💭12.2 Thoughts on Documentaries: Humanity’s Conceptual Exploitation of Nature?

Nature documentary creators aim to address the effects of the Anthropocene—environmental degradation, climate change, and human consumerism—through their compelling visual storytelling of natural biomes. However, even documentaries striving to raise awareness and evoke audience sympathy by contrasting Earth’s wonders with collapsing environments caused by human activities cannot escape the inevitable influence of human endeavors. As part of the media industry, these works are shaped by conscious efforts to make them marketable and consumable. This influence is evident in recurring patterns such as sweeping drone shots, anthropomorphized storylines of natural fauna, overrepresentation of certain species, and heartbreaking zoom-in shots. While these motifs are designed to inspire awe and empathy for nature, they also highlight a core aspect of the Anthropocene: the unavoidable projection of human consciousness onto natural subjects. Our Planet I (Episode 1:One Planet) and II (Episode 1:World on the Move), through their repeated use of these motifs, demonstrate that the Anthropocene extends beyond the physical exploitation of the natural world, serving as a metaphor for humanity’s conceptual imposition onto nature.

Sweeping drone shots are a recurring motif that shows humanity’s conceptual exploitation of nature by turning the untouched wholeness of natural environments into commodities. Both Episode 1 of Our Planet I and Our Planet IIfeature panoramic views of remote landscapes, with some overlapping locations. For instance, both documentaries capture Arctic icebergs dramatically breaking apart and offer sweeping 360-degree views of the African savannah—golden hues in Our Planet II and lush greens in Our Planet I. Although the specific forest locations differ, both documentaries emphasize forests, with Our Planet II showcasing Ethiopia’s forest, where swarms thickly dot the sky as they fly toward the drone cameras, and Our Planet I capturing the Amazon, where sunlight filters through the mist. These drone shots display some of the grandest yet most vulnerable landscapes on Earth, appealing to the human desire for beauty and surprisingly devoid of human traces—no people, villages, or factories. The absence of human traces in these scenes suggests that these locations are remote and protected, preserving the wholesomeness of nature, untouched by human development. However, despite being restricted from direct human exploitation, these areas are still being commodified for artistic and media value through advanced technological equipment. It is ironic that even the most pristine and remote landscapes are for sale, with their majesty captured and marketed for profit.

Beyond this conceptual exploitation, the very tools used to capture these magnificent sights, such as drones flying near swarms, can harm wildlife by startling them or altering their behavior, contradicting the conservation purpose of the documentaries. Moreover, the filming industry and the entire production process—from plane rides to the manufacturing of filming equipment—end up harming the very landscapes they aim to protect by contributing to the carbon footprint. True conservation is not about profiting from the beauty or wholeness of nature or supporting industries that contribute to climate change; it is about respecting and preserving nature without interference. In this way, documentaries, though intended to share the wonders of the world, ultimately become products of human consciousness and consumerism, exploiting every aspect of nature—from the filming tools to the sweeping drone shots of areas untouched by human development.

The anthropomorphized storylines of natural fauna are another recurring motif that demonstrates how documentaries impose human interpretations on animal behavior. In Episode 1 of Our Planet, the courtship displays of various manakin species are presented in highly stylized sequences, such as the golden-collared manakin carefully “cleaning his dance floor” to prepare for his “backflip” and the red-capped manakin performing a rapid slither while pattering his feet. These dramatic, almost human-like actions make the manakins appear exceptionally charismatic, giving them distinct personalities. While this storytelling and personification may make these species more memorable to audiences, it also exemplifies the typical arrogance of the Anthropocene, where documentary creators impose a human narrative on animal behavior, assuming they can accurately interpret the manakins’ intentions and emotions. In reality, humans cannot know what the animals are truly thinking or feeling. The motif of constant personification reveals how documentaries use human perspectives to create stories about wildlife behaviors that may not be accurate, leading audiences to form lasting but misleading impressions.

In addition to the motif of personifying species by pretending humans can interpret their behaviors, documentaries often overrepresent certain charismatic species while neglecting others. Both Episode 1 of Our Planet II and Our Planet Iprominently feature an overly common symbolic species for conservation and climate change: polar bears. This focus on charismatic species, like polar bears, shows the human construct of hierarchical importance applied to nature, where the most visually striking or well-known species are prioritized in documentaries. In contrast, smaller and less visually dramatic but equally significant species in the Arctic, such as plankton or certain invertebrates, are often overlooked, despite their crucial roles in the trophic levels. This demonstrates how documentaries create inequality among species, presenting nature in a selective and incomplete way driven by human choices, and failing to offer a holistic view of ecosystems. The motif of selective species representation underscores how documentaries prioritize certain animals and apply hierarchical narratives to nature, reinforcing human biases and presenting an incomplete view of ecosystems.

Not only do documentaries commodify remote areas, impose human interpretations on animal behavior, and overrepresent certain