Under supervision of Maarten Reesink
Cynthia Nagel (0520349)
The Human Who Can Be Moved:
How and Why?
An Interdisciplinary Study on Anthrozoology, Media Studies and (Cognitive) Neuroscience while we dive into the world’s watery wilderness on screen.
On the interaction between humans, nonhumans and marine life environment. Closing the gap between ‘Nature’ and ‘Culture’:
“maybe ‘humans’ are more alike ‘nonhumans’ after all”.
Master Media Studies: Television and Cross-Media Culture
Special Professional track Documentary Filmmaking
University of Amsterdam, 26-06-2015 Contents Acknowledgements 3. Introduction 4. Anthrozoology & Media Studies Audience Research and the ‘New’ Science: Neuroscience Research Focus: The Problem of (False) ‘Intimacy’ Research Design: Case Studies Part 1 Blue Planet, Green People or a Little Bit of Both? 18.
Marine Life, Humans & Media
Environmentalism & Conservation: ‘Greening’ of Society
Human Impact: Environmental Crisis, Human Crisis?
Part 2 ‘Nature’ versus ‘Culture’: Making Sense of the World 26.
Reality versus Stories: Origins & Power of Stories
Human Identity: Nature and Marine Life in Science and Maritime Metaphors
Globalization, Politics & Media: Debate of an Ecological Identity (or Not) Part 3 Humans, Nonhumans and Relationships: Are They Like Us? 36.
‘Humans’ versus ‘Nonhumans’: Conceptions & Definitions
Looking in the ‘Real’ Mirror: Recognition, Empathy & Consciousness
You, Me and The Screen: Understanding the Intimate Aesthetic Experience
Part 4 Analysis of Intimacy: Experiences of Marine Life in an Audio-Visual World 47.
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) Conclusion 97. Research Outcomes Humans & Nonhumans: Towards “an Affective Ecology”?
References 111.
2
Acknowledgements
“Please do not kill the spider. It might be a mommy or a daddy or a baby spider. And then the rest of his family will miss him”. As a child I said many things which made my personal love and admiration for nature quite obvious. I loved being outside, climbing trees, running around on large grass lands and playing with animals. When I was older, I usually went with my family on holiday to Southeast Europe in the summer. There I fell in love with the ocean and her creatures. Together with my sister I swam and played in the salty water for hours. For no special reason it felt like ‘home’ there. Sometimes I imagined being a dolphin when I dived into another wave and other times I just sat with the ocean. Accompanied by seagulls and stars I listened to the waves coming in, I took the salt smell of the water in and I let the wind blow through my hair. People usually say, there is no place like home. For me, nature is home. Besides this love for nature and a curiosity that could not be stilled, as a child I was intrigued by something we call TV. I loved watching TV, especially the Dutch children’s program Huisje, Boompje, Beestje (Netherlands). This program was part of SchoolTV (English: Little House, Little Tree, Little Animal, EducationTV, Netherlands) and it included educational episodes about people, nature, technology and environment.
Therefore, when I started this master in September 2014, it was quite obvious my primary theme for this thesis had to be about the relationship people have with nature, environment and animals. During my masters I have had the opportunity to learn so much more via interdisciplinary courses for which I am really grateful. As long as I can remember I think outside the box, I question set boundaries and I cross disciplines. Even though my master and this thesis is firstly part of media studies, it was clear I would cross some boundaries and disciplines this time as well. As challenging this adventure has been, which seems the best way to call it, I wish to thank some great people that I have met along the way. Thank you Sietze (Norder) for introducing me to Vincent (Tijms). Vincent, thank you for all the helpful insights in neuroscience. Above all, Maarten thank you for all your support and for allowing me to write this thesis ‘my way’.
I hope you are ready to take a dive ! Cynthia
3
Introduction
“The power of an image to excite wonderment in an audience can be related to both the “fantastical” and the “natural” world” (Scott, 2010: 30)
“Imagine that my colleague Jaimal Yogis, author of Saltwater Buddha and the Fear Project is swimming in the ocean on a foggy day near San Francisco where he lives. Jaimal’s been a swimmer and surfer since he was a child, so he’s completely at home in the water and happy to be there. His brain is merely releasing a steady stream of feel-good chemicals: natural opiates like endorphins (creating a peaceful, euphoric feeling, also known as the “runner’s high”) and oxytocin (producing trust and a calm, warm mood) and the pleasure “rush” of dopamine (associated with novelty, risk and reward, exploration and enjoyable physical activity – the same neurotransmitter that underlies many forms of addiction). These neurochemicals are naturally synthesized in our bodies, a natural “medicine chest” and are released by our brains as a result of instinct and conditioned neural frameworks. Suddenly Jaimal spots a disturbance in the water’s surface about fifty feet away, and his brain, which typically risk-averse, looks for potentially negative stimuli first, kicks the survival instinct into gear. Even before his conscious mind can respond, his visual cortex sends the information to his hippocampus for evaluation: is this a potential threat? The limbic system screams “YES!” and immediately the amygdala puts the body on high alert flooding Jaimal’s brain with norepinephrine (the “wake-up” chemical) and signaling Jaimal’s conscious brain to “check out that disturbance NOW”! The dopamine in Jaimal’s system, also triggered by the novel stimulus in a relatively calm background helps ready the body for action. At the same time, the amygdala activates the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) to signal the rest of the body about a potential “fight or flight” situation. Jaimal looks again: is that a fin breaking through the water? Hypervigilance now becomes outright fear as Jaimal’s hypothalamus (the primary regulator of the endocrine system that reacts to primal needs, like food and sex, and emotions, like terror or rage) signals the adrenal glands to release epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine, speeding up his heart rate, moving blood to the large muscle groups, and dilating the bronchioles in the lungs to provide more oxygen. All of those-feel-good chemicals (dopamine, serotonin, endorphins) are overwhelmed as the stress hormone cortisol also floods the system, putting Jaimal’s entire metabolism on high alert. Cortisol prompts the amygdala to continue activating the SNS while suppressing the immune response. His entire body having been neurologically hijacked by this cascade of neurochemicals, the conscious part of Jaimal’s brain finally gets the message: “potential predator –danger!”. Even though Jaimal knows very well that only one person a year dies from a shark attack in the United States, his amygdala is in high gear, laying down what are called flashbulb
4
memories of moments of high danger and screaming at him to get out of the water. He turns and swims urgently for the beach. Once there, Jaimal turns and looks back at the spot where he had been swimming, only to identify four or five dolphins fins slicing through the water. As he stands on the sand, sides heaving, heart still pounding as the current of “fight or flight” neurochemicals starts to diminish, he mentally kicks himself for swimming away from a chance to be in the water with an entire pod of dolphins. In truth however, he had no choice: his higher- level, cognitive brain had been hijacked by the “drive to survive” response of his emotion-based limbic system” (Nichols, 2014: 50-52).
First of all, I found this imaginary story absolutely fascinating as it illustrates perfectly how some of the senses process information from the outside world which is interpreted by our brain. The brain converts this into certain chemicals and ultimately into action, reaction and behavior. The story is written by Wallace Nichols, author of the book Blue Mind. Nichols describes in this book how and why “being near, in, on or under water can make you happier, healthier, more connected and better at what you do” (Nichols, 2014). Even though it is an imaginary story, it would be a description of a ‘real’ human experience in ‘the real world’, in this particular situation in the ocean. From a personal experience point of view I definitely relate to this story, just as much to the swimmer and surfer Nichols writes about: I have lived several years in the Canary Islands, worked a summer surf camps in France and I love being around and in water.
From the outside ‘real’ world I would like to take you to the audio-visual world. I think a lot of people would remember ‘this guy’ from the famous Hollywood film Jaws (USA, 1975), directed by Steven Spielberg: a not so friendly, rather dangerous shark with some very sharp teeth attacks people. I also think a lot of people would remember the theme song: ‘tam’, ‘tam’, ‘tam’ to put viewers at the edge of their seat. Fig. 1. Screenshot Jaws (USA, 1975).
Retrieved from http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lV8i-pSVMaQ/maxresdefault.jpg, 26 June 2015.
I wonder if viewers were just as frightened or alert as Jaimal was in the imaginary story? The general thought might be ‘no of course not, Jaws (USA, 1975) is a movie, that is not real’ or maybe some people would admit they felt a bit excited or afraid for what was going to happen.
5
Initially, the Dutch natural history documentary De Nieuwe Wildernis formed the idea for this thesis (English: The New Wilderness, Netherlands, 2013). The film shows animal life in the reserve Oostvaardersplassen during four seasons. It was based on film material that was shot over a period of two years and it was a huge success in the Netherlands. In this wildlife film there is a particular scene which made me experience a lot of different emotions (min. 120- 122:50, screenshots are shown below; fig. 2-6).
Fig. 3
Fig. 2
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 7 Fig. 6
In this scene a deer is dying due to extreme weather conditions during wintertime. The narrator is telling the viewer (me) some animals will not make it to spring. Through a close-up the viewer (me) watches how the deer chooses her private space to die in peace and slowly closes her eyes. At the same time due to a time-lapse technique stars appear and snowflakes fall down rapidly, while the viewer (me) hears instrumental music playing softly. While I was watching this scene, I felt first of all the upmost respect and compassion for the deer, death and nature. Furthermore I was amazed by the use of film techniques such as time-lapse.
6
Throughout the film there have been a lot of scenes which moved me in different ways. Sometimes I laughed, sometimes I talked back to the screen (I watched the film via my laptop) and there were times I was inspired. Other times I felt I had learned something new about ‘nature’, ‘animals’ and ‘myself’. Like Queen sang in the song “Bohemian Rhapsody”: “is this the real life or is this just fantasy?”. It seems like two completely different worlds: being in the ‘real natural’ world and watching a ‘natural history documentary’ or any other film or TV episode on screen. However, in my experience a lot of automatic emotional responses came to light just as much as in ‘real’ life. This is how I became interested in the question (and it turned out to be a really big question): Why did this scene move me, or even better said: Why Do Audio-Visual Moving Images of Marine Life Touch Us?
In the remaining paragraphs of this introduction, I will continue with an oversight on the academic context within Anthrozoology and Media Studies including describing why this thesis is relevant. Then, I will outline important aspects and gaps within ‘Audience Research’ and the problem of intimacy. Furthermore I will describe where we might possibly find some answers which could be in the growing discipline of Neuroscience and the concept of empathy. I will end this introduction with discussing the research focus and research design.
Anthrozoology & Media Studies Every day we make our way through symbols, information, (science-based) knowledge and audio-visual moving images, besides living in the so-called ‘natural’ or even ‘real’ world. In terms of experiencing that world, due to the invention and rise of technological and digital media, Cleland (2010) describes significant changes:
“Our experience of the world is increasingly becoming a mixed reality experience, a complex blend of the real and the digital… We are now living in a mixed reality paradigm where the real and the virtual, the natural and the artificial blend and intermingle in complex ways” (Cleland, 2010: 30). Even though it somewhat sounds exciting, it could also be ambiguous. Therefore, in this thesis the role of media in our cultural-based society and its interactions with humans will be studied. In particular, the focus is on screen depictions of nature, humans and nonhumans.
Why should we study media images in the first place? In one of the first lectures I attended, it was explained media images come from a medium whether it is a radio, TV, Internet or mobile phone: in scientific view they are all forms of communication. More
7 importantly it means: “a medium mediates perception having aesthetic, epistemological and social consequences”1. This is underlined by Barker (1999), Gentz (2006) and Ott (2007). It seems media, especially TV, play a significant role in people’s lives in different ways. This makes it first of all very relevant to look at the role of different media, the ever-changing position they have in a just as much ever-changing (mostly cultural based) society and what happens when media interact with people and vice-versa.
Secondly I will look at how nature, humans and nonhumans are being displayed. Why would that be significant to do so? In 1980 John Berger already wrote about the human relationship with nonhumans and why we should look at how humans position nonhumans in a consumer-based-culture (Berger, 1980). Again more importantly: what does the position of nature and nonhumans in film and TV say about us humans and nonhumans in our mixed reality-daily life? Not surprisingly, the field of Anthrozoology or Human Animal Studies has grown the last few decades as the website of an international leading Human Animal Studies Research Centre in New Zealand explains:
“The last few decades we have seen the emergence and rapid growth of a new field of multi- and inter-disciplinary inquiry, called variously “Human-Animal Studies” (HAS), “Animal Studies”, or “Anthrozoology”. Contributions to this field draw upon a wide range of disciplinary formations: sociology, philosophy and history; studies of literature, the visual arts, cinema and popular culture; biobehavioural biology; science, technology, and medicine studies. What unites HAS work from all these disciplines is a determination to find new ways of thinking about animals and about human-animal relationships”2.
In the academic sphere in the Netherlands this interdisciplinary field is not given a lot of attention. With this thesis I would like to demonstrate its relevance and the current less likely touched areas within especially humanities, media and cultural studies. This already comes across when reading into this subject. The last few years Noel Castree (2013) brought up very rightful questions concerning the social construction of nature: what do we see as ‘nature’? How do we define ‘nature’? And what does ‘nature-ness’ and ‘natural’ mean? In addition, I would like to ask: does ‘nature’ equal ‘wild’ or ‘wilderness’ and do these concepts lead to for example the notion of ‘the other’ or ‘danger’? Even more importantly: how are these concepts through the use of symbols, information and audio-visual images being depicted for us including the scientific portrayals? How do they influence our sense of identity and could they be marked
1 Scholz, Sebastian. "Introduction Society & Infrastructure." Pc Hoofthuis, Amsterdam. 1 Sept. 2014. Lecture. 2 "Welcome to the New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies." New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies. Web. 26 June. 2015.
Audience Research and The ‘New’ Science: Neuroscience
An obvious question would be: what could Neuroscience add to these disciplines and specifically, for the existing ideas within these disciplines? First of all within the field of Anthrozoology, Media Studies often looks and has looked at representation and anthropomorphism. This means the human personification of nonhumans and it involves a textual analysis of a given TV program or film (Burt, 2002; Van der Hoven & Arnott, 2012, Seiter, 2003). McKee (2003) describes this as following: “When we perform textual analysis on a text, we make an educated guess at some of the most likely interpretations that might be made of that text” (McKee, 2003: 1). This means other areas are less studied and this is the case for audience responses and viewer experiences. This gap or lack of audience research is actually an important one within Anthrozoology and Media Studies (Burt, 2002). As described by McKee (2003), when audience
9 research does occur on viewer’s responses and affects, Media Studies often uses other methodologies (surveys, interviews). Moreover Seiter (1986) describes due to the lack of consequent audience research, we do not really know if and how people actually believe what they see on screen or how they react at all (Seiter, 1986: 25). Furthermore Seiter (1986) claims research should not only look for psychological or political signs nor solely consequences of a socially constructed culture.
Maybe this lack of audience research also relates to the idea of viewers are quite passive. Marshall McLuhan who is seen as one of the pioneers of Media Studies wrote in 1964 “The Medium is the Message”. This meant the characteristics of the medium were decisive for the intended message and ultimately experience of the listener or viewer (McLuhan, 1964). In those years media were usually seen as ‘mass media’ (one-to-many-model) without much of a participative receiver. This is underlined by Cathcart and Gumpert (1983). They describe how the interests of Media Studies have been mostly in ‘mass communication’ and less about the role media play on an individual level, meaning in interpersonal and intrapersonal communication (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983). First of all they claim not all media are mass media and they describe communication as: “the transmission of information, ideas, emotions, skills etc. by the use of symbols-words, pictures, figures, graphs etc” (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983: 267). When the act of communication takes place, Cathcart & Gumpert (1983) explain interpersonal communication as a dyadic interaction of verbal and nonverbal exchange between two or more individuals whereas intrapersonal communication is described as an internal dialogue which takes place within ourselves (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983: 269).
Unfortunately, within this thesis I am not able to do a broad audience research on this “internal dialogue” that Cathcart & Gumpert (1983) write about. However, I do wish to address another way of looking at audience responses. Philosopher Gilles Deleuze claimed already in the 80’s ‘The brain is the screen” and according to Deleuze we should look at the “neurobiology of our brain if we wish to understand our viewer’s experience” (Pisters, Patricia in: Robert Pepperel and Michael Punt, 2006). It must be noted interdisciplinary efforts in Anthrozoology, Media Studies and Neuroscience are quite on the verge of either recent or new findings.
10
When it comes to this human interaction with audio-visual images of nonhumans, Burt (2002) writes:
“The animal body is caught up in a complicated system of reactions and effects which is registered as a play between the surfaces of bodies but not necessarily as revealing anything about the interaction of minds” (Burt, 2002:31). This interaction of minds and the processes that go on within ourselves are fascinating and complicated subjects and I wonder if we could still uphold the idea of passive viewers when we take a look at our (emotional) responses and these underlying processes. It is widely known humans have five senses; sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. It is quite interesting humans invented media such as radio and television. These media address two senses more than others, namely sight and hearing. Also in comparison to other species. Firstly when it comes to vision, Ira Koningsberg, contributor to the journal Projections: Movies and Mind, presents the argument “we see the everyday world as a “movie in our head” because the images of the everyday world are “made up by a series of static snapshots upon which the brain imposes motion” (Koningsberg, 2007). In addition, he claims “in our everyday world our seeing is often automatic and unconscious”. However, when we sit in a theater “we experience an intensification of our visual process, of our visual system” which is actually because “our brain is so sensitive and ready to see motion” and therefore “naturally drawn to this intensity of movement” (Koningsberg, 2007). Konigsberg further explains that neuroscientific methods (EEG, MEG, PET and mFRI) that explore our brain, could tell us something about how our minds work (Konigsberg, 2007). In that sense it could reveal something about humans as a species as well. According to Konigsberg (2007) Film Studies has been focusing on audience responses to film in which the view of the mirror stage in the development of children played a significant role. Jacques Lacan was interested in the moment children start to see and recognize themselves in the mirror and therefore experience themselves. Furthermore, in this stage children mirror or ‘imitate’ their parents (Lacan, ed. Leitch et al, 2001).
As a result, Konigsberg explains where Film Studies meets Cognitivism; where research of what (content) is combined with research of how (neurological processes) (Konigsberg, 2007). Even though great skepticism and criticism lies around the use of neuroscientific methods, Konigsberg elaborates:
“It is the belief of seeing our cognitive facilities working in a logical and methodical way that makes us think we are able to understand our interior life during the experience of watching a
11
film. The concerns of cognitive film theory also mesh nicely with those of the new cognitive neuroscience that relates such mental acts to the actual processes of the brain” (Konigsberg, 2007: 6). And he continues explaining why this is an “ideal context”: “Cognitive neuroscience’s findings are exciting because they locate a source in our brain for much that we see and do and much that we have always taken for granted… The goal is to close the gap between the brain and mind… Viewing a film is an intensely emotional perceptual experience. Isolated from the distractions of normal every-day life, the viewing experience also encompasses the psychological paraphernalia we use in coping with the world outside the theater. For these reasons, film spectatorship is an ideal context for examining the workings of the mind in general” (Konigsberg, 2007: 6). As Konigsberg shows in his article, I would like to emphasize neuroscience could provide new insights and support, contradict or dismiss existing ones (Konigsberg, 2007). The key within neuroscience for Film Studies at this moment began with the discovery of ‘mirror neurons’ in Italy in 1996. These ‘mirror neurons’ are easily explained as ‘monkey see, monkey do’ and are believed to be responsible for our feeling of engagement, recognition, emotional responses or also put as ‘empathy’ (Konigsberg, 2007; Ramachandran, 2000; Gallese et al, 2001).
Research Focus: The Problem of (False) ‘Intimacy’ Even though I wish I had more time and space within this thesis to describe several more and different aspects within Anthrozoology, Media Studies and Neuroscience, I have chosen to focus on the problem of intimacy. When I looked up this word in the Oxford dictionary, it said: “the state of having a close personal relationship with somebody”3. This could be on several levels in ‘the real world’, for example emotionally, sexually or platonically. But what about the ‘relationships’ we form as viewers with characters, the challenges they face or happy events they experience or even the place they live in? Even more importantly as I described earlier in the introduction: what about the sense of our ‘self’, ‘the other’ and ‘identity’? Furthermore what about our relationship with ‘nature’ and ‘nonhumans’; are those characters different and are our responses different? While Media Studies looks at representation and anthropomorphism, it brings forth notions of ‘truth’, ‘falsity’, the role of stereotypes, a sense of identity and the social-cultural power of ideology (Seiter, 1986). Critics like Derek Bousé, author of the book Wildlife Films,
3 "Intimacy". Find the Meanings, Definitions, Pictures, Pronunciation of Words at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. Web. 26 June 2015.
12 are quite clear on the subject of ‘intimacy’, ‘nature’ and the screen: “most real experiences of the natural world, away from cities and development, tend to be experiences of serenity and quietude which what has accounted for most of notions of nature’s regenerative and spiritually redemptive power”. When it comes to the representation of nature in films and on TV, Bousé puts that this same stillness and silence are hardly detectable in these media forms. Simply because stillness and silence “are incompatible with their social and economic functions. Films and TV are about movement, action and dynamism; nature is naturally not” (Bousé, 2000: 4). He continues this contradiction with his view on something which is heavily debated: ‘reality’ versus ‘fiction’, ‘truth in representation’ and the viewer’s experience. Bousé brings forth critic Robert Warshow and explains “a given type of film appeals only faintly, if at all, to its audience’s experience of reality, but rather to previous experiences of the type itself: it creates its own field of reference” (Bousé, 2000: 5). Bousé clearly claims “we experience the world beyond our own daily lives mainly, as film critic Richard Dyer has put it, through texts, discourse and images”. To give his statement strength, Bousé describes how “lions in the wild typically spend about 20 hours a day at rest” but “on television, lions and most other animals are almost in continuous motion”. Somehow people feel connected to what they see on screen which Bousé calls false intimacy, especially due to technological conventions and in particular, the use of close-up:
“The false intimacy of the para-social relationship is not the only kind of misapprehension of images that occurs as a result of regular TV viewing over time. Just as viewers’ perceptions of social reality are influenced by long-term, regular exposure to its representation (or misrepresentation) on television (see Gerbner et al. 1986), there seems little to argue that perceptions of nature cannot be influenced in a similar fashion… Viewers, especially heavy viewers, may embrace a number of TV-related misconceptions about nature and wildlife, just as they often to do in response to viewing other types of content” (Bousé, 2010: 125). These misconceptions that Bousé writes about, actually have consequences for human behavior in the real world: “Unrealistic perceptions and expectations of animal behavior can even put people at risk. Visitors to Yellowstone National Park, for example, have long regarded moose, bison and even bears as harmless roadside entertainers who are expected to pose for photographs and stand still for feeding and even petting. Visitors often seem to expect a personal interaction with the animals, and to see themselves, in Caughey’s phrase, as shifting from the role of observer to that of participant in a relationship something like the one they enjoy with pets and family members” (Bousé, 2010: 125).
13
Bousé mentions several interesting aspects. First of all, Bousé writes that the consequences of media image representation are related to stereotypes. According to Seiter (1986) social psychologists describe stereotypes as: “Like most (if not all) social psychologists we believe that stereotypes are universal, used by every human being in processing information about the social environment. In our opinion, stereotypes are not only inevitable, but also are usually quite functional for effective social interaction… Stereotypes are generalizations about social groups-characteristics that are attributed to all members of a given group without regard to variations that must exist among members of that group. Stereotypes are not necessarily based on people’s first-hand experiences with members of stereotyped groups. They may be learned from others or from the mass media… The lack of regard for differences within a stereotyped group makes stereotypes into “over-generalizations”, as such they are always at least somewhat distorted. However, many stereotypes may have valid grounds and a “kernel of truth” to them (Seiter, 1986: 15). The question is in which ways images from the audio-visual world are contributing to or establishing stereotypes and which ones do or do not have valid grounds in the ‘real’ world.
Research Design: Case Studies As I became interested in studying the factors which could be decisive for that feeling of intimacy, I found myself looking at a subject which first of all appears to be a trending topic at the moment, especially for environmentalists. This would be oceans or in a broader sense, marine life. As I will describe in part 1 of this thesis, scientifically we trace the roots of life back to oceans, Nichols’ research illustrates we experience a special relationship with oceans and various organizations step up for a healthy ocean as a part of a healthy Earth. Secondly, marine life has been the subject or background of various TV series, (wildlife) documentaries and (animation) films throughout history. A lot of people will remember Flipper portrayed as our happy, friendly and intelligent dolphin friend or the earlier mentioned shark in Jaws (USA, 1975). Why did we like Flipper the dolphin or disliked the shark in Jaws (USA, 1975) for example? Besides all these reasons, I am personally very passionate about oceans.
