This week's rant is about
the (current) popular BBC TV programme, Planet Earth Live.
After initially
getting upset simply with the news that it was to be presented by Richard Hammond, the
least 'harmful' (and thus biggest hypocrite) of BBC TV's Top Gear "motoring"
programme, I then made the mistake of watching an episode at my family's house
at the weekend...
My faults with this programme are numerous. Here are just a
handful that spring to mind long after having watched it (and calmed
down):
1. It is dumbed down.
In general, it is an understandable and arguably
positive 'tactic' to make complicated subjects more understandable and
accessible to the general public. By reducing the science and raising the
entertainment 'bar', it allows more people to become aware of an important topic
and can even sometimes encourage them to contribute. And thus for TV, it is
surely only good for more people to become interested in the world and its
animals. An academically produced programme about a specialist subject would
normally result in limited viewing figues. But this programme is based on the original
(David Attenborough presented) Planet Earth series, which was incredibly popular
anyway... and critically well-received! So why do it? We need to raise the bar to
the next level and continue the education... not go back to Square One!
2. It
is too like Springwatch.
There are live links connecting pre-recorded films -
which to all intents and purposes might as well have been filmed a year ago,
rather than earlier in the week. Let's be honest, the reason why Natural History
programmes can be great is because they are the HIGHLIGHTS (and a culmination)
of HOURS of hard work by camera operators and researchers. This kind of
programme undermines their efforts by hinting that something might easily happen
live on camera.
3. It is all about the same old cliché animals!
Lions,
elephants, bears, meerkats... these animals have almost been done to death
already on programmes like 'Big Cat Diary', 'Meerkats Utd' and 'The Man who
walks with Bears'. Don't get me wrong, they are wonderful, iconic animals, and
have the 'ah!' factor... but this programme was surely a bigger opportunity to
show us how other, less well known, animals do day-to-day. Why did they have to
sell-out? The audience could have been 'sold' some new species, from the lowly
insect or the not so well known mammal species... and we could have thus started
to understand how the whole food chain works and how fragile ecosystems are all
inter-connected. Basically, the programme made me think I was watching ITV, not the BBC.
4. There is no real point behind the programme.
Live
Satellite TV broadcasts are hardly a new concept (after all, the first was way back in 1967...) and linking to just two live presenters in two countries for their
regular summary reports and loosely scripted linkages every episode hardly sounds like a serious technological challenge for this day and age. Now, if there was a need for a
spread-out network weaving through to numerous presenters live from all around the globe, that would be another matter. I reckon
I could do something more complicated using Skype!
5. The other main
presenter is insipid.
Not as bad as Richard Hammond perhaps but I still can't stand her. I can't be bothered to really argue why frankly (but I know it's not just me and I didn't like her on Countryfile either!). Even if I am just wrong here, why can't the Beeb finally risk a few chips and bet on the whole thing being
fronted by well-known natural historians or professional wildlife cameramen (and women) like Gordon
Buchanan? They do just as good a job in the live links and also know their
stuff! Is it simply because the prog. producers want it watched by millions of indifferent Top Gear viewers
who would otherwise most likely avoid it?
6. There is too much of an obsession
with anthropomorphising the animal 'stars'.
True: it's important to give some
form of inividuality to the animals that are regularly shown on the prgramme,
but they take it too far! Animals are not humans and we should not treat them as
such. By doing so, we not only get over emotional like we would a pet dog or
cat... but we also miss the bigger messages by getting cheated by clever
cinematic production techniques and so on. For example, atmospheric soundtracks over-egging false emotion to
scenes and clever editing and fast cutting conveying 'Hollywood action style' moments where it
might not have been in truth do start to annoy after a while. If I wanted that kind of thing I would go and watch 'Avengers Assemble' again! (A very good film btw.) Prince Phillip (a man I pretty much
loathe as a rule) has a point (to an extent) when he says that some animal
lovers are simply 'bunny huggers' and not aware of the hard truths of wildlife
conservation and management... and this kind of television does not help
alleviate the clear gap between our nation's millions of (self-titled) 'animal
lovers' and the (much fewer) 'wildlife conservation enthusiasts'.
And so, on the
face of it, it is good telly! :-) I am happy to sit and watch it in truth and am not
sure it has seriously harmed the long established reputation of quality BBC
Natural History television.
BUT... I find myself grimacing every few minutes
watching it and, more pathetically, then can't help but wander at the end about how good it could have
been...
ZeeOx
