We're all in this together. Or are we?

Oberon · Jun 28, 2009

A philosophical, I guess question. One example: on TV I watched a documentary about Alaska. The photographer described a battle between two Caribou males, who managed to lock their antlers. In the struggle to get loose, one had its neck broken and died. The survivor was stuck. The narrator said it was sad, the caribou was doomed. should he interfere, or "let Nature run its course?"

My reaction was to yell (subvocally), "You are part of nature, man, not an alien observer. Do what a human being would do. go help the poor beast (if you can, that is). I wonder all the time about these scenes, you see them often. Poor thing will die, but we have to stand back, because we're not a player in this scene. I say if you're there, you are a player. We separate ourselves from what we call "nature," when it is so obvious that we are not separate. We are animals, we are subject to the same laws whether we admit it or not, why shouldn't we take part, do what we are capable of doing? We are the animals with compoassion, imagination, opposable thumbs, self-awareness. Why not use those qualities in our relationship with the rest of the animal/vegatable/geological world?

What I think, that's all.

Hedgetrimmer · Jun 28, 2009

I understand your frustration and on one level even agree. At the same time, however, I can see the narrator's position. If he were simply out on a hike and came upon such a scene, then yes, helping the animal would be the humanitarian thing to do. But as a filmmaker, he is, to use your own words, simply an "alien observer." The whole point in making the documentary is to remain completely objective and allow the viewer to see both the good and the bad nature has to offer. To interfere would both cheat the viewer and discredit the artist.

Now, there is always the possibility that the narrator included the commentary about the caribou's probably death simply for the film. Maybe after shooting the scene, they actually did intervene off-camera and lend assistance. I can very well see that happening.

Mumut · Jun 28, 2009

Hedgetrimmer said:
Now, there is always the possibility that the narrator included the commentary about the caribou's probably death simply for the film. Maybe after shooting the scene, they actually did intervene off-camera and lend assistance. I can very well see that happening.

I certainly hope so. But humans are strange creatures. Companies can make cheap drugs to control AIDS but it's not commercially advantageous, so they don't. There are numerous examples like this. I give up! (And give to charity)

aquacat · Jun 28, 2009

Film was one of my majors in college, and we actually talked about this all the time in our documentary classes. I think the problem is that the idea of being an "objective observer" is highly problematic and has led to some horrible things in the past. There was a famous case of a documentarian who worked for National Geographic and ended up killing himself after he "documented" a woman dying from a gunshot wound and did absolutely nothing to help her. He couldn't take what his inaction did to his conscience. My teacher always argued that one's work shouldn't trump one's humanity, and if that meant you missed the "good shot" then so be it. I agree with that. I also feel that, by just being there, you've already altered whatever scene you're capturing - to pretend that you haven't is a lie. Plus, the point of documentary is never to capture "fact," it's to capture the filmmaker's subjective truth - these are very different things. Given that, I think objectivity is never anything but a pretense anyway, so you should intervene.

heyjude · Jun 30, 2009

What's that quote about it not being possible to observe without changing what you're observing?

Oberon, ITA with you. Humans have done enough to screw up this planet and her creatures, we ought to lend a hand whenever possible.

Oberon · Jun 30, 2009

Aquacat; The documentary film, video, whatever, can never be literally, actually, objective, if that's the word. The instant you look through the viewfinder, you're making a subjective decision. You choose pieces of the subject, and if you're conscientious, you try to assemble the pieces in such a way that they create an honest portrait. I studied and taught film at Northwestern, where we had many discussions about this. C-Span is probably as close as it comes. Robert Flaherty, one of the "fathers" of the documentary, made dramatic films. He cut the top of Nanook's igloo so he could film the interior. Then he smoked cigars while editing his nitrate film and burned it up, had to go back and reshoot. Pretty stupid.

aquacat · Jul 1, 2009

Oberon said:
Aquacat; The documentary film, video, whatever, can never be literally, actually, objective, if that's the word. The instant you look through the viewfinder, you're making a subjective decision. You choose pieces of the subject, and if you're conscientious, you try to assemble the pieces in such a way that they create an honest portrait. I studied and taught film at Northwestern, where we had many discussions about this. C-Span is probably as close as it comes. Robert Flaherty, one of the "fathers" of the documentary, made dramatic films. He cut the top of Nanook's igloo so he could film the interior. Then he smoked cigars while editing his nitrate film and burned it up, had to go back and reshoot. Pretty stupid.

Wow, I didn't know that about Flaherty. Jeez.

Great points - totally agree with you.

GeorgeK · Aug 7, 2009

Oberon said:
The narrator said it was sad, the caribou was doomed. should he interfere, or "let Nature run its course?"
.

I think I may have seen that video. Was the caribou stuck in a swing set? I took the comment to mean, "Should I help it or will trying to help it get me killed? Big frightened animals, particularly during rut are dangerous.

Oberon · Aug 10, 2009

GergeK:
No, it was two caribou bulls fighting, getting antlers locked. It happens from time to time. You're right about rutting animals (including men), but in this case the living animals was exhausted. Whether the photographer, if he was alone, could have separated them, I don't know. I think a heavy rock might be used to break an antler.

Bushrat · Aug 30, 2009

Oberon, I totally agree with you. I see us as a part of nature and if one is an animal-lover, it is only natural to want to help, and by all means, one should do so! We live out in the bush without road access and it makes us really aware that humans are NOT some seperate entity. Some animals actually enjoy making contact with you. I would never have the slightest qualm about helping an injured or sick animal, just as I wouldn't hesitate with a human of a different ethnic background and language. What is the difference???

A couple years ago, a moose went through the ice right in front of our cabin. It took him a few minutes to get out, but we there was no question to us that we would help if he couldn't do it on his own.

So I'm glad there's people like you around, Oberon. I know the animals are, too.

the bunny hugger · Sep 18, 2009

The non-involvement edict can't be absolute, after all a person who stood by and filmed a man fall down a well they wouldn't be able to just walk away and let nature take its course. But then again if you went to help the man he probably wouldn't freak out and kick you to death.

We're all in this together. Or are we?

Oberon

Hedgetrimmer

What happened, just there?

Mumut

Well begun is half done...

aquacat

.

heyjude

Making my own sunshine

Oberon

aquacat

.

GeorgeK

ever seeking

Oberon

Bushrat

reaching for the sun

the bunny hugger

practical experience, FTW