For this thesis, the case studies exist of the following: IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) and Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). On the next page you will find a short description of those three case studies.
14
Theater Film: IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) This film takes the viewer across the beauty and wonders of various coastal areas of Southern Australia, New Guinea and Indo-Pacific including showing the impact of global warming. It was directed by Howard Hall and narrated by the famous actor Johnny Depp and actress Kate Winslet. The originally Warner Bros film was released in theaters in February 2009 and distributed by the Imax corporation. As mentioned on their website “In Imax 3D the images will literally leap off the screen and float around the theatre, putting the audience in the movie”4.
Animation Film 3D Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) This film tells the story of two clownfish, a father named Merlin and a son named Nemo. They live in the tropical waters of the Great Barrier Reef. Finding Nemo is a computer animated film produced by Pixar Studios and released by Walt Disney Pictures in 2003. Andrew Stanton was the producer behind Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) inspired by his personal experiences coming from his childhood and parenthood. About the film, the website describes: “Fearful of the ocean and its unpredictable risks, Melvin struggles to protect his son. Nemo is eager to explore the mysterious reef. When Nemo is unexpectedly taken Marlin finds himself on an epic journey to rescue his son”5
Home Video/TV Episode Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) This TV episode is part of a series called Ocean Adventures (USA, 2009). These series are directed by filmmaker Jean-Michel Cousteau and narrated by famous actor, producer and writer Chris Noth. Filmmakers and scientists form a great deal of this documentary TV episode. Their website reveals: “Cousteau and the team discover that people and orcas share surprising similarities, even similar needs and they relate their findings to the captivity and release of Keiko, from Free Willy fame”. This is followed by: “the team also learns how some of the threats to killer whales now intersect with human lives”6
4 "Under the Sea 3D." IMAX. Web. 26 June. 2015.
15
Initially I started with a total of six media objects and this turned out to be impossible due to restrictions for this thesis7. These originally six media objects were chosen first of all as a representative mix of TV documentary series, (wildlife TV/Film) documentaries and (2D/3D animation) films, coming from worldwide known media outlets such as National Geographic, BBC, IMAX theaters, Disney (Nature and Animation) and Pixar Studios. Then, these six media objects needed to be ‘under water’ or at least be about marine life. Eventually I chose to include the above described three media objects, after watching and analyzing all six due to the interesting diversity of each media object and in comparison to each other. With interesting diversity I mean that each media object had different cinematographic elements. IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) is a film completely filmed under water and promises viewers “the ultimate movie experience” with a famous actor and actress as narrators. Then, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) entails 3D computer animated graphics with a more character-driven plot. Lastly I chose Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) and this might be surprising, in comparison to other more obvious documentaries like Oceans (USA, France/Canada, 2009) and The Blue Planet (United Kingdom, 2001). The main reason for that choice was that Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) provided another story, view and film style opposed to the above two documentaries. Oceans (USA, France/Canada, 2009) and The Blue Planet (United Kingdom,
2001) were in comparison more alike to for example IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), even though there are always differences to be found of course. Moreover, it was the only TV documentary which focused on one species in particular and this species turned out to be highly ‘underrated’ in the whole of the six media objects.
Interestingly, these three media objects have shown similar patterns and themes, even though they are really diverse.
Returning to the beginning of this introduction and in order to answer the research question, I divided this study in four parts. In the first part ‘Blue Planet, Green People or a Little Bit of Both?” I will start with an outline on some issues within society, environment and our human impact. Then in the second part ‘Nature versus Culture’ I will discuss in more detail the concepts of reality, representation, the power of stories and their place within society, culture and in particular science, folklore, mythology, religion and even politics where oceans are used as metaphors. How we make sense of the world we live and how these aspects all have
7 The initial 6 media objects were: IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), The Little Mermaid (USA, 1989), Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), Oceans (USA, France/Canada, 2009), The Blue Planet (United Kingdom, 2001) and Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009).
16 influenced or contributed to our sense of identity form the core of this part. The third part will illustrate more ideas about neuroscientific insights and the underlying processes that go on within ourselves regarding the ‘real world’ and the world on screen. Concepts which are important in this part are recognition emotional lives of humans and non-humans, empathy and the (false) intimate relationship with the screen. The key question for this part is: “Are non- humans like us and vice versa?”. Moreover subjectivity and individuality is an important angle in this part. The fourth part of this thesis entails the textual, contextual and literature review analysis of how ‘empathy’ possibly works in the three case-studies which could contribute to our sense of intimacy. Within this analysis I have also paid attention to the cinematographic techniques and other aspects such as storytelling, themes, characters, language, music, editing and special effects. To make you a bit curious to turn the page and provide a hint where this thesis is going: maybe we are in need of a more wholesome theory and universal identity. Maybe ‘humans’ are more alike ‘non-humans’ after all.
Are you ready to dive in?
17
Part 1 Blue Planet, Green People
or a Little Bit of Both?
“One touch of nature makes the whole world kin” William Shakespeare (Troilus and Cressida)8
This part is the first part of the social-cultural, academic and political context. In this part I try to illustrate what humans experience with marine life. Secondly, this part is about our interaction with Earth and marine life, our human impact and movements such as environmentalism, conservation and ‘Greening’ of society. Moreover, this part deals with the proclaimed crisis of Earth, nonhumans and maybe even humans.
Marine Life, Humans & Media Oceans. When I only think about oceans, I immediately smell the salt, my toes begin to play with the sand and I feel relaxed. As I generally think more in images than in language, and I have lived nearby the ocean, it could be my memory directly finds picturesque associations with the word. However, my, or better said, our connection to the ocean goes even further back than just my or your personal memories. According to Nichols (2014) who quotes another marine biologist Callum Roberts, “people have a deep emotional connection to the sea. The ocean inspire, thrill and sooth us”. This deep emotional connection is explained as: “our relationship with the sea stretches back through time much further… all the way to the origins of life itself. We are ‘creatures of the ocean’” (Nichols, 2014: xvii). These claims are especially made by evolutionary biology scientists whom claim how life began with and in oceans, even though it is not clear exactly how and when (Spier, 2011). Being “creatures of the ocean” is also explained by Shubin (2008) who writes humans possess a so-called ‘inner fish’. This means humans and fish fossils show similarities as we evolved over time. Ultimately, the clearest example of how humans are connected to water, oceans and marine life, is when we think about the fact Earth consists of about 70% water which is the same for human bodies (Mitchell, 1945; Forbes, 1953).
8 "Troilus and Cressida." Shakespeare. Web. 26 June. 2015.
Marine life has been portrayed numerous times in films, TV or even other media such as books. I already named a few in the introduction like Flipper (USA, 1964), Jaws (USA, 1975) and the ones I have analyzed. A few of those, especially the documentary films have portrayed planet Earth is not doing so well. Filmmakers, usually with a self-claimed passion for nature, in collaboration with especially scientists, have used different media as an outlet and tool to raise awareness about planet Earth, in particular marine life. For example, our human impact on Earth was highlighted by the documentary film An inconvenient Truth (USA, 2006) and was put forward as a global warning. Not only Earth as a whole, but also issues of specifically marine life have been addressed the last few years through media, for example the ‘plastic soup’ problem (Plastic Paradise, USA, 2012; Plastic Planet, USA, 2009) and the liberation of captive cetaceans or marine mammals like killer whales, dolphins and belugas (The Cove, USA, 2009; A Fall from Freedom, USA, 2011; Blackfish, USA, 2013). The story of family film Free Willy (USA, 1993) portrayed a captive killer whale who was set free. However, ‘in real life’ he was still held ‘captive’. After seeing the film, millions of children wrote film company Warner Bros to help free Keiko, the killer whale who portrayed Willy (Keiko: The Untold Story, USA, 2013). This eventually led to his freedom and his return to the ocean.
Not only in the world on screen, but also in ‘the real world’, this intention of awareness has spread. To protect the oceans, various organizations worldwide step up to make people aware or conscious. For example, Ocean Conservancy put on their website: “You can’t have a healthy planet without a healthy ocean”9. The importance of a healthy ocean is further claimed by nature conservancy organization WWF: “Oceans contain the greatest diversity of life on Earth. From the freezing polar regions to the warm waters of the tropics and deep sea hydrothermal vents to shallow sea grass beds, marine organisms abound. Humans rely on the oceans for their important natural resources. Fishing is the principal livelihood for over 200 million people and provides the main source of protein for more than a billion”10. Other media channels such as National Geographic have made it their mission to inspire people to care about the planet and create awareness of her vulnerability11.
9 "Ocean Conservancy." Homepage. Web. 26 June. 2015.< http://www.oceanconservancy.org/who-we-are/> 10 "WWF - Endangered Species Conservation." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund. Web. 26 June. 2015.
This paragraph shows marine life, and all they have to offer in terms of resources, are quite important to humans and other species. However, it has been said for numerous years already there is an environmental crisis. And even though conservation organizations take action, we are still facing problems like global warming, pollution, chemicals in the food chain and plastic in the ocean just to name a few. In the next paragraph I will describe the first traces of environmentalism and conservation and how they came to be as they appear to form a great deal of inspiration for social-cultural events in contemporary society.
Environmentalism & Conservation: ‘Greening’ of Society In my personal surroundings and on a more regional, national and even international scale I see the word ‘green’ coming up more and more. The color green would be a sort of reflection of planet Earth, a kind of vow of belonging to, preserving and protecting planet Earth by living accordingly to the laws of nature and all ‘she’ has to offer in terms of resources. Concrete examples would be eating more organic, living in ‘natural homes’, sharing and trading of goods and deeds without the exchange or interference of money. Society would no longer be based on an individual ‘me’ or ego-consumer society, but rather a harmonious creative ‘we’ as part of a bigger whole. Some would describe these efforts of living in harmony with Earth and her resources as a form of ‘Greening’, ‘ A Green Movement’ or ‘Environmentalism’. When we take a look at the historical beginnings of ‘movements for Earth’, usually the revolutionary social, cultural and political voices are bound to the time period of the 60’s. However, as environmental historian Adam Rome explains, it started actually already before 1900:
“the rise of the environmental movement comes at the end of a story that begins before 1900. The first protests against pollution, the first efforts to conserve natural resources and the first campaigns to save wilderness all occurred in the late nineteenth century. By the end of the Progressive Era, environmental problems were on the agenda of a variety of professions, from civil engineering to industrial hygiene” (Rome, 2003: 526).
Rome continues his view on the rise of the environmental movement by claiming it was due to important social and cultural developments happening in that time and not necessarily the idea of ‘Earth conservation’. More interestingly, the contributions in that time came from especially liberals, middle-class woman and anti-establishment young people:
“the contributions of liberals, middle-class women, and anti-establishment young people are especially critical in understanding the chronology of the movement. In the early 1960s, liberal intellectuals and elected officials put the environment on the national agenda. To achieve
20
greatness, they argued, the nation needed to protect and improve environmental quality. Throughout the decade, middle-class women made the environment an issue at the grass roots. In the late 1960s, the growing involvement of the young gave environmentalism new energy. The young also gave the cause a new name: the environmental movement” (Rome, 2003: 552-553).
Nowadays there are a lot of organizations which have made environmentalism their mission from which Greenpeace probably is the most known organization and the biggest. It operates in more than 40 countries across the globe. They claim to exist “because this fragile earth deserves a voice. It needs solutions. It needs change. It needs action” and they describe themselves as: “[…] an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace”12. Interestingly, it seems more people than we probably realize “consider themselves to be environmentalists” as Castells explains:
“At this turn of the millennium, 80 percent of Americans, and over two-thirds of Europeans, consider themselves environmentalists; parties and candidates can hardly be elected to office without ‘‘greening’’ their platform; governments and international institutions alike multiply programs, special agencies, and legislation to protect nature, improve the quality of life and, ultimately, save the Earth in the long term and ourselves in the short term” (Castells, 2010: 168).
Even though it appears a lot of people have turned into environmentalists or might have been ‘harmonious conscious Earthpeople’ to begin with, Castells states it is arbitrary to call all these efforts an actual movement due to their great differences, forms and varieties in countries and even cultures (Castells, 2010). We could see this for example in terms of food; there are vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians, lactarians, fruitarians, freegans, carnivores or some would call humans even omnivores. Each of these groups eat specific foods for specific reasons that each group, community, or country deems would best fit them and the Earth they inhabit.
In addition Castells (2010) brings up another term in relation to environmentalism namely ‘ecology’ and according to him there is a distinction to make:
“The distinction is between environmentalism and ecology. By environmentalism I refer to all forms of collective behavior that, in their discourse and in their practice, aim at correcting destructive forms of relationship between human action and its natural environment, in opposition to the prevailing structural and institutional logic. By ecology, in my sociological approach, I understand a set of beliefs, theories, and projects that consider humankind as a component of a broader ecosystem and wish to maintain the system’s balance in a dynamic,
12 "About Greenpeace." Greenpeace. Web. 26 June. 2015.
evolutionary perspective. In my view, environmentalism is ecology in practice, and ecology is environmentalism in theory, but in the following pages I will restrict the use of the term ‘‘ecology’’ to explicit, conscious manifestations of this holistic, evolutionary perspective” (Castells, 2010: 170). As new as this ‘holistic evolutionary perspective’ is experienced or even seen as revolutionary during the 60’s, it is of course not really new. Living in harmony with Earth’s resources, preserving and protecting the planet as part of a broader ecosystem is something which ‘ancient tribes’ whether they are Native Americans, African Tribes or South-American Maya’s have been living by for centuries. There is for example a famous saying coming from the Lakota Sioux Native American, “Mitakuye Oyasin” which means ‘to all my relations’ or ‘we are all related’. Another example would be the Maya greeting “In Lak'ech” translated as ‘I am another you’.
As I mentioned earlier, even though active environmentalism seems to be part of our global world, socially, culturally and politically, we are still facing problems. Two other major problems which I have not mentioned earlier and can be found within a broader context of ecology, are the loss of (bio)diversity and extinction. Belinda Smaill (forthcoming) provides us with some information on the great loss of biodiversity in recent decades:
“Paleoanthropologists Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin project that one half of the animal and plant species existing today will have vanished in the next one hundred years. While a background level of extinction is part of the balance of natural evolutionary processes, species loss has intensified in the current epoch. Ursula K. Heise writes that in recent decades “we may be losing species at about 50 to 500 times the background level. If one adds to this figure species that may have gone extinct, but whose fate is not known with certainty, the extinction rate rises to 100 to 1,000 times the background level, due mainly to habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, human population growth, and over-harvesting”. The current rate of species loss, moreover, is causing an unprecedented loss of biodiversity” (Smaill, forthcoming: 1-2)
Smaill (forthcoming) makes it quite clear through other research findings humans are to a great extent responsible for the heavy loss of biodiversity the last few decades. Some scientists would bring up extinction is a part of nature which is true if we think about dinosaurs, for example. Furthermore, what might be even less known is that, according to our scientific findings, planet Earth has gone through five big extinctions in the past 540 million years (Barnosky et all, 2011). However, these extinctions were balanced by speciation and were not related to human activity.
22
Thus, this is in great contrast with the upcoming big extinction if nothing will change (Barnoskey et all, 2011; Smaill, forthcoming). This is exactly where conservation organizations step in. This is also where filmmakers join scientists and organizations to bring these findings to a greater public, create awareness and give planet Earth a louder voice.
A very interesting question might be; what about humans? Why is planet Earth in crisis and what does that say about humans?
Human Impact: Environmental Crisis, Human Crisis? It has been stated quite clear humans are to great extent responsible for the so-called environmental crisis. Our modern society and the way we treat other nonhumans have a lot to do with that, according to Smaill (forthcoming), Sewall (1995) and Berger (1980).
In the 17th century, the dodo was the first extinct species which has been documented (Smaill, forthcoming). Smaill describes how this flightless pigeon, native to the island of Mauritius became a clear symbol for human impact on the environment, species loss and also relates to the first traces of conservation:
“Heise expands on the way animals have become projections of human conceptions of crisis in modernity in accounts of species loss. She argues that at the moment the dodo disappeared, human impact on flora and fauna first entered the modern imagination, instituting a new relationship with the non-human world. Since this time, the dodo has become “a recurrent symbol of the destruction of nature wrought by the imperialist expansion of European modernity—a destruction that, it should be added, also generated the first initiatives for conservation” (Heise, 61). The dodo has become emblematic of a human connection to a crisis in nature, emerging as a culturally significant species, burdened with the weight of signifying more than simply is own biotic existence. The dodo offers one of the earliest examples of animals becoming iconic due to their relationship to modernity and human induced extinction” (Smaill, forthcoming: 3).
Smaill (forthcoming) offers a clear example of how a nonhuman like the dodo became something more than just a nonhuman gone extinct. This event gave meaning to the human identity in relation to nature and in which modernity and industrialization play an important role. Steve Baker (2001) explains this further via critic John Berger residing in a concept of ‘reduction of the animal’:
23
“’In the last two centuries’, Berger asserts, ‘animals have gradually disappeared. Today we live without them’ (p. 9). The theoretical break into this new and impoverished world had come earlier, first with Descartes’s conception of the animal as a soulless machine, and then with the eighteenth-century French naturalist Buffon’s classificatory project which effectively drained the animal of its ‘experience and secrets’ – the sources of its previous power in the eyes of humanity. Nineteenth-century industrialization confirmed and completed this theoretical break. In the early stages of industrialization ‘animals were used as machines’, and later they were regarded as raw material: ‘animals required for food are processed like manufactured commodities’. Not surprisingly, animal experimentation is given as the clinching example of ‘this reduction of the animal’ (p.11)” (Baker, 2001: 12).
‘This reduction of the animal’ has turned into a notion of an environmental crisis at the moment. Interestingly, in a paragraph Nichols calls “Adrift”, he writes about ‘internal conservation’ instead of external and this puts an environmental crisis in a different perspective:
“Today when we talk of conservation, the assumption is that we’re talking about trying to save sea turtles, old buildings, endangered ecosystems, electricity and so on. But we don’t think enough about a more internal conservation, conserving our attention for what matters, conserving our engagement for what’s important, conserving our acuity for decisions that make a positive difference. If you don’t know what to save, you can’t know how to save it” (Nichols, 2014: 138).
What Nichols describes, is underlined by perceptual psychologist Laura Sewall. According to Sewall (1995), Earth’s crisis does not stand alone. In her article “The Skill of ecological Perception”, Sewall (1995) argues “the deadening of our senses is at the heart of the environmental crisis”. In short, humans and specifically ‘our senses’ are directly connected to the environmental problems we are facing. One wonders how of course. Sewall explains that “our sensory capacities are the fundamental avenues of connection between self and world” (Sewall, 1995: 201). This suggests that through the senses we connect with our environment, world and planet Earth as a whole. Critic John Berger, author of the groundbreaking book About Looking (1980) could not be more in line with Sewall in terms of how humans have lost the connection with ‘nature’ and ‘nonhumans’ (Berger, 1980).
If we share some light on the condition of how people are feeling and doing, the World Health Organization shows cancer was our “leading cause of death worldwide in 2008, with 12.7 million new cases and 7.6 million deaths”. Secondly, “more than 350 million people of all ages suffer from depression” and “at least a billion people suffer each year because they cannot
24 obtain the health services they need”13. I am leaving even the war and poverty facts aside for a moment. One could definitely argue humankind is in crisis as well. Who we are as humans and in relation to our environment and nonhumans seems to be the underlying question. In order to answer this question and how to evolve to another kind of society, scholar Guiseppe Barbiero suggests “we need to go to the root cause of human sentiments, emotions and the instincts that govern the way that we act in relation to the environment” (Barbiero, 2014:21).
Even though a lot of criticism surrounds Barbierio’s (2014) theory, I wish to address it. According to the biophilia hypothesis humans have an “innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes”, “innate emotional affiliation to other living organisms” or “inborn affinity for other forms or life” (Krcmarova, 2009: 5). This comes originally from ecologist and entomologist Edward Wilson. Barbiero (2014) calls biophilia “the mental energy that nourishes our relationship with the natural world” and Nichols addresses our experience to the (“natural”) world physically, cognitively and emotionally:
“… humans have ‘ingrained’ in our genes an instinctive bond with nature and the living organisms we share our planet with. He theorized that because we have spent most of our evolutionary history – three million years and 100,000 generation or more – in nature (before we started forming communities or building cities), we have an innate love of natural settings. Like a child depends upon its mother, humans have always depended upon nature for our survival. And just as we intuitively love our mothers, we are linked to nature physically, cognitively and emotionally” (Nichols, 2014: 11).
Furthermore Barbiero (2014) finds “gaining a deep understanding of Nature is certainly a necessary step, but appreciating Nature – and appreciating ourselves as part of it – involves the human emotional sphere”. Barbiero (2014) describes here something which he calls the “the right kind of connection with Nature” (Barbiero, 2014:21). Moreover, Barbiero (2014) suggest something which is called “an Affective Ecology”. The question is, if we are actually going towards such a society, what kind of role should humans play in it and might this have anything to do with the question of who we are. In the next part you will find more insights and ideas on making sense of the world we live in and our sense of identity.
13 "Factsheet." WHO | World Health Organization. Web. 26 June. 2015.
25
Part 2 ‘Nature’ versus ‘Culture’:
Making Sense of the World
“I am a great admirer of mystery and magic; look at this life - all mystery and magic” (Harry Houdini, Illusionist and Performer)14
In the first part I have illustrated some issues that are happening in society, facts about and ideas related to the relationship between media, humans, planet Earth and nonhumans. In this part I wish to provide some insights on the concepts of ‘reality versus stories’, the power that stories have and how all these influence or have influenced each other. This is true for the relationship between nature and science, but also how marine life is addressed within folklore, mythology, religion and even in politics. I ended the previous part with the remaining question of who we are, therefore in this chapter our sense of identity within ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ form the core of this part. Ultimately, it tries to illustrate the big debate on ‘identity’ answering the question what kind of place humans should take in society, planet Earth and towards nonhumans including the role politics play within this debate.
Reality versus Stories: Origins & Power of Stories As Berger described in the previous part, nonhumans have been disappearing from our daily lives and returning on screen. Therefore, it might be interesting to look at the first shots of ‘nature’ and/or nonhumans and what kind of influence these developments have had. The first attempts to capture nonhumans in motion was realized by Eadweard Muybridge in 1872 in California. Because Muybridge filmed horses, the actual goal of these attempts was “to establish the nature of the horse’s gallop” and his initial intention “was to decide whether there was a point at which all four hooves left the ground during the gallop” in order to use this knowledge for horse races (Burt, 2002: 104). As Burt (2002) describes, nonhumans were a significant driving force behind the development of the technology for film and at the same time being our source of inspiration. Furthermore, Burt (2002) explains how “capturing animals on film presented technological challenges, which in turn reinforced the novelty of film via the animal’s
14 “Harry Houdini”. Biography. Web. 26 June. 2015.
According to Barthes & Duisit (1975) stories are presented in endless different forms such as documentary, fiction, writings, news, films, TV programs, science. They are present always and everywhere:
“Indeed narrative starts with the very history of mankind; there is not, there has never been anywhere, any people without narrative; all classes, all human groups, have their stories, and very often those stories are enjoyed by men of different and even opposite cultural backgrounds: narrative remains largely unconcerned with good or bad literature. Like life itself, it is there, international, trans historical, transcultural” (Barthes & Duisit, 1975: 237).
It seems besides the viewer’s experience, emotional responses or feelings, the stories themselves are quite important as well. When it comes to the idea of stories in general and art, Bunkers (2006) explains through the view of Bradt (1997) how stories give thoughts a body or a form. According to Bradt (1997), story is an epistemology and not solely a form of art. This means stories help shifting “ignorance to understanding” and this would be “a technique of knowing the world, the self and the other”. It also involves a so-called “transforming element” to the actual storytelling (Bunkers, 2006: 104). Bunkers (2006) describes this as following, again via Bradt (1997): “In the telling and the listening of story and self, what is also unfolding is a reconfiguring, reconstructing, or restorying of the elements of the lives of tellers and listeners, both as individuals and as persons-in-relationship” (Bunkers, 2006: 104). It seems whether you are the storyteller, the listener or even the story itself, they are all involved in transformation. What does Bunkers (2006) say about the influence of stories? She looked if and how stories and fables influence individuals and societies and in particular the working field of nursing. Bunkers (2006) describes how “nursing deals daily with the reshaping and rebuilding of lives” and how “story is a vehicle for such reshaping and rebuilding” because “literature has the power to connect us and to transform our patterns and reshape our lives” (McKenna 1997, Bunkers, 2006: 105). According to Bunkers (2006) at least, stories have a connecting, transforming and reshaping power for individuals, lives and society. Furthermore in Bunkers conclusion (2006: 107), she claims how “the writing and the telling of story can be a means of
27 developing new wisdom”, especially for nursing and healthcare. Bunkers (2006) ends her article with an enormous positive claim when it comes to the potential of stories, life and humans: “The creation of story is reflecting on what has been and imaging what may be possible. Narrative is non-ending when one considers endless human possibilities” (Bunkers, 2006: 107).
