FLM609 Ecocinemas Nature, , and the Moving image

(Level 6, Sem. B, 2016-17)

Dr Anat Pick Arts One 1.41a [email protected]

Screening: Monday 12-3pm, Arts One G.34 Lecture: Tuesday 11am-12, Arts One G.34 Seminars: Tuesday 12-1pm (Bancroft G.07); 1-2pm, (Arts 2, 3.20) 2

Module themes & rationale This advanced final year option module examines the intersections of film studies and the emergent fields of critical studies and ecocinema. We explore some of the historical, formal, political and ethical aspects of the relationship between cinema, the natural world, and nonhuman animals.

The recent environmental and ‘animal turn’ in film forges new ways of understanding cinema, its theorization, production and reception in a broadly ecological context. Building on existing approaches to film (such as cinematic realism, film’s industrial context, or film as a tool for social change), we will look at film not simply as representing the world in image and sound, but as part of the world: film as an environmental practice in its own right, or as a vehicle for addressing—and even transforming—humans’ relationship to ourselves and our fellow creatures.

Our focus will be on the act of looking at, and constructing, ‘the animal’ and the natural world in film. We begin with the historical role of animals in the development of the cinematic medium and continue to films that place animals and the natural world at their centre. Along the way, we will debate cinema’s environmental impact, and film as a tool for reflection and advocacy in an age of ecological crisis.

Module aims (1) Introduce students to the fields of ecocinema and : develop an understanding of the environmental dimensions of film, explore key issues in the representation of animals and the natural world on screen, engage students with the history and form of cinema, animals in fiction films, and animal activist cinema.

(2) Add to students’ theoretical knowledge by introducing ‘eco-critical’ and post- anthropocentric approaches to film theory. Building on existing knowledge acquired in previous modules, Ecocinemas will enrich students’ theoretical tool kit by providing a new set of critical terms with which to analyze and make films.

Assessment 2 pieces of coursework: Essay 1: textual analysis (1,500 words, 40%). Essay 2: research essay (2,500 words; 60%).

Essay 1: Textual analysis Produce a short close reading of a film not covered in class, addressing one of the following themes: ecology, the relationship between humans and the natural world, the representation of animals, or the human/animal divide. You may choose any film—documentary or fiction—in which animals, nature, or ecological concerns are of significance. Please let me know in advance which film you intend to use as your case study.

As a close reading exercise, please include at least one sequence analysis, as well as a minimum of TWO relevant scholarly sources. Do not exceed 1,500 words (+/- 10%). Submission is via QM+.

Essay 1 due: Sunday 26 February 2017, by 23:55. 3

Essay 2: Research essay Focusing on up to two key concepts explored in the module—including but not limited to: ecocinema, the human-animal divide, anthropomorphism, (non-) anthropocentrism, the wildlife film, intersectionality, , ecological or animal activist documentary, the animal other, —write an analytical essay on one of the films covered in class.

You are asked to illustrate a deep understanding of the field of ecocinema and/or critical animal studies, demonstrate your theoretical grasp of the key concepts and your ability to apply them coherently to the film of your choice. Your essay will include a minimum of THREE scholarly sources. Do not exceed 2,500 words (+/- 10%). Submission is via QM+

Essay 2 due: Sunday 2 April 2017, by 23:55.

Publishing opportunity! Essays can be edited and submitted for publication to the ZooScope archive, https://zooscope.english.shef.ac.uk/. ZooScope is the Animals in Film Archive, written by students and hosted by the University of Sheffield. Contributions are welcome, so please consider submitting your work.

Reading You have 1-2 key readings per week. Please bring the reading to the seminar. All key readings are available on QM+ or as handouts. Each week lists additional readings and viewings, listed in the weekly schedule. In addition to the compulsory weekly reading, you are expected to conduct a significant amount of independent learning. The library has a variety of relevant books and films that you are encouraged to consult. A selected bibliography is provided at the end of the module guide to assist you in your research.

Content Note Occasionally, during our sessions we will view and discuss images and events that may be difficult or distressing. If you have concerns about class content, please come see me. You are encouraged to research the films we will be watching and topics we will be addressing in advance.

Please see the weekly schedule below— 4

Week Topic Screening

1 Why Look at Animals? Animals and the emergence of cinema We discuss the fundamental role of animals in the development of the cinematic medium. From pre-historic cave paintings to the modern fairground, animals have been an essential part of proto- and early cinematic attractions. Animals have been an engine of moving image technology, and its raw material. The session addresses the convergence of movement, spectacle, and violence in early animal films, in conjunction with John Berger’s foundational essay ‘Why Look at Animals?’ (1980), on the importance of the human-animal connection.

