Television of
Attractions
An aesthetic analysis of the spectacle
of Planet Earth II and how it invites an
immersive sensorial experience.
26 – 06 – 2017
Jip Köster
Abstract
Television is primarily considered as a medium that is unable to attract the audience’s full concentration. Due to the generally small television screen-sizes and the domestic surroundings in which the medium is often situated, media-scholars have defined television as a medium that distracts the audience’s gaze. However, the screen-size and domestication of television no longer determine the sensorial experience of the viewer. Moreover, televisual content appears to have impact on the way television is experienced as well. Network channels shifted their focus from a mass audience towards niche audiences, which has led to more specific content. The specificity of television programmes causes that certain interested viewers shift from a glance viewing practice towards a gaze. Current television theories already include the idea that televisual content can consist of attractive images, yet it is problematic that these theories do not cover the whole spectrum of genres that is broadcast on television. Defining television’s style and aesthetics is an ongoing process and medias-scholars have already tried to
analyse genres that have presented visually qualitative television images. Television studies mainly concentrated on the visual quality of fiction genres to create an understanding of television as a medium. Nevertheless, television documentary is generally ignored in these analyses. Documentary images are generally considered as observational and reportorial. Indeed, documentary aims to present reality, yet the genre can also present content as a ‘thick’ text that contains attractive images. Therefore, this research focuses on the BBC
documentary series Planet Earth II to include the genre in the theoretical field of television studies. I argue that the aesthetics of the documentary series create a spectacle, which invites an immersive sensorial experience. The spectacle that emerges from the pictorial, aural and narratological aesthetics is also interrelated with the construction of the story. Both spectacle and narrative work together in transferring certain ideas and moods, whereby the audiences’ full attention becomes captured. After all, the aesthetic analysis in this research is aimed to nuance traditional theories of television and documentary realism. In doing so, I contribute to a wider understanding of television as medium and its style.
Keywords: television, documentary, aesthetics, glance, gaze, thick texts,
Index
Introduction 4
Chapter 1: The interplay of viewing experiences in relation to transformed televisual content 7
1.1 Television viewing practices: the glance and gaze 9
1.2 Thin and thick texts and the notion of looking at 11
1.3 Spectacle and its relation to narrative 12
1. 4 The sensorial experiences of immersion and distraction 14
Chapter 2: The spectacle of Planet Earth II 17 2.1 Islands 17 2.2 Mountains 21 2.3 Jungles 25 2.4 Deserts 30 2.5 Grasslands 34 2.6 Cities 37
Conclusion 44 Bibliography 47 Audio-visual references 48
1.
Introduction
Recently the BBC has broadcast their new series Planet Earth II (2016), which is a follow up from the first season that was broadcast ten years ago. This new
documentary-series kindled my interest and while watching all six episodes I noticed that the series grasped me. This left me wondering why this series had this particular effect on me. Is it the topic of nature and wildlife that makes it so intriguing? And if so, why haven’t I experienced this before in watching other nature documentaries? What is it that makes me so concerned with these
animals and their quests in life, even if nature is not one of my biggest interests? After interrogating myself it became clear that it has not only to do with the story itself. More than that, I began to believe that the specificity of the production of the series has had an impact on my visual experience of it. The overall
characteristics of the series reminded me of what Tom Gunning described as ‘the cinema of attractions’. Gunning argues that this particular cinematic decade was characteristic for its dominance of the attractions of the images. He explains that filmmakers in that time wanted to create an appealing image that could shock the audience, rather than creating a narrative that resulted into the engaging of the audience (Gunning 121). For me, the attractiveness of the images of Planet
Earth II is what makes the series so intriguing. More than that, the series could
almost be described as ‘TV of attractions’, since the story appears to be secondary to the visual spectacle of animals surviving their daily struggles. Hence, I began to focus on the aesthetics of the series. The high definition quality of the images, the editing, the camera angles and the intensity of the music, all of these visual and aural aesthetics seem to support this spectatorial experience of mine. It still remained unanswered how the aesthetics were provoking this highly interested spectatorial experience for me and this is precisely what I am trying to pin down in this thesis.
Initially, Planet Earth II is produced by the BBC to be broadcast on
television. The BBC has a successful history in making television documentaries. Most nature documentaries of this public broadcast service are supported by the voice-over of David Attenborough. Besides Planet Earth, Attenborough also narrated the successful documentary series Africa (2013), Frozen Planet (2011-2012) and Life (2009-2010). Attenborough is a British biologist but is especially known for his contribution to BBC television productions. His voice grants
same time, the BBC is an authentic element of the documentary. The public broadcast service has produced multiple wildlife documentaries that have been received successfully, such as the examples I mentioned above. It even seems that these productions of the BBC are considered as artworks. Subsequently, many documentaries and series of the BBC turned into collectible items. Fans are able to buy these products as DVD boxes and some shows are even available on streaming-services as Netflix. On account of Planet Earth II being both a
documentary and televisual content my research overlaps between the academic fields of documentary and television. Qua aesthetics, documentary is relatively ignored within the academic field of television studies. New technologies and strategies within the field of television have created a more cinematic and attractive appeal of the televisual images. Most of the time, research on these kind of television aesthetics is focussed on prime time TV or fictive television programmes or series. For example, in Television Aesthetics and Style edited by Jason Jacobs and Steven Peacock, the focus is primarily on fiction series. Since this book aims to attend television style in its whole, I think it is quite strange that documentary aesthetics are totally ignored here. More than that, I think it is certainly relevant to discuss documentaries and their aesthetics concerning this shift within television, as the immersion of the image is not only characteristic for fiction. Documentary aesthetics are changing as well. It is no longer necessary for documentaries to deploy strategies of realism. There are multiple ways in which documentary images are becoming more attractive, rather than they only display causal and non-aesthetical images. Furthermore, the spectacle of the images seems to become of much greater importance than before. The focus in documentary seems to have shifted towards a tendency in which the
attractiveness of the images is just as important as the story that is being told. More than that, sometimes the spectacle of the images appears to be even the main focus. At least the interplay between the images and the constructed narrative is interesting to explore, since both aspects work together in transferring certain moods, ideas and stories. Moreover, by involving
documentary aesthetics I extend traditional theories on televisual experiences. Therefore my research question is the following:
How does the aesthetics of the BBC documentary-series of Planet
Earth II invite an immersive spectatorial experience and transforms
In the first chapter I will discuss four academic concepts that will support my analysis of Planet Earth II. I begin with a brief contextualisation of the television landscape and how its transformations have affected televisual aesthetics. The first section handles the viewing practices of “glance and gaze” and their interaction within television viewing practices. Thereafter I will give a detailed explanation of John Corner’s understanding of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ texts. The definition of ‘thickness’ is in my opinion most relevant to discuss in relation to
Planet Earth II, since the series is known for its beautiful and astonishing images.