When it comes to art, humans, history and the mind, some very interesting aspects have been brought up. Looking at the first traces of stories in the history of mankind, we come across the prehistoric cavemen who created drawings in for example the Lascaux, Chauvet and Cussac caves in France (Lorblanchet, 2007). Some believed this played a significant role for our sense of identity and who we are as humans. Firstly, Lorblanchet (2007: 98) describes how, according to Georges Bataille’s classical view, the drawings in Lascaux became “the symbol of the transition from animal to human” resulting in the “place where we emerged”. Even though Lorblanchet (2007: 109) does not agree with Bataille’s view, he does claim “humans are artists by nature” and how the “history of art starts with the history of humanity”. He explains this as follows and surprisingly also in relation with arts to nature in terms of representation:
“According to Henri Breuil (1906, 1952), Cro-Magnon man became an artist when he accidentally discovered the power to represent natural phenomena, such as stones in the form of figures, shapes in rocks, fossils, animal and human prints (traces of fingers, gnawing marks on bones, and so on). Modern humans’ liking for imitation was thought to be the basis for the first artistic creations” (Lorblanchet, 2007: 100) This basis for the first artistic creation which Lorblanchet (2007) writes about, actually rose due to two human aspects, namely ‘capacity’ and ‘need’. These are believed to be related to cognitive abilities and certain local specific contexts:
“Between 45,000 and 35,000 years ago, according to the region of the world, rock art was born out of the meeting between a capacity and a need: – a cognitive capacity resulting from the innate disposition of the human mind to produce mental images and symbols, resulting too from the accumulation of experiences and achievements over millions of years of their history; – a need born out of specific local contexts (conflict between different human groups, a changing natural environment, etc.) giving rise to beliefs and ritual practices that exploit all the potential of the creative mind to carry them out” (Lorblanchet, 2007: 108). According to these findings, humans are artists by nature and we developed our artistic creations from two basic aspects related to an inner cognitive capacity (mind) and specific local contexts (daily environment). While reading Lorblanchet’s article, he describes a very
28 interesting way of looking at art. Lorblanchet (2007) writes about the idea of ‘free beauty’ coming from philosopher Immanuel Kant who was interested in the ‘aesthetics’ of art:
“For the first time in human history we are in the presence not only of a figurative art that represents elements of reality, but above all of a visual art that is open to communication, flaunts itself, puts itself on show, addresses other humans or divinities able to see and appreciate as humans can” (Lorblanchet, 2007: 99).
I also wish to address this argument, because within Media Studies, we often study media objects through an interpretive, textual, symbolic and metaphoric method searching for possible meanings and consequences in terms of ideology, power (agency) and a sense of identity. This seems to be the so-called figurative art. However, and maybe ideally or utopian, but this idea of ‘free beauty’ is an interesting aspect to think about. Not as a replacement for the above mentioned ways of looking, but maybe as an additional layer to the way of looking at audio- visual stories.
Returning to the beginning of this part, I will continue with some more detailed insights on identity and the role of science, folklore, mythology, religion and politics.
Human Identity: Nature and Marine Life in Science and Maritime Metaphors First of all the word identity; what does it mean? If I look at the Oxford dictionary, the following description comes forward: “the fact of being who or what a person or thing is” or “the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is” but also “a close similarity or affinity”. Interestingly the word identity originates from the late Latin word ‘identitas’ or the Latin word ‘idem’ which actually means ‘same’15. Usually when a child grows up, he or she learns there is an ‘I’ and a ‘You’ and that it is possible there is a difference between the two in terms of physical appearance, abilities, preferences, thoughts and feelings. The child also starts to determine oneself through believe and behavioral patterns for themselves and others. For years already, there has been a debate on whether how much is contributed by genes (nature) and upbringing and environmental influences (nurture) to a person’s identity. In this part I will discuss more the nurture side as I find it quite interesting Barthes (1975) states “narrative starts with the very history of mankind”.
15 "Identity." Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar. Web. 26 June. 2015.
It is my understanding history offers a chronological framework for past events however it is also quite important for our sense of identity because it deals with fundamental questions like ‘who are we’ and ‘where do we come from’. Since ancient times people have looked at the stars to answer that question (Schilling, 2012). An approach nowadays which tries to integrate all aspects of our world and historical narrative, is ‘Big History’. Fred Spier (2011: 1) describes this is an “approach to history that places human history within the context of cosmic history, from the beginning of the universe up until life on Earth today”. If we take a look at solely humankind it usually comes across we have evolved from primates, we became hunter- gatherers, we turned to agriculture and we slowly built up societies. Humankind went through some cultural changes in terms of religion, wars, genocides and rational revolutions in terms of enlightment. Then, all kinds of inventions and industrializations helped humankind along to modernize society. Furthermore, schooling, universities and academic disciplines grew with the coming of science in the 19th century (Spier, 2011). Ultimately, I find this integration of all scientific knowledge significant for this thesis because Spier (2011: 139) provides a framework for a more universal identity when it comes to humans, nature and nonhumans. He explains this as following:
“In accounts of the history of the universe, it rarely worries people, if ever, that not all the known galaxies, stars, planets, comets, meteoroids and dust clouds are mentioned. In human history, by contrast, the audience usually expects detailed stories about particular events, most notably when dealing with the history of their ‘own’ societies. This is partly the result of feelings of identity that are stimulated by more traditional forms of history-writing, in which the history of one’s own people – whatever that may mean – is giving the central position. While an Earthrise approach to human history may not foster any such feelings it may stimulate another type of identity, namely the idea that all of us belong to one single rather exceptional animal species which emerged on a rather exceptional planet somewhere in the universe; that our closest cousins are the primates, that we are in fact related to all life forms and that seen from a cosmic perspective our far cousins are the rocks, the water and even the stars” (Spier, 2011: 139).
It must be clear that due to discoveries and exploration we have learnt a lot about ourselves and the universe we are a part of. However, ‘Big History’ alone does not provide a different framework for our sense of identity because that would have meant probably we know and understand everything there is. The last few years a new perspective has been introduced in scientific research, at least in Western societies: if we go ‘beyond’ our physical being what looks like matter, ‘beyond’ our emotions and even neurons, we find we are made of atoms. But these atoms are not the final conclusion: as quantum physicist Michio Kaku describes the “bizarre
30 and wonderful world of Quantum Theory”16, Morgan Freeman claims “everything is made up by tiny packages of energy” in the documentary series Through the Wormhole (USA, 2010) and theoretical physicist Richard Feynman concludes “the world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things” in the TV series Fun to Imagine (UK, 1983). All these concepts would again implicate consequences for our sense of identity, thinking about our world and experiencing it.
When it comes to one of the senses, namely sight, something very interesting is brought up as well on the level of cells by Konigsberg (2007): “each cell has some awareness of what the other cells are doing and the entire motion process system”. Again I wish to address through discoveries, scientific narrative and derived conclusions form a great deal of our sense of identity. Of course it is not science alone which contributes to that. Because I focus on marine life in this thesis, I wish to continue with what kind of position do marine life and humans have in our social culture, folklore, mythology and religion?
Mentz (2009) claims we have actually forgotten about the oceans and our waters. It is land we live on and nowadays the scholars are finding their way back to the ocean, not the people in daily life. The roots of the word ‘sea’ can actually be found in the ancient Greek word ‘thalassos’ which has formed the basis for a new scientific idea, called the ‘new thalassology’. Mentz describes how a certain ‘maritime turn’ has taken place which have brought different disciplines together and had the purpose to “revise Mediterranean history for a new generation” (Mentz, 2009). In his article “Towards a Blue-Cultural-Studies” Mentz (2009) writes, “the sea, long treated as purely a metaphor or simply unremarkable, provides new vistas for early modern literary studies”. In these studies we “must consider the physical environment as a substantial partner in the creation of cultural meaning” (Mentz, 2009).
Usually when one thinks about oceans, the enormous depth of it will cross the mind or how explorers like Columbus sailed to other continents. It is not for nothing when one looks at the horizon, it seems like a ‘never ending story’. There are also more than enough stories about seas and water to find in probably the most famous book in the world The Bible. Just a few are “Fishing for Men”, “The Great Flood”, “The Raging Storm” and “A Man Swallowed by a Whale”17. Of course I could not forget about the ‘holy water’ or when Moses split the sea up.
16 "bizarre and wonderful world of Quantum Theory". Michio Kaku. Web. 26 June. 2015.
31
Furthermore there have been important poems like ‘the Odyssey’ about the Greek hero Odysseus as well as many water deities or so-called sea gods. I do not wish to illustrate or describe in detail the stories in which oceans play a role in this paragraph, I would rather provide a kind of overview of their existence first. Secondly anthropologist Stefan Helmreich (20011) has done research how seawater has fulfilled the role of metaphor:
“Seawater has occupied an ambiguous place in anthropological categories of “nature” and “culture.” Seawater as nature appears as potentiality of form and uncontainable flux; it moves faster than culture—with culture frequently figured through land-based metaphors—even as culture seeks to channel water’s (nature’s) flow. Seawater as culture manifests as a medium of pleasure, sustenance, travel, disaster” (Helmreich, 2011: 132).
Helmreich (2011) elaborates on the position of water and its meaning:
“Water is not one thing. For natural science, water’s effects depend on its state (solid, liquid, gas), on its scale (from molecular to oceanic), and on whether it is fresh or salty, still or turbulent, deep or shallow. For interpretative social sciences, water can be sacred substance, life, refreshment, contaminant, grave (see “In Focus: The Meaning of Water,” Anthropology News, February 2010). I fix in this article on seawater—mindful that rivers (Raffles 2002), lakes (Orlove 2002), rain (Boomgaard 2007), irrigation systems (Lansing 1991; Pandian 2009), glaciers (Cruikshank 2005), and other aqueous phenomena demand their own accounts” (Helmreich, 2011:133). It is quite obvious water has several meanings and is open to a lot of interpretations let alone disciplines or cultures. As Barbiero (2014) illustrates, in terms of really appreciating nature, we need to look at the human emotional sphere. I wonder how we actually appreciate something or why something has value for one or not. As Adler & Fagley (2005) write “some people seem to cherish each new day … yet others fail to notice or appreciate the positive aspects of their lives”. In addition to Barbiero (2014) and underlined by Adler & Fagley (2005), they define “appreciation as acknowledging the value and meaning of something—an event, a person, a behavior, an object—and feeling a positive emotional connection to it” (Adler & Fagley, 2005: 81). How people should act towards ‘nature’ and ‘non-humans’ in terms of an identity, I will discuss in the third part of the social-cultural, academic and political context. The only question I have not dealt with is: what kind of relation does water have with politics and globalization?
Globalization, Politics & Media: An (Oceanic) Ecological Identity? Drawing further upon anthropologist Stefan Helmreich (2011), he “argues that, although seawater’s qualities in early anthropology were portrayed impressionistically, today technical,
32 scientific descriptions of water’s form prevail”. This reminds me slightly of the human domination Haila (1999) writes about. Either way, Helmreich (2011) explains this by the term globalization which according to him could also be called ‘oceanization’ due to the fact that processes that are related to globalization “are often described as “currents,” “flows,” and “circulations”. In perspective of the first part of the social-cultural, academic and political context so far, Andrew Light would then ask “is environmentalism a form of identity politics like feminism, race-based politics, and other political orientations at the core of the new social movements?”. Light (2007) describes that is not so easy to do, even though the idea is easily accepted: “The question of whether environmentalism should be counted as a form of identity politics - which I call the claim to an 'ecological identity' - is a tricky one even though it is largely assumed to be the case that environmentalists should be included in a complete description of the new social movements. The problem is articulating what sort of identity is constituted by an ecological identity, understanding which character trait justifies an embrace of that identity and explaining how the political content of that identity stems from some character trait of those who embrace it. We might call these general parameters for the content of an identity, the 'constitutive profile' of the identity” (Light, 2007: 60). In defining environmentalism Light (2007) involves the concept of empathy as an identity trait, claiming it is a ‘form of empathy with the nonhuman natural world’: “Environmentalism, as a broader political phenomenon, is, as Young suggested, clearly cultural in orientation and is predominantly constituted as a detached form of identity. The politicized identity trait of environmentalism is, very loosely, a form of empathy with the non-human natural world. This empathy for nature takes the political form of a cultural stance which rejects those decisions and decision-making structures which are insensitive, or if one prefers, oppressive toward nature” (Light, 2007: 65). Light (2007) further states how ecologically wrong environmentalists are in terms of urban issues, because there is strong evidence that “humans living in cities is the best thing for the environment - but also socially, since many environmentalists tend to associate urban life with a form of moral degeneration”. Where Light (2007) talks about a detaching identity of nature, Morton (2008) claims “we have to be at least a little distant from it”: “So yes, we are all interconnected, but not, it turns out, in a nice utopian, hippy manner. We are starting to learn just how interlinked everything is, the hard way… Since the late eighteenth century (the period we call Romantic), the arts and humanities have held an idea that “nature” is something (some thing) “over yonder.” Science, and current events, have outstripped this idea. How can the arts and humanities catch up? Unfortunately for some, this will mean de- Bambifying nature: it cannot be just cute any more. The logic of the movie Happy Feet is that
33
you can only be nice to one species at a time: seals look nasty from a penguin’s eye view. A somewhat cynical reading might be “Dance for us, or we’ll keep on killing you.” Children flushed their goldfish down toilets when Finding Nemo came out. Sentimentality is not working. Nor is the wild energy of the sublime. For nature to be sublime, we have to be at least a little distant from it” (Morton, 2008: 91-92). Morton (2008) ends his article and the debate for himself, claiming there was no nature to begin with: “In striving to patch up the tear in the ontic substrate of our existence with an ideologically integrated, holistic Nature, ecological panic is thus part of the problem. Ecology without Nature, then, is part of a left solution— not a flight from Earth (really or metaphorically) but dwelling with the necessarily traumatic encounter with the torn ontic level. We must come to terms with the fact not that we are destroying Nature, but that there was no Nature” (Morton, 2008: 94). One could ask, if there was no nature to begin with, is there a culture? At somewhat the opposite you will find Roberto Marchesini (2015) who writes about the “The animal that therefore I am”, coming from philosopher Derrida. Marchesini claims via Derrida: “the non- human animal is my neighbor, a neighbor known also when barely seen, felt behind the walls, thinkable and therefore inherent tome. First of all, its vicinity is given by the awareness of our sharing our common animal nature” (Marchesini, 2015). Why could one ask? Because as Marchesini continues: “in the animal-other, I recognize myself, I find a connection, I feel at home. Additionally, I know that he/ she recognizes me, and so interacts with me, awaiting a dialogue of a kind that is different from any other interaction with the world” (Derrida in Marchesini, 2015: 77). Marchesini’s article is actually called “Against Anthropocentrism. Non- human Otherness and the Post-human Project” which clearly takes its stand.
To elaborate on the idea of anthropocentrism, Hoffman & Sandelands (2004) describe the following ‘dominant thinking about nature’ in two different ways. First there is ‘anthropocentric’, which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” and there is ‘ecocentric’ which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). Their paper is quite interesting since they first of all write about how the appreciation of nature became a political issue”: “The question of how to value nature became a political issue in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century, as a war of words, values and ideals emerged over the water needs of the city of San Francisco and the sanctity of one of the country's most beautiful national parks, Yosemite. The ensuing debate took seven years to resolve and involved newspapers, politicians, public debate and the invocation of God (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5).
34
As an potential answer they claim “man’s spiritual challenge today is to apply both faith and reason to find ways to live in harmony with nature”. In this perspective, Hoffman & Sandelands suggest a theocentric environmentalism based on Christianity (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004).
As it shows, the ‘nature’ vs ‘culture’ debate is quite active. Of course there is a lot more to read and write about as I started with some notes on closing the gap between ‘Nature’ and ‘Culture’ in the introduction. Maybe the ultimate question for all species is: why could we not be both? Directly connected to that question is: are nonhumans like us or are they like us? And is there actually a ‘they’ and ‘us’? As this paragraph already showed, this debate is quite big and what I wish to add to this debate are some potential answers coming from the discipline Neuroscience and the concept of empathy.
35
Part 3 Humans, NonHumans and Relationships:
Are They Like Us?
“I believe empathy is the most essential quality of civilization”
(Roger Ebert, film critic, journalist and screenwriter:
Winner Pulitzer Price for Criticism)18
It seems we humans say a lot about nonhumans while nonhumans cannot say anything directly in return, especially since we do not speak the same language. In relation to the end of the previous part, where I wrote about politics, Eva Meijer works on actually this aspect: ‘the political voice of animals’. She proposes, even though humans and nonhumans do not share the same language style, it does not mean they do not communicate with us19. Speech is only one example of the differences between humans and nonhumans. Interestingly, I would like to bring up the question: are we listening correctly? Maybe there is much more to find in terms of similarities and where it is we would be needing to focus on. Therefore the main question of this part is: how do we form relationships and in what ways are humans like nonhumans and vice versa?
‘Humans’ versus ‘Non-Humans’: Concepts & Definitions
When we take a look at the word ‘human’, it originates from the late Middle English word ‘humaine’, Old French ‘Humain(e)’ and the Latin word ‘humanus’ (from ‘homo ‘man’) meaning ‘human being’. These last words have a clear definition: “A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance”20. What does the dictionary say about ‘animals’? First of all the word comes from the Latin word ‘animal’ which was based upon the Latin word
18 "Roger Ebert." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 26 June. 2015.
‘animalis’. This actually means ‘having breath’. The definition of an ‘animal’ is as follows: “a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli”21.
In general I have always learnt humans belong to a classification of mammals as well, including other nonhumans. Interestingly, in that same Oxford dictionary when we take a look at the definition of mammals, humans are not specifically mentioned: “a warm-blooded vertebrate animal of a class that is distinguished by the possession of hair or fur, females that secrete milk for the nourishment of the young, and (typically) the birth of live young”22. Based solely on language and definition, I cannot say nor claim humans try to separate themselves from nonhumans rather than trying to seek a balanced idiom between ‘being human and non- human’.
With this last note, we arrived at the question: what makes us human or what makes an organism nonhuman? To answer that question, Sewall (1995) as described earlier, clearly puts the concept of ‘the senses’ forward. Nichols (2014) is just as convinced in that perspective: “emotions make us truly human”. This is underlined by other scientists such as Terrence Sejnowski who theorized this in an article called “Nature is more clever than we are” in 2013. Nichols (2014) explains this claim as follows:
“indeed, our emotions affect every decision we make, and thus who we become. The chemicals which fuel and form our emotions (alone, in combination or via their absence) stimulate for example our energy and make us feel happy, fearful, relaxed, tense, frustrated, sad and in love. It is this whole range of feelings that make us truly human” (Nichols, 2014: 52-53).
Another possible answer to that question, comes from Salingaros & Masden (2008). They concentrate on how humans interact with their environment and concluded three levels of a human being:
“In the first level, a human being is regarded as a component placed into an abstract, mechanical world. Here, human beings interact only minimally (superficially) with the natural world, a condition of being disconnected […] In the second level, a human being is an organism made of sensors that interact with its environment. Here, humans are biological entities: animals that
21 "Animals." Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar. Web. 26 June. 2015.
37
possess a sensory apparatus enabling them to receive and use measurable input. This is a condition of biological connectedness to the world, i.e. situatedness (Salingaros & Masden, 2006a). In this richly biological view, a human being represents a biological system that has evolved to perceive and react with inanimate matter and especially with other organisms. Humans are considered as animals (not meant in any negative way), sharing all the evolved neural apparatus necessary to make sense of the natural world. Human modes of interaction are those we understand through nerves and sensors. In the third level, a human being is something much more than a biological neural system. The third conception corresponds to the much older metaphysical picture of humans as spiritual beings, connected to the universe in ways that other animals are not. This is a condition of transcendental engagement with the world. The definition of human essence extends into realms more properly covered by humanistic philosophy and religion. Much of what it means to “be human” lies in this domain, and these additional qualities distinguish us from other animals. To dismiss all of this as “unscientific” would be to miss the point of humanity” (Salingaros & Masden, 2008). These three levels of a human being are very interesting because I at least come across them quite often when I talk with others about what makes us human or how we ‘relate’ to nonhumans or our environment.
When it comes to the audio-visual world, a human is sometimes regarded as ‘a person’ or ‘an individual’ and Pete Porter (2006) describes a schema with 7 main aspects which according to him “must have a schematic and flexible structure” and “remain open to revision and responsive to debate about what constitutes personhood”. For now Porter (2006) proposes the following seven characteristics:
“1. a discrete human body, individuated and continuous through time and space;
2. perceptual activity, including self-awareness;
3. intentional states, such as beliefs and desires; 4. emotions; 5. the ability to use and understand a natural language; 6. the capacity for self-impelled actions and self-interpretation; and 7. the potential for traits, or persisting attributes. (p. 21)” (Porter, 2006: 404).
According to Porter (2006), this is the way we actually recognize a person on screen when we are watching TV or a film. Porter (2006) suggests a theoretical framework based on the so- called ‘Structure of Sympathy’ (Smith, 1995) which I will later on discuss more in detail.
38
In addition, in light of the earlier discussed anthropocentrism and whether nonhumans have a voice or not, Marchesini (2015) describes via German biologist Von Uexküll the animal is seen as “an automaton”. This has the following consequences for them:
“a) An animal is unable to say no to its marking. b) The marking does not attach an object to it but a function to perform, thus is it arbitrary to call this act perception, since the animal does not perceive anything, but merely reacts. c) The reaction is not an answer because the animal is not called to choose and has no possibility to choose; the animal is simply employing a number of prefixed mechanisms. d) We cannot talk about a true individual identity, because an animal lives in an eternal present, completely stunned in the here-and-now, and therefore lacking memory (past) and projectuality (future). e) The continuous flow of environmental markings and of regulated drives does not allow an animal to think, to wait, to get bored and above all to have self-awareness” (Marchesini, 2015: 80-81). Marchesini (2015) also addresses the idea of subjectivity which relates to individuality and minds. Mandik (2009) describes in his article “The Neurophilosophy of Subjectivity”, that “subjectivity has something to do with consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself”. Mandik (2009) further claims “much contemporary discussion of the related notions of subjectivity and “what it is like” stems from the work of Thomas Nagel (1974)”: “Nagel got philosophers worried about the question “what is it like to be a bat?” and urged that since bat experience must be so very different from our own, we could never know. Nagel further suggested that no amount of knowledge about bat behavior or bat physiology could bridge the gap” (Mandik, 2009: 1). Even though Nagel has a sensible argument in the way we could never really know what it would be like to be a bat unless we become one, there is some nuance to his claim. If one thinks about echolocation and a bat’s experience, humans have clearly quite different experiences. However, dolphins have echolocation too, but these nonhumans are recognized as more similar to us. The question of course is why and which ways?
A very good overall point is raised, especially regarding science, by Maxine Sheets-Johnstone (2010). She writes: “the question, of course, is: ‘if humans are un-related to animals, how is it that animals are clinical, experimental, neurological, and chemical stand-ins for humans?’”. In addition, she finds: “[…] inconsistent valuations of nonhuman animals, that is, flighty, self-contradictory, and thoroughly capricious attitudinal changes that lack reasoned reflection, are one thing; an
39
underlying insistence on evolutionary discontinuities together with an espousal of continuities for human convenience whenever needed or deemed necessary is quite another. Indeed, to claim evolutionary continuities on self-serving pragmatic grounds and discontinuities on axiological/ ontological ones is incontrovertible evidence of both a failed morality and a failed intelligence. In such circumstances and practices, Homo sapiens fails to live up to its doubly vaunted status in the world” (Sheets-Johnstone, 2010:347). I personally finds these arguments more than sensible. Returning to the question in which ways we might be similar, I will dive into the emotional lives of humans, nonhumans and the concept of empathy in the next paragraph.