Shorts & clips: Electrocuting an Elephant (Edison, 1903) No screening in Week 1 The last Tasmanian tiger (1932), http://aso.gov.au/titles/historical/tasmanian- tiger-footage/clip1/#

Key Reading: John Berger, ‘Why Look at Animals?’ in About Looking. London: Bloomsbury, 2009.

See also: Jonathan Burt, ‘The Illumination of the Animal Kingdom: The Role of Light and Electricity in Animal Representation’, http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/burt.pdf

Akira Mizuta Lippit, Electric Animal: Toward A Rhetoric of Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

2 Unnatural Histories I We are all familiar with big-budget natural history films like Planet Earth and Frozen Planet. In appealing to big audiences with pristine spectacles of nature, what are these films failing to show? To what extent do the iconic natural history films of Disney and the BBC ‘produce’ the nature they depict? How do they communicate knowledge about the natural world, and where, if anywhere, is human culture located in relation to wild nature? Mark Lewis’ films challenge the conventional natural history film by mixing the wildlife genre with eco-horror and comedy, and by critiquing ‘anthropocentrism’—the human-centred- perspective of much natural history cinema. Cane Toads: The Conquest Key reading: (Mark Lewis, 2010) Morgan Richards, ‘Cane Toads: Animality and Ecology in Mark Lewis's documentaries,’ in Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental https://www.youtube.com/wat Humanities, Jodi Frawley and Iain McCalman, eds. New York: Routledge, 2014, ch?v=8PxxLtiAYdw pp. 139-149.

Simpson, Catherine. ‘Tales of Toad Terror and Tenacity: What Cane Critters Can Teach Us.’ Australian Humanities Review 57 (2014), pp. 81-100.

See also: Rust and Monani, ‘Introduction: cuts to dissolves—defining and situating ecocinema studies’, Ecocinema Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Scott Macdonald, ‘Toward an Eco-cinema’, Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and the Environment 11.2, 2004, pp. 107- 132.

Derek Bousé, Wildlife Films. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 5

2000.

Morgan Richards, ‘Greening Wildlife Documentary’, Environmental Conflict and the Media. Libby Lester and Brett Hutchins, eds. New York: Peter Lang, 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/5617726/data/greening-wildlife-documentaries- data.pdf

Gregg Mitman, Reel Nature: America's Romance with Wildlife on Film. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009.

Cynthia Chris, Watching Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006.

3 Unnatural Histories II We continue to examine revisions of the conventional wildlife film, this time in the work of the maverick German director Werner Herzog. Grizzly Man poses important questions about the human-animal boundary, the relation between nature and civilization, and the possibility of connection across species lines.

Key reading: Thomas Austin, ‘…To Leave the Confines of His Humanness’, in Rethinking Documentary, pp. 51-66. Grizzly Man (Werner Herzog, See also: 2005) Dominic Pettman, ‘Bear Life: Tracing an Opening in Grizzly Man’, in Human Error: Species-Being and Media Machines, pp.37-59.

Brad Prager, The Cinema of Werner Herzog: Aesthetic Ecstasy and Truth (Columbia University Press, 2007).

4 Institutional Animals Animals are often seen in captivity. How does captivity shape, frame, even create the animal? What do the institutions of the zoo, the menagerie, or the laboratory tell us about the ways we relate to other animals? How are these institutions complemented by the institution of cinema that similarly frames, interrogates, and Nénette (Nicolas Philibert, displays animals? 2010)

Key reading: Barbara Creed, ‘Nenette: Film theory, animals, and boredom’, Necsus 3 Spring 2013 http://www.necsus-ejms.org/nenette-film-theory-animals-and-boredom/

See also: Donna Haraway, ‘Introduction: The Persistence of Vision’, in Primate Visions, pp. 1-15. Project Nim (Marsh, 2011) Primate (Wiseman, 1974)

6

5 Environmental Documentary Our Daily Bread includes no commentary and no interviews. We ask whether and how observational documentary constructs its argument, and how ecological issues are framed in comparison to mainstream, more expository, environmental documentaries.

Key reading: Helen Hughes, Green Documentary, ‘The Contemplative Response’, pp. 43-82. Our Daily Bread (Nikolaus Geyrhalter, 2006) Nadia Bozak, The Cinematic Footprint (excerpt).

See also: Our Daily Bread online resources: http://www.ourdailybread.at/jart/projects/utb/website.jart?rel=en&content- id=1130864824950

6 Unnatural Disasters Beasts of the Southern Wild Beasts of the Southern Wild is loosely based on the aftermath of Hurricane (Behn Zeitlin, 2012) Katrina that hit New Orleans in 2005. The film has divided viewers. Some accused it of being racist, while others hailed it as an original and powerful example of community-based filmmaking. This week is a little different in that we host a debate on the film, addressing questions on the links between the discourses of racism, animality, ecocinema, and environmental justice. In preparation, you will research and summarize arguments for and against the film, and present them in class. As resources, we will defer mainly to the lively conversations on the blogosphere triggered by the film.