This is accompanied with an explanation of the difference between ‘looking through’ and ‘looking at’ that Corner has introduced as a tool to analyse pictorial aesthetics. The third section defines the concept of spectacle and here I notice that this concept is closely related to narrative, as Richard Rushton has argued. Indeed, both concepts work together within one story, and this leads to certain sensorial experiences. These experiences are divided in an immersive and distractive experience and I will define both experiences in the last section of chapter one.
The second chapter consists of the analysis of the aesthetics of Planet
Earth II. This chapter is structured in six sections in which each section contains
the analysis of one of the six episodes of the documentary series. Every section depicts on one or more scenes that I have considered spectacular in the
respective episodes and that are worth discussing. The analysis focusses on the pictorial, aural and narratological aesthetics of the series and how they are inter-related. Emphasising on the editing, camera movements- and angles and the framing of shots I give a detailed analysis of the pictorial aesthetics. Further, I will show how diegetic and non-diegetic sound support the pictorial aesthetics in transferring certain moods. Hereby, I include the impact of Attenborough’s voice-over, the exaggeration of diegetic sound and non-diegetic music. Morevoice-over, the analyses display how the aesthetic categories work together to construct a narrative. This is extended by the use of ‘little stories’, which are also established through Attenborough’s guidance. On top of that, the spectacle that arises from all of the aesthetics does affect the narratological structure of the content. Hence, narrative and spectacle are inter-related as well.
In the conclusion I will return to my argument that the aesthetics of the BBC documentary series Planet Earth II do invite an immersive spectatorial
and documentary realism. I will support this conclusion with a brief summary of my analysis and relate my findings to the theoretical debate on television aesthetics. Throughout the analyses of the six episodes it becomes clear that documentary aesthetics are no longer just a tool to present factual and
observational representations of the truth. Indeed, a documentary is also able to astonish the audience through the beauty of the artificiality of the content. Since documentary is above all presented on television, it is time to include
documentary aesthetics and the way it’s experienced into theories on televisual images.
Chapter 1: The interplay of viewing experiences
in relation to transformed televisual content
Frequently, media scholars have characterised television as an unstable- and somewhat difficult medium. Television is complicated in the sense that is has a multi-faced configuration and is always in transition (Buoanno 27). The medium already shifted from a broadcast- towards a network era and recently it
transformed into the so called post-broadcast era. “Broadcast television was characterized by a one-to-many mode of address, organized as a large-scale industry. Post-broadcast television is characterized by interactivity,
customization, multiple platforms and non-broadcast xiv reading television screen entertainment carried via video, cable, streaming, or archive systems such as TiVo” (Fiske and Hartley XV). The transformation of television has consequences for its characterisation and the way it is experienced. In the introduction of
Television Aesthetics and Style Jason Jacobs and Steven Peacock state that:
[The] contemporary place of television in the world informs our standing towards its moments. Historically, in western culture, television has been perceived as a throwaway medium, a provider of information and
entertainment, the latter easily devoured and dispensed with by the channel-hopping consumer. This scenario leads to thoughts on traditional forms od television broadcasting, of the images ‘s live-ness, of a fixed schedule of air-dates and times, of groups within nations watching the same drama unfold at the same time. In turn the ephemeral nature of the TV transmission is ever-present; the moment always disappearing even as it is shown, potentially lost in the minute it ends. Of course the advent of the VCR, DVD and PVR has changed this relationship, allowing repeat viewings of individual series, episodes and moments. (7)
Hence, television is a medium that is in constant motion, partly due to innovation in visual technology such as the introduction of the DVD, HD TV and Video-on-Demand. Moreover, TV has become a less ephemeral medium that provides content for casual consuming, rather the medium transformed into a content provider whose programmes are watched with more concentration and attention. The improvement of these technologies has resulted into the digitalisation of television and a shift within the conception of television itself. For Curtin: “[the] conception of television has changed from that of a highly centralized mode of transmission to a more flexible field of electronic media. Rather than indifferently transmitting a line-up of shows each evening, television companies now operate in an interactive, asynchronous intermedia milieu”(19). In other words, television
is a multi-channel medium that invites all sorts of audiences. Moreover, television networks began to realise that the former mass-appeal programming was no longer efficient. Instead of attracting the mass, the industry tried to reach a more passionate group of viewers. At the same time, the possible niche-audiences are interesting for advertisers because of their loyalty towards certain channels and their programs. Consequently, the sponsoring of the channels and their content tend to create more financial space which supports the improvement of
television’s visual style (Curtin 11).
Despite the increase of visually stylized televisual images, an attractive image is regularly not labelled as a televisual characteristic. These kinds of images are mostly referred to as ‘cinematic’. As Brett Mills describes in chapter three of Television Aesthetics and Style that “the cinematic can be seen to delineate programming that prioritizes the visual more than what is assumed to be typical for television, offering audiences both narrative meaning and pleasure in the imagery that appears on screen”(58). The term ‘cinematic’ is primarily used to “suggest that one of the ways television might appeal to its audience is through its ability to see those kinds of things you would not have previously seen on TV” (59). Moreover, this implies that television is usually seen as a medium that is unable to create images that are visually qualitative. Mills problematizes the use of the term ‘cinematic’ when discussing television aesthetics.
[…] the ‘cinematic’ might be seen as a positive term when applied to (some) television can only be seen as a reassertion of a hierarchy that sees television as film’s poor relation. This means that television style can only seem to become of interest when it is seen to draw on the conventions of another medium which, in broad terms, has far more cultural legitimacy. (64)
I agree that the term ‘cinematic’ is very problematic in its relation to television. Indeed, it is a fact that cinematic practices are being used during productions of television. But it might be fair to conceptualize ‘cinematic’ differently while discussing television aesthetics. Although television is a medium that lends aesthetics and styles from various genres and media, it is undeniable that it has created an interesting and spectacular style of its own.
This televisual style that Caldwell has introduced as ‘televisuality’ has to do with a lot more than just aesthetics: “the style emphasis that emerged […]
mode of production, in programming practice, in the audience and its expectations and in an economic crisis in network television” (Caldwell 5).
However, since this research is focussed on the aesthetics of Planet Earth II, I will emphasize on the aesthetics and the sensorial experiences that are part of this notion of ‘televisuality’. First I will elaborate on the notion of glance and gaze, and how the distinction of these viewing practices are no longer characteristic for television (glance) and film (gaze) only. Especially in television, the interplay and interaction of both these viewing practices is crucial. Which viewing practice is expected has primarily to do with the specificity of the content. Secondly, I will discuss Corner’s notion of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ texts in relation to documentary aesthetics. In this section it becomes clear that a documentary floats between both ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ texts. The elements of ‘thickness’ and the notion of ‘looking at’ will be essential in my own analysis of Planet Earth II, since I am looking for aesthetics that invite an immersive experience. ‘Thick’ texts resemble this kind of experience, as it brings the audience towards an ‘imaginary space’. To get in more detail on this imaginary space I will detail some ideas on spectacle and narrative and how both these concept influence each other. The last section handles the concept of immersion and its relation to the concept of distraction. This paragraph is used to create a distinction between these two sensorial experiences that are caused by spectatorial images. All concepts explained in this chapter are useful in the analysis of the aesthetics of Planet Earth II and the spectatorial experience it invites.