Looking in the ‘Real’ Mirror: Recognition, Empathy & Consciousness
According to the famous evolution theory of Darwin, we are all related and we have descended from one common ancestor. However, Darwin was also the first who wrote about the emotions of humans and nonhumans in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Nowadays within Psychology and Neuroscience where Sewall and Nichols have done their research in, vision is mostly and usually studied. Gallese (2001: 34) claims in our daily social environment we rely mostly on vision: “it is through vision that we are able to recognize different individuals, to locate them in space, and to record their behavior”. According to Gallese (2001) this recognition in general has a certain root:
“My thesis is that many aspects of our felt capacity to entertain social relationships with other individuals, the ease with which we ‘mirror’ ourselves in the behavior of others and recognize them as similar to us, they all have a common root: empathy” (Gallese, 2001: 42).
And she continues:
“In her book On the Problem of Empathy (1912/1964, English translation), Edith Stein clarifies that the concept of empathy is not confined to a simple grasp of the other’s feelings or emotions. There is a more basic — and I would add aboriginal — connotation of empathy: the other is experienced as another being like oneself through an appreciation of similarity” (Gallese, 2001: 43).
It makes one wonder if the concept of empathy is only applicable to humans? Thompson (2001: 2) claims for example how “empathy is an evolved, biological capacity of the human species, and probably of other mammalian species, such as the apes”. In addition, Thompson (2001: 2) describes how “empathy is the precondition (the condition of possibility) for the
40 science of consciousness”. Furthermore primatologist Frans de Waal points out empathy could be our very basic nature:
“The possibility that empathy is part of our primate heritage ought to make us happy, but we are not in the habit of embracing our nature. When people kill each other, we call them “animals.” But when they give to the poor, we praise them for being “humane.” We like to claim the latter tendency for ourselves. Yet, it will be hard to come up with anything we like about ourselves that is not part of our evolutionary background. What we need, therefore, is a vision of human nature that encompasses all of our tendencies: the good, the bad, and the ugly”23.
And:
“We rely more on what we feel than what we think when solving moral dilemmas [...] Our best hope for transcending tribal differences is based on the moral emotions, because emotions defy ideology. In principle, empathy can override every rule about how to treat others […] It’s not that religion and culture don’t have a role to play, but the building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity”24.
At this moment the concept of consciousness and what it contains or not is not well understood nor defined in science, but it forms the subject of the quest to do so of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio (1999). Very interestingly, Damasio explores the biology of consciousness, what kind of role it plays in evolution and what it means to be human in his book “The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness”.
Even though within anthropomorphism it has been claimed we humans project and objectify our own characteristics on nonhumans, it is really interesting to look at the idea that for example nonhumans also have consciousness, senses, emotions and just as much as ourselves humans, experience their environment. Professor Mike Mendl, Head of the Animal Welfare and Behaviour research group at Bristol University's School of Clinical Veterinary Science suggests clearly in order to know something about the nonhuman’s experience of the world, we should study their emotional lives. In his article Mendl (2010) describes “the conscious experience of emotion cannot be assessed directly, but neural, behavioral and physiological indicators of emotion can be measured”. Due to the outcomes of these measures, Mendl claims
23 "The Evolution of Empathy." The Science of a Meaningful Life. Web. 26 June. 2015.
“the emotional state of animals forms the underlying aspect for decision-making” (Mendl, 2010). Another scientist who has not only studied non-humans, but also wrote about them in his book When Elephants Wheep and filmed them in the documentary The Emotional World of Farm Animals (USA, 2004), is Jeffrey Masson. Masson actually wrote 7 more books on the emotional lives of nonhumans. For example dogs, cats and he even wondered in his book Raising the Peaceable Kingdom “why animals are not involved with genocide”25. All these efforts obviously claim nonhumans and humans share so much more and we relate to each other so much more than we first would think and have agreed upon if we look at the earlier described concepts and definitions. On the other hand, it appears humans seem to put themselves above nonhumans in terms of superiority. However, some addressed arguments clearly propose the quite opposite.
The question is what other research underline and sustain these claims on empathy as a common root for humans and nonhumans? This might be in neuroscience. As mentioned in the introduction, so-called mirror-neurons were accidentally discovered in 1996 in Italy. As a monkey witnessed how a scientist opened up a nut, neurons fired as he mirrored and imitated that same action. This is easily explained as ‘monkey see, monkey do’ and is believed to be responsible for our feeling of engagement, recognition, emotional responses or also put as ‘empathy’ (Konigsberg, 2007; Ramachandran, 2000; Gallese et al, 2001). This is where Media Studies jump in which Konigsberg further explains: “the argument about what we feel and do not feel when watching the characters on the screen may receive some clarification by neuroscience’s investigation of “mirror neurons” in our brain” (Koningsberg, 2007: 1). How we experience ourselves, characters and an audio-visual story I will discuss in the next paragraph. More interestingly is the contribution this could make to the previous paragraphs and parts of the social-cultural, academic and political context.
You, Me and The Screen: Understanding the ‘Intimate Aesthetic Experience’
As I mentioned in the introduction, the findings of Neuroscience could provide new insights and support, contradict or dismiss existing ones (Koningsberg, 2007).
25 "About Jeffrey Masson." Jeffrey Masson. Web. 26 June. 2015.
Neurofilmology is a new interdisciplinary research program which finds itself between two viewer models usually focusing on mind and body separately (Eugeni & D’Aloia, 2015). This body-mind or even body-mind-brain is something which has troubled scientists for a longer period of time now. In order to bridge these foreseen problems, Eugeni & D’Aloia (2015) propose a convergence of the viewer-as-mind (cognitive/analytical approach) and viewer- as-body (phenomenological/continental approach) which would result in a unified framework called viewer-as-organism. This would be an attempt to close the gap between the ‘nature’ versus ‘culture’ divide which I wrote about in the introduction. Eugeni & D’Aloia (2015) describe this as follows:
“Indeed, the different processes in which the viewer is involved within different time windows (whether they are sensitive, perceptual, cognitive, emotional, motor-active, and so on) are to be considered on the same plane, while the focus shifts from the singular processes to the logic and patterns of their interactions within the interpretative dynamic. As a consequence, the alternative flows of top-down and bottom-up processes are reconfigured as a network of reciprocal determinations between current and memory resources within the “on line” dynamic of interpretation” (Eugeni & D’Aloia, 2015: 8).
Where Konigsberg (2007) stated the mechanisms we use in daily life as well as in a filmic situation in the introduction, Eugeni & D’Aloia (2015: 9) write about the “degree of continuity or discontinuity between filmic situations and those of ordinary life” which rather suggest a difference between the two. An important question here is related to the senses: which ones are when addressed? In a viewer’s setting it is quite obvious less senses are addressed than when we experience something in the ‘real world’. We can only think about the imaginary story at the beginning in which somebody is in the water (touch), trying to spot potential danger (hearing, sight). In other situations smell and taste are addressed as well. However, Nichols (2014) claims our brain actually reacts the same way when we would encounter a life-threatening situation and an enormous bill to pay (Nichols, 2014). Even though we are aware of the difference, our survival mechanisms are addressed in both situations which causes a similar response, namely ‘fear’ (Nichols, 2014). These are of course interesting point of views, considering the ‘real’ versus ‘truth’ debate and especially when we discuss the problem of intimacy. Therefore it is quite interesting to have a look at these (un-, sub-)conscious processes.
In the introduction, I addressed Koningsberg’s claim: “we see the everyday world as ‘a movie in the head’, made up by a series of static snapshots upon which the brain imposes motion”. In
43 addition in comparison with our ‘real’ environment, the experience for our visual system are highly intensified and Koningsberg adds: “at times, we may not be conscious of all that we are seeing but we are always conscious that we are seeing” (Koningsberg, 2007: 11). The visual process while watching is explained by Koningsberg through three concepts ‘Attention, Focus and Binding’. In understanding how we interpretate and process sensory information, there are other theories as well, especially related to the similarity of the real world.
This similarity is described as the ‘simulation theory’ in which ‘theory of mind’ is involved. As I have given a somewhat different example by Nichols, other scholars have addressed the same principle in which simulation theory is explained: in some states of mind we do no perceive others as any different than ourselves which is also named as ‘mind-reading’ (Zahavi, 2008; Jensen & Moran, 2012). These scholars have focused on the problems Eugeni & D’Aloia (2015) try to bridge with their concept. One aspect I found striking and relevant was pointed out by Jensen & Moran. In their article they addressed a paper from Froese and Fuch called “The extended body: a case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction”. In this paper, hey focus on bodily social interaction:
“What Fuchs and Froese refer to as ‘the extended body’ is the body extended through a process of interaction with another embodied being and it is normally experienced pre-reflectively in situations where two persons are attending to and instantly responding to one another. The two bodies so to speak extend into one another in what Fuchs and Froese, using Maurice Merleau- Ponty's term, calls an ‘intertwinement’ (l'interlacs)” (Jensen & Moran, 2012: 131-132).
The question is, when we look at virtual realities, audio-visual stories and for example their characters; does the same principle apply? In the article “Engaging the Animal in the Moving Image”, Porter (2006) puts forth two important questions:
“.. two foundational questions of nonhuman representation arise: “How does the representation invite spectators to construct nonhuman beings as persons” and “How does the representation invite spectators to take up nonhuman perspectives?” (Porter, 2006: 400).
In addition Porter (2006) writes about certain cues, provided by filmmakers to ‘recognize’ nonhuman personhood:
“The main adaptation of Smith (1995) that this essay proposes is that cues of nonhuman personhood take three complementary forms: primary, secondary external, and secondary internal. In brief, primary cues invite the attribution of personhood to a nonhuman character
44
performed by a nonhuman, secondary external cues assert nonhuman personhood through a human character or narrator, and secondary internal cues come from the human performance of the nonhuman. Admittedly, human and nonhuman performers differ in important ways, but ultimately filmmakers use devices of lighting, editing, scoring, and cues of personhood to construct nonhuman personhood through the nonhuman performer as they do human personhood through a human performer. The filmmaker as a factor in the presence or absence of cues of nonhuman personhood remains implied rather than overt and is the subject of a later section” Porter, 2006: 406). According to Porter (2006) if we wish to fully understand how filmmakers create films to cue their viewers to experience them or as Porter writes “construct nonhuman characters as person”, we should combine the cues of nonhuman personhood with the ‘Structure of Sympathy”: “I want to propose that fictional narrations elicit three levels of imaginative engagement with characters, distinct types of responses normally conflated under the term ‘identification’. Together, these levels of engagement comprise the ‘structure of sympathy’. In this system, spectators construct characters (a process I refer to as recognition). Spectators are also provided with visual and aural information more or less congruent with that available to characters, and so are placed in a certain structure of alignment with characters. In addition, spectators evaluate characters on the basis of the values they embody, and hence form more-or-less sympathetic or more-or-less antipathetic allegiances with them. (p. 75)” (Smith in Porter, 2006: 409-410).
When we move towards possible responses, Porter (2006) ends his article with a very interesting note: “Such complex models of spectatorship insist on the diversity of potential responses to a film and provide a necessary first step in understanding how invitations to attribute personhood to nonhumans at the movies might prompt viewers to extend such considerations to nonhumans in everyday life” (Porter, 2006: 413). This is further underlined by Hasson (et al, 2008) who claims “cinema takes viewers through an experience that evolves over time, grabbing their attention and triggering a sequence of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes”. This is especially done by cinematic devices such as montage, contiunty editing, close-up to not only steer the viewer’s minds but eventually also determining the repsonses of those viewers to a film, according to Hasson et al (2008). I wonder if this is per se the case, as I did my own little test once during a class. Even though people had a similar response such as a happy feeling or sometimes the quite oppossite of focus, every person had unique and different reasons lying in memories or personal fears.
45
This is confirmed by Koningsberg (2007). He describes via Daniel Goleman that there are actually two processes which involves the earlier mentioned Mind Reading: “While we attune to the other person, the brain undergoes two varieties of empathy: a fast-low road via connections between the sensory cortices, thalamus, and amygdala, and on to our response; and a slower high-road flow that runs from the thalamus up to the neocortex and then down to the amygdala and so on to our more thoughtful response. Emotional contagion runs through that first pathway, allowing our automatic neural mimicking of the feelings of the other person. But that second pathway, which loops up to that thinking brain, offers a more considered empathy, one that holds the possibility of shutting down our attunement if we choose to. (2006: 325)” (Goleman in Koningsberg, 2007: 17).
During my research phase, it also came to my understanding, the different parts of our brain and different kinds of emotions are actually in battle with each other. This leaves the question of which emotion will ‘eventually’ come to the surface. And it is indeed ‘our decision’ which ones we express or let out. This could also relate to the way one was used to express their emotions during upbringing. This leads to Koningsberg’s conclusion on the individuality and uniqueness of each brain: “We will know much about the functions of our brain and how it generates our perceptions, emotions, and thoughts; but each brain is finally unique, filled with the memories and experiences of an individual past, shaped by different cultures and backgrounds, and, hence, wired differently in certain aspects. But even here we will learn a certain methodology and reason in how and why we become unique at the very time that we share the experience of art” (Konigsberg, 2007: 20).
46
Part 4 Analysis of Intimacy: Experiences of Marine Life in an Audio-Visual World
“The sea, once it casts its spell,
holds one in its net of wonder forever”
(Jacques Yves Cousteau in Nichols, 2014)
Above you can see once more the titles of the three media objects I have analyzed. They are:
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) and Call of The Killer Whales’ (USA, 2009).
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009)
Viewer’s Contract This theater film starts with the promise of the ultimate movie experience (00:00:36) due to special cinematographic techniques called IMAX. From 00:00:56 we hear waves coming in. However, we do not see them yet. While the volume of the waves coming in, turns up, we watch the intertitels pass by and at 00:02:10 the viewer (me) is directly in front of the ocean. In four seconds the waves are with the viewer and they roll over me which makes it seems like I am ‘really’ in the ocean. Then it leads to a clue that I will be led to the depths of the oceans. Two screenshots (figure 8 & 9) of that event are shown below.
Fig. 8 Fig. 9
47
The screen goes to black. The music starts and slowly more and more jellyfish appear. Narrator and famous actor Johnny Depp provides the viewer with comments starting at 00:02:50. He explains: “these are not aliens from an alien planet. Nor are they science fiction. They are real. Creatures of our own world. Their destiny is linked to ours”. The introduction of the film ends with the music volume going up and a few moments later I find myself in the depths of the oceans, in particular the coral reef (figure 10). All the while and during the screen transition, the music never stops and special effects (extra volume) are being applied. This happens firstly when it seems (!) I pass by the weed of the coral reef which in reality is of course the camera. Second narrator and also famous actress Kate Winslet provides another part of comments. Fig. 10
As I myself was involved with making documentary film projects I know how important the introduction is. In general in the introduction, filmmakers provide ‘a contract’ with viewers in terms of style and story. In the introduction of this film it is quite clear the viewer is invited to literally experience the ocean as if you were there. And this is mostly attempted due to the cinematographic techniques and point of view shots. I illustrated that earlier, when the waves rolled over the viewer and when the viewer passed by the weed of the coral reef. The viewer ‘is’ the camera and given a front row seat while ‘travelling’ under water. Apart from the music accompanying this entire introduction, the narrators specifically try to connect the viewer to the marine life environment by saying: “they are real. Creatures of our own world. Their destiny is linked to ours”. This short portrayal is meant to give an idea of the style of the film and it is not a surprise IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) is meant as a theater film and not a TV film. The cinematographic elements would not find their right way through the TV medium.
Environmental Politics & Ecological Identity
What is exactly the story? As described in the introduction, IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) takes the viewer across the beauty and wonders of various coastal areas of Southern Australia, New Guinea and Indo-Pacific including showing the impact of global warming26. This tells me directly something about the primary theme of the film and this is also quite clear when
26 "Under the Sea 3D." IMAX. Web. 26 June. 2015.
I watched the film. What Castells (2009) describes as environmentalism and ecology in part 1 of this thesis: “aim at correcting destructive forms of relationship between human action and its natural environment” and “a set of beliefs, theories, and projects that consider humankind as a component of a broader ecosystem and wish to maintain the system’s balance” is frequently present in the film. From 00:04:08 to 00:04:17, for example, narrator Kate Winslet explains: “Neither plant nor coral can survive without the other. And that is the key. The whole reef community is built on relationships”. In addition, other narrator Johnny Depp further explains: “the community stays healthy and whole because there are so many different relationships between so many species”. Moreover, when it comes to the idea of enemies the film portrays: “even different species you think would be enemies, often help each other”. Also in part 1 of this thesis, I mentioned Barbiero (2014) who claims “gaining a deep understanding of Nature is certainly a necessary step, but appreciating Nature – and appreciating ourselves as part of it – involves the human emotional sphere”. In my opinion,
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) really tries to achieve that mission. The film does this by portraying ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits of nonhumans for other nonhumans. Kate Winslet tells the viewer about a sea star and the fact that they eat coral. According to the narrators “too many of these could wipe out an entire reef” and the film presents the viewer the trumpet snail right after that (both are shown in figure 11 & 12).
Fig. 11 Fig. 12 According to the film, the trumpet snail hunts sea stars and while the viewer watches an encounter between the two species, Kate Winslet explains: “so the trumpet snail helps save the coral and that keeps the reef’s ecosystem in balance”.
A specific species which is portrayed very positively in IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) are sharks. Kate Winslet tells the viewer “there is a surprising bond between the sharks and these small fish”. As the film shows, fish use sharks as protection from other predators and Johnny Depp adds: “we are not used to thinking of sharks as helpful creatures”. Especially
49 because sharks are worldwide killed for numerous of reasons, Kate Winslet shares: “it may not be obvious, but the coral reef owns its very survival to sharks and other large predators”. Furthermore, in my opinion the film tries to seek a balance between what was described as ‘anthropocentric’, which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” and ‘ecocentric’ which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). Neither human nor nonhuman is more important than the other, all species are equally important with helpful traits to one another. In addition, it seems that the documentary film addresses what Hoffman & Sandelands (2004) call “man’s spiritual challenge to apply both faith and reason to find ways to live in harmony with nature”. In that sense, the film definitely plays around the politics of identity and ecological identity.
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) does not alone try to change the images of nonhumans, I could also see the film as an attempt to shift “ignorance to understanding” (Bradt, 1997). This documentary film provides the viewer with (inside) details and facts of marine life as well. This would be according to Bunkers (2006) a reminder of the influence and power of stories. I can see that IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) tries to use the “connecting, transforming and reshaping” power that stories have (Bunkers, 2006). Does this mean the film is free of power issues, anthropomorphism and I could experience the film solely in awe and fascination like Kant’s concept of ‘free beauty’ (Lorblanchet, 2007)?.
Anthropomorphism… or not so much? First of all, the film does use powerful awe and fascination language, for example “what an intriguing landscape” at 00:18:08 and “amazing” at 00:09:19. Secondly, there are several longer parts in the film in which nonhumans are described and connected with humans by the narrators due the use of language, even though the viewer watches the event evolving as it goes along. I wish to address three examples. Firstly, Kate Winslet tells us: “the shimmering school dances for good reason” (shown in figure 13). Then, again Kate Winslet explains: “this is a cleaning station” after which Johnny Depp adds: “a sort of dermatologist clinic” (shown in figure 14).
Fig. 13 Fig. 14
50
Following up on the cleaning station, music starts at 00:08.54 and the viewer is introduced to a sea turtle who is presented as being in a “sort of undersea spa” (shown in figure 15 & 16).
Fig. 15 Fig. 16 In figure 16, the viewer is offered a glimpse of the possible experience of the sea turtle what he or she might think or feel while he or she is being cleaned, especially due to the middle close- up. Within this sequence, which lasts until 00:11:00 and makes it one of the longer ones, filmmakers have also used slow-motion in their editing.
An important question is: how is the ocean displayed? Where I discussed Helmreich (2011) and his ideas on ‘nature’ versus ‘culture’, it is quite obvious there are no other forms of water displayed in this film. There are no rivers, rain or irrigation systems shown. Nor is mentioned whether the water is salty or fresh. The viewer does not get to see the destructive power of the ocean nor experience the serenity and quietude that Bousé (2000) writes about. I do find
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) an overall attempt to try to include bio-physical and socio-cultural aspects, whether or not this is an conscious attempt to close the gap. The film emphasizes clearly on the relationships species have with one another and how they ‘help’ each other. This is also done with an astronomical object when Kate Winslet tells the viewer: “But every year, eight nights after the full moon in August, something miraculous happens”. In this scene the film shows tiny packages of eggs are released into the ocean (shown in figure 17 & 18).
Fig. 17 Fig. 18 It is also this scene, while music sweeps up, where questions are being asked and brought forth by the narrators, to again show how the marine life environment is full of mystery
51 and aspects we (humans) do not understand. This happens when Kate Winslet asks: “how is it that millions of tiny polyps from all these corals choose this single moment on this single night to spore?” and where Johnny Depp asks: “how do animals that have no eyes to see or brains to think, coordinates this event with such precision?”. Kate Winslet concludes: “that remains a mystery”.
In part 2 of this thesis, an important aspect was addressed by Morton (2008) by claiming nature needs to be de-Babyfied, meaning: “it cannot be just cute any more”. Even though the film shows the helpful traits of one species to another (which one could debate about whether this belongs to being cute or not), there are at least two ‘larger’ (in time) sequences in which the battle between prey and predator is shown (figure 19 & 20).
Fig. 19 Fig. 20 These two sequences clearly show there is nothing ‘cute’ about the struggle for survival. With these last sequences I also wish to step into some detailed aspects of the portrayals of nonhumans and humans. I have addressed earlier that through the use of language filmmakers have tried to make a connection between marine life environment and the human world. In figure 20, the red species is being described as “like any good thief, Nudabrank27 has a getaway plan” by Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet describes: “thousands of different species of jellyfish ride the currents like sailors in a gale. Most are solitary travelers”. Others are shown in figure 21 and 22 and are respectively claimed to have the looks of “an ogre” or quite the opposite “most graceful predator of the ocean”.
Fig. 21 Fig. 22
27 Nudabrank is the scientific name for this species. 52
Interestingly, humans are visually not often present in this film. However, the film does portray the result of human activities. This starts with the visual shot on a shipwreck at 00:32:10. At 00:34:34 a boat passes by, seen from the ocean floor with the camera looking up (shown in figure 23 & 24). Especially the last sequence is a clue towards the effects of global warming and human activities. Johnny Depp provides the viewer with information: “in the last fifty years, 90 percent of all the big fish have been taken from the ocean. We are taking more than the ocean can give. We now know the killing of sharks is one reason why coral reefs are dying. Overfishing is disseminating one species after another. Entire ecosystems have become to unravel”. While dramatic music plays on the background, we merely watch a fish in contact with a net and ‘empty’ ocean floors (shown in figure 25 & 26). This sequence is an illustration of the human impact on the marine life environment. Humans are responsible and seen as a symbol of biodiversity loss and extinction, as with the Dodo (Smaill, forthcoming).
Fig. 23 Fig. 24
Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Right after addressing the destructive power of humans, follows the earlier described sequence of ‘awe’, ‘questions’ and ‘mystery’. This is quite remarkable. In my view this is done to show how parts of marine life are vital to giving birth to oceanic life and ultimately the entire ocean, because at 00:37:26 the tiny packages of eggs are called “the future of the coral reefs” (Kate Winslet). Right after that and in contrast with figure 26, Fig. 27
53 the viewer sees an rich, diverse and healthy ocean full of fish and other marine life (shown in figure 27 on the previous page).
While during the film, larger marine mammals were absent. However, at the very end of the film the viewer encounters one of the biggest marine mammals, namely the whale (shown in figure 28). From 00:38:45, the viewer watches how a diver comes nearby the whale, while Johnny Depp explains: “Not so long ago we knew almost nothing about the creatures living in this ocean world”. Then, Kate Winslet continues: “Now we are beginning to acquaint ourselves with them. This young wrath whale is just as interested in us as we are in him”. The diver and whale are eye to eye, even though the diver is shooting underwater pictures of the whale. While music is playing on the background, the viewer hears Johnny Depp saying: “at last we are beginning to learn how important all species are to each other. Above and below the surface. And it is clear that our destiny is linked to theirs”. Throughout this sequence, the viewer has the chance ‘to look into the whale’s eye’ as it is on full screen through a close-up. As the eye moves (shown in figure 29) and the viewer passes the whale or actually the whale passes the camera, the film finds it ending.
Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Thus, when it comes to the portrayal of humans, as described earlier, they are firstly portrayed through their destructive power. In that perspective humans are far from portrayed as what Nichols (2014) calls: “we are creatures of the ocean”. However, in this last sequence it seems humans have other traits like curiosity and that we crave for understanding (partly due to our ignorance or not knowing). And as the film would like the viewer to believe, nonhumans, in this particular scene a whale shares that same trait with humans. This trait is curiosity and it seems these nonhumans wish to get to know us as well. Furthermore, where Salingaros & Masden (2008) wrote about three levels of human being, I can see two of the three levels are addressed. The first minimal superficial relationship is portrayed because of the destructive power of humans. The second which is an interaction with the environment comes across especially in the last scene, the encounter with the whale. The last level, in a more spiritual related way, does not seem to be addressed within IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009).
54
Looking back at what other scholars have written about our relationship with nature or nonhumans, it seems this scene with the whale would more or less be where Marchesini (2015) addresses via philosopher Derrida: “in the animal-other, I recognize myself, I find a connection, I feel at home. Additionally, I know that he/ she recognizes me, and so interacts with me, awaiting a dialogue of a kind that is different from any other interaction with the world” (Marchesini, 2015: 77). And quite important, this interaction is portrayed in the film as a mutual desire. This mutual desire would be something Morton (2008) probably does not agree with because he claims: “we need to be a least a little distant from nature”. Furthermore, Light (2007) suggests a detached identity when it comes to nature.
Filmmaker’s Cues & Recognition Obviously filming underwater comes with difficulties. Even more than filming on land. Where I mentioned Burt in part 2 of this thesis, who described how the caption of animals presented technological challenges and how the animal reassured their “potential for novelty and its power to fascinate”, comes clearly across in IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009). Following up on this idea of encounter, interaction and possible relationships: how does
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) relate to our feeling of intimacy in terms of neuroscience? How can this para-social relationship and claim of false intimacy (Bousé) with the screen or content on the screen explained from another perspective while having this case study at hand and myself as a viewer?
As the previous paragraphs has shown, firstly music is really important in this film but also denies the viewer to experience the serenity and quietude of the oceans. The viewer does hear waves coming in at the very beginning of the film. Furthermore, the use of language by the narrators plays probably a major role as well to establish a more personal connection with the viewer. These filmmakers have tried to connect the underwater world with the human world. There have been moments as well in which especially the close-up or editing (slow-motion) made the experience more personal. The sequence with the sea turtle in a so-called undersea spa is a great example for this claim. As a result, I would say that the three complementary cues
55
Porter (2006) writes about (primary, secondary external and secondary internal) are not all present in IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009). In addition, to examine concepts of neuroscience, I have chosen a specific sequence which takes place from 00:21:01. It involves the earlier shown shrimp and octopus, shown in figure 30. Fig. 30 The octopus and the shrimp are in a survival battle. The shrimp is on the menu of the octopus. First, where Porter (2006) proposes seven characteristics to regard a human, a person or an individual, I would say five out of seven are more or less applicable to these nonhumans. To recap the seven characteristics, I will put them below: “1. a discrete human body, individuated and continuous through time and space;
2. perceptual activity, including self-awareness;
3. intentional states, such as beliefs and desires; 4. emotions; 5. the ability to use and understand a natural language; 6. the capacity for self-impelled actions and self-interpretation; and 7. the potential for traits, or persisting attributes. (p. 21)” (Porter, 2006: 404).
Apart from a discrete human body (1) and speaking human language (5), it seems the other ones are present. What I personally see, is that the octopus desires the shrimp as his food for example and his intention would be, to eat the shrimp (3). On the other hand, the shrimp presents ‘emotions’ such as fear and he fights for his survival. The viewer sees this really clear when the shrimp tries to defend himself and yet pulls himself back from the fight as well. It seems the shrimp tries to scare the octopus off a few times by standing up straight, quickly ‘hitting him’ and at the same time the shrimp looks for cover (shown in figure 31 & 32).
Fig. 31 Fig. 32
56
Then right after, through a close-up and accompanied by music sweeping up, the shrimps might be ‘cleaning himself’ or ‘his legs or eyes’. My personal experience brought memories up from boxing as if this shrimp was preparing himself for another round if the octopus were to come back again (shown in figure 33). Fig. 33
Interestingly, when viewers watch these nonhumans fight for survival and a lot of survival and defensive mechanisms are involved, could we as a result purely describe these creatures as ‘automatons’ like Von Uexküll did without having a voice (Marchesini, 2015)? I would say no, not necessarily. I will recap the characteristics for an ‘automaton’:
“a) An animal is unable to say no to its marking. b) The marking does not attach an object to it but a function to perform, thus is it arbitrary to call this act perception, since the animal does not perceive anything, but merely reacts. c) The reaction is not an answer because the animal is not called to choose and has no possibility to choose; the animal is simply employing a number of prefixed mechanisms. d) We cannot talk about a true individual identity, because an animal lives in an eternal present, completely stunned in the here-and-now, and therefore lacking memory (past) and projectuality (future). e) The continuous flow of environmental markings and of regulated drives does not allow an animal to think, to wait, to get bored and above all to have self-awareness” (Marchesini, 2015: 80-81). If I take a look and aspect C and D, it is quite open for interpretation to be honest. In case of the shrimp, the shrimp chose to defend himself, but also to ‘attack’ the octopus. That could have led to more danger and in worst case scenario for him, to be eaten and his death. On the other hand, the octopus did not fight any further and he swam away. In my opinion, it would be an example of generalization to claim all shrimps or octopuses would illustrate that same behavior over and over again without any individual or situational exceptions. Maybe another shrimp would have not chosen to ‘attack’ the octopus or would another octopus not have chosen to swim away but continue the attack. Furthermore, these nonhumans have not shown their choices through the use of a voice, but through their body and actions.
57
While watching this sequence, it is quite clear that due to the theme (survival), the music (goes up), the viewer is put at the edge of his/her seat like with Jaws (USA, 1975), which I mentioned in the beginning of this thesis. Even though the viewer is not actually in danger nor are these ocean creatures dangerous to us, the viewer is probably engaged in different ways. These different ways were described by Hasson et al (2008) in part three of this thesis: “cinema takes viewers through an experience that evolves over time, grabbing their attention and triggering a sequence of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes”. These processes are stimulated by cinematic devices such as editing, montage and the use of close-up, according to Hasson et al (2008).
When watching IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), first of all our visual system is highly intensified, more than in our daily life (Koningsberg, 2007). Secondly, within this sequence it would be (hypothetically speaking of course, since lacking neuroscientific measure techniques) sensible that viewers would be rooting for one or the other. Maybe a viewer wishes to see the shrimp gets eaten or another viewer would root for the ‘underdog’, in this case to see the shrimp live. In this particular situation, mirror neurons could be firing. Viewers could get scared as well seeing the shrimp fight for his survival or yell to the screen: “go get him”, for example. On the other hand, even though the filmmaker uses editing, close-up and music in the scene which contributes to those emotions, it is not per se the case that automatic responses will be expressed. When we think about Goleman and the two-way-path of empathy (Koningsberg, 2007), especially the second path way would lead to a more thoughtful response and maybe not interacting at all or at least less emotional.
Moreover, using Eugeni & D’Aloia’s idea viewer as organism I would agree that all aspects can be found on the same plane within different time windows (Eugeni & D’Aloia, 2015). Especially when we think about memories. I personally was reminded within this scene of my boxing experiences which led to the explanation earlier that the shrimp might be going for an extra round. My personal memories in this situation gave me an interpretation of a situation which of course does not have to be the case at all with what is happening on screen nor even the actual moment that was filmed. In another situation such as the diver’s encounter with the whale, it seems on screen that humans are just as curious about marine life as this whale is about humans. Again, even though the filmmaker uses editing, close-up and music in the scene which contributes to possible emotions of the viewer, we might go along with what is on screen. I do not say that each person will book a flight to the first exotic location where
58 whales live to possible live these encounters in ‘real life’. However, in this very moment viewers just might feel and experience exactly what filmmakers have felt during filming or when they are with nonhumans or in nature. Maybe some people are reminded to similar experiences as well: again in my personal experience I love being in and around the ocean, so I would say I am easily triggered. On the other hand, other people just might feel nothing at all while watching such moments because they do not experience anything with nature nor have personal memories. This does not change the idea that humans could perceive others as themselves in some states of mind. This is explained as ‘mind-reading’, according to (Zahavi, 2008; Jensen & Moran, 2012). Therefore, the ‘intertwinement’, where Fuchs and Froese refer to, initially addressed through ‘bodily social interaction’, might be an interesting illustration of such scenarios (Jensen & Moran, 2012).
Intimacy: Identification & Empathy To put it once more clearly, intimacy means “the state of having a close personal relationship with somebody”28. As I illustrated earlier, on one hand due to the cues of the filmmakers nonhuman characters are ‘constructed’ as a person, but the nonhumans themselves have shown that they are not solely driven by survival mechanisms. I would firstly argue that within IMAX
Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), nonhumans are portrayed according to what Professor Mike Mendl, Head of the Animal Welfare and Behaviour research group at Bristol University's School of Clinical Veterinary Science and Jeffrey Masson suggest: take a look at their emotional lives (Mendl, 2010). In earlier examples I have shown fish looked for shelter and other nonhumans were cleaned by other nonhumans. This is in congruence with for example Gallese (2001) who described in part 3: “My thesis is that many aspects of our felt capacity to entertain social relationships with other individuals, the ease with which we ‘mirror’ ourselves in the behavior of others and recognize them as similar to us, they all have a common root: empathy” (Gallese, 2001: 42). Moreover Thompson (2001) stated “empathy is an evolved, biological capacity of the human species, and probably of other mammalian species, such as the apes” and primatologist Frans de Waal even claimed ‘empathy’ could be our very basic nature29. This means that the recognition and
28 "Intimacy". Find the Meanings, Definitions, Pictures, Pronunciation of Words at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. Web. 26 June 2015.
59 identification is not based upon what philosopher Nagel claims, namely how could humans understand what it would be like to be a bat? (Mandik, 2009).
In short, IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) promises the “ultimate movie experience” and portrays first of all a very clear theme of environmentalism and ecology. Balance of the marine life environment, helpful traits to other species and their value in the whole are frequently present. The viewer actually experiences IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) through a range of cinematographic elements. Firstly the theme like above described. Then, the use of narrators, their use of language, editing, close-up and music all contribute to the feeling of intimacy. However, it is ultimately also up the viewer, his or her brain, personal memories, preferences, fears and outlet of emotions if, how and when they experience a feeling of intimacy.
60
Finding Nemo (USA, 2003)
Viewer’s Contract The second film, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) is a completely different film than IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) because it is a 3D computer animated film. This means first of all, that the creation of the characters were completely within the hands of the filmmakers and secondly, that anthropomorphism forms a great deal of this film. In that perspective, I wish to emphasize that I understand the critics and ideas on computer animated films and nonhumans as characters. In addition, the introduction of this film, shows immediately anthropomorphism- istic traces. Therefore, I wish to start with a short portrayal of the introduction to illustrate an idea of the conditions of the style and story of the film.
Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) starts with piano music. Then, after a few seconds, the viewer hears a “wow”, “wow” and another “wow” at 56 seconds coming from Marlin the clownfish, one the main characters. At the same time the viewer sees a deep blue ocean. While the music changes, there is no fish or weed to be seen (shown in figure 34). His clownfish wife named Coral, agrees with her so-called husband saying: “it is beautiful”, while the viewer sees marine life appearing due to a right-to-left-pan shot (shown in figure 35).
Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Within the introduction, a few things are quite interesting. First of all, the viewer hears emotions through the tones of the character’s voices. For example, when Marlin says: “so Coral, when you said you wanted an ocean view, you did not think you would get the whole ocean, now did you?”. Simultaneously, the viewer sees Marlin swimming in circles in front of Coral and then towards the ‘camera’ or the viewer. When Marlin is in front of the ‘camera’ or the viewer, he takes a deep sigh and says: “Oh Yeah. A fish can breathe out here” (00:01:13-00:01:15, shown in figure 36 on the next page). This portrayal of emotions through the tone of the character’s voices happens also with Coral. The female clownfish responds to her husband Marlin, rolls
61 her eyes and it seems she does not really care about the ocean view: “you did good. The neighborhood is awesome”. Then, Coral grabs Marlin’s fin (shown in figure 37).
Fig. 36 Fig. 37 The talking, the use of language and for example, grabbing Marlin’s fin as if Coral were holding hands with him, are signs of anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is illustrated as well when the viewer watches images of Marlin’s and Coral’s neighborhood (figure 38 & 39). In these images, while the music goes up, the film shows very social relationships between characters. For example, two fish are kissing each other and baby fish are ‘sleeping’ in what appear to be oysters (shown in figure 38). Then, due to a left-to-right-pan shot the viewer moves to a crab who is moaning his/her lawn (shown in figure 39). The parent crab actually cheers the little crab for doing the last ‘cut’.
Fig. 38 Fig. 39 As Coral and Marlin continue to introduce their living space to the viewer, Coral actually explains a lot of human issues as well. These issues involve things humans often deal with: “I know the drop-off is desirable, there are great schools and an amazing view but do we really need so much space?”. In this sequence, there is an emphasis in the tone of her voice on the word ‘really’. This is something that is present quite frequently within the introduction. After the viewer has met Marlin and Coral’s 400 and then some eggs, who are according to Coral are “dreaming”, follows a sequence which illustrates the ‘viewer’s contract’ clearly.
There is a moment of silence within the film, right before the viewer sees Coral’s facial expression, showing the emotion ‘fear’ (shown in figure 40 on the next page). The viewer realizes something ‘bad’ or dangerous must be going to happen, but he/she does not see
62 anything yet. At the same time the more happy music from the last situation, makes room for more dangerous music with lower tones. Then Marlin says: “get inside the house Coral” and a few seconds later, the viewer ‘finally’ gets to see the dangerous predator. And how!
Fig. 40 Whenever the predator is not on screen, the viewer hears the nonhuman breathing. Also especially through fast- motion, the viewer gets to see glimpses of the predator but mostly of the dangerous teeth. Firstly, up straight with his mouth wide open and secondly, with his teeth showing (shown in figure 41 & 42).
Fig. 41. Fig. 42 Because the editing is done really fast, a lot of images pass along such as Marlin’s facial expression of fear at 00:03:28 (shown in figure 43) and the big teeth again a few seconds later (shown in figure 44).
Fig. 43 Fig. 44 All the while the viewer hears ‘dangerous’ music playing, Marlin’s vocal expressions of fear and hurt and the clicking teeth of the predator. Moreover, the fast editing itself possibly contributes to the sequence’s story element and feeling of fear. The screen turns black and while the viewer does not know who survived (Marlin, Coral or the eggs?), he or she does get the chance to catch up.
63
The introduction of Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) more or less lasts until 00:05:30 in which we have seen so far, anthropomorphism plays a big part of the film. Secondly, music is very important as well. When it comes to emotions, these are being expressed by the characters Marlin and Coral and constructed with cinematographic techniques. These include tone of voices, close-ups or total shot and slow- or fast motion.
Environmental Politics & Ecological Identity What is the story of this 3D animation film? Also written in more detail in the introduction, this film tells the story of two clownfish, a father named Merlin and his son named Nemo. The website reveals: “Fearful of the ocean and its unpredictable risks, Melvin struggles to protect his son. Nemo is eager to explore the mysterious reef. When Nemo is unexpectedly taken Marlin finds himself on an epic journey to rescue his son”30. Even though Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) is a 3D animation film, the website reveals the realistic and also environmentalism inspiration for the film, coming from writer-director Andrew Stanton:
“Part of the inspiration for Finding Nemo can be traced to writer-director Andrew Stanton’s childhood memory of the fish tank in his dentist’s office and his sympathy for the fish. Another piece came years later, when Stanton was the father of a five-year-old boy and realized the danger of being an overprotective parent. Between the two memories, Stanton had the emotional anchor for the film, and the Pixar team had the perfect new realm for a CG adventure [...] I grew up in Massachusetts, by the sea, and I remember going to my family dentist, who had this funky fish tank in his office. All kids are attracted to aquariums, and I remember staring at this tank and thinking what a weird view of the world this must be for the fish—it’s like flying into Las Vegas and that’s your first view of America," recalls writer-director Andrew Stanton”31.
This shows clearly that the primary themes of the film are related to, first of all environmentalism. Even though the introduction does not show many obvious traces of what Castells (2009) calls environmentalism, the film as a whole does. Castells describes environmentalism as the “aim at correcting destructive forms of relationship between human action and its natural environment” (Castells, 2009). Secondly, it illustrates the emotional ‘hook’ of the film namely the relationship between a father and his son. Again, this would be in favor
30 "Finding Nemo." Pixar. Web. 26 June. 2015.
Within the story, characters Marlin and Nemo go on a social-emotional and physical journey in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). On that journey, the viewer sees how, when and why
Marlin and Nemo both learn and grow. Just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), this 3D animation film, shows on one hand, the struggle for survival and on the other hand, the ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits of nonhumans for other nonhumans. The struggle for survival was already shown in the introduction and this aspect returns several times (an Anglerfish attacks Dory and Marlin, Dory and Marlin bounce through jellyfish, Nemo in the aquarium). The ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits of nonhumans for other nonhumans are clearly illustrated when Marlin meets the characters Dory, Bruce, a school of fish and Crush (shown in figure 45, 46, 47 & 48).
Fig. 45 Fig. 46
Fig. 47 Fig. 48 All these characters help Marlin grow and learn. Of course, I can see anthropomorphism-istic traces, because these would be mostly in a human way, for example, by showing directions.
However, as IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) already has shown, ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits do exist. It is clear that between nonhumans and other nonhumans two interactions are being displayed so far: the struggle for survival and ‘beneficial’ traits from one character to the other. In the next paragraph I will discuss the interaction of nonhumans with humans.
65
Castells’ idea of ecology in which “humankind is seen as a component of a broader ecosystem” (Castells, 2009), does not come across within Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). It could rather be seen as critical notes on what Baker called “manufactured commodities” and it relates to Berger’s concept “reduction of the animal” (Baker, 2001). Both are described in part 1 of this thesis. I wish to illustrate this with two examples of sequences and these involve ‘direct’ encounters of nonhumans with humans. First of all, the “manufactured commodities” (Baker, 2001) are illustrated when Nemo finds himself in an aquarium instead of the ocean and he meets the other fish living there. Interestingly, when Nemo gets to meet the other fish in the aquarium, he is really scared. Then, when Nemo asks for his daddy, the starfish responds: “your daddy is probably at the pet store”. Nemo does not know what a pet store is while the other explain where they come from: ‘Bob’s fish mart’, ‘Pet Palace’, ‘Fish-O-Rama’, ‘Mail Order’ and ‘E-Bay’ shown in figure 49).
Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Then, Nemo meets the dentist, the human who caught him and put him in this aquarium (shown in figure 50). The dentist says: “hello you little fellow”, while Nemo looks for cover out of fear. In addition, the dentist explains the patient (on the background) how he has found nonhuman Nemo: “Beauty isn’t he? I found that guy struggling for life out in the reef. I saved him”. However, the viewer knows this is not true. This causes effects for who the viewer identifies with and I will discuss this in further detail later on in this analysis. Some results of human activities are visible as well in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), for example, the shipwreck and remaining mines from World War two. Character Bruce, the fish- are-friends-not-food-shark ‘throws’ a bomb and when it interacts with those mines, it causes an explosion. Secondly, right after Nemo gets caught by a human diver, Marlin is being photographed. Due to the flashlight the diver uses, Marlin is confused and accordingly, the
66 viewer sees his view on screen, to shown an insight of what Marlin is experiencing. (shown in figure 51 & 52).
Fig. 51 Fig. 52 These sequences portray clearly what Haila (1999) calls “domination over nature” and an ‘anthropocentric’ view which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). The dentist wanted a clownfish from the ocean and he took one. The diver takes a photograph with a flash without thinking about the consequences for that clownfish. On the other hand, the viewer gets to ‘know’ the characters and might understand nonhumans have needs and wishes to. This means there is an ‘ecocentric’ view in the film as well which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). As a result, I can see Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) definitely plays around the politics of identity and ecological identity (described in part 2 of this thesis). However, this is a complicated and layered issue within this film. Furthermore, I could see that trying to show other point of views on nonhumans is something what Bradt (1997) calls shifting “ignorance to understanding”. Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) illustrates emotional lives of nonhuman characters which were created by human filmmakers. I will discuss this further in more detail. However, the point I wish to address here is: this would be the strength of this 3D animation film and probably according to Bunkers (2006), the power of this story. In all these perspectives, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) can hardly be experienced by Kant’s concept of ‘free beauty’ (Lorblanchet, 2007). Therefore, I will discuss the power issues and the portrayals of humans, nonhumans and marine life environment in the next paragraph.
Anthropomorphism… or not so much? I already wrote this at the beginning of this analysis: anthropomorphism forms a great deal of Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). As I have shown in the introduction, characters Coral and Marlin are for example, husband and wife. In addition, Coral deals with a lot of human issues and other marine life characters portray activities specifically applicable to humans such as moaning the lawn. Furthermore, Coral and Nemo have clear human facial emotional expressions, roll
67 their eyes and sea turtle Crush has a clear Australian accent. All these examples are clear illustrations of obvious anthropomorphism. However, I wish to take a closer look at those portrayals and by doing so, illustrate some different perspectives as well.
First of all, the film uses like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), powerful awe and fascination language. The viewer is invited to experience the film with piano music, a visual blue ocean and three “wow’s” in a row. Character Marlin is referring to the ocean when he says those three “wow’s”. Then, the fish in the aquarium refer to the ocean as ‘the big blue’. These are all very positive portrayals. On the other hand, character Marlin said it was ‘not safe’ and Nemo needed to be decontaminated in the aquarium. Where Helmreich (2011) mentioned the “ocean as a metaphor” in part 2, I can see that the ocean in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) has lots of meanings. Interestingly, all these meanings are given by the individual beliefs of the nonhuman characters as the examples above illustrate.
There is one major theme what Helmreich (2011) describes and what comes clearly across in this 3D animation film: the oceans in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) are about ‘travelling’. Because firstly, Marlin and Nemo are both on a journey; a social-emotional and a physical one. Other portrayals of the oceans are not often present. The viewer does not get any information whether the water is salty or fresh or other forms of water, like rain or irrigation systems (Helmreich, 2011). However, there is a sequence in the film in which the currents of the oceans are portrayed. This is when Marlin meets Crush, one of the sea turtles. This is an example of a sequence in which anthropomorphism would be present, obviously. However, some might see more than anthropomorphism alone. In the sequence, Marlin says: “listen Crush, I need to get to the East-Australian Current” and Crush responds: “oh dude. You are riding it dude! Check it out”. While more and more sea turtles appear on the current, the viewer gets to see what Marlin sees while the music sweeps up (shown in figure 53).
Fig. 53 Fig. 54
68
A few moments later, there is a speed up in the current and Crush prepares Marlin for what is coming, but Marlin is really scared (shown in figure 54 on the previous page: extreme close-up). Then the viewer sees the looping of the current. Interestingly, even though the sea turtles and other fish seem to fit right in, Marlin does not initially. The other current is even named by Marlin “the swirling vortex of terror”, which would relate to the names we humans give to waterslides or rollercoaster rides (shown in figure 55). Fig. 55 The use of language and this name giving would definitely be an example of anthropomorphism. However, marine species actually do ‘ride ocean currents’. Moreover, in this sequence I was reminded of how I used to go down waterslides, so this would be an example of a memory being triggered. Because of that memory, it would give me an interpretation of this sequence.
Another complicated example is character Bruce, the fish-are-friends-not-food-shark. Just like
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) tries to portray a different image of sharks, I would say Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) tries to do that as well with character Bruce. Bruce is portrayed as a friendly and good intended nonhuman who due to his biological instincts is ‘tempted’ to eat fish. In that perspective, the following sequence is what Bradt (1997) calls shifting “ignorance to understanding”. It could also be a sequence in which Bunkers (2006) possibly sees the “connecting, transforming and reshaping” power that stories have. When Marlin meets Bruce, he is really scared (shown in figure 56). Then Bruce says: “I understand, why trust a shark right?”. Then, the viewer learns: “I am a nice shark. Not a mindless eating machine. If am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food” (shown in figure 57). This message is quite important and is repeated again at the very end of the film: “and remember fish are friends, not food”.
