Life is a disappointment
Forgive me folks, for I am about to slag off Sir David Attenborough.
Now firstly I have to say that I like David Attenborough a lot. I grew up with his TV shows and I own (and regularly watch!) the DVD series of some of them, I’ve enjoyed his autobiography and I’m currently loving Life Stories on Radio 4. However, Sir David’s contributions to his more recent natural history programmes have been letting him down.
The problem for me is that they don’t actually tell you very much. Take the first episode in the BBCs latest blockbuster contribution to natural history, Life, which I watched last night. It was a string of beautifully shot sequences illustrating the challenges to life in the natural world and how living creatures innovate and evolve to get over them.
And that was it. A string of beautifully shot sequences.
Look at the piece about the capuchin monkey in Brazil, a species which uses rocks as a tool to smash nuts for food. To say this is sophisticated behaviour is an understatement, this is amazing! So what do else do we learn about the capuchin monkey? Nothing. As I watched the footage my mind was flooded with questions – What other species of do this? When, how and why did these particular monkeys evolve this talent? Have people always known about it or is it a recent discovery? But we don’t find out. Sir David sticks to describing what’s on screen, only pointing out that it takes 8 years for a young monkey to master the skill. Maybe scientists don’t know much more than this (although I doubt this somehow), but surely there is more to say?
For me, this is the crux of the problem. David Attenborough is a superb narrator (indeed), but he is no longer explaining anything, merely describing a procession of pretty pictures.
And what pretty pictures they are. Life and its recent and equally disappointing predecessor Planet Earth, were beautifully and artfully shot. The talent, dedication, patience and technical innovation of the BBC Natural History Unit’s film crews is undeniable. And lest we forget that, there’s 10 minutes tacked on the end devoted to bigging them up. But I don’t care how amazing the film sequences are if they’re nothing more than the natural history equivalent of the money shot.
The one thing that elevates these two series (so far) to a more sophisticated form of natural history porn is the music. Not only is it another merchandising opportunity (yes, you can buy the soundtracks to The Blue Planet and Planet Earth) but, I say joylessly, it also serves to reinforce tiresome stereotypes about animals. So we hear eerie, creepy music for the weirdo stalk-eyed fly and a jolly uptempo number to accompany the cute baby monkeys playing. It’s like the score to Bambi, but worse because this is the BBC’s science programming, not a Disney animation.
For me, the combined results of all this is that David Attenborough’s decades of hard won knowledge has gone out the window. He is letting the (pretty) pictures do more and more wowing and the music more and more emotionalising. So much so there’s not much room left for all the science and research that got us to those photo opportunities in the first place. Pity.*
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.
*Unless the aim of BBC programming is to direct you to Wikipedia that is.
Tags: being churlish, on TV, see - told you I was an intellectual snob
October 14th, 2009 at 12:15 am
wouldn’t surprise me if it’s nowt to do with Sir D, he’s al old pro, unlikely to change his ways now. More likely the beeb trying to ‘dumb down’. They don’t make documentaries anymore… they have to ‘re-create’ stuff (battles, dinosaurs etc etc) add exciting music, and just hope and pray people mistake it for a film.. Bah humbug!
P
October 14th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I have to agree. It’s beautiful to look at, but it’s like HD wallpaper that could play on a background loop at the Rainforest Cafe or something.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Piley, I hope that you’re right, but I’d like to think that David has so much clout at the BBC that they would listen to his thoughts and direction on this. Maybe not. Anyway, it is probably that old thing where the powers that be just assume that we’re all idiots. See page 26 of this months Word Magazine!
F-C. You are right. So why does no one else say these things? Everyone just gives it rave reviews.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Part of the problem is that it is not one of “his” series and he is merely the voiceover guy. I can’t see him agreeing to do the work if it didn’t fit in with his ethos of course, which it appears this has not, but I can’t claim an understanding of the Attenborough mind.
We didn’t watch it though, as MrsB would rather not see anything eating anything else.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I haven’t seen the new series – but what you mention is a larger part of one of my biggest TV beefs. Style over susbtance. Attenborough is one of the few remaining ‘old school’ academic specialists (style experts don’t count) remaining on TV.