1.1 Television viewing practices: the glance and gaze
It is fundamental to discuss the traditional division between glance and gaze, since my research contributes to a more contemporary approach towards television experiences. Milly Buonanno tried to capture this modern way of experiencing television as well. She focussed mainly on traditional theories on glance and gaze and how these concepts are not applicable to one medium only. Formerly, television has been characterised as a medium that is consumed in domestic space. This led to the idea that television is unable to attract the audience gaze. Buonanno explains that this statement originated from the idea that “television is a polysensorial medium, since it engages both sight and hearing, yet it does not necessarily have first claim on our senses” (36). She
relates this to ‘subsidiary involvement’, a concept that is introduced by Goffman. For him ‘subsidiary involvement is “ ‘an activity to which the individual can be dedicated in an absent-minded fashion, without compromising or muddling up the main task that is being done simultaneously’”(36). In other words, there is no deep focus but more a distracted viewing experience. This is precisely the
association with the glance viewing experience. Moreover, the casual, relaxed and domestic surroundings of television have affected the aesthetics of television as well. The idea that television is unable to attract the viewers gaze seems to have resulted in a tendency that displays televisual aesthetics as ‘low’ and unattractive (37). This is a clear contradiction with the idea of the viewing
experiences of cinema. Usually, films are experienced in quiet, dark surroundings, such as a movie theatre. In this way, it is easier for the audience to be deeply concentrated, since there are few possibilities that the viewer would be
distracted. The cinematographic images tend to be more attractive than the casual televisual image. Hence, cinematic images invite the audience‘s gaze rather than their glance. These different viewing practices of television and cinema also result from the size of the screen. Cinematographic images are most of the time produced to be presented on big screens, such as the screens of movie theatres. Television, however was mostly received through smaller screens that fit into the domestic space, it “is not a medium capable of providing any form of sensory immersion: compared to the Imax or to a trip through virtual reality goggles, its screen (even in its “giant” sizes) remains ridiculously small” (Citton 216). Hence, the televisual images were formerly only depicted as worthy of a glance.
Yet, Buonanno argues that this division between glance and gaze in
relation to television and cinema is almost redundant. It is no longer the case that viewing practices are determined by the medium itself, it is rather related to the specificity of the content that is shown. Indeed “in clear contradiction to
speculations on television‘s hypnotic power, television can be not only a background and a means to lateral involvement, but also a primarily focus of interest, attention and gaze” (Buonanno 39). Television and its multiplicity of channels offer a variation of content, which potentially offers ‘something for everyone’ (Weatly 898). Since television networks focus on attracting niche audiences, the medium:
[…] allows us to switch between looking an listening, between involvement and detachment, and because it offers us both demanding and relaxing
forms of cultural entertainment and social participation, that it can claim possess the true and authentically distinctive qualities of an open medium. It is flexible; and it is resistant both to theoretical imposition and to the empirical experience of fixed, essential and unchanging characteristics. (Buonanno 41)
For example, while watching a detective series on television the viewer should not get distracted, since he or she would miss some essential clues that are necessary in the development of the story. So, the specificity of the content eventually determines the viewing practices and experiences, rather than the medium itself. Furthermore, the televisual image has become highly stylized over time. As mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, technology is one key pioneer in this stylistic shift. Indeed, as Caldwell argues in his book Televisuality.
Style, Crisis, And Authority in American Television, “style, long seen as a mere
signifier and vessel for content, issues, and ideas, has now itself become one of television’s most privileged and showcased signifieds” (50). This stylization of the televisual image, sometimes referred to as the ‘cinematic’ image, also
contributes to this shift within the expectations of viewing practices. The concept of immersion, discussed in the following paragraph, is closely related to the gaze viewing practice, since it refers to the total absorption of the audiences gaze. Hence, the transformations of the televisual image should aim for a new phenomenology towards the experience and viewing practice of television.
1.2 Thin and thick texts and the notion of looking at
The transformation of the televisual image is also visible in documentary aesthetics. John Corner responds to the broad tendency within cultural studies that regards television as an “aesthetically rather impoverished medium” (93). Corner argues that documentaries should be analysed against the backdrop of their pictorial, aural and narratological aesthetics. He argues that “the category of aesthetics point us towards the organization of creative works, the experience they produce […] and the modes of analysis and theory that can be used in investigation” (92). Documentary positions itself within the television spectrum where “some of it being extremely self-conscious and aesthetically ambitious (convergent in this respect with ‘high-end drama’), some of it committed to reportorial or observational naturalisms that make it very close to news in
discursive character”(93). He acknowledges that “it is the interplay of artefactual design and subjectivity that generates the aesthetic experience and it is
important to stop this being simply into ‘form’ on one side or ‘pleasure’ on the other”(95). To extend this argument he introduced the notions of ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ texts which help to analyse a documentary in terms of their density. I will briefly describe what Corner means with a ‘thin’- and ‘thick’ text. But in my research I will emphasize his notion of ‘thickness’, because it serves as a relevant tool to analyse the aesthetics of Planet Earth II.
To begin with, through the representations of current affairs in a realistic and reportorial way and the absence of a ‘cinematic’ style, a ‘thin text’ aims to be close to reality.
Documentary portrayal is often drawn to a literalism of representation, its compositions, framing, angles, lighting, colourings and movements
designed to engage a kind of […] self-conscious, realist assent, although its referentiality is always performed through style, however quietly. An
apparent absence of style […] constitutes at least part of the conventional grounds of trust and credibility. (Corner 96)
Often a ‘thin’ text is characterised as expositional and less fictional and
traditional theories on documentary aesthetics would aim for the same thing. On a pictorial level a ‘thin’ text seems to represent exactly what is in front of the camera, without any interference of the producers. The aural aesthetics of a ‘thin’ text are neutral background noises and the speech and music should only be diegetic. In this way the sound refers to reality as well (99). The problem begins on the narratological level. However, a ‘thin’ text aims to be trustworthy it is not
deniable that even a ‘thin’ text is an artificial object. A documentary is created with a certain idea in mind and despite the representation of the ‘real’ there are certain narrative designs realized within them. At this point, there is an
intertwining between what is ‘thin’ and its opposite.