Fig. 56 Fig. 57
69
This would probably also be a good example of what Morton (2008) calls “bambifying nature”: meaning nature is made cute. Looking at Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), I do not find that the film is bambifying nature, far from it actually. There are several sequences in which the struggle for survival comes across and in the very beginning of the film, Coral dies.
Interestingly, whereas nonhumans are being portrayed as “not mindless eating machines”, humans are indeed portrayed very negatively. I illustrated this earlier with the dentist and the consequences of human activities. In addition, character Darla portrays this role as well. Darla is the dentist’s niece who turns eight years old and Nemo is her present for her birthday (shown in figure 58). Darla is not portrayed as a friendly, sympathetic or any similar trait in the picture, but she is even more negatively referred to by the fish in the aquarium: “she is a fish killer”. In this sequence, the viewer does not know yet Darla is a fish killer, nor does the viewer gets to see the entire picture due to the dentist’s thumb. Fig. 58 Then, the fish reveal what happened and the dentist moves his thumb: Darla shook the bag with the fish for so long that the fish died. In this portrayal of humans and their interactions with nonhumans, Darla is either really ignorant or really aggressive when it comes to the understanding and the treatment of nonhumans.
Overall, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) could be seen as a battle between humans and nonhumans which specially comes across at the very end of the film. Between, the dentist, Darla and the fish in the aquarium, the fish ‘won’ that battle. This means there is no trace of what Marchesini (2015) describes via Derrida, as “the animal that I am”. On the contrary, Darla is portrayed as really scared of the nonhuman pelican. At 01:33:18 the group of fish in the aquarium actually escaped and shouted: “yeah, we did it” (shown in figure 59, 60 & 61).
Fig. 59 Fig. 60
70
Fig. 61 Based upon these portrayals of humans, it is clear that within the film I would say only the first level of a human being is present (Salingaros & Masden, 2008). The first level entails “a human being is regarded as a component placed into an abstract, mechanical world. Here, human beings interact only minimally (superficially) with the natural world, a condition of being disconnected” (Salingaros & Masden, 2008). In my opinion, the other two (biological view and spiritual human being) are not present Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). In Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), the interaction between humans and nonhumans is not one of having a relationship, as for example IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) partly portrays. The 3D animation film also does not illustrate what Hoffman & Sandelands (2004) call: “man’s spiritual challenge to apply both faith and reason to find ways to live in harmony with nature”. Not living in harmony with nature would not be something bad or something that needs to be changed, according to Morton (2008). On the contrary, Morton (2008) describes “we need to be a least a little distant from nature”. This is underlined by Light (2007). This sequence obviously illustrates what Light (2007) calls a “detached identity from nature”. Therefore, to conclude: does Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) deal with identity politics and in particular ecological identity, as described in part 2 of this thesis? I would say yes, definitely yes.
Filmmaker’s Cues & Recognition Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) is produced by Pixar Studios and this meant the beginning of a new era in which by hand drawn animation films were more and more replaced by computer animated films. Initially I also wanted to include a 2D animation in this research to find out if there are any differences between experiencing those types of animation films. Ultimately, this was not possible but it leaves me with the question: how does Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) relate to our feeling of intimacy? What kind of relationship could the viewer have with this 3D animation film? Is Bousé (2000) right when he calls this a para-social relationship and viewers experience false intimacy with the screen or content on screen?
71
Well, as the previous paragraphs have shown, first of all the characters, their individual traits, emotions and facial expressions are really important for that feeling of intimacy. Then the use of language, tone of voice and certain traits which are only applicable to humans are involved as well. Furthermore, there are moments in which editing and music play a significant role. I cannot see that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) deliberately tries to bring closer the human world and marine life environment in a positive constructive manner. As a result, the three complementary cues Porter (2006) writes about (primary, secondary external and secondary internal) are not all present in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). To examine that feeling of intimacy from a neuroscience perspective, I have chosen a specific sequence which takes place in the introduction of the film. It comes right after the predator-sequence in which Coral is ‘eaten’ or ‘killed’.
The screen has turned to black right after the attack and the viewer does not know who survived yet. Then, the viewer hears firstly Marlin and then sees him. The viewer goes with Marlin to find out who else survived. Marlin’s voice turns vulnerable, sad and he is sniffing and calling for Coral. A few moments later, the viewer sees the ocean has turned dark (night) and Marlin is alone in a very big open space (shown in figure 62). Marlin really starts to cry (the viewer hears it first and then sees him crying), while he covers his eyes with his fins (shown in figure 63).
Fig. 62 Fig. 63 The moment Marlin puts down his fins, the viewer sees his surprised facial expression and he swims to the only surviving egg (shown in figure 64). While music (with higher tones) plays softly on the background, Marlin grabs the egg and says: “I promise you. I will not let anything
Fig. 64 Fig. 65
72 happen to you”. The viewer gets the opportunity to really see the damaged egg named ‘Nemo’ through an extreme close-up (shown in figure 65 on the previous page). When I take a look at this scene and the seven characteristics Porter (2006) describes in order to recognize a person or an individual, six out of seven characteristics are applicable to, for example, the character Marlin. I will put them once more below: “1. a discrete human body, individuated and continuous through time and space;
2. perceptual activity, including self-awareness;
3. intentional states, such as beliefs and desires; 4. emotions; 5. the ability to use and understand a natural language; 6. the capacity for self-impelled actions and self-interpretation; and 7. the potential for traits, or persisting attributes. (p. 21)” (Porter, 2006: 404).
It is obvious Marlin does not possess a discrete human body but a computer animated nonhuman body and in particular the one of a clownfish. Like I described in the beginning of this analysis, the creation of the characters were completely within the hands of its filmmakers. The filmmakers have given 6 out 7 aspects, from which aspects 3, 4 and 5 are especially present. This complete control of the filmmakers would speak in favor of claiming these nonhuman characters represent the concept of ‘automatons’ coming from biologist Von Uexküll. These nonhumans would not have a voice. In addition, he claimed the following aspects for an ‘automaton’ (Marchesini, 2015): “a) An animal is unable to say no to its marking. b) The marking does not attach an object to it but a function to perform, thus is it arbitrary to call this act perception, since the animal does not perceive anything, but merely reacts. c) The reaction is not an answer because the animal is not called to choose and has no possibility to choose; the animal is simply employing a number of prefixed mechanisms. d) We cannot talk about a true individual identity, because an animal lives in an eternal present, completely stunned in the here-and-now, and therefore lacking memory (past) and projectuality (future). e) The continuous flow of environmental markings and of regulated drives does not allow an animal to think, to wait, to get bored and above all to have self-awareness” (Marchesini, 2015: 80-81). Because the characters are a creation, I cannot really compare these characteristics like I have done for IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009). What I can say is the following. In terms of ‘reality’ and ‘real representation’, one could say the filmmakers have done a good job,
73 considering clownfish really live in anemones. On the other hand, the filmmakers have not done that for the funny, friendly yet suffering from short- term-memory loss character Dory (shown in figure 66). Because in reality, fish actually have a good memory. Fig. 66 Interestingly, character Dory portrays the complete opposite of reality and she would fit the description as Von Uexküll gave to nonhumans (Marchesini, 2015). However, Von Uexküll bases his claims upon reality. Therefore, when I take a look at two aspects in particular, D and E, character Dory would fit those aspects. Dory does not have a true individual identity because she lacks memory or could not get bored, for example. However, a fish like Dory in ‘real’ life would have a true individual identity because a fish does have a good memory, is able to think and therefore might not get bored. In addition, character Dory can read human written language and she speaks all kinds of whale dialects which again would speak in favor of anthropomorphism. Either way, as a result of these findings, I can say that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) is really complicated and layered.
While watching the sequence with Marlin and the damaged egg ‘Nemo’, it is quite clear due to the theme (death, love, fear), while music plays at the background, the viewer is not so much put at the edge of their seat. The viewer is rather addressed emotionally and specifically, in an empathic manner. I would say, according to Konigsberg (2007), that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) is highly intensifying our visual systems, more than the other two media objects. In addition, it is not the rooting or fear what is addressed in the earlier described scene, but rather a feeling of empathy. Maybe people who have lost members of their family would get more easily triggered than others. On the other hand, Goleman explains that automatic responses (first path of empathy) are not necessarily happening, but sometimes a more thoughtful response (second path of empathy) is what viewers express (Koningsberg, 2007). In addition, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) uses cinematic devices such as editing, montage and the use of close-up as well. This has consequences for the viewer’s experience as Hasson et all (2008) describe: “cinema takes viewers through an experience that evolves over time, grabbing their attention and triggering a sequence of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes”.
74
I have also found that for Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) Eugeni & D’Aloia’s idea viewer as organism is a concept that works. With this film, I have had also certain responses, bounded to memories. This would suggest that all aspects can be found “on the same plane within different time windows”. Especially in the sequence where Marlin rides the East Australian current, it was clear I was personally reminded of rollercoasters and going down waterslides. I would say that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) works differently and complicated in terms of recognition and identification. It is really important in this film, that humans are portrayed quite negatively, so the viewer seems to be pushed into having a relationship with nonhumans, which are portrayed more positively. On the other hand, I could wonder why one would (maybe even immediately) not root for those characters who are being held against their will and they wish to be free?
Related to these findings, Morton (2008) writes: “children flushed their goldfish down toilets when Finding Nemo came out” and concludes “sentimentality is not working”. I do not think it is that simple. First, if the intention of the filmmakers was about creating awareness, preserving and protecting the environment, and children did flushed their goldfish down the toilet, then no the animation film did not work. However, if we take a look at individual character traits and emotions of the nonhumans, then it would be a visual representation of what other researchers such as Mike Mendl (2010) and Jeffrey Masson claims, namely: nonhumans also have consciousness, senses, emotions and just as much as ourselves they experience their environment. The possibilities to be able to portray these traits, would even be greater within an 3D animation film, because of that freedom. In addition, maybe our guidance of influences of films is not so good and we should pay more attention to those factors instead of concluding “sentimentality is not working”. This is also exactly where Barbiero (2014) writes about in terms of educational suggestions based upon the biophilia hypothesis. I would suggest it was the idea and joy of having a clownfish that probably made children flush their goldfish in the first place. So maybe we could work with and around that joy and put that to good use towards understanding of our interaction with the environment.
75
Intimacy: Identification & Empathy The meaning of intimacy is: “the state of having a close personal relationship with somebody”32. As a result of previous paragraphs, what kind of intimate personal relationship does Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) invite us to have? First of all, one could claim rightfully the nonhumans in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) are fully equipped with human traits. Then, due to the individual nonhuman character traits, use of humor, emotions and facial expressions a relationship with the viewer could be more easily created. In addition, the storyline (characters grow and learn), editing (extreme close-up, total shot, fast/slow motion) and music (accordingly to sequence) make the viewer probably feel more engaged with what is happening in the film.
More than in the other two media objects, the discussion around the para-social relationship and false intimacy (Bousé, 2000) is within Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) quite difficult. There is no doubt that anthropomorphism plays a part an important role. It must be as well, because the film is a 3D animation film. But what I find more important, is that these nonhuman characters are not solely based on human traits that have been projected upon nonhumans. In that perspective, I wish to argue that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) shows exactly those characteristics Mike Mendl (2010) and Jeffrey Masson claim nonhumans have, namely: consciousness, senses, emotions and just as much as ourselves they experience their environment. Moreover, it seems that especially a 3D animation film is a great opportunity to portray these characteristics in more detail. Maybe, then it would be more important to guide the effects and happenings around such a film to prevent happenings such as “flushing goldfish down the toilet” (Morton, 2008). I do not think that the filmmakers wanted that to happen nor could they have foreseen this outcome. Other aspects which are related to the discussion of the portrayal of nonhumans comes with this idea that nonhumans are really different than humans. Thompson (2001) and Gallese 2001) would both disagree and suggest a common empathic connection. Maybe viewers recognize “the animal that I am” (Derrida in Marchesini, 2015), on screen. Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) remains a complicated film in that perspective. Due to the computer animated graphics, the film is not portraying ‘truthful’ representations of ‘reality’. There are huge differences between daily life and filmic situation, as Koningsberg (2007) describes. However,
32 "Intimacy". Find the Meanings, Definitions, Pictures, Pronunciation of Words at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. Web. 26 June 2015.
76 especially because of mirror neurons and the idea that viewers could perceive others as themselves in some states of mind (Zahavi, 2008; Jensen & Moran, 2012), is really interesting. Nichols (2014) claims that our brain perceives an enormous bill to pay the same way as a life-threatening situation and an enormous bill to pay (Nichols, 2014).
To provide a short conclusion: Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) firstly addresses environmentalism throughout the film. Then, the film portrays humankind not as part of a broader ecology. Nonhumans are illustrated in several ways. On one hand, there are images of the struggle for survival and on the other hand, ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits of nonhumans for other nonhumans. Nonhumans are also portrayed as scared for each other, just as much in encounters with humans. In terms of the viewer’s experience, they are being steered into having a relationship with nonhumans. They are portrayed more positively than humans, for example. Through individual nonhuman character traits, humor, emotions, facial expressions, music and editing, the film tries to engage the viewer.
77
Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009)
Viewer’s Contract The third media object is the documentary TV episode Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) and it actually starts really different in comparison to the other two films. A male narrator (famous actor Chris Noth) describes: “Highly intelligent. Dangerously powerful. The unchallenged sovereign of Earth’s oceans. They are the orca, Killer Whales and their complex societies extend back into antiquity. But does our modern society now threaten theirs? Join Jean-Michel Cousteau and his team as they investigate the humankind’s mirror in the water and discover that the orca’s fight for survival is now in fact our own in Jean-Michel Cousteau’s Ocean Adventures”. At 31 seconds the screen goes to black which is followed by 30 seconds of intertitels or program introduction. In these 30 seconds Jean-Michel Cousteau’s team is introduced to the viewer with captions of their names. The viewer’s first experience of the documentary is the sight of killer whales and hears the blowing sound of the whale’s breathing above water (shown in figure 67). The documentary is broadcasted by National Geographic Channel and images from above and below the ocean’s surface are shown, while hearing their vocal sounds (shown in figure 68)
Fig. 67 Fig.68
Fig. 69 Fig. 70
Within this introduction, the viewer sees two direct encounters between killer whales and humans (shown in figure 69 & 70). Especially in figure 70 the viewer sees the nonhuman killer whale and the human at the same height, which could represent a certain (visual) equality.
78
Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) is part of a series. Due to this nature, the filmmakers used a ‘format’ intertitels introduction in which we meet Jean-Michel Cousteau (shown in figure 71), Fabien Cousteau (shown in figure 72), Celine Cousteau (shown in figure 73), Holly Lohuis (shown in figure 74) and Carrie Vonderhaar (shown in figure 75).
Fig. 71 Fig. 72
Fig. 73 Fig. 84
Fig. 75 Fig. 76 Interestingly, almost all these humans are portrayed ‘smiling’, ‘explaining’ or at least ‘engaging’. The viewer sees them during this introduction mostly doing activities such as diving, being in a boat, photographing nonhumans and successfully working together. This happens, for example at 48 seconds by giving each a high five (shown in figure 76). This entire introduction is accompanied by music.
Environmental Politics & Ecological Identity What is the story of Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009)? First of all this TV documentary is part of a miniseries called Ocean Adventures (USA, 2009). In the introduction of this thesis, I described how the website showed the intentions of the filmmakers: “Cousteau and the team
79 discover that people and orcas share surprising similarities, even similar needs” and “the team also learns how some of the threats to killer whales now intersect with human lives”33. Just like
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), these intentions make the primary theme of Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) quite clear: it tries to connect the human world with the marine life environment and in particular, killer whales. The filmmakers try to achieve this by looking at similarities between humans and killer whales. This TV documentary illustrates what Castells (2009) describes as environmentalism (“aim at correcting destructive forms of relationship between human action and its natural environment”) and ecology (“humankind as a component of a broader ecosystem”). The viewer hears this firstly and mostly through language coming from the narrator by stating orcas are “humankind’s mirror in the water” and “that the orca’s fight for survival is now in fact our own”. In addition, the deep emotional connection with the sea Nichols (2014) wrote about in part 1 does not really comes across in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). However, the relationship with killer whales does come across. Furthermore the emphasis in this TV documentary lies in social and emotional factors such as language and culture, which are often solely applied to humans and not nonhumans (described in part three of this thesis). Therefore, I would like to argue, just like the other two films, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) brings forth aspects of environmental politics and it plays with ideas of an ecological identity (described in part two of this thesis).
In another paragraph of part 1 in this thesis, I described the findings of Barbiero (2014) and something he calls “the right kind of connection with Nature”. He also states “how gaining a deep understanding of Nature is certainly a necessary step”, but in terms of “appreciating Nature, the human emotional sphere is involved” (Barbiero, 2014). In my opinion, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) tries to achieve that mission. When it comes to orcas, they are called ‘killer whales’ because they are seen as the greatest predator of the ocean, even in relation to sharks. However, this TV documentary tries to show a very different side of orcas: social, emotional, having a language and being part of an evolved culture. Narrator Chris Noth explains: “the team will discover that people and orcas share surprising similarities, even similar needs. A fact made clear by Keiko, the world’s most famous killer whale. The team will also learn how some characteristics we consider strictly human like language and culture may also
33 "Call of the Killer Whale." PBS. Web. 26 June. 2015.
80 have evolved among killer whales” (shown in figure 77). At the very end of this narration, the viewer hears again the vocal sounds of killer whales (shown in figure 78).
Fig. 77 Fig. 78 In my opinion, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) does not bambify the killer whale like Morton (2008) claims in part 2 of this thesis. On numerous occasions throughout the documentary film, the killer whales are described as a “dangerous”, “fascinating” or as a “powerful” animal. They are even called “wolves of the sea” while the viewer sees a pod of orcas attacking humpback whales. Then, they are still referred to a “master” or “ruler of the ocean” (shown in figure 79 & 80). As the narrator continues, he provides the viewer with physical facts on orcas, for example how tall they are, where they distribute themselves on the planet and that they are classified as the “largest of the dolphins”.
Fig. 79 Fig. 80 Other examples of playing with ecological identity can be found at 00:02:40. Narrator Chris Noth explains: “they are our counterparts of the sea” (shown in figure 81) and “the most complex marine species on the planet (shown in figure 82).
Fig. 81 Fig. 82
81
The environmental politics and ecological identity aspects are addressed through the findings, personal stories and fascination of scientists which could assure ‘certainty’ and ‘credibility’ for the claims made in the TV documentary Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). On one hand, this means scientists form a crucial role in this TV documentary and this comes closely to the initial idea of documentary portraying ‘truth’ and ‘reality’. On the other hand, the personal stories play another big part in terms of showing or at least trying to show a different image, in particular of the killer whales. Moreover, this attempt is even more clearer with the personal journey of ‘movie star’ and killer whale ‘Keiko’. All these examples show what Bradt (1997) calls shifting “ignorance to understanding”, especially by providing the viewer (inside) details and facts of marine life. Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) is an example of a story with “connecting, transforming and reshaping” power, according to Bunkers (2006). It is quite clear to me that Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009), just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) also tries to portray a balance between ‘anthropocentric’, which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” and ‘ecocentric’ which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hofflman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). In this documentary, neither human nor nonhuman is illustrated as more important than the other but actually the opposite: sometimes humans need the help of nonhumans and the other way around. Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) does this by including the old sailor stories in which humans were being brought ashore by dolphins and portraying how humans have helped Keiko and other stranded killer whales. Due to the personal layers and variety of images/sequences in this TV documentary, I cannot say that the film can solely be experienced through Kant’s concept of ‘free beauty’ (Lorblanchet, 2007). In that perspective, I will discuss power issues and traces of anthropomorphism in the next paragraph.
Anthropomorphism… or not so much? Right after the intertitels, when the screen goes black and the music slowly is turned down, the viewer hears the ocean. For a moment it seems that the viewer gets to experience moments of serenity and quietude that Bousé (200) writes about. The viewer only sees water and the horizon on screen (shown in figure 83 on the next page). Then music starts again while the viewer hears vocal sounds coming from killer whales. A few seconds later, a killer whale comes up and is portrayed in slow motion (shown in figure 84 on the next page).
82
There are other moments when the viewer hears waving coming in while scientists are being interviewed, such as Paul Spong and Ingrid Visser. However, the viewer does not really get a moment to experience the stillness and silence of the ocean.
Fig. 83 Fig 84 Within the TV documentary Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) and referring to Heilmrich (2011) who I mentioned in part 2, the focus is not really on the ocean. This means the viewer does not receive any information (salty or fresh, for example), other portrayals or symbolic meanings of the ocean. Furthermore, currents and other forms of water like rain or irrigation systems are not mentioned either. The focus in this TV episode is clearly on humans and killer whales, therefore I wish to discuss those portrayals in more detail.
Following up on some aspects I described under the paragraph Viewer’s Contract, I wish to continue with the ‘personal’ factor. At 00:01:27 the viewer hears music playing on the background while a female voice starts: “Eve.. she was..”. This female voice comes from biologist Alexandra Morton who shares her personal story. Very interestingly, Alexandra starts with the name “Eve” and this could already provide a basis for a possible connection with the viewer. This researcher is the first one in this TV documentary who claims that the stories of dolphins pushing sailors ashore are true. She ends by saying: “I do not know what it is about these whales but they do things like that and everyone studying these whales sees the same thing”. In this very moment, as a viewer, I get the feeling that these killer whales are really mysterious and that these nonhumans understand and perceive more than we humans understand or know about.
So far, killer whales have been portrayed very versatile and wholesome, combining bio-physical and socio-cultural factors including portraying ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits. Whereas in the other two films, these traits were mostly beneficial for other nonhumans, in this TV documentary they are specifically illustrated as helpful to humans. In terms of the personal
83 factor, naming the killer whales is an aspect which is even explained by marine biologist Ingrid Visser while music plays softly at the background. She explains: “I think that by showing people the variation within the individuals it makes the animals a bit more personable if you like. If someone can call me up and say I just saw Ben, it gives them a little bit of a stake in Ben’s life and hopefully you know they will slow down their boats, they will drive a little bit more respectfully” and “ultimately I want it to be that the public will want to protect these animals” (shown in figure 85-90).
Fig. 85 Fig. 86
Fig. 87 Fig. 88
Fig. 89 Fig. 90 As this sequence shows, this TV documentary tries to show first of all, each killer whale has individual physical characteristics. Even though one could say this naming is in line with anthropomorphism, because it is something humans do, it does not change the fact that each killer whale has indeed individual aspects like humans. Secondly, it illustrates again how the TV documentary is in favor of environmentalism (Castells, 2009) and rooting for change to “get the right connection with Nature” (Barbiero, 2014).
84
The illustration of this individuality comes across again when researcher John Ford explains the dialects in their vocalization and he suggests a different approach: “I realize we had so much to learn from them”. This leads to the primary theme of the documentary film, namely the search for similarities between humans and killer whales. The first comparison is made between their brains (shown in figure 91).
Fig. 91 Fig. 92 What all researchers have in common, is their enthusiasm and fascination. It comes across more than once, which is illustrated by researcher Paul Spong, for example: “I was really quite amazed so the first question that came to me was ‘what does this whale do with that brain?’” When describing what he had learned from studying a whale in captivity, he says: “mostly I think I learned that this was a very unsuitable place to keep a remarkable being” (shown in figure 92). Captivity is a theme which is highly addressed. In my opinion, the personal story of Keiko is included as a contrast between marine life environment in the wild and how killer whales are being taken care of at artificial zoo aquariums. Through scientific findings and personal stories of scientists, this sequence illustrates environmentalism (Castells, 2009) and roots to get the “right connection with Nature” (Barbiero, 2014). The viewer sees Keiko live in the poor circumstances and the illness he suffered because of that artificial environment (shown figure 93 & 94).
Fig. 93 Fig.94
85
Then, the film provides images of wild killer whales breaching and in their wildlife surroundings when the narrator says ‘freedom’ (shown in figure 95 & 96).
Fig. 95 Fig. 96 The portrayals of living in the wild and in an artificial environment are of great contrast and in my opinion, it perfectly illustrates what Berger called “reduction of the animal” (Baker, 2001). Killer whales are completely out of their natural habitat. This is given extra strength when the viewer receives additional (scientific) information about their social culture, firstly by the narrator: “since orcas live their lives in tightly connected social groups where all members are related to each other”. Then, researcher John Ford explains: “it very much is a matriarchal society or matrilineal. Everybody in the group is related to female descent or a female ancestor. Individuals stay with their mother or their grandmother for their whole life and it took some years to really understand that because it is really unusual in that the large adult males never leave the group. The bond between a mature male and his mother is very very strong” (shown in figure 97 & 98).
