http://www.washingtonpost.com …1/AR2010092105782_pf.html
This serves to be a very interesting new book release and turn of events by Chris Palmer with regard to the authenticity of wildlife film making for the television. However I also get the feeling that there might be a rather nasty backlash to a fair bit of this, even if that only occurs within the established filmmakers circles.
I think many of us who take a more active study and understanding of wildlife films than to simply watch them whilst eating our dinner, come to appreciate a part of their making. I think also many of us come to understand that there is a difference between the study of wildlife and the production of media for the television. Something that is becoming more obvious as more people start to take up the hobby and also as the filmmakers themselves start to present shows that go further in not just showing us the animal; but how they have gone about capturing a part of the story they present to us.
Where the boundaries sit for what is and is not accepted I think is going to be a key point and I greatly suspect that, just like the film makers, there will be differences of opinion as to how far is "too far" with manipulation in the name of television.
It will be interesting to hear how different people feel about this and I suspect the message we will get back is more of an "it depends" kind of answer than one that covers the whole expanse of working with wildlife. One might enforce that a show about a pride of lions contain footage only showing those specific cats and that stories/concepts built around them be authentic and not the result of chop and change story building. However shift the boundaries to a shrew, ant colony or animals that are far harder to track (eg some elusive wolf or tigers) and I think that from a practical standpoint reliance upon a single or group of individuals for the production would result in less than ideal footage.
I think (personally) in such cases it is acceptable to use different groups and even captive animal "actors" to ensure that one is able to create a full presentation - like it or not part of the filmmakers game is making the film or they won't get payment; that means no money for bills or food or further productions. I also accept that certain footage can't be acquired in the wild with any degree of certainty. For example the use of micro cameras into an ant hive or even the capture of the behaviour of very small and elusive mammals such as shrews.
However (and I think the story of the lemmings is an ideal example here) I feel very strongly that any presentation should always aim for the highest level of accuracy in the behaviour they portray. Going as far as to present behaviour and actions as well as describing (through narration and editing) emotions and actions in a manner that is not authentic I think is going to the level where its no longer a documentary but a work of fiction.
There is room in the world for fiction, but fiction needs a clear label to it to prevent the spread of missinformation. I would greatly welcome a more honest approach to wildlife film making from the producers with regard to fictional productions. Even if the fiction is the crafting of a known story through the use of unconnected individuals and actions it need some label or notice to the audience.
ps - it goes without saying (I hope) that whatever the methods and presentation the animals used in any production must be the most important factor and no harm and minimal disturbance should be the most important factors in any production
