# data[].attributes.body
As previously states, 'gaze' in ethnographic films are often predicated upon the subject's designation as the 'Other'. In wildlife documentaries, are animals easily placed within the category of the 'Other'?
Jacques Derrida's thinking on the matter of the animal stands as a thorough and influential body of ethical thought, probing the boundary between human and animal.

how can filmmakers bestow the same "gaze" to non-human documentary subjects as they would to humans?

This is a fundamental question which Horner grapple with in "The Equality of the Gaze: The Animal Stares Back in Chris Marker's Films" (2016).

John Llewelyn (1991) observes:

“When asked about our responsibilities toward nonhuman sentient creatures… inclined to reply that our thinking about them may have to be only analogical or that the answer turns on whether in the eyes of the animal we can discern a recognition, however obscure, of his own mortality - on whether, in Levinas’s sense of the word, the animal has a face (pp. 56-57)

# data[].attributes.body
In a philosophical and figurative sense, "gaze" refers to ways in which an individual or group is aware of and perceives other individuals, other groups or oneself. Through the perceptions of filmmakers and audiences, the "gaze" within documentaries is characterised by a constant interaction between who is viewing and who is viewed. As explored by Keith Beattie in relation to the ethnographic documentary form, 'this dichotomy - which is reducible to 'us' (the observers) and 'them' (the observed) - constructs the ethnographic subject as 'other', a term applied to people who are separate from one's self, whether in terms of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, time or space' (Beattie, 2004, pp. 45)
Within said form, subjects in films such as 'Trance and Dance in Bali', the 'gaze' exhibited conforms to the 'us' and 'them' dichotomy Beattie (2004) was referring to. The subjects of the film are captured and edited in a way that conforms to the Western perceptions of an alien culture - one of 'Others' and 'savages'. As a result, people and cultures considered 'primitive' by Western on-lookers, are treated as such in this ethnographic film.
Regnault's writings confirm this phenomenon: "All savage peoples make recourse to gesture to express themselves; their language is so poor it does not suffice to make them understood... with primitive man, gesture proceeds speech" (1898, pp. 315)

# data[].attributes.body
One of the most direct and simple definitions of media witnessing is that "the witnessing is performed in, by and through the media. This contains the systemic and ongoing reporting of the experiences captured of distant others on camera, to mass audiences watching at home." (Frosh, Pinchevski, 2011,p.1.)

Relating this back to wildlife documentaries- with the notion that "a television news report can not only depict witnesses to an event, but turn viewers of these events into witnesses at the same time" (Frosh, Pinchevski, 2011.) Clearly in wildlife documentaries the animal does not have its own voice so therefore cannot be its own witness for events occurring in the animal world being made apparent to humans in these documentaries. We as viewers then become secondary witnesses watching onscreen to the documentarians witnessing the events in real time- however as the animals lack voice and agency- witnessing in animal documentaries could be seen as problematic.

--For compelling, engaging wildlife documentaries, what is required is the “reframing [of] the animal as a subject, and conceptualising agency itself as more than simply a property of the human subject form” (McHugh, 2011, p. 10).

# data[].attributes.body
Leading on from witnessing, documentaries have a responsibility to protect the subject from harm and honour the trust of the audience.

Firstly, to "lead viewers to make a false inference, even if only about an animal’s size, is to mislead them, and to mislead viewers is a violation of their trust and of the filmmaker’s ethical responsibility to them.” (Bouse, 2000, p.12). For example, within wildlife documentaries, playing a scene in slow motion makes the animal look bigger, which is a misrepresentation and misleads the viewer, thus violating their trust. It is important to begin informing the viewer if footage has been manipulated. E.g. on-screen labels, or the use of slowed-down ‘‘mush’’ sound if slow -motion is used.

Secondly, the non-human do not enjoy rights of privacy or informed consent. They physically can not. Bouse notes that " few if any film- makers feel the sort of obligations to animal subjects they automatically do to human subjects” (Bouse, 2000, p.23). Hence, they manipulate reality without a sense of guilt; wildlife shots and “camera placement” techniques are used that may be seen as “unethical if dealing with human subjects” (Bouse, 2000, p.24). See article below for an insight into this topic in regards to animal intimacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wildlife documentary makers are infringing animals' rights to privacy by filming their most private and intimate moments, according to a new study.

Footage of animals giving birth in their burrows or mating crosses an ethical line that film-makers should respect, according to Brett Mills, a lecturer in film studies at the University of East Anglia.

Mills compiled a report on animals' rights to privacy after reviewing scenes from the BBC's 2009 wildlife series "Nature's Great Events". Among the offending footage was film of a narwhal whale that appeared to have retreated from view beneath the Arctic ice sheet.

"Instead of thinking we'll leave it alone, film-makers decide the only solution is to develop new technology so they can film it," Mills said.

"We have an assumption that humans have some right to privacy, so why do we not assume that for other species, particularly when they are engaging in behaviour that suggests they don't want to be seen?"

In 2008 the BBC was inundated with complaints after Springwatch presenter Bill Oddie described an encounter between two beetles: "He crash-lands on top of a likely looking lady. There's a bit of luck! One thing's for sure: this boy is horny!"

Mills said filming such encounters with miniature cameras was a level of surveillance humans would most likely object to. "The key thing in most wildlife documentaries is filming those very private moments of mating or giving birth. Many of these activities, in the human realm, are considered deeply private, but with other species we don't recognise that," he said. Mills' report appears in the Journal of Media and Cultural Studies.

Mills said that while it might seem odd to claim animals have a right to privacy, the idea should not be dismissed. "We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they do often engage in forms of behaviour which suggest they'd rather not encounter humans," he said.

The BBC's Natural History unit in Bristol said: "Constantly developing filming technology gives wildlife film-makers the ability to film animal behaviour with minimal disruption to the animal. Film-makers work very closely with scientists whose work studying the complexity of animal lives is vital for wildlife conservation.

"Natural history films play a major role in spreading knowledge of their work. And understanding the world around is vital in the continuing endeavour to preserve our ecosystem."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wildlife documentaries infringe animals' privacy, says report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wildlife documentary makers are infringing animals' rights to privacy by filming their most private and intimate moments, according to a new study. Footage of animals giving birth in their burrows or mating crosses an ethical line that film-makers should respect, according to Brett Mills, a lecturer in film studies at the University of East Anglia.

# data[].attributes.body
While recording documentary, photography and cinematography must negotiate two contradictory desires:

A “desire for reality […] a world of evidence confirmed through observation and logical interpretation […] all-seeing”

A “desire for the real […] as image, as spectacle”

Wildlife documentaries:

While developments in technology has enabled filmmakers to put 'actuality' on screen, thus reinforcing the simple, 'observational' documentary mode, it has also encouraged the manipulation of such imagery, and the creation of a 'spectacle' on screen. After all, "wildlife documentaries require other beings to be spectacular to be visible at all" (Mills, 2017, p.85)

A good example of this is the undue emphasis on vulgar "Darwinist ideas about nature as a realm of constant conflict and struggle” (Bouse, 2000) in wildlife films. Bouse argues that real experiences of nature are characterised by "serenity and

quietude", but it is important to recognise that this atmosphere is incompatible with the social and economic functions of television! See the picture below, for one of the most famous 'chase' scenes from the Planet series.

Nevertheless, the ‘making of’ programmes on the 'Planet' series emphasise the extent to which production teams aim to communicate the most up-to-date scientific thinking, which stress the shows apparent ‘objectivity’. It is an attempt to demonstrate their pursuit to document reality.