Wild Caribbean (2007) is another offering from the BBC Natural History Unit. By now we are used to their production values and this mini series of four episodes is no departure. It features glossy footage of photogenic 'wildlife' with specially commissioned bland soundtrack and a soothing male narrator -- not Sir David Attenborough this time but the velvet tones of Steve Toussaint.
The script was written by Sophie Cooper. Sophie emphasises touchy-feely moments between mother and baby (e.g. during sperm whale footage) which makes her script more 'feminine' than that produced by male writers (who usually betray their biases by discussing footage from a male perspective e.g. referring to 'harems' of female animals that 'belong' to an alpha male). However, on the whole, Sophie follows the usual BBC Natural History Unit (BBC NHU) plot devices and as a result her script is blandly-corporate and could have been written by anyone at the BBC NHU. The plot follows the same routine: (1) an introduction to some pretty scene e.g. parent birds feeding chicks which (2) engages the sympathies of the audience and (3) casts these animals as protagonists of the drama. Next comes (4) an announcement of impending threat, e.g. a change in the weather or an approaching predator, which (5) is then acted out on screen either to (6) the death or (7), more rarely, the escape of the imperilled heroes. Immediately after such scenes the documentary cuts to another scene with a new set of animals which are set up to go through the same plot devices. During each episode we see dozens of different sets of animals go through peril and either survive or, more often, die.
What follows is not just a criticism of Wild Caribbean but could apply to almost any of the documentaries produced by BBC NHU. The endless repetition of the same plot device makes it a cliché. The effect is numbing: emotionally, intellectually, and morally i.e. one watches a long series of more or less identical scenes of peril and suffering and random deaths and one ceases to care, to think about it, or to have any moral position on it. It is implied and sometimes made explicit (e.g. by reference to Neo-Darwinian theory which is treated as unquestionable fact) that what is being portrayed is 'nature' or 'life as it really is' (i.e. the survival of the fittest) and thus something that simply has to be accepted with fatalistic passivity. It is never made explicit that what is portrayed is a heavily edited selection of footage which is as 'natural' or as 'neutral' as any advert or party-political broadcast and just as determined to persuade the viewer to a particular point of view. The BBC is required by law to avoid bias in its programmes but the team at BBC NHU seem not to realise that this applies to pseudo-scientific, supposedly 'factual' documentaries like the programmes they produce. The team present 'natural history' as if it only had one 'truth' and what they present is that truth. The reality is that real science is full of controversy and debate and has no 'certainties'. What the BBC NHU offers is something that purports to be 'scientific' but in its uncritical Neo-Darwinian dogma more closely resembles a religious viewpoint.
It is distasteful enough to endure this uncritical presentation of Neo-Darwinian quasi-religious values when the protagonists in the drama are animals but when 'Wild Caribbean' introduces footage of human suffering (e.g. the 1995 volcanic eruption that engulfed Montserrat) the 'amoral' editorial posture of the documentary becomes offensive and politically repugnant. The same inducement to lack of concern about animal suffering is transferred to human suffering and the same inducement to cease to feel, think, moralise or engage politically with the issues presented is transferred to human affairs. We cut from scenes of animal suffering to scenes of human suffering and back to scenes of animal suffering and the implication is that there is nothing we can do about any of this and we should simply allow 'natural forces' to weed out the unfit and accept the result without resistance even when this includes our fellow man.
Reading other reviews of BBC wildlife documentaries, it seems that viewers often accept the documentaries at face-value as chocolate-box photo-montage of nice scenery with a lullaby-soundtrack which is 'soothing' or 'relaxing' to watch. There are too few viewers who question whether being soothed or relaxed when viewing endless footage of suffering is an appropriate response. Too few viewers ask whether the editorial posture of these documentaries is overly manipulative and whether they want to be induced to acquiesce to the toxic values and extreme political attitudes these documentaries promote and celebrate. One does not have to be Adam Curtis to be suspicious of the ethical, political and intellectual values offered in these wildlife documentaries. I sincerely hope that a greater number of BBC NHU's millions of viewers become more critical of the 'docu-tainment' they are consuming. However, I am not too optimistic. I suspect that millions of viewers will continue to 'enjoy' these documentaries whilst remaining completely oblivious to what it is they are actually watching and 'enjoying'.