Corner describes this oppositional concept as a ‘thick’ text. Since a ‘thin’ texts claimed to come closer to reality, a ‘thick’ text refers to a documentary format that is more fictive. Instead of the visualisation of reality, a ‘thick’ text rather emphasises the textual display and its performance. A ‘thick’ text could also be described as a ‘poetic’ documentary, since it has such a visually stylized nature (94). The pictorial aesthetics of a ‘thick’ text contain a multiplicity of attractive images that resemble stylisation of fiction genres. Therefore, a ‘thick’ text is less self-conscious and not aware of its process of mediation. Corner elaborates his concept of ‘thickness’ by introducing the notion of ‘looking at’, which he explains as:
The experience of looking at documentary images often combines an aesthetic registration of qualities of the depiction itself with that of certain, visual properties of the things depicted (their shapes, colours, proportions and spatial relations – as in landscapes, building, objects. It also may involve indirect engagement with the subject through the use of metaphor, which usually requires to be read as a discourse about the world rather than a depiction of it. (96)
In other words, the notion of ‘looking at’ creates an observation that transforms the viewed world into an ‘imaginary space’. On a pictorial level, this results into extensively theatricalized images. The specific use of certain editing practices and camera movements- and angles create a highly stylised image. Hence, “whatever core this has in the naturalistic co-ordinates of documentarism, it can also be extensively theatricalized too (a ‘charged real’ so to speak)” (97). The aural aesthetics of a ‘thick’ text often consist of non-diegetic music and the use of a voice-over. These forms of sound are included in a documentary to support the ‘imaginary space’ it aims to construct. Furthermore, as mentioned before, the narratological aesthetics of a ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ text become intertwined. On the one hand a documentary can be reportorial, whereas it can also consist of ‘little stories’. These ‘little stories’ can support the “development of the official
argument, suggesting a degree of production tension between the chosen theme for reportage and the imaginative possibilities to emerge from the case-studies selected to illustrate it”(99). Consequently, within a ‘thick’ text the narrative is always artificial and constructed. These ‘thick’ elements of the three
documentary aesthetics will function as the basic assumptions that are the foundation of my aesthetic analysis.
1.3 Spectacle and its relation to narrative
The ‘thick’ text is related to Laura Mulvey’s idea of ‘visual pleasure’. Her notion is described through gender politics and narratology which gave rise to her idea of ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’ (Lewis 214). The concept of spectacle is often used as analytical tool within film studies, but I think it is quite useful within television studies as well. Moreover, while discussing spectacle the notion of narrative must be implemented. According to Simon Lewis “narrative and spectacle are not […] distinct concepts that identify particular sequences in isolation to others: they are terms used to describe a particular range of balances between narration and nonnarrational transmission” (217). With this idea in mind Lewis introduced the transmission approach which:
[…] allows us to reassess the nature and function of spectacle in
mainstream cinema, to adopt a new way of thinking about spectacle. It also allows us to appreciate a more nuanced and complex relationship with narrative and to reconsider the nature of narrative and the narrative drive itself. This approach is suggested as a means of practical analysis. It is not in any real sense a theoretical approach at all. It is a start, a means to begin to understand what spectacle is and how it works as part of the spectator’s cinematic experience. (221)
Lewis approach is primarily used in film analysis, but his approach could also be used while analysing spectacular television. He conceptualises spectacle into two main categories. The first one he describes is called ‘event spectacle’ which refers to images that tend “to generate excitement, astonishment, awe, possibly fear, arising out of the spectator’s identification not only with the characters’ predicament but also the event in itself”(218). These experiences result from the manipulations used within the mise-en-scène which shape the non-fictional or fictional transmissions. The use of manipulation of time such as speed and slow motion, increase the impact of what Lewis calls ‘event spectacle’ (218). In short, ‘event spectacle’ is when something spectacular is happening, in both the
diegetic- and non-diegetic space. The second category of spectacle is described as ‘object spectacle’. Most of the time this form of spectacle occurs at the moment where a main character is revealed and where “the spectator [is
supposed to] look at a particular object as a spectacle in itself” (218). ‘Object spectacle’ is not only related to the revelation of characters. Revealing certain locations, landscapes, or buildings in the diegetic world can count as ‘object spectacle’ as well. This subcategory of spectacle is often used to establish “[…] the status of the hero or the spectacular backdrop to the action, so that the spectator’s emotional alignment with certain narrative concerns that the film is advancing is reinforced” (218). Hereby, the audience is guided into a certain direction of engagement which helps the narrative and how the audience engages with the story.
Lewis acknowledges that his transmission approach is not meant as a theoretical but rather as a practical tool to analyse the function of spectacle. Furthermore, he aims to present the nuanced relationship between spectacle and narrative, since both concepts
[…] work together to reinforce the impact of each other: the narrative establishes the emotional ties between the spectator and the characters in the film and the event spectacle then places them in dangerous situations so that the spectator’s emotional investment in the characters is
heightened still further. Thus, spectacle may both create and in some cases amplify the spectator’s emotional response to the film. The
structuring of the sequence in this way, which acknowledges the presence of the spectator through an exhibitionistic display intended to create or amplify an emotional response, results in a direct communication with the spectator outside the film’s diegesis. (218)
Hence, the ‘wow’ effect that is produced by the images supports the spectacle- and narrative and result into ‘visual pleasure’. Similarly Richard Rushton argues that “the function of spectacle is no longer one that opposes narrative, but
rather, spectacle becomes an integral element in the unfolding of narrative” (37). He even acknowledges that it becomes difficult to distinct spectacle in forms of what resists, suspends or contributes to it (38). For example, narrative film can be constructed in such a way that the framing, editing or other practical elements can turn the story into a spectacle. Rushton discusses the film Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000) and how spectacle and narrative work together in creating the film’s story. Rushton is far from negative and depicts on spectacle as a tool that is a response to what he has called the ‘tyranny of Hollywood narrative’. He
elaborates on this statement by saying that: “no longer do we need to be held captive by the imaginary dream-worlds of Hollywood and its petty stories, its ‘tutor-code’ of ideological mirages” (37). What Rushton tries to explain is that spectacle can provide a bodily corporeal engagement with the film. This
engagement is not only related to film’s diegetic world. More than that, spectacle results into alignment that is also connected to the cinematic apparatus of the film itself (37). Hence, the spectacle contributes to the narrative and claims the direct engagement of the audience. In doing so, it becomes clear that spectacle itself is a tool to create content that requires the viewer’s full attention. Hence, content that implements this ‘visual pleasure’ is able to attract a gaze, even when shown on television.
1.4 The sensorial experiences of immersion and
distraction
The spectatorial experience that follows ‘visual pleasure’ cannot be elaborated further without mentioning Siegfried Kracaeur. He argues that aesthetics are always bodily experienced. In his theory on the Berliner ‘picture palaces’ he refers to the palaces as total artworks. These total artworks assault our senses in every possible way (92). In spite of saying that the total artworks create an immersive experience, Kraceaur argues that it is quite the opposite. The assaulting of the senses causes overstimulation, which creates an
an-aestheticized experience. The artworks are no longer absorbing the audience attention; it rather leads to distraction (94).
