and global warming.

“These emotions must be directed into practical, positive channels,” he added.