Fig. 97 Fig. 98 Alexandra Morton explains the orca is a very conservative animal and John Ford continues: “the resident populations on these coast are very clearly divided socially into two different groups, in northern residents and southern residents [...] What is really interesting, we do not really understand this but they never mix and then we have overlaying that and we have transients, the mammal hunters. They do not mix with the residents but they will often mix with other transients and then occasionally we have these off shore whales and they do not mix with these others eithers”. John Ford concludes: “so we have these whales that are in many ways just focused on their very familiar neighboring groups that are up to the same lifestyle”. Then, the
86 narrator compares these findings with human patters: “It is a pattern strangely familiar much like human tribes, existing near each other but separate with languages and behaviors learnt and passed on for generations. We define it as culture and for both humans and orcas different cultures exist among the same species”. Furthermore, Paul Spong called it a “successful society” and filmmaker Jean-Michel Cousteau earlier in the film drew some similarities himself by saying: “they are the dominant species in the ocean. We are the dominant species on land. And we all depend on the same thing”. ‘This same thing’ has become quite clear throughout this scene. In relation to anthropomorphism, scientific findings in this documentary made it obvious that humans share similar traits with at least this species, killer whales. In that perspective and in terms of the three levels of a human being, described by Salingaros & Masden (2008), Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) portrays possibly all three levels. The first two are quite often representative. Firstly, the “minimal superficial relationship” which is illustrated by captivity and humans being disrespectful with boats, for example. This could also be seen as what Haila calls “human domination over nature” (Haila, 1999). Secondly, researchers and filmmakers show the more “engaging and interactive relationship”. But I can see some subtle traces of the last named and more spiritual relationship as well, especially due to the sailor stories, for example. In this perspective, this TV documentary does address what Hoffman & Sandelands (2004) write about: “to find ways to live in harmony with nature”.
The humans who are being portrayed are firstly the filmmakers and they are actively involved in the TV documentary. Within Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) the viewer sees and hears them mostly asking questions and interacting with scientists. Scientists form another great portrayal of humans within this TV documentary and specifically their passion for these killer whales. This passion comes forth in two ways. Firstly, as described earlier, Paul Spong called them “remarkable beings” and John Ford finds them “fascinating”. Then, there are facial expressions, for example of Ingrid Visser and Carrie Vonderhaar (shown in figure 99 & 100).
Fig. 99 Fig. 100
87
Furthermore, the viewer actually gets to follow them in their research. Interestingly, children are portrayed as well in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). This last group is quite interesting, because opposed to Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), they are actually portrayed as ‘powerful’ and ‘helpful’. In the portrayals of the journey of killer whale Keiko, children stepped up to help free Keiko. They made drawings and wrote “I love you Keiko” (shown in figure 101, 102 & 103).
Fig. 101 Fig. 102 What does this say about our instinctive connection with nature? If we think about the biophilia hypothesis from Wilson (1984, 1993), it might be that children “spontaneously” could portray such an instinctive connection. At the end of the portrayal of Keiko’s journey, the TV documentary shows he sought the company of humans in Norway and children jumped into the water to play with him (shown in figure 104).
Fig. 103 Fig. 104 The TV documentary portrays a bond between humans, captive and wild killer whales that are strong and might be mutual: “then perhaps seeking human companionship or just chasing an easy meal, Keiko followed a fishing boat into Norwegian Fjord. Keiko was still alone but he was welcomed by enchanted children who must have felt they already knew him. Strong bonds are undeniably formed between captive orcas like Keiko and people but we have been slow to consider that the ocean’s greatest predator, wild and free, may also be curious to understand us”.
Just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) portrayed a mutual desire and mutual trait such as curiosity, this TV documentary does that as well. This is addressed even further, when Ingrid Visser explains that killer whales can see us like we can see them, even though a bit
88 distorted. Furthermore, Ingrid Visser shares her experience interacting with killer whales when she is working as a scientist and what happens when she puts down her research activities. Again this would be more or less what Marchesini (2015) wrote about, through Derrida: “in the animal-other, I recognize myself, I find a connection, I feel at home. Additionally, I know that he/ she recognizes me, and so interacts with me, awaiting a dialogue of a kind that is different from any other interaction with the world” (Marchesini, 2015: 77). This would also be a portrayal that Morton (2008) disagrees with, because according to him “we need to be a little distant from it”. Moreover, Light (2007) suggests humans need to detach themselves from nature.
Filmmaker’s Cues & Recognition In part 2 of this thesis, I mentioned Burt and he describes the nonhumans’ “power to fascinate” (Burt, 2002). It is quite clear that within this TV documentary, killer whales have that power. The scientists portray that obviously. Following up on the interaction and possible relationship between humans and killer whales: how does the documentary film Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) relate to our feeling of intimacy in terms of neuroscience? In addition, in what kind of perspective can we see the para-social relationship and false intimacy Bousé (2000) writes about? Again I will use my personal viewer experiences as possible examples.
As the previous paragraphs have shown, firstly scientists, their findings, passion and personal stories are really important in this film. However, the talking, explaining and presence of music prevents the viewer of experiencing the serenity and quietude (Bousé, 2000) of the ocean in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). In addition, it seemed like the viewer had an opportunity to ‘have a sole moment’ with killer whales while seeing them on screen and hearing their vocals. However, music was put under the sequence. Furthermore, due to the primary theme of the documentary film, the filmmakers have specifically tried to connect the human world and marine life environment. Or better said, they went on a search to portray already possibly existing similarities. Also in this TV documentary, there have been moments in which especially the close-up or edition (slow-motion) could have made the experience more personal. Furthermore killer whales are especially portrayed as individuals with specific characteristics (dorsal fin and vocalizations for example) and humans have given them names accordingly. Moreover, the TV documentary showed how language, culture evolved among killer whales and that they are not so different from humans. Their living style is actually referred to as “a successful society. And
89 as opposed to the other films, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) specifically portrays the vocalizations of killer whales throughout the entire documentary. As a result, I can see that all three complementary cues, primary, secondary external, and secondary internal (Porter, 2006), are applied within Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009).
To discuss recognition in further detail, I would like to bring forth a specific sequence which starts 00:35:50. This sequence starts right after the death of Keiko, the debate on returning captive orcas in the wild and even saving stranded killer whales. The viewer sees how Ingrid Visser receives a phone call and it is explained that a young female orca has been stranded. What follows is a rescue mission (shown in figure 105-108).
Fig. 105 Fig. 106
Fig. 107 Fig. 108 The sequence is accompanied with music (from which the volume goes up and down), comments from the narrator and interviews with the filmmakers who actively participated in the rescue mission. While the narrator tells the viewer that the fate of the orca is quite uncertain, the viewer sees worried faces of the filmmakers (shown in figure 109 & 110)
Fig. 109 Fig. 110
90
The best possible chances for the killer whale are at the other side of the island, so they drive her through town and eventually into the water (shown in figure 111 & 112).
Fig. 111 Fig. 112 When the killer whale is in the water, it is still uncertain whether she is able to swim away on her own. While she swims away, filmmaker Jean-Michel Cousteau shares with the viewer: “we have heard the stories of dolphins pushing people in need back to shore and now this team has carried a young whale back to the sea with a chance at life. Perhaps orcas and people share an additional trait; the ability to care for another species including each other. In our complicated relationship with nature it may be a bond unlike any other” (shown in figure 113 & 114).
Fig. 113 Fig. 114 In this sequence both humans and nonhumans are portrayed. To be able to recognize ‘a person’ or ‘individual’, Porter (2006) described 7 aspects which follow below: “1. a discrete human body, individuated and continuous through time and space;
2. perceptual activity, including self-awareness;
3. intentional states, such as beliefs and desires; 4. emotions; 5. the ability to use and understand a natural language; 6. the capacity for self-impelled actions and self-interpretation; and 7. the potential for traits, or persisting attributes. (p. 21)” (Porter, 2006: 404).
Very interestingly, nonhumans and in this particular film, killer whales, portray all aspects except a discrete human body. But especially aspect 3 (desires, intentional states), 4 (emotions), 5 (language) and 7 (potential for traits) are addressed. The frequent presence and explanations
91 of the vocalizations of killer whales are a good example for aspect 5 and they are sometimes connected with emotions or things they desire, aspect 3 and 4. This is explained by several scientists in the TV documentary. In contrast of that perspective, German biologist Von Uexküll describes nonhumans as “automatons” with the following consequences (Marchesini, 2015): “a) An animal is unable to say no to its marking. b) The marking does not attach an object to it but a function to perform, thus is it arbitrary to call this act perception, since the animal does not perceive anything, but merely reacts. c) The reaction is not an answer because the animal is not called to choose and has no possibility to choose; the animal is simply employing a number of prefixed mechanisms. d) We cannot talk about a true individual identity, because an animal lives in an eternal present, completely stunned in the here-and-now, and therefore lacking memory (past) and projectuality (future). e) The continuous flow of environmental markings and of regulated drives does not allow an animal to think, to wait, to get bored and above all to have self-awareness” (Marchesini, 2015: 80-81). In my opinion, all these aspects Von Uexküll brings forth (Marchesini, 2015), are regarded as not true when it comes to killer whales. Firstly, this TV documentary has shown that killer whales possess very good vocals and they are being used. Secondly, for some reason killer whales do not eat humans for example, while humans could serve as a fine meal. One could argue these are prefixed mechanisms but if one considers a survival mechanism and an orca is hungry, the nonhuman still will not eat humans (aspect C). Then, aspect D would be similarly not true, because this TV documentary has illustrated in a lot ways how unique and individual each killer whale is, especially in relation to social and emotional bounds with their family members.
While watching this sequence, the viewer is engaged in different ways. In general, Hasson et al (2008) illustrate that “cinema takes viewers through an experience that evolves over time, grabbing their attention and triggering a sequence of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes” and that these processes are specifically addressed by cinematic devices such as editing, montage and the use of close-up (Hasson et al, 2008). To explain how, I wish to bring forth another sequences which happen before the one I just discussed. Firstly, like Koningsberg (2007) explains “our visual system is highly intensified”. Then, the hearing of the viewer is addressed as well. At 00:34:00 the narrator continues with his conclusion on killer whale Keiko, human care in captivity, his new found freedom and
92 interaction: “Keiko had everything he needed, except for the company of his own kind” and “Keiko was the whale we had forever changed and no matter how good our intentions, he was the whale we could not fix for him to become what nature had intended. An orca in close company of other whales. It was impossible even for the world’s most beloved, most famous whale” (shown in figure 115-120). This entire sequence is accompanied by music on the background.
Fig. 115 Fig. 116
Fig. 117 Fig. 118
Fig. 119 Fig. 120 Thirdly, through close-ups the viewer might get the feeling of being literally close to the killer whale instead of what killer whales usually are, really far away. However, there are some other aspects involved here which could be decisive for our feeling of intimacy and which would involve the mirror neurons system.
First of all in the previous sequence (rescue mission), the theme is very much about survival and humans portray worried faces (extreme close-up). Then in this sequence, the viewer actually gets a repetition of shots which viewers have seen earlier in the TV documentary. In addition,
93
Keiko is a famous killer whale. The viewer already knows Keiko as Willy. Furthermore in this concluding speech, the personal journey is visually repeated and the viewer sees Keiko ‘growing’ from being held captive to really being free. Just like within IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) viewers could get certain emotions, which are not necessarily portrayed on screen. I was certainly reminded of other documentary films I have seen and the rescue mission-sequence showed shots which were similar to scenes from the family film Free Willy (USA, 1993). For example, when the team drives the young orca through town, she lays on a trailer and they drive her backwards into the water. Again, just as much as in the other films, on one hand, these emotions can be triggered or mirrored. On the other hand, some viewers will express them and others will not. This is in line with what Goleman describes as the two-way-path of empathy (Koningsberg, 2007). The first one, refers to automatic responses. However, the second path way would lead to a more thoughtful response and maybe not even interacting at all or at least less emotional. An interesting argument was raised in part three of this thesis by Zahavi (2008) and Jensen & Moran (2012). They describe how in some states of mind humans could perceive others as themselves. This relates to the ‘Simulation Theory’ and ‘Mind Reading’. Jensen & Moran (2012) explain this happens in ‘real’ life through something which is approached as ‘bodily social interaction’. In addition, also for Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009), the viewer as organism model coming from Eugeni & D’Aloia (2015), remains in my opinion, very sensible, especially if I look at my personal viewer experience and my memories. Again, I would like to emphasize that I might be easily triggered, because I personally love to be in and around the ocean. I once visited Loro Parque in Tenerife and I witnessed myself the killer whales in captivity or zoo aquariums. I remember that when I was there, I felt how wrong it was to keep these nonhumans there and this was made clear by the scientists as well in this TV documentary.
What I find extremely characteristic about this TV documentary is the passion and fascination of the involving filmmakers and scientists. Just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), I cannot predict that viewers will demonstrate against captivity or they will go to Vancouver Island or Norway to visit these nonhumans in the wild. However, I do think that this TV documentary, more than the other two possibly, interact with the viewer from human to human, especially because of that passion and fascination.
94
Intimacy: Identification & Empathy What can I say about the feeling of intimacy with Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009)? First of all, intimacy means “the state of having a close personal relationship with somebody”34. As the previous paragraphs have shown, this feelings of intimacy is partly constructed due to the use editing, close-up, music, narrator, use of language and especially repetition and the personal factor. In addition, the credibility and truth in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) was very much addressed due to the reputation of scientists. Furthermore, I would like to argue that this TV documentary specifically tried to portray the already existing similarities between humans nonhumans instead of constructing those. Moreover, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) tries to portray a different image of killer whales and this means including bio-physical and socio- cultural aspects. The TV documentary illustrates clearly that these nonhumans are not driven by survival mechanisms. This also means that Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) portrays what Mike Mendl ( 2010) and Jeffrey Masson suggest, namely their emotional lives. This would be underlined by Gallese (2001) and Thompson (2001): “my thesis is that many aspects of our felt capacity to entertain social relationships with other individuals, the ease with which we ‘mirror’ ourselves in the behavior of others and recognize them as similar to us, they all have a common root: empathy” (Gallese, 2001: 42) and “empathy is an evolved, biological capacity of the human species, and probably of other mammalian species, such as the apes” (Thompson). Actually filmmaker Jean-Michel Cousteau and Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) could not be more in line with biologist Frans van der Waal, claiming empathy is our very shared nature35. This is of course in contrast with what Nagel claims: humans could not ever understand what it would be like to be a nonhuman, in his specific example, a bat (Mandik, 2009).
To sum up shortly, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) portrays first of all very obvious the theme of environmentalism and ecology. Similar traits and needs for humans and killer whales are highly addressed which makes us not so different at all. Furthermore, Alexandra Morton describes the value of the killer whales at the very end of the TV documentary, because they are part of the whole. And even though, one could live without certain parts, Alexandra Motron explains: “it is a degraded existence” and “it is all knitted together”. Ultimately, the viewer
34 "Intimacy". Find the Meanings, Definitions, Pictures, Pronunciation of Words at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. Web. 26 June 2015.
95 experiences Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) through a range of cinematographic elements such as use of language, music and editing.
96
Conclusion
“I Wish You Water” (Nichols, 2014)
Scott (2010) claimed at the very beginning of this thesis:
“the power of an image to excite wonderment in an audience can be related to both the ‘fantastical’ and the ‘natural’ world” (Scott, 2010: 30).
This is a great description of what I experienced while I was watching the Dutch national history film De Nieuwe Wildernis (English: The New Wilderness, Netherlands, 2013), which formed the idea for this thesis. As a result, I became interested in the factors that could be decisive for our feeling of engagement. Then, I learnt about the problem of (false) intimacy and it turned into the focus of this thesis. The media objects I ultimately chose, entailed audio-visual stories about oceans, or better said: the marine life environment. Not only is this a trending topic at this very moment, it is also one of my personal passions. All these aspects led to the following research question:
Why Do Audio-Visual Moving Images of Marine Life Touch Us?
The three media objects I analyzed, are: IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) and Call of The Killer Whales (USA, 2009). To provide some answers to the research question, I combined three disciplines: Antrhozoology, Media Studies and Neuroscience. In the introduction of this thesis I described not only the relevance and importance of the field of Anthrozoology, but also the gaps within audience research. As some scholars like Koningsberg (2007) explain, neuroscience could provide new insights and support, contradict or dismiss existing ones, especially with the findings of ‘mirror neurons’.
As I mentioned in the introduction as well, I was not able to do a broad audience research. Neither was it possible to use neuroscientific techniques to concretely address the findings of ‘mirror neurons’ or related concepts concerning the brain and mind. Therefore, this research has an interpretative and literature review method.
To outline the social-cultural, academic and political context for this thesis, I divided this thesis into four parts. In the first part I outlined some issues within society, our environment and our
97 human impact on that environment. In addition, I looked at the crisis and found that not only Earth, but humankind as well is in crisis. Then in the second part, I provided some insights on the concepts of reality versus stories, the power stories have and how all these influence or have influenced each other. It focused specifically on maritime metaphors and it also illustrated a part of the debate on humans and ecology in terms of identity and politics. In the third and last part of the social-cultural, academic and political context, I discussed the similarities and differences between humans and nonhumans. Moreover, it illustrated ideas about neuroscientific insights and the underlying processes that go on within ourselves regarding the ‘real world’ and the world on screen. Concepts which were important in this part were the recognition of emotional lives of humans and nonhumans, empathy and the (constructed or so- called false) intimate relationship with the screen.
Based upon the social-cultural, academic and political context, I analyzed the three media objects. They illustrate an interesting diversity, especially in comparison to each other. This diversity is mostly found within the story, storytelling and the use of cinematographic devices. However, I realized throughout this research, they portray similar patterns and themes. In addition, these similar patterns and themes provide ideas and insights on the problem of (false) intimacy.
The analysis in this thesis is described through five sections, namely: ‘Viewer’s Contract’, ‘Environmental Politics & Ecological Identity’, ‘Anthropomorphism… or not so much?’, ‘Filmmaker’s Cues & Recognition’ and ‘Intimacy: Identification & Empathy’. First, I will shortly outline the research outcomes for each media object below. Then, I will describe per section the similarities and differences between the three media objects in further detail.
Research Outcomes
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009)
This theater film starts with the promise of the “ultimate movie experience”, because of the special technique of IMAX. This is a technique especially made for theaters, because on TV it would not fight the right way to the viewer. Within this documentary film, it was clear that filmmakers addressed aspects of environmentalism and ecology. In addition, the filmmakers deliberately tried to connect the human world and the marine life environment. Subthemes such as balance of the marine life environment, helpful traits to other species and their value in
98 the whole are frequently present, for example. When it comes to cinematographic elements, the viewer experiences IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) through a whole range, such as the use of narrators, their use of language, editing, close-up and music. Ultimately, they all contribute to the feeling of intimacy.
Finding Nemo (USA, 2003)
This 3D animation film is first of all completely different than the one above. The creation of characters and portrayals of its surroundings are completely in the hands of the filmmakers. In that perspective, it is quite obvious anthropomorphism is part of Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). However, it also seems the perfect opportunity to address exactly those characteristics of nonhumans that are sometimes less visible in ‘real’ life. This means that, even though one could argue nonhumans in this 3D animation film are full with human traits, the individual nonhuman character traits and emotions that are portrayed are in line with what some researchers claim: nonhumans also have consciousness, senses, emotions and just as much as humans, they experience the environment. On the other hand, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) specifically steers you to identify with the nonhuman characters by portraying human characters very negatively. Through cinematographic devices such as facial expression, storyline, music and editing (close- up, for example), the viewer probably feels more engaged with what is happening in the film and the characters.
Call of The Killer Whales (USA, 2009).
This TV documentary is quite different than both of the other films. First of all, it is a TV episode and it is part of a miniseries called Ocean Adventures (USA, 2009). Then, filmmakers and scientists form a major role in the documentary and could cause a certain ‘credibility’, ‘trust’ and ‘truth’. This comes closely to the original idea of a documentary. In addition, Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) clearly portrays aspects of environmentalism and ecology. Marine mammals held in captivity is a highly addressed theme, for example. Furthermore, filmmaker Jean-Michel Cousteau addresses specifically, ‘his team is on a search to illustrate similar traits and needs between humans and killer whales’. He also ends on the note, that humans and killer whales share the capacity to care for another species and each other. Moreover, this TV documentary invites the viewer to experience the value of killer whales. This is addressed by researcher Alexandra Morton at the very end of the film, because as she
99 explains: “they simply form a part of the whole”. The world including humans need killer whales, because the world would not be the same without killer whales. Another important aspect is the ‘personal’ factor. First of all, the scientists share their personal experiences with killer whales with the viewer. In addition, the TV documentary includes the ‘movie star’ or Keiko. The narrator claims that people (in the documentary, especially children) must feel “they already know” the famous killer whale. Lastly, the viewer experiences Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) through a range of cinematographic elements such as use of editing, close- up, music, narrator, use of language and especially repetition and the personal factor. They all contribute to the feeling of intimacy.
Following up on these short conclusions, I will continue with a more detailed discussion of the similarities and differences I found within the three media objects in comparison to each other.
Viewer’s Contract
I described in the beginning of part 4 that filmmakers provide ‘a contract’ with viewers in terms of style and story. If one studies the introduction, it usually illustrates conditions that are applied throughout the entire media object.
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) invites the viewer to really experience the marine life environment as if he or she were there. This is mostly attempted due to the cinematographic techniques and point of view shots. This happens, for example, when the waves roll over the viewer and when the viewer passes by the weed of the coral reef. The viewer ‘is’ the camera and he or she is given a front row seat, while ‘travelling’ under water. In addition, apart from the music accompanying this entire introduction, the narrators specifically try to connect the viewer to the marine life environment by saying: “they are real. Creatures of our own world. Their destiny is linked to ours”. The themes of environmentalism and ecology are immediately addressed within the introduction.
Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) is completely different in the sense because it is a computer animated film. This means, on one hand, anthropomorphism plays an important role in the film and on the other hand, cinematographic devices are a significant factor. Both are frequently more present in the introduction of Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) than in the introduction of
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009). In addition, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) immediately illustrates, that the emotional lives of nonhuman characters are important. The viewer hears
100 those emotions through the tones of the character’s voices and sees them through facial expressions. These facial expressions are usually ‘shot’ through extreme close-ups. In Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), the viewer is not invited as one were literally in the marine life environment, like in IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009). However, Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) does invite the viewer to experience the ‘amazingness’ of the marine life environment in the introduction. Marlin says three “wow’s” in a row while the viewer sees ‘the deep blue ocean’ and hears piano music playing softly.
Call of The Killer Whales’ (USA, 2009) starts very differently than the above described films. The viewer’s first experience of the documentary is the sight of killer whales and hears the blowing sound of the whale’s breathing above water. In addition, the viewer sees two direct encounters between killer whales and humans. In one of the two encounters, the viewer sees the nonhuman killer whale and the human at the same height, which could represent a (visual) equality. While Call of The Killer Whales’ (USA, 2009) is the only film, that portrays humans in the introduction, they are also portrayed ‘smiling’, ‘explaining’ or at least ‘engaging’. The viewer also sees them during this introduction mostly doing activities, such as diving, being in a boat, photographing nonhumans and successfully working together. Music is very important as well throughout the introduction. What is really different, is that this TV documentary is part of a miniseries and therefore it includes 30 seconds of intertitels or a program introduction. In these 30 seconds Jean-Michel Cousteau’s team is introduced to the viewer with captions of their names. Lastly, the Call of The Killer Whales’ (USA, 2009) invites the viewer to experience the ‘amazingness’ of the killer whales in their natural habitat. This is attempted through cinematographic devices such as editing, music and use of language, coming from the narrator.
As different as these media objects appear, it is clear that in the introduction of both IMAX
Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) and Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) cinematographic devices play an important role, more than in Call of The Killer Whales’ (USA, 2009). This is probably because the last media object is intended for the medium of TV. What is most significant, is that all three objects in their own way, invite the viewer to experience ‘the amazingness’ of the marine life environment.
101
Environmental Politics & Ecological Identity
The concepts and ideas for this section are described in part 1 and 2 of this thesis. All three media objects more or less play with concepts and ideas that evolve around Environmental Politics & Ecological Identity.