Kracaeur’s argument is in contradiction with a lot of other theories that critically approach the notion of spectatorial experience. Various theorists have argued that instead of being distracted, the spectator becomes absorbed by the ‘visual pleasure’ on screen. As mentioned above, Rushton agrees with Lewis that both spectacle and narrative are deployed in supporting the overall story. The experience that follows this ‘visual pleasure’ is, according to Rushton, quite similar to what Thomas Elsaesser describes as engulfment:
For Elsaesser, engulfment is a characteristic trend in contemporary Hollywood cinema that brings the viewer into moods of awe and wonder, but also into modes of disorientation, affective complexity and shock. This engulfing mode of address occurs when a film ‘can be seen to suspend narrative in favour of spatial or aural perspectivism. Instead of the
bounded image, the mode of engulfment works with the ambient image in which it is sound that now ‘locates’, ‘cues’ and even ‘narrates’ the image, producing a more corporeal set of perception’. (36-37)
Notwithstanding that Rushton’s approach is mostly focused on Hollywood, his argument fits the televisual image as well. Rushton argues that spectacle creates a direct engagement with the body, “a bodily corporeal, or, in short, a ‘real’ or ‘true’ engagement – with the film [and televisual] world with the cinematic apparatus itself” (37). The experience of this engagement is variable. One form of engagement that is mentioned a lot is absorption. Rushton sees a tendency within film studies where theorists are ‘scared’ of absorption, since it might distance the audience from its consciousness towards the process of mediation. However, Rushton thinks of absorption in a rather positive way. He considers absorption as a way for the audience to enter the film’s imaginary world (112). The engagement with the imaginary world is particularly reached through a bodily response rather than through the understanding of an image (Rushton 37). This links back to the notion of ‘thickness’ described by Corner, which also
generated an imaginary space in which the audience can lose itself. In other words, the audience gets absorbed.
The concept of absorption can also be identified as immersion. In a short dialogue of translation with Joseph Nechvatal, Yves Citton tries to capture the meaning of immersion. Nechvatal identifies the concept as: “it is this sense of latent excess within immensity that draws the eye and mind in, and conceptually sublimates our being in the construction of an ontological state of hyper being” (217). He explains his definition in more detail by saying that:
The immersive, synthetic art model offers an alternative visual regime of and for the self-programming psyche in that mental-visual range is extended (via latent excess) and is counteractive tot ontological
foreclosure. In total immersion, self-programmable thoughts takes over the space around the constructed self and the meta-programming ego
expands to fill the vastness of immersive excess by transference. […]In situations of immersion, the ontological self ceases to think of itself as a substance or thing, and instead perceives itself as a continuously changing process of virtual-actual events in search of ever more well-being. The important apex of this process of immersion is not that of disembodiment, but rather that of disembodiment’s generation of a hyper-embodiment where self-referential conscious and unconscious self-perceptions become extended, enhanced, and connected through passion (218).
Hence, immersion is a state of ‘hyper being’ created within an extensive imaginary space through which the audience is totally absorbed. In relation to visual objects it is the case that the mind and eyes are deeply focused on what is shown on screen. In this case, the process of immersion generates an
unconsciously fully embodied experience. This deep focus can also be distracted via ‘latent excess’. At this point the audience is bombarded with images and the abundance of this content can cause distraction as well. In other words, the eye and mind can’t handle this much information and spectacle, so it disrupts the focus. This is what is meant by ‘hyper-embodiment’, the audience can switch between an immersive- and distractive experience. This theory resembles the idea of Kracaeur where he states that the bombardment of the senses results into the assaulting of the senses which, in turn, leads to distraction.
Apparently there are two kinds of sensorial experiences. One that we can call an immersive experience and at the other hand there is the distractive experience. Similarly to the viewing practices glance and gaze (discussed in paragraph 2.1), both experiences can interact within one media object. The idea of the interplay between these experiences originates from the thought that each visual moment can call for a different kind of experience. Furthermore, I have shown that the viewing practices glance and gaze are inter-related. Content can determine whether images claim the audience’s gaze or glance. Besides the specificity of the content, this has also to do with the technological developments that impact the size of screens and the quality in which they can present visual content. Then, it became clear that the spectacle of images can result into an immersive and distractive experience. Both experiences can be achieved within one particular programme, which relates to the idea that glance and gaze are inter-related. Some visuals claim the full attention and an immersive experience, where other images result into the distraction of the viewer that is primarily caused by the assaulting of the senses. Moreover, spectacle and narrative work together in telling a story, which is deployed in both aural and visual aesthetics.
Notwithstanding that I have acknowledged that there is interplay between viewing experiences and the effects of spectacle in relation to narrative can also provide distraction, I am primarily interested in the sequences of Planet Earth II where the series specifically invites an immersive experience. This is my main focus, since I think it is relevant to create more understanding on how televisual images have the ability of claiming the audience full attention even if the content is non fictive.
Chapter 2: The Spectacle of Planet Earth II
In this chapter I will analyse the pictorial, aural and narratological aesthetics of
Planet Earth II in a very detailed way. I structure my analysis in six sections; each
one is focused on a different episode of the series. This structure is chronological, since I will start the analysis of episode one and end with the sixth episode. In each section I will depict on one or more specific scenes that invite a spectatorial sensorial experience. The selection of the scenes I chose to discuss is based on my own experience. In some way or another, all scenes had an astonishing impact on me and lingered in my memory. The spectatorial pictorial aesthetics primarily include the cinematography and editing of the images. The aural
aesthetics refer to the diegetic- and non-diegetic sound that supports the images and enhance their intensity. Finally, the narratological aesthetics construct the narrative and present ‘little stories’ that contribute to the more general argument of the series. Despite this delineated categorisation, I primarily analyse these aesthetics in relation to each other. After all, all aesthetics work together in establishing a certain narrative and its spectacle.
2.1 Islands
The first episode of Planet Earth II is called ‘Islands’. As the title already implies, this episode is about a selection of islands. David Attenborough introduces this episode by saying that; “there are hundreds and thousands of islands, each one a world in miniature, a microcosm of our living planet. The struggles to survive of these remote lands reflect the challenges of all life on earth”. I have chosen one spectacular scene, which emphasises on this toughness and the struggles of island life. In this section I will show how the aural- and pictorial aesthetics accompany each other in the construction of the narrative. The analysis consists of one particular scene, in which the spectacle is clearly recognisable.
