https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXLbQrK6cXw
Disney’s 2010 film, Oceans, is a nature documentary that explores the marine species found throughout the five oceans on Earth. This particular trailer for the film that I chose to analyze begins with the words narrated by Pierce Bronsan. He tells the audience that this film will take you below the seas, “Disney Nature invites you on a journey through our planet’s five oceans, to discover never before seen worlds through the eyes of the creatures that live there.” It depicts various scenes of the diverse wildlife that embodies the five oceans. It shows baby turtles that arise from the sands of a beach and scrambled their way toward the ocean. It shows animals kissing, playing, and embracing each other. It shows a parent and child animal hugging and holding. It displays species coexisting amongst each other- same species and differing species alike. This tells the audience that most of these organisms depicted are social beings as humans are. These creatures are not isolated from other species or from others in its own genus, as they would be if they were in an aquarium. Many of the scenes showcase organisms that are either staring straight into the camera or looking at another animal. The scene when Bronsan says “through the eyes of the creatures that live there” it shows the scene of seal that rises up from the icy water and kisses its mother.
The music used in this trailer is called “Wonderful” by Gary Go. This is an uplifting song that has the repeating lyrics, “say I am wonderful” and ends with “we are wonderful.” These lyrics help also with the scenes used to create a connection with the audience that humans are not the only social beings on Earth. Humans are not the only organism that can have emotions, thoughts, or communication. Sprinkled throughout the trailer are sound bites of certain marine species making either chirps, howls, or other noises.
Several portions of this trailer correlate to points made by Randy Malamud in “The Zoo Spectatorship.” Malamud does not extend much positive thoughts toward zoos or aquariums. Malamud would likely argue that what this trailer depicts is different than what most videos about animals do. Malamud writes about the repulsive act of viewing animals from a distance in an unnatural environment. In this trailer, the cinematography requires the camera to be up-close- and in the sense an active member in the scenes with the wildlife. There is no distance between the camera and the marine species. The audience views the species in their most natural state and their most natural daily interactions.
Albeit a main reason for making this trailer/film was profits (probably a huge factor), I do believe that there is a large educational component as well. The audience takes away the difference between what viewing animals in a zoo or aquarium and viewing them in their natural environment- something that Malamud would appreciate. Definitely there is an entertainment factor involved for the audience; however it does not disrespect or patronize the animals involved as it would if this film was a documentary about how animals in a zoo or aquarium interact.
An interesting note to take into account is that when I was doing some research into this film, I found out that the original French version of the film is about twenty minutes longer than the North American version. Those twenty minutes depicts violent massacres of sea animals, recreated through visual effects to demonstrate some of the negative aspects of human activity on the environment. Is poses an interesting question in regards to why did Disney choose to omit those scenes from the North American viewers.
Sources:
Malamud, Randy. Zoo Spectatorship. New York: New York University Press, 1998. Print.
Very interesting the American version of this film left out the bloody massacre. I wonder if it serves as a ruse to make Americans believe it is not as bad as it actually is. Or it could be it was deemed to inappropriate for a Disney movie. Either way, good researching.
While I was watching this video I paid close attention to the visuals and started to think that maybe this type of interaction is no different than zoo spectatorship because both seem to be invasive. Much like viewing animals through a cage while they eat and mate this type of filming seems like it must disrupt the animal and I imagine confuses it a bit as well. I’m a big fan of films and shows where you get a first hand look at the natural habitat of sea creatures because it’s interesting to see them in their element, but after reading Malamud I’m starting to think that maybe sticking a camera in the face of a whale or walrus while their just trying to catch fish or swim is pretty invasive and may even serve to objectify them in the way that cooping animals up in a zoo does.
Watching this video and reading this blog post made me have a lot of conflicting ideas on how I felt about the production of this movie. On one hand, I question whether or not this is right – filming animals in their daily lives when they can’t necessarily consent to it. However, we have no idea whether or not animals really feel exposed when filmed or if they have a sense of privacy and we are invading it. Also, I feel as though this type of documentation is necessary to some degree. As an animal lover and someone who is intrigued and amazed by different species – I think my life would lack something if I couldn’t at least see (even through a television screen) what these animals look like, what they do, and how vastly different their environment is to ours. I am adamantly against keeping animals in zoos and behind cages, but I think some visibility and transparency into their habitat is beneficial.
I completely understand what you are saying. I personally believe that one thing that the film production could do that would at least make me more comfortable with the film, is to provide transparency in how they specifically filmed the marine species. How much obstruction in these organisms’ natural environments occurred?
Watching this video reminded me of an older Disney documentary about lemmings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMZlr5Gf9yY
In this documentary the lemmings appear to be committing mass suicide and the narrator says that the lemmings believe the ocean to just be another lake so there must be a farther shore. It makes the lemmings appear stupid, however it later was revealed the camera crew was pushing the lemmings over the cliff into the ocean and that it was not at all a natural behavior. While I believe that Disney would no longer do something this cruel anymore, partially because hopefully their morals have improved and partially because they would definitely get in a lot of trouble if they did, it does show however that documentaries while informative can also be “set-up.” Humans interacting with animals will inevitably lead to a change in the animal’s behavior. Constantly having cameras following an animal, while often harmless, can sometimes frighten or stress out the animal. Or feeding, or playing can be staged so that the camera crew gets a better shot or such. While I feel documentaries can be very informative and I really like them, it’s important to keep in mind the source and that the documentaries are also trying to entertain and make a profit.