Key Reading & viewing: Rebecca Solnit, an excerpt from A Paradise Built in Hell (Penguin, 2010). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/books/excerpt-paradise-built-in-hell.html

Thomas Hackett, ‘The Racism of Beasts of the Southern Wild’, New Republic, February 19, 2013, https://newrepublic.com/article/112407/racism-beasts-southern-wild

bell hooks, ‘No Love in the Wild’, http://www.newblackmaninexile.net/2012/09/bell-hooks-no-love-in-wild.html

Travis Bean, ‘A response to bell hooks' critique of Beasts of the Southern Wild’, http://cinemabeans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/beasts-of-the-southern-wild.html

Rebecca Solnit on Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/31/a_paradise_built_in_hell_rebecca

7 READING WEEK Essay 1 is due on Sunday 26 February 2017 (end of reading week), by 23:55 (on QM+)

8 Intersections I: Animality and Race Is the struggle for necessarily antithetical to the struggle for the rights of human minorities? How might we think of different social justice campaigns in complementary rather than competing ways? This session introduces the notion of ‘intersectionality’ as a The Cove (Louie Psihoyos, 2009) way of considering the commonalities between different forms of oppressions, and the ways in which species and race can be viewed together rather than in 7

competition with one another.

Key reading: Alison Suen, ‘Racializing Cruelty: Dehumanization in the Name of Animal Advocacy’, The Speaking Animal: Ethics, Language and the Human-Animal Divide. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015, pp. 97-119.

See also: Claire Jean Kim, Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species and Nature in a Multicultural Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

9 Intersections II: Animality and Gender John Huston’s The Misfits, starring film stars Marilyn Monroe and Clark Gable poses questions about human morality and human exceptionalism in an unusual revision of the traditional western.

Key reading: The Misfits (John Huston, 1961) Robert McKay, ‘Animal Life and Moral Agency in Post-War Cinema: Velma Johnston, Marilyn Monroe, Arthur Miller and John Huston’s The Misfits’

See also: Carol J. Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat (University of California Press, 2010).

10 Activist Documentary I: Spectacle, and Animal Resistance The recent flourishing of politically and socially engaged documentaries links film and social change. This lecture examines some of the modes of address and formal strategies used by activist films to transform its audience. Blackfish (Gabriela Cowperthwaite, 2013) Key Reading: Carrie Packwood Freeman and Scott Tulloch, “‘Was Blind but Now I See’: Documentaries’ Deconstruction of Barriers to Witnessing Injustice,” in Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human. Anat Pick and Guinevere Narraway, eds. Berghahn, 2013.

See also: Jason Hribal, Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance (AK Press, 2010). The Animals Film (Schonfeld and Alaux, 1982) Earthlings (Monson, 2005)

11 Activist Documentary II: Politics of Sight Part II on activist film follows the photographer Jo- Anne McArthur as she reveals the realities of animal life and death around the world. We consider the The Ghosts in Our Machine (Liz Marshall, relationship between political advocacy and the 2013) ‘politics of sight’—revealing hidden truths in order to encourage social transformation—that is the main strategy of activist cinema. We also return to Berger’s 8

basic question: “Why look at animals?” at the heart of animal film.

Key Reading: Dinesh Wadiwel, ‘The War Against Animals: Domination, Law and Sovereignty’, Griffith Law Review 18.2 (2009), pp. 283-297.

Timothy Pachirat, ‘A Politics of Sight’, in Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

12 Revision & review: essay 2 writing surgery (individual ** No Screening ** tutorials in Arts One 1.41a).

Essay 2, Sunday 18 December, by 23:55 (on QM+)

9

Select bibliography Acampora, Ralph. ‘Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices’ Society and Animals 13.1, 2005. (pdf)

Acampora, R. ‘Extinction by Exhibition’ Human Ecology, pdf.

Bailly, J. C. The Animal Side. Catherine Porter, trans. New York: Fordham University Press, 2011.

Bousé, D. 2000. Wildlife Films. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bellows, A. M. 2000. Science Is Fiction: The Films of Jean Painlevé. Boston: MIT Press.

Bozak, N. 2011. The Cinematic Footprint: Lights, Camera, Natural Resources. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Brower, M. 2005. ‘Trophy Shots: Early North American Animal Photography and the Display of Masculine Prowess,’ Society and Animals, 13.1, pp. 13-32.

