They showed it so graphically and dramatically because, let’s face it, crocodiles (and most other animals) don’t do much. A great deal of a crocodile’s life is spent lying, or floating about, motionless.
Crocodiles basically do three things: they eat, they shit, and they make more crocodiles. No one’s interested in watching a crocodile take a shit, so you’re left with eating and making little crocodiles. The rest of the time, watching a crocodile is like watching a log. So, documentaries show the few things the animals actually do, in great detail.
I suppose the real question should be: why are there so many documentaries about crocodiles, when there are so many other animals that are livelier and more interesting? Show us bees or beavers or termites or giant squid or something.
Winged Migration has a nice balance. The four or five scenes of birds dying or being killed weren’t drawn out and the music wasn’t overplayed. The scenes aren’t easy to watch though (especially the one with the crabs).
But I think I get the OP – why emphasize the gory stuff?
Yeah? What kind of suffering–comparable to being eaten slowly by a large carnivore–do you see in your day-to-day life?
Answer to the OP: because it teaches you something and provides a perspective you otherwise rarely get. Also because it makes for exciting television. You can live in a perfect little imaginary cocoon where all creatures of nature may as well be vegans, but that ain’t the truth by a long shot.
You know it happens. Do you realize that violent death is the norm and it almost always happens to wild animals? The young, those only a few years old but past their prime, the slow, those with any injury or disease, all get ripped apart by predators and eaten, usually while they are still partially alive. Sometimes illness or disease or accident will kill them before the predators come, then they go to the scavengers.
There is no elephant graveyard where the wise old ones go to die after a long happy life. There is very little death from old age at all in the natural world.
The sort of Walt Disney world of nature where all animals would live in harmony, with an occational killing for the need of the pack or herd is a fantasy. It usually contains an element about the Evil of Man. This thinking is a religious hold over from the several Garden of Eden type myths. The “innocent creature” must be held in high regard separate from the “sins and evils of Man.”
The reality is if you are a prey animal and you screw up you are breakfast. If you are smart and manage to survive long enough to breed, you still get eaten, but for dinner instead of breakfast.
Snuff films, if they exist, record murders. Non-human animals cannot be murdered, as murder is the killing of a human.
I didn’t see the documentary in session, but I can recall Mrs. Rhymer weeping when we watched a PBS piece about polar bears, which could basically be summarized as “Polar bears are beautiful, majestic creatures and the world will be far poorer when they are extinct, which, incidentally, will happen any decade now. Possibly any year. In fact we wouldn’t be surprised if they were all gone by January but we pray that Athena will be merciful.” And frankly I felt a little like crying myself with the male polar bear killed & ate the cubs.
But elephants do. Possibly because evolution favors hanging around a corpse on the offhand chance it isn’t really dead since most predators (i.e. all that I can think of cept for man) are unable to harm a pack of fully grown elephants. But possibly because they are genuinely sad that a herd member has died. Possibly a combination of both.
“Solitary, nasty, brutish and short” was actually coined by Hobbes about pre-civilisation humanity. I think the most appropriate phrase wrt the OP is Tennyson’s “Nature, red in tooth and claw”.
Same difference I know, just being a pedantic twat.
Meerkat Manor was a good counter-example. Sure, the little critters kept getting knocked off like it was the Sopranos, but the show gave them names and let their personalites develop, instead of just objects of grim pity.
My wife had to stop watching that show, because she would get all interested in the “characters” only to watch them die by the next episode. One meerkat would die and a whole evening was ruined.
Thank you. This is exactly what I am saying. Yes the entire documentary is zoomed to an extent–nothing is dots on the horizon–but when something dies, they zoom in more, to get every rending tear. Then they slow it down (which I did not notice them doing much for the rest of the documentary, only the deaths) and play it over from as many angles as they can. They make such a show of the brutal killing, rather than just showing it in perspective with the rest of the life of the animals. It’s gruesome and panders to a certain type of sick audience IMO.
As for the comment earlier about domesticated livestock–I’ve been a vegetarian for 24 years and avoid all information about abuse of livestock because I can’t handle it and it makes me depressed for days.
Oh, it wasn’t MUSIC that was overplayed. It was the actual audio of the killing. The bleating of the dying calf, the hysterics of the mother who was spazzing out, etc. In slow motion.
Let’s make a distinction between drama and melodrama. Drama is good, whether in the depiction of violent death or of less-grim subjects. Melodrama is too much.
How can actual audio be overplayed, if the scene itself is worth having? You’d rather have music or sound effects or silence that wasn’t there?
I’d like to reiterate what I said in my OP which the majority of replies seem to have missed: I GET that they have to show the good AND the bad. This isn’t my complaint. It’s the WAY they show the bad that gets to me. Slow motion, repeated shots, zoomed way in, etc, all the while playing the sounds of the animal dying… It takes way more time than other single incidents they show. It’s highly disturbing.
But is it out of proportion to the actual, real-life drama of the situation? I mean, successful predation is pretty important for the predator, still more so for prey. Starting with the assumption that actual drama is the right thing to emphasize in depicting a true story dramatically, doesn’t it make sense that such moments be expanded?
Think of some dramatic films you’ve seen about humans–don’t the most dramatic moments often have similar expansion?