The script was written by Sophie Cooper. Sophie emphasises touchy-feely moments between mother and baby (e.g. during sperm whale footage) which makes her script more 'feminine' than that produced by male writers (who usually betray their biases by discussing footage from a male perspective e.g. referring to 'harems' of female animals that 'belong' to an alpha male). However, on the whole, Sophie follows the usual BBC Natural History Unit (BBC NHU) plot devices and as a result her script is blandly-corporate and could have been written by anyone at the BBC NHU. The plot follows the same routine: (1) an introduction to some pretty scene e.g. parent birds feeding chicks which (2) engages the sympathies of the audience and (3) casts these animals as protagonists of the drama. Next comes (4) an announcement of impending threat, e.g. a change in the weather or an approaching predator, which (5) is then acted out on screen either to (6) the death or (7), more rarely, the escape of the imperilled heroes. Immediately after such scenes the documentary cuts to another scene with a new set of animals which are set up to go through the same plot devices. During each episode we see dozens of different sets of animals go through peril and either survive or, more often, die.
What follows is not just a criticism of Wild Caribbean but could apply to almost any of the documentaries produced by BBC NHU. The endless repetition of the same plot device makes it a cliché. The effect is numbing: emotionally, intellectually, and morally i.e. one watches a long series of more or less identical scenes of peril and suffering and random deaths and one ceases to care, to think about it, or to have any moral position on it. It is implied and sometimes made explicit (e.g. by reference to Neo-Darwinian theory which is treated as unquestionable fact) that what is being portrayed is 'nature' or 'life as it really is' (i.e. the survival of the fittest) and thus something that simply has to be accepted with fatalistic passivity. It is never made explicit that what is portrayed is a heavily edited selection of footage which is as 'natural' or as 'neutral' as any advert or party-political broadcast and just as determined to persuade the viewer to a particular point of view. The BBC is required by law to avoid bias in its programmes but the team at BBC NHU seem not to realise that this applies to pseudo-scientific, supposedly 'factual' documentaries like the programmes they produce. The team present 'natural history' as if it only had one 'truth' and what they present is that truth. The reality is that real science is full of controversy and debate and has no 'certainties'. What the BBC NHU offers is something that purports to be 'scientific' but in its uncritical Neo-Darwinian dogma more closely resembles a religious viewpoint.
It is distasteful enough to endure this uncritical presentation of Neo-Darwinian quasi-religious values when the protagonists in the drama are animals but when 'Wild Caribbean' introduces footage of human suffering (e.g. the 1995 volcanic eruption that engulfed Montserrat) the 'amoral' editorial posture of the documentary becomes offensive and politically repugnant. The same inducement to lack of concern about animal suffering is transferred to human suffering and the same inducement to cease to feel, think, moralise or engage politically with the issues presented is transferred to human affairs. We cut from scenes of animal suffering to scenes of human suffering and back to scenes of animal suffering and the implication is that there is nothing we can do about any of this and we should simply allow 'natural forces' to weed out the unfit and accept the result without resistance even when this includes our fellow man.
Reading other reviews of BBC wildlife documentaries, it seems that viewers often accept the documentaries at face-value as chocolate-box photo-montage of nice scenery with a lullaby-soundtrack which is 'soothing' or 'relaxing' to watch. There are too few viewers who question whether being soothed or relaxed when viewing endless footage of suffering is an appropriate response. Too few viewers ask whether the editorial posture of these documentaries is overly manipulative and whether they want to be induced to acquiesce to the toxic values and extreme political attitudes these documentaries promote and celebrate. One does not have to be Adam Curtis to be suspicious of the ethical, political and intellectual values offered in these wildlife documentaries. I sincerely hope that a greater number of BBC NHU's millions of viewers become more critical of the 'docu-tainment' they are consuming. However, I am not too optimistic. I suspect that millions of viewers will continue to 'enjoy' these documentaries whilst remaining completely oblivious to what it is they are actually watching and 'enjoying'.