The spectacular scene begins in the middle of episode one. It shows young marine iguanas living on the Galapagos Islands, Fernandia. This scene starts with a close up of a pebble stone beach where a young marine iguana emerges. The head slowly appears from below the pebble stones and Attenborough tells us that the youngsters are very vulnerable at this moment. The young iguana needs to start his journey towards the adults at the other side of the rocks. This is followed
by a wide shot of the young iguana slowly walking through the rocky sand. While the iguana is filmed from behind, Attenborough says that this journey will be dangerous. In this way the voice-over already implies a suspenseful event that will follow in the next sequences. The wide shot that follows introduces the open beach, which the iguana has to cross before he reaches the ‘safe’ rocks. No music is used here, except for a long-during bass tone that backgrounds the first part of the iguana’s journey. Despite this little presence of music, this low bass sound invites a feeling of anxiety and stimulates the idea that something dangerous is going to happen any time soon. In this way, the mood for the coming events is set. After a quick reverse shot of the adult iguanas, which indicates the
youngster’s destination, the shot returns that shows the youngster on the beach. The music, that has been primarily soft, now increases in volume. The camera is still filming the young iguana from behind, but it no longer follows its moving direction. Slowly snakes appear from the right side of the frame and join the iguana within the same shot, yet the iguana has not noticed that it is being followed. The dark bass tones of the music begin to coexist with higher sharp dissonance tones, which enhance the experience of suspense and danger. As Corner have argued:
Perhaps the richest and most intriguing aural aesthetic in many
documentaries, however, is that provided by music. Its regulation of our sense of place, time and mood as well as its use as punctuation within the documentary narrative system (bridgings, little closures and openings across scenes and episodes) is a regular cue to viewing subjectivity. (98) The mood that is set in this scene is clearly suspenseful. Even the sound of
Attenborough’s voice establishes this subjectivity. While the snakes come nearer, Attenborough’s reveals that these are ‘Racer Snakes’. His calm but dark toned voice and the silence that follows, both imply the danger that has appeared now the snakes arrived. The suspense is reinforced by a wide shot that shows the iguana looking back, finally being aware of the danger surrounding him. From the moment that the young iguana starts to run, the tempo of the music increases. Rhythmic- and high volume drum tones acknowledge the suspense of the chase. The diegetic sound of the sliding snakes and the running iguana through the pebble stone sand expands the spectacle and creates an experience that is both realistic yet spectacular.
The next sequences consist of many reverse shots between the young iguana and the snakes. The timing of the editing is much faster than before.
Therefore, the editing comes across as quite hysterical, which enhances the experience of hysteria and chaos that is visible within the images. In this way, the editing reinforces the narratological aesthetics that try to display a suspenseful chase. Finally the iguana arrived safely at the rocks and the music stops. The danger seems to be over and the voice over states that the snakes missed their chance. Yet, the next shot is a close-up tilt of an iguana’s carcass, which
emphasises that it is still risky to be out there. The tilt ends with a close-up of another young iguana that emerges and Attenborough states; ‘more babies are hatching’. Before- and after this comment the sequence appears to be very silent. The silence implicates the expected danger that is yet to come and therefore the possible continuation of chases is established. A medium close-up of four snakes follows and the music’s volume is turned up again. The voice over suggests that the snakes won’t give up this time, they are alert now. A shot of many snakes raising their heads affirms this alertness and persistency of catching the young iguanas. In the following sequence a snake almost reaches his prey. For a moment the music stops and both animals freeze. The couple of seconds of silence are interrupted by the start of a new chase. When the new young iguana starts running the music’s tempo increases once again. This tempo seems to follow the movements within the images, so it enhances their impact. While the first snake can’t capture him, yet in the next sequence the iguana is caught by another snake that was hiding between the rocks. A wide shot shows the snake capturing the iguana, which is followed by a close-up of the strangling. The exaggerated sound of something cracking makes this strangling even more intense, since it emphasises on the tragic and painful events the iguanas have to face.
After, a couple of sequences show more iguanas emerging and running for their lives. The images are shown and edited in a high tempo, which is in contrast with the visualisation of the first emerging iguana. In doing so, it is implied that the number of captured iguanas is quite high and therefore the viewer’s empathy is addressed. The snakes are presented as the ‘bad’ guys, whereas the newly hatched iguanas seem to represent innocence. This representation opens up space to invite the audience to experience compassion towards the iguanas, instead of identifying with the racer snakes. One last chase is shown by the use of a long shot. This sequence shows an iguana running for his life, and more and more snakes are coming after him. A medium close-up displays the iguana being strangled, yet it is able to escape. The running proceeds and the music’s volume
is harder and consist of more high dissonance tones. Despite the still present rhythmic drum tone that refers to the danger of this chase, the combining of the higher tones in the music implicates hope. Especially when the chase continues on top of the rocks, the music emphasises the probably safe ending. The last jump towards the highest rocks is extended by the highest tone in the music so far, which enhances the experience of this vital last jump. Finally the young iguana seems to be safe and the music stops. The disruption of the music reinforces the idea that the dangerous events are finished and it confirms the peace that is established now the iguana made it to the other side. Hence, the aural aesthetics in this scene support the overall story and have been crucial in transmitting a story that is experienced with suspense and hope. The
constructiveness of this scene is a good example of Corner’s ‘thick text’. One aspect of a ‘thick text’ is that; “it may also involve indirect engagement with the subject through the use of metaphor, which usually requires to be read as a discourse about the world rather than a depiction of it”(96). The metaphor that could be interpreted in this scene appears to acknowledge the harshness of life through the narrative of danger and safety, and the intense use of music to give a layer of meaning to the events filmed. In short, this happens when images combine the qualities of the particular things it depicts on. The struggle of the young marine iguanas could inherently refer to the general struggle of every life on earth, including the lives of the audience that watch Planet Earth II. Hence, the camera movement-, angles- and framing, the editing, time manipulation and the sound in this scene contribute to this metaphorical image, which fuse “ the reality of the world with the motivation of imaginative design”(97). In doing so, the theatricality and spectacle of the scene invite the audience to ‘look at’ the content, rather than they are ‘looking through’ the text. ‘Looking through’ includes an awareness of the construction of the text in order to represent real events. This awareness of the construction is a way of representing the real events that projects a more relative and transparent depiction (97). Yet I have shown that this episode of Planet Earth II primarily makes use of ‘thick text’ elements that result into the viewing experience of ‘looking at’.
2.2 Mountains
Episode two centralises mountain landscapes all over the world. Many animals are shown while surviving on high mountain peaks. The episode shows some of the highest mountains on earth, such as the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains and the Alps. The first scene I will discuss follows a golden eagle during his search for food. In this section I will argue that the editing and cinematography contribute to the engaging of the audience. The second discussed scene analyses how the story of grizzly bears getting rid of their thick winter coats is constructed through diegetic- and non-diegetic sound. The detailed analyses explore the ‘thickness’ that is present in both scenes.