Educational shows were once fronted by presenters who clearly knew their subject and could engage with an audience David Bellamy, Magnus Pike, Patrick Moore – all phased out in preference of easy-on-the-eye-but-hopeless-without-a-script-types – and where’s the value in a presenter you don’t believe in – it devalues the premise, quality and content of the programme.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Simon, I think that even if Sir David is merely doing the narration, he should be intelligent enough to understand the concepts of ‘brand’ and ‘credibility’. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t produce it, it’s his name selling the programme and even the shows title implies an extension of the other excellent ‘Life’ series (Life in the Cold Blood, The Life of Birds et.al.). He is explicitly associated with the show. Mrs B would be advised to avoid this programme – there was a lot of gruesome stuff in it…
That’s it, Mondo, style over substance. It’s like the digital channels (esp. BBC4) have given the BBC free reign to abandon programming any ‘educational’ and intelligent docos on BBC1 + 2. Speaking of BBC4, Synth Britannia is on Friday night. Hope you’ve got the video set!
October 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
The problem, I suspect, is that Attenborough may not produce his documentaries anymore. Quite possibly he doesn’t write the scripts he narrates either. I haven’t seen any of this yet, but he is 83 now, and making those sort of television series is extremely hard work, so he’s probably starting to wind down a bit.
For what it’s worth, though, he does hate the dumbing down of TV documentaries and style over substance, and he says as much in interviews. Let’s not forget that, quite apart from his own TV work in front of the camera, he ran BBC2 during the late 1960s, and that was anything but a downmarket channel (particularly when you compare it to what it’s like now). But how much say in TV does someone like him have anymore? Less than, say, Clarkson or Jonathan Ross?
In the end, though, I’m more distressed by imdb’s claim that he was on Chris Moyles’ Quiz Night and The Alan Titchmarsh Show this year. Have a word with the agent, Dave.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Hello Brian, David Attenborough didn’t produce this series and I don’t know if he wrote the script. Hopefully not! I do know his views on current TV and science programming, which makes it all the more worse in my opinion. If you don’t agree with something, then don’t do it. Especially not if you have a reputation to protect and aren’t stuck for cash.
And I’m just going to have to ignore that last paragraph of yours as it’s more than I can bear. Does NO ONE have any credibility these days?!
October 14th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
‘Fraid it’s just syndicated HD Porn as you say it’s one of the reasons I don’t watch this sort of things anymore (and my lof fi telly). I think they are afraid of treating audiences like grown ups and just leave things handing as you say I’m all for letting the pictures do the talking but not this much.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
You know, BLTP, I’m faintly suprised by how many people have agreed with this assessment. Well, all 6 of you anyway. It just feels like something we’re not supposed to say – like the photography is so good, how could we complain?
October 14th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Cocktails: I agree with you completely about what you say, but there’s something about the way this has happened that makes me wonder if Attenborough had good intentions but something scuppered it. This seems a rare lapse for him. I’m sorry for that last para! I suppose I was suggesting that things seem to be out of his control. He always did chat shows – I remember his Dame Edna appearance – but these recent appearances are a bit dispiriting.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
There might well be something more to this, as it is a very obvious lapse (although I wasn’t overly impressed by the Planet Earth series either). He may be winding down as you suggested earlier, but his Life Stories on Radio 4 indicate that he has lost none of his talent for inspiring and informing. I do hope you’re right Brian and something got in the way with this series.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
By the way, that 10-minute puff-piece coda has a very specific function – it’s so that when the series gets sold to Discovery or Animal Planet or worldwide commercial TV markets, they can use those 10 minutes for commercials in a 60-minute slot. So it’s a 50-minute programme, really. I find that a bit sad. Why not just broadcast a 50-minute programme, or even why not do what John Cleese did with Fawlty Towers – make them 30 or even 35 minutes but refuse to cut them to fill a half-hour slot with adverts?
But the BBC now is not like it was in the era of Life on Earth and Fawlty… Regrettable.