---. 2005 ‘Take Only Photographs: Animal Photography’s Construction of Nature Love’ http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/Issue_9/brower.html

Burt, Jonathan. 2001. ‘The Illumination of the Animal Kingdom: The Role of Light and Electricity in Animal Representation’, Society and Animals, 9.3, pp. 203-228.

---. 2004. Animals in Film. London: Reaktion.

Calarco, M. 2009. ‘Toward an Agnostic Animal Ethics,’ in Cavalieri, P. The Death of the Animal. New York: Columbia University Press.

---. 2015. Thinking Through Animals: Identity, Difference, Indistinction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Crowther, B. 1995. ‘Towards a Feminist Critique of Television Natural History Programs,’ Feminist Subjects, Multi-Media: Cultural Methodologies, P. Florence ed., New York: Routledge, pp. 127-146.

---. (2012) ‘Identity, Difference, Indistinction,’ The New Centennial Review 11.2, pp. 41-60. (pdf.)

Chris, C. 2006. Watching Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Coetzee, J. M. 2000. . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Crary, J. (2001) Suspensions of Attention, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 138-148.

Cudworth, E. 2005. Developing Ecofeminist Theory: The Complexity of Difference. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Demello, M. 2012. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press.

Derrida, J. ‘The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)’, David Wills, trans. Critical Inquiry 28.2 (Winter, 2002), pp. 369-418 (pdf.)

10

Harper, G. and Ratner, J., eds. Cinema and Landscape. Bristol: Intellect. Hayles, N. K. 1995. ‘Searching for Common Ground,’ in Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. Michael E. Soulé and Gary Lease, eds., Washington, D.C.: Island, pp. 47-63.

Hughes, H. 2014. Green Documentary: Environmental Documentary Film in the 21st Century. Bristol: Intellect Books.

---. ‘Scrutiny and Documentary: Hubert Sauper’s documentary film, Darwin’s Nightmare’ Screen, 53.3 (2012), pp. 246 – 265.

Kalof, L. and Fitzgerald, A. (2003) ‘Reading the Trophy: Exploring the Display of Dead Animals in Magazines’, Visual Studies, 18.2, pp. 112-122.

Kim, C. J. 2015. Dangerous Crossings: Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lefebvre, M., ed. 2006. Landscape and Cinema. New York: Routledge.

Lippit, A. M. 2000. Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Macdonald, S. 2009. Adventures of Perception: Cinema as Exploration. Essays/Interviews. Berkeley: University of California Press.

McMahon, L. and Lawrence M., eds. 2015. Animal Life and the Moving Image. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mitman, G. 1999. Reel Nature: American’s Romance with Wildlife on Film. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994. ‘Looking at Animals Looking.’ Picture Theory, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 329-344.

Morton, T. 2010. The Ecological Thought. Harvard University Press.

---. Ecology without Nature. 2009. Harvard University Press.

Murray, R. L. and Huemann, J. K., eds. 2009. Ecology and Popular Film: Cinema on the Edge. Albany: State University of New York.

Muybridge, E. 1979. Muybridge’s Complete Human and Animal Locomotion, New York: Dover.

Nash, J. C. 2008. ‘Rethinking Intersectionality,’ Feminist Review 89, pp. 1-15.

Nocella, et al., eds. 2013. Defining Critical Animal Studies: An Intersectional Social Justice Approach for Liberation. Bern: Peter Lang.

Pick, A. 2011. Creaturely Poetics: Animality and Vulnerability in Literature and Film. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pick, A. and Narraway, G., eds. 2013. Screening Nature: Cinema Beyond the Human. Oxford: Berghahn.

11

Plumwood, V. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. 1993. ---. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. 2002.

‘On Plumwood’, Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/mar/26/australia.world

Prager, B. 2007. The Cinema of Werner Herzog: Aesthetic Ecstasy and Truth. London: Wallflower.

Ryan, J. R. (2000) ‘Hunting with the Camera:’ Photography, Wildlife and Colonialism in Africa, Animal Spaces, Beastly Places, C. Philo and C. Wilbert (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 379-397.

Snyder, J. (1998) Visualization and Visibility, Picturing Science, Producing Art, C. A. Jones and P. Galison (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 379-397.

Sturgeon, N. 2009. Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and the Politics of the Natural. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Twine, R. 2010. ‘Intersectional disgust? Animals and (eco)feminism,’ Feminism & Psychology 20.3, pp. 397-406.

Wadiwel, D. J. 2015. The War Against Animals. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2015.

Willett, C. 2014. Interspecies Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Willowquet-Maricondi, P., ed. 2010. Framing the World: Explorations in Ecocriticism and Film. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Yusoff, K. ‘Aesthetics of loss: biodiversity, banal violence and biotic subjects,’ Transactions October (2012), 37.4, pp. 578–592.