The scene in the Alps start by revealing the ‘character’ of the golden eagle and is followed by a wide shot that shows the eagle flying in between the high mountain tops that are covered in snow. This is followed by a sequence in which the camera moves beyond one of these mountain peaks and reveals the beauty of the winter Alps. In doing so, the audience is attracted into the immenseness of these white mountain landscapes- and becomes aware of the scarcity of food in this period. While the next shots show the golden eagle in medium close-up and in a wide shot again, Attenborough informs the audience that golden eagles have to scan the mountain peaks every hour of the day to find “something,
somewhere, to eat”. Here, the voice over contributes to the dramatics of the scene, since the attention has now shifted from the beauty of mountains to the question of survival. The sequence that follows is shot from above the mountain peaks with a point of view that is directed downward. It is a spectacular view that emphasises on the deep ravines the eagle is flying above. Since the next shot returns to the eagle, it is implied that the image that is shown before could have
1.8 Wide shot last jump 1.7 Wide shot escaping iguana
been the eagle’s point of view. In the following sequence the same point of view is implicated and in doing so the audience can replace themselves in the
perspective of the eagle and find out what it’s like to fly in between these high mountain peaks. In other words, the audience’s identification is encouraged through the use of point of view images. This is reinforced within the next shots, whereby a camera seems to be attached to the eagles back. Therefore, the point of view of the eagle and the audience is now literally similar. It is almost as if the viewer is sitting on top of the eagle’s back, which enables for more sympathy towards the eagle and its search for food. Furthermore, these sequences
advertise the technological equipment and capacity for filming of the series. Most shot angles create images that are not available to the ordinary human eye. This intensifies the spectacle of the images as well, since it shows the audience
something they could have never seen before.
A wide shot of three eagles pursues and Attenborough depicts that the first eagle is not the only one that is searching for food, so “she must move fast”. Again, the voice-over is part of the creation of tension and suspense. A couple of sequences later, it is shown how an eagle dives at 200 miles an hour. This is not only done by showing the actual movement of the eagle itself, more than that this action is shown throughout the actual eagle’s perspective. The makers of
Planet Earth II even made a reconstruction of this dive with the camera only, so
the audience can experience this fast dive in their own perspective as well.
Finally, the eagle arrives at an abandoned carcass and successfully completed its hunt. This achievement is strengthened in the pictorial aesthetics by the use of a wide shot that shows the eagle peacefully starting his dinner and establishes the scene with calmness. Thus, in this particular scene the interplay within the
montage of wide-, point of view- and reconstructed point of view shots, result into spectacular images and invites the audience to experience the images as if they are merged together with the birds. Furthermore, these sequences advertise the technological equipment and capacity for filming of the series. Most shot angles create images that are not available to the ordinary human eye. This intensifies the spectacle of the images as well, since it shows the audience something that they are unable to experience as a human being. Hence, the audience can become absorbed through the immersion that is invited by means of the spectacle that is generated by the dramatic use of the voice-over and the advertising of high technology.
The scene in episode two that shows grizzly bears in spring, functions as an example of how non diegetic sound and a voice-over work together in
constructing a story. The ‘little story’ begins with the message that, since spring began, it has become warmer. So, to get rid of their warm winter coats, grizzly bears rub their backs against trees. The story starts quite serious. Attenborough tells the audience that the mother teaches her cubs how to rub their backs against a tree. The cubs follow her example and start rubbing their backs. The only sound that is present in this part of the scene is diegetic sound of their fur rubbing against the tree bark and the background sounds that are so
characteristic for forests. Despite the music of singing birds, no other music is supporting the narrative here. However, in the next sequence Attenborough ironically says that “some trees, it seems, are particularly suitable for rubbing”. The intonation of this sentence implicates the irony in his voice, which is aimed at the ‘strange’ habit of these bears. When the voice over comments that “some itches just have to be scratched”, the mother bear begins rubbing her back and the up-beat non-diegetic music begins to play. Here, the seriousness of the story begins to falter. The images are being extended by the drums and a smooth melody, as the music almost transforms the bear’s rubbing process into a dance routine. The simplicity of the music in combination with these images implicates a kind of silliness that characterises this activity. The diegetic sound of joyful growls in combination with the non-diegetic music intensifies the humour of the amusing scene.
The silliness of the scene is also noticeable in how Attenborough finishes the back rubbing story. Corner has argued that “different modes of the formal (such as commentaries working essentially as read prose, the speech following literary design) and informal (well-turned anecdotes, colloquial rhythms and diction) can all deliver a style-generated pleasure in listening not reducible to the cognitive”(98). This argument is strongly present in Attenborough’s voice-over. The style of Attenborough contributes to the irony of the scene. Rather than only being informative, Attenborough also sets up an informal and even joking tone, which encourages a sense of community and intimacy with the audience. He finishes the scene by saying; “itches satisfactorily scratched, it’s time to eat” and at this point the music stops. Despite that this comment is quite factual; the joking undertone of his voice refers to the simplicity of the process of back rubbing. More than that, the amusement of the scene is also acknowledged at the end when the music has stopped playing and the sound is no longer
non-diegetic. This seems to suggest that it is time to get serious again, and that what has been shown before wasn’t serious at all. The ‘little story’ that is created in this scene consists of various ‘thick’ elements as discussed in chapter one. The makers chose to create an attractive story that,
due to the non-diegetic music and Attenborough’s voice-over, might not be truly realistic. Yet, it appears that they rather produced astonishing images than
presenting the back rubbing activity of the grizzly bears by means of transparent ‘thin’ elements. In doing so, the artificiality of this scene goes along with Corner’s idea that a ‘thick’ text emphasizes on textual display and performances which
invite the audience into the imaginary space (96). After all, the bears are presented in such a way that they are performing a dance routine, while this is not the real intention of their
actions.
2.3 Reverse shot eagle 2.4 Reconstructed point of view of dive
2.2 Point of view shot 2.1 Wide shot golden eagle
2.3 Jungles
The third episode shows several jungles and their internal life. The main theme of this episode concerns the ever present competition and struggle of the jungle life. This is shown by means of various scenes, which display the struggle of hunting, mating and surviving. The scenes I will discuss in this section are all contributing to the overall theme of the episode. Nonetheless, only the analysis of the last scene discussed in this section is specifically focussed on the
developing of the narrative. The analyses of the other scenes emphasise on the ‘object’-and ‘event spectacle’, which is generated through the aural and pictorial aesthetics.
