Cocktails and Records

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.