First of all, IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) addresses what Castells (2009) calls environmentalism and ecology: “aim at correcting destructive forms of relationship between human action and its natural environment” and “a set of beliefs, theories, and projects that consider humankind as a component of a broader ecosystem and wish to maintain the system’s balance”. Both are frequently present in the documentary film. Then, IMAX Under the Sea
3D (USA, 2009) really tries to achieve what Barbiero (2014) describes: “gaining a deep understanding of Nature is certainly a necessary step, but appreciating Nature – and appreciating ourselves as part of it – involves the human emotional sphere”. IMAX Under the
Sea 3D (USA, 2009) film does this by portraying ‘helpful’, ‘beneficial’ and ‘productive’ traits of nonhumans for other nonhumans. In addition, the documentary film portrays a specific species very positively, namely sharks. Furthermore, IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) seeks a balance between what is described as ‘anthropocentric’, which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” and ‘ecocentric’ which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). Neither human nor nonhuman is more important than the other, all species are equally important with helpful traits to one another. Lastly, it seems that the documentary film addresses what Hoffman & Sandelands (2004) call “man’s spiritual challenge to apply both faith and reason to find ways to live in harmony with nature”, because the viewer gets to see the destructive consequences of human activities.
Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) as a whole story also portrays Castells’ (2009) concept of environmentalism. However, it does not illustrate images of what Castells (2009) describes as ‘ecology’, namely “humankind as part of a broader ecosystem”. Interestingly, as the discussion of the film has shown, the website reveals that the primary themes of the film are indeed related to environmentalism: “part of the inspiration for Finding Nemo can be traced to writer-director Andrew Stanton’s childhood memory of the fish tank in his dentist’s office and his sympathy for the fish”36. Just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), this 3D animation film, shows on
36 "Finding Nemo." Pixar. Web. 26 June. 2015.
What Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) clearly portrays and what is less portrayed in IMAX
Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), is what Baker calls “manufactured commodities” and this relates to Berger’s concept “reduction of the animal” (Baker, 2001). In this perspective, some sequences in the discussion portray what Haila (1999) calls “domination over nature” and an ‘anthropocentric’ view which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5), for example, the dentist wanted a clownfish from the ocean and he took one and the diver took a photograph with a flash without thinking about the consequences for that clownfish. However, on the other hand, the viewer gets to ‘know’ the characters and might understand nonhumans have needs and wishes to. This means there is an ‘ecocentric’ view in the film as well, which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hoffman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). The environmental politics and ecological identity probably comes best across with character Bruce, the fish-are-friends- not-food-shark. This message is even repeated at the very end of the animation film.
Lastly, I find that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) tries to portray a different image of nonhumans, especially because of their explicitly illustrated emotional lives. Like I mentioned in the discussion, this is a complicated and layered issue, in which anthropomorphism is involved as well.
Just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), the last media object Call of The Killer Whales’ (USA, 2009), portrays what Castells (2009) describes as environmentalism and ecology, again in its very own way. Earlier I described how the website shows the intentions of the filmmakers: “Cousteau and the team discover that people and orcas share surprising similarities, even similar needs” and “the team also learns how some of the threats to killer whales now intersect with human lives”37. Just like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), these
37 "Call of the Killer Whale." PBS. Web. 26 June. 2015.
103 intentions make the primary theme of Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) quite clear: it tries to connect the human world with the marine life environment and in particular, killer whales. In addition, the emphasis in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) lies in social and emotional factors such as language and culture, which are often solely applied to humans and not nonhumans. In line with IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), this TV documentary tries to illustrate what Barbiero (2014) describes as “the right kind of connection with Nature”.
What is different about Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009), is that the environmental politics and ecological identity aspects are addressed through the findings, personal stories and fascination of scientists which assure ‘certainty’, ‘credibility’ and ‘truth’. In addition, just like
IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), this TV documentary also tries to portray a balance between ‘anthropocentric’, which “centers on the needs of man and views nature in the light of these needs” and ‘ecocentric’ which “centers on the needs of nature and views man in light of these needs” (Hofflman & Sandelands, 2004: 4-5). Within Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009), neither human nor nonhuman is illustrated as more important than the other but actually the opposite: sometimes humans need the help of nonhumans and the other way around.
To conclude on this section, all three media objects evolve around environmental politics and ecological identity, each in their own way. This is why I can see all three media objects as what
Bradt (1997) calls an attempt to shift “ignorance to understanding”. IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) and Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) even provide the viewer with (inside) details and facts of marine life as well. According to Bunkers (2006) these aspects are a reminder of the influence and power of stories. In that perspective the three media objects try to use the “connecting, transforming and reshaping” power that stories have (Bunkers, 2006).
Anthropomorphism… or not so much?
Anthropomorphism is a theme which is often addressed when it comes to audio-visual portrayals of nonhumans. First of all, all three media objects illustrate more or less traces of anthropomorphism.
The narrators in IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) use powerful awe and fascination language, like “what an intriguing landscape” and “amazing”. In other moments, they
104 use human metaphors, such as “the shimmering school dances for good reason”, “this is a cleaning station”, “a sort of dermatologist clinic” and “a sort of undersea spa”. All these examples illustrate how the documentary film tries to connect humans with nonhumans in terms of anthropomorphism. In comparison, I can find most anthropomorphism in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). This is quite obvious, as I have explained several times in this thesis. This also turned out to be a very complicated and layered issue. A clear illustration of anthropomorphism is that characters Coral and Marlin are husband and wife. In addition, Coral deals with a lot of human issues and other marine life characters portray activities specifically applicable to humans such as moaning the lawn. Furthermore, Coral and Nemo have clear human facial emotional expressions, roll their eyes and sea turtle Crush has a clear Australian accent. Like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009), Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) uses powerful awe and fascination language too, especially in beginning of the animation film with the three “wow’s”. Probably the least traces of anthropomorphism can be found in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). In relation to anthropomorphism, scientific findings in this documentary make it obvious that humans share similar traits with at least this species, killer whales. These similar traits are illustrated by social and emotional factors, such as language and being part of an evolved culture. In addition, this TV documentary tries to show, each killer whale has individual physical characteristics. Furthermore, some scientists personally name these killer whales. This means that, even though one could say this naming is in line with anthropomorphism, because it is something humans do, it does not change the fact that each killer whale has indeed individual aspects like humans.
However and most importantly, which is in contrary to the claims of anthropomorphism, all three media objects try to illustrate what is described in part three of this thesis by Gallese (2001), Thompson (2001), Mendl (2010 and Jeffrey Masson, namely: nonhumans also have consciousness, senses, emotions and just as much as humans, they experience the environment. In that perspective, humans are more alike than nonhumans and this does is not in line with what Nagel claims, that humans could not ever understand a nonhuman’s experience. It is neither in line with what both Morton (2008) and Light (2007) claim, namely that humans should be “distant from nature” or “detach themselves from nature”.
105
Filmmaker’s Cues & Recognition
This section provided insights on what Bousé (2000) calls the para-social relationship and in relation to the sense of (false) intimacy with the screen or content on the screen. In this perspective, I also mentioned Hasson et al (2008) who describes: “cinema takes viewers through an experience that evolves over time, grabbing their attention and triggering a sequence of perceptual, cognitive, and emotional processes”. These processes are stimulated by cinematic devices such as editing, montage and the use of close-up, according to Hasson et al (2008).
The discussion of IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) illustrates that firstly music is really important in this film. In addition, the use of language by the narrators plays probably a major role as well to establish a more personal connection with the viewer. Furthermore, there are moments as well in which especially the close-up or editing (slow-motion) makes the experience more personal, for example the sequence with the sea turtle in a so-called undersea spa. This means that the three complementary cues Porter (2006) writes about (primary, secondary external and secondary internal) are not all present in IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009).
This is quite similar to Finding Nemo (USA, 2003), because also in the 3D animation film , the three complementary cues Porter (2006) writes about (primary, secondary external and secondary internal) are not all present. First of all the characters, their individual traits, emotions and facial expressions are really important for the feeling of intimacy in Finding Nemo (USA, 2003). Then, the use of language, tone of voice and certain traits which are only applicable to humans are involved as well. In addition, there are moments in which editing and music play a significant role. However, I cannot see that Finding Nemo (USA, 2003) deliberately tries to bring closer the human world and marine life environment in a positive constructive manner, like IMAX Under the Sea 3D (USA, 2009) does.
Lastly, I wish to conclude the viewer’s relationship with TV documentary Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). In this TV documentary, scientists, their findings, passion and personal stories are really important. However, the talking, explaining and presence of music prevents the viewer also of experiencing the serenity and quietude of the ocean (Bousé, 2000). In addition, music and vocalizations of the killer whales play an important role in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009). This TV documentary is the only media object that frequently portrays the vocalizations of marine mammals. Furthermore, due to the primary theme of the documentary film, the filmmakers have specifically tried to connect the human world and
106 marine life environment. Or better said, they went on a search to portray already possibly existing similarities. Furthermore, killer whales are especially portrayed as individuals with specific characteristics (dorsal fin and vocalizations for example) and humans have given them names accordingly. Moreover, the TV documentary showed how language, culture evolved among killer whales and that they are not so different from humans. There aspects all sometimes given extra strength, through especially the close-up or edition (slow-motion) and this could have made the experience more personal. As a result, I can see that all three complementary cues, primary, secondary external, and secondary internal (Porter, 2006), are applied within Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009).
As the previous paragraphs illustrate, I found again similarities and patterns. I think that, due to the primary theme of all three media objects, the media objects relate to one another in terms of establishing a viewer’s relationship, even though each media object has its own cinematographic devices to do so. What in Call of the Killer Whale (USA, 2009) really comes across, is the ‘personalization’ of killer whales. The discussion of the three media objects illustrate, that the concept of ‘automatons’ (Von Uexküll in Marchesini, 2015) often does not apply and that in most cases six out of seven characteristics are applicable to nonhuman characters (Porter, 2006). As a result and as the previous section illustrates, this is not only because of anthropomorphism or ‘constructing’ personhood by filmmakers (Porter, 2006), but also because of the characteristics of nonhumans themselves.
Intimacy: Identification & Empathy
The problem of (false) intimacy was the focus of this thesis. Intimacy means “the state of having a close personal relationship with somebody”38. For all three media objects it is clear that on one hand, anthropomorphism plays a role and on the other hand, the feeling of (false) intimacy is partially constructed and influenced by cinematographic techniques, such as use of language, editing, music and close-up. However, I would argue for all three media objects that nonhumans are portrayed according to what Mendl (2010) and Jeffrey Masson claim: nonhumans have emotional lives. This is also in line with Gallese (2001) who describes: “My thesis is that many aspects of our felt capacity to entertain social relationships with other
38 "Intimacy". Find the Meanings, Definitions, Pictures, Pronunciation of Words at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. Web. 26 June 2015.
107 individuals, the ease with which we ‘mirror’ ourselves in the behavior of others and recognize them as similar to us, they all have a common root: empathy” (Gallese, 2001: 42). In addition, Thompson (2001) claims: “empathy is an evolved, biological capacity of the human species, and probably of other mammalian species, such as the apes” and primatologist Frans de Waal even claimed ‘empathy’ could be our very basic nature39.
Therefore I wish to propose that recognition and identification are partially based as well on these shared emotional lives and traits, on and off screen. Further research in the processes of recognition, identification, empathy and mirror neurons, could provide more insights in this debate. What I do realize, as a viewer, is that Eugeni & D’Aloia’s idea viewer as organism is very sensible. They suggested all aspects of brain, mind and consciousness can be found on the same plane within different time windows (Eugeni & D’Aloia, 2015). While watching these three media objects, I had several emotional responses and memories which give an interpretation of the audio-visual images on screen. These emotional responses and memories do not have to relate to what is happening on screen. Furthermore, Goleman (Koningsberg, 2007) describes with the two-way-path-empathy-model, that some emotional responses will be expressed and others will not. This also relates to the way a viewer is brought up. Some scientists like Zahavi (2008) and Jensen & Moran (2012) claim that humans could perceive others as themselves in some states of mind, which is explained as ‘mind-reading’ (Zahavi, 2008; Jensen & Moran, 2012).
Most importantly, what I find and this is in line with Koningsberg (2007), is that viewers have an unique experience when they are watching TV or a film. This is because of personal memories, preferences, fears and individual neurological pathways. All these factors determine ultimately if, how and when viewers experience a feeling of intimacy.
Humans & Nonhumans: Towards “an Affective Ecology”?
It is commonly said that planet Earth is in crisis. In addition, it is claimed that humans are for a large part responsible for that crisis. Filmmakers in collaboration with scientists try to create awareness about this crisis and they hope to change the destructive human impact. These
39 "The Evolution of Empathy." The Science of a Meaningful Life. Web. 26 June. 2015.
108 findings are described in part 1 of this thesis, by Smaill (forthcoming), Barnoskey et all (2011) and Baker (2001). What is less addressed in this perspective, is that humans appear to be in crisis as well. The World Health Organization describes cancer was our “leading cause of death worldwide in 2008, with 12.7 million new cases and 7.6 million deaths”. In addition, “more than 350 million people of all ages suffer from depression” and “at least a billion people suffer each year because they cannot obtain the health services they need”40.
Furthermore, Sewall (1995) argues that at the heart of the environmental crisis lies “the deadening of our senses”. Sewall (1995) and Berger (1980) both describe that humans have lost the connection with ‘nature’ and ‘nonhumans’.
Based upon the discussion of intimacy and analysis of the three media objects, it appears that audio-visual stories step in ‘to awaken’ our senses, meaning: to let people feel again. As these audio-visual stories about the marine life environment illustrate, this is about getting a connection with nature, which hopefully, according to many (wildlife) filmmakers have their rightful effects in ‘real’ life. Nichols (2014) describes in his book, that the marine life environment makes people happier and better what they do. This is why he writes “I wish you water” (Nichols, 2014). In that perspective, could this mean that media objects with marine life environment content has that same effects? I do not really know. Furthermore, there are many questions left after this thesis.
First of all, I have only analyzed three media objects. Therefore, I would suggest a research with more media objects. Then, I was not able to do a broad audience research in terms of surveys, which I would definitely suggest as well. Furthermore, I could not use neuroscientific methods to say something more concrete about ‘mirror neurons’ and concepts concerning the brain or mind. In another research, this would be definitely be a sensible follow up. In that perspective, there could be said something more about the neurological effects of the marine life environment, daily life and the relation to audio-visual stories when it comes to the viewer’s experience. Overall, I found that especially the field of Anthrozoology is very relevant in current times and the marine life environment just as much. Both would be in line with Mentz’ article of going “Towards a Blue-Cultural Studies” (Mentz, 2009).
40 "Factsheet." WHO | World Health Organization. Web. 26 June. 2015.
109
My thesis ends with what Barbiero (2014) calls “an Affective Ecology”. Within this type of ecology, education is very important. “An Affective Ecology” involves two things, on one hand “providing knowledge on Nature” and on the other hand “bringing people in contact with Nature”. Furthermore, sustainability is quite significant in an ‘Affective Ecology’ (Barbiero, 2014). I find that Spier’s integration of all scientific knowledge could contribute to this ‘Affective Ecology’. Spier (2011) provides a framework for a more universal identity when it comes to humans, nature and nonhumans:
“[…] it may stimulate another type of identity, namely the idea that all of us belong to one single rather exceptional animal species which emerged on a rather exceptional planet somewhere in the universe; that our closest cousins are the primates, that we are in fact related to all life forms and that seen from a cosmic perspective our far cousins are the rocks, the water and even the stars” (Spier, 2011: 139).
In line with the discussion of the three media objects, I hope humans will start to recognize and acknowledge that nonhumans are alike humans and their value to the world they share. Maybe then humans could move forward as a species to this “Affective Ecology”. Because even though, people like scientists, writers and filmmakers are trying to make people aware of the connection between humans and nonhumans, it seems that the numbers of extinction and ecological problems are still at the upper hand.
Moreover, maybe it is not Earth or nonhumans humans need to conserve so much. Maybe humans should first look at the internal conservation of themselves, just like Nichols (2014) describes, because “if you do not know what to save, how do you know how to save it?” (Nichols, 2014).
Maybe that is the first dive humans should take.
110
References
Articles & Books Adler, M., Fagley, N. "Appreciation: Individual Differences in Finding Value and Meaning as a Unique Predictor of Subjective Well-Being." Journal of Personality J Personality (2005): 79-114. Print. Baker, S. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. Manchester: Manchester UP; 2001. Print. Barbiero, G. Affective Ecology for Sustainability. Visions for Sustainability (2014): 1: 20-30. Barker, C. Television, Globalization and Cultural Identities. Buckingham: Open UP, 1999. Print. Barnosky, A., Nicholas M., et all. "Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?" Nature (2011): 51-57. Print. Barthes, R., Duisit, L. "An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative." New Literary History 6.2 (1975): 237-72. Print. Berger, J. About Looking. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Print. Bradt, K. Story as a way of knowing. 1997. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward. Bousé, Derek. Wildlife Films. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania, 2000. Print Bunkers, S. "What Stories and Fables Can Teach Us." Nursing Science Quarterly 19.2 (2006): 104-07. Print. Burt, J. Animals in Film. London: Reaktion, 2002. Print Castree, N. Making Sense of Nature. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2013. Print. Cathcart, R., Gumpert, G. "Mediated Interpersonal Communication: Toward a New Typology." Quarterly Journal of Speech 69 (1983): 267-77. Print. Castells, M. The Greening of the Self: The Environmental Movement, in The Power of Identity: With a New Preface, Volume II, Second edition With a new preface. Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford, UK: 2009. Print. Cleland, K. "Mixed Reality Interaction: Audience Responses to Robots and Virtual Characters." Digital Creativity (2010): 30-38. Print. Damasio, A. The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999. Print. Darwin, C. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1965. Print. Derrida, J. The animal that therefore I am (2008). Fordham. University Press, New York. Print Eugeni, R,. D’Aloia, A. “Neurofilmology. Film studies and the challenge of neuroscience”. Cinéma&Cie. International Film Studies Journal (2015): Special Issue no. 22: 1-5. Available on https://www.academia.edu/11355271/Neurofilmology._Film_Studies_and_the_Challeng e_of_Neuroscience Forbes, R.M., Cooper, A.R and Mitchell H.H. “The Composition of the Adult human body as determined by chemical analysis”. The Journal of Biological Chemistry (1953)., 203, 359-366. Gallese, V. “The ‘Shared Manifold’ Hypothesis: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy.” Journal of Consciousness Studies (2001), 8 (5–7): 33–50. Gentz, N. Globalization, Cultural Identities, and Media Representations. Albany: State U of New York, 2006. Print. Haila, Y. "Biodiversity and the Divide between Culture and Nature." Biodiversity & Conservation 8.1 (1999): 165-181. Print. Hasson, U., et all. "Neurocinematics: The Neuroscience of Film." Projections (2008): 1-26.
111
Print. Heise, U. “Lost Dogs, Last Birds, and Listed Species: Cultures of Extinction.” Configurations 18.1-2 (2010): 49-62. Helmreich, S. "Nature/Culture/Seawater." American Anthropologist (2011): 132-44. Print. Hoffman, J., Sandelands, L. "Getting Right with Nature: Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism and Theocentrism." Ross School of Business Working Paper Series 903 (2004): 1-39. Web. Hoven, A., Arnott, J. "Putting the Medium Back into Mediation." Communicatio (2012): 279-92. Print. Jensen, R., Moran, D. "Introduction: Intersubjectivity and Empathy." Phenom Cogn Sci Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (2012): 125-33. Print. Kellert, S. "Chapter 5: Neuroscience, the Natural Environment, and Building Design (Ed. Salingaros & Masden)." Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, (2008): 59-83. Print. Krčmářová, Jana. "E.O. Wilson's Concept of Biophilia and the Environm Ental Movement in the USA." Klaudyán: Internet Journal of Historical Geography and Environmental History 6.1-2 (2009): 4-17. Web. Konigsberg, Ira. "Film Studies and the New Science." Projections (2007): 1-24. Print. Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. 1285-90. Print Leakey, R., Lewin, L. The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Light, A. "What Is an Ecological Identity?" Environmental Politics (2007): 59-81. Print. Lorblanchet, M. "The Origin Of Art." Diogenes 214 (2007): 98-109. Print Mandik, P. "The Neurophilosophy of Subjectivity." Oxford Handbooks Online (2009). Print. Marchesini, R. "Against Anthropocentrism. Non-human Otherness and the Post-human Project." NanoEthics (2015): 75-84. Print. McKee, A. Textual Analysis a Beginner's Guide. London: Sage Publications, 2003. Print. McKenna, M. Keepers of the story. 1997. NewYork: Orbis Books. McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1964 Mendl, M., Burman, O., Paul, E. "An Integrative and Functional Framework for the Study of Animal Emotion and Mood." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2010): 2895-904. Print. Mentz, S. "Toward a Blue Cultural Studies: The Sea, Maritime Culture, and Early Modern English Literature." Literature Compass (2009): 997-1013. Print. Mitchell, H. H., Hamilton, T. S., Steggerda, F. R., and Bean, H. W., “The Chemical composition of the adult human body and its bearing on the biochemistry of growth”. The Journal of Biological Chemistry (1945)., 168, 625-637. Morton, T. "Ecologocentrism: Unworking Animals." SubStance 37.117 (2008): 73-96. Print. Nichols, W.J. Blue Mind: The Surprising Science That Shows How Being Near, In, On, or under Water Can Make You Happier, Healthier, More Connected, and Better at What You Do. Little, Brown and Company, 2015. Print. Ott, B.L. The Small Screen: How Television Equips Us to Live in the Information Age. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. Print. Pinhasi, R. "Evolution and Culture – Edited by Stephen C. Levinson & Pierre Jaisson." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (2006): 1048-049. Print. Pisters, P. The Spiritual Dimension of the Brain as Screen Zigzagging from Cosmos to
112
Earth (and Back) In: Robert Pepperel and Michael Punt (eds.). Screen Consciousness: Cinema, Mind and the World. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2006, pp. 123-137. Porter, P. "Engaging the Animal in the Moving Image." Society and Animals (2006): 399-416. Print. Ramachandran, V. S. “Mirror Neurons and Imitation Learning as the Driving Force Behind ‘the Great Leap Forward’ in Human Evolution.” Edge (2000), May 29, available at www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_index.html. Rome, A. ""Give Earth a Chance": The Environmental Movement and the Sixties." Journal of American History (2003): 525-554. Print. Schilling, G., Kuitenbrouwer, L. Handboek Sterrenkunde. 6e, Geheel Herz. Dr. ed. Hilversum: Fontaine Uitgevers, 2012. Print. Scott, K.D. "Popularizing Science and Nature Programming: The Role of “Spectacle” in Contemporary Wildlife Documentary." Journal of Popular Film and Television (2010): 29-35. Print. Seiter, E. "Stereotypes and the Media: A Re-evaluation." Journal of Communication 36.2 (1986): 14-26. Print. Sejnowski, T. “Nature is More Clever Than We Are”, in This Explains Everything, John Brockman, ed. (2013): 328-331. Print Sewall, L. ‘The skill of ecoglogical perception’ in Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind (1995): 201-215. San Francisco: Sierra Club. Print. Sheets-Johnstone, M. "The Descent of Man, Human Nature and the Nature/culture Divide." Anthropological Theory 10.4 (2010): 343-60. Print. Shubin, N. Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-billion-year History of the Human Body. New York: Pantheon, 2008. Print. Smaill, B. “Tasmanian Tigers and Polar Bears: The Documentary Moving Image and Species Loss.” NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies (forthcoming): 1-21 Smith, M. (1995). Engaging characters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— (1999). Gangsters, cannibals, aesthetes, or apparently perverse allegiances. In C. Plantinga & G. Smith (Eds.), Passionate views (pp. 217-238). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Spier, F. Big History and the Future of Humanity. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print. Thompson, Evan. “Empathy and Consciousness,” Journal of Consciousness Studies (2001): 8, No. 5-7: 1-32. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1984: Print. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic. In. S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis (1993). Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 31-41. Zahavi, Dan. "Simulation, Projection and Empathy." Consciousness and Cognition (2008): 514- 22. Print.
Digital Images Brain. Digital image. Http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/brain-transplants/image-02-large.jpg. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015. Consciousness. Digital image. Http://mappingignorance.org/fx/media/2015/03/Consciousness.jpg. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015. Finding Nemo 3D. Digital image. Http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/finding_nemo/reviews/. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015. Photoshop What’s Under Water. Digital image.
113
Http://www.fark.com/comments/8545406/Photoshop-whats-underwater. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015. Under the Sea 3D. Digital image. Http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1203291-under_the_sea_3d/. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015. University of Amsterdam. Digital image. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Amsterdam. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015.
114