The first scene I will briefly discuss is about the Draco lizard. Here I argue that the pictorial aesthetics of the character’s revelation embody Lewis’s notion of ‘object spectacle’. Rather than an immediate introduction of the animal, the makers chose to build up to this introductive moment that contributes to the development of the narrative. The Draco lizard becomes revealed through the use of close-ups that alternates different part of its body. First, the audience gets a glimpse of the lizard’s feet. The following shot shows the lizard climbing a tree, which is also shown by use of a point of view shot. Despite the wide shot of the climbing lizard that already reveals its whole body, the lizard is still not
introduced properly. However, by using the point of view shot, the audience is already invited into the perspective and the story of this Draco lizard. Hereby, sympathy towards the character is yet encouraged and the audience is able to emotionally engage with the narrative (Lewis 218). The sequences that follow switch between close-ups of the lizard’s feet, head, back and neck, and at the same time Attenborough finally reveals the lizard’s name; the Draco lizard. The revelation of the lizard and the “object spectacle results from the film treating a particular object in a particular way so as to draw that object to the spectator’s attention as a site of spectacle in its own right”(218). The emotional alignment that is created reinforces the engaging of the audience. In this way, the editing and the camera angles- and movements all contribute to the spectacle of the character’s introduction. Hence, the construction of the revelation in this scene guides the spectator to focus primarily on the character as object, which
The scene in the middle of the episode, which presents stormy jungle weather, is a visualisation of Lewis’s subcategory of ‘event spectacle’. Here, the pictorial aesthetics no longer emphasise on the spectacle of a particular object. Instead, the events in this scene are the central focus. The aesthetics in this scene generate images that excite and astonish the audience, in both diegetic and non-diegetic space. Rather than guiding the audiences gaze towards a specific object, here the pictorial aesthetics emphasise on the spectacle of the event. In doing so, the spectacle primarily exhibits the contexts of the scene and characters. The preamble of the scene shows a time laps filmed from an aerial point of view, which displays what happens before the outburst of a jungle storm. When the storm begins and it starts raining, the aerial shot slowly fades out. Simultaneously, a close up of raindrops falling down the sky begins to fade in. The falling of raindrops is showed in slow motion, which generates a more spectacular image, rather than when it should have been showed in real time. The sequence that follows consists of close-ups or medium close ups that display various animals and plants during this jungle storm. By use of close-ups and manipulations of time of this sequence results into images that tend to breed an exciting and spectacular audience experience. Both the diegetic and non-diegetic space contribute to this ‘event spectacle’ (Lewis 218). The sound that extends the impact of the images is also both diegetic and non-diegetic. The excessive volume of the diegetic sound, such as rain dripping on jungle vegetation, enhances the spectacle of the close-ups even further. The audience cannot escape from the intensity of this jungle storm that is generated through the diegetic sound and non-diegetic music. These manipulations in both pictorial and aural aesthetics can, according to Lewis; “best be described as exaggerations of [aesthetic] elements [which are] intended to heighten the impact of the event spectacle” (218). The heightened impact of the spectacle increases the emotional engagement of the audience and their identification with the narrative. This resembles Lewis’s conclusion on ‘event spectacle’ in which he states that:
Thus, spectacle may both create and in some cases amplify the spectator’s emotional response to the film. The structuring of the sequence in this way, which acknowledges the presence of the spectator through an
exhibitionistic display intended to create or amplify an emotional response, results in a direct communication with the spectator outside the film’s diegesis. (218)
In other words, the ‘event spectacle’ that is generated in this jungle storm scene invites an immersive experience, since the aesthetics create spectacular images
that try to attain the audiences engaging gaze. This relates to Corner’s understanding of ‘looking at’, which refers to highly stylised images that, similarly to the aesthetics in this scene, invite the audience into the ‘imaginary space’(97).
The third scene that I would like to examine expresses a male Wilson’s bird-of-paradise who is trying to attract a mate. The main argument here is that this scene exemplifies the constructiveness of a ‘little story’, which in the end contributes to the more general narrative. The construction of narratives is present in most televisual formats and it is “particularly obvious in the fictional models of drama-documentary and the action-development structures of observational modes, including docusoap recipes, but they are also at work to varying degrees in the more reportonal and expositional programmes”(Corner 99). The ‘little story’ that is constructed in this scene presents the Wilson’s bird as kind of neurotic and in desperate need to be in the centre of attention. Yet, this specific character is necessary, since the bird needs to procreate. The
process of mating in this scene contributes to the more general argument of the episode and even the series in its whole, which emphasises on the struggle of surviving in the wild. The scene begins while introducing the bird and its
appearance. When Attenborough states that “he needs to attract a mate”, the bird looks up towards the sky, which is followed with a point of view shot that shows the bird’s perspective from the forest’s grounds. The next shot returns to the bird, which is still hopefully looking upwards. In the following sequence the bird is tidying up the forests floor around him. The narration of Attenborough explains that he must so, since “showing off in this jumble of leaves wouldn’t be easy”. This is followed by a couple of shots that display the bird throwing leaves away. The specific mode of editing that shows these images in succession
emphasises on the neurotic character of the bird. Moreover, the non-diegetic music at the background of this scene reinforces the notion of silliness that is implied here.
Yet, the neuroticism of this bird is primarily implicated by the narration of Attenborough. Initially, the voice-over appears to explain the bird’s behaviour objectively, only the intonation and specific word choices suggest otherwise. He guides the story by his interpretation of the bird’s action. For instance, the
narration repeatedly emphasises on the green leaves that have to be thrown away, since they could distract the “visitor’s attention”. In this way, the
voice-over does not only suggest the bird’s neuroticism, but also acknowledges the importance of the ‘green leaves’ further in the scene. The story continues when the bird’s “stage is set” and Attenborough evaluates his ‘stage’ as: “a central pole, and a little patch of light. It is perfect”. The following sequence shows the bird calling for a mate, when eventually a female arrives. The irony of the scene extends with the voice-over mentioning that it is “time to take up position”. The choice to use the words; ‘stage’ and ‘position’, suggest that this bird is about to
give away a spectacular show.
Moreover, Attenborough explains that the female will judge the brightness of his feathers, so she must perch
directly above “his stage”. He
continues by saying that “this might be his only chance to shine”, which indirectly refers to the struggle that accompanies life in the jungle and
establishes the bird’s activity as a performance. Within the next shots it becomes clear why the bird had to get rid of all the green- and bright leaves that were surrounding him at first. He spreads his chest feathers and a bright green colour appears on his chest, nearly in the
shape of a leaf. Attenborough acknowledges that he is now “the brightest leaf in the forest”. In doing so, he finishes the ‘little story’ that suggested that the male Wilson’s bird-of-paradise would do anything to take his time to shine. Eventually, this refers to all struggles of nature that are trying the hardest to survive, under any circumstance. Thus, the initial observational voice-over of Attenborough is not as objective as may seem, since he contributes to the construction of a narrative and guides the audience in a certain narratological direction. In addition to Corner, this is a result of the ongoing competition within television
programming. “Story formats in television documentary have undergone change and intensification in recent years as part of the requirement to increase viewing enjoyment within circumstances of stronger competition” (99). Thus, in spite of the ‘true’ events that happen in the jungle that could be referred to as elements of a ‘thin text’’, the narration guides the story towards a format that is more fictive. Therefore, Corner’s definition of a ‘thick text’s’ is here far more applicable,
since this definition considers narrative as always artificial and clearly
constructed (99). Interesting narratives attract audiences, which might enable a deeper engagement with the content. Hence, the ‘thickness’ of the story appears to generate a more immersive sensorial experience.
3.6 Close-up slow-motion rain 3.5 Fading in close-up of rain drips
3.4 Close-up lizard back 3.3 Close-up lizard eye
3.2 Point of view shot 3.1 Close-up lizard foot
3.8 Close-up slow-motion rain
3.10 Brightest leaf in the forest 3.9 Wide shot of taking position 3.7 Close-up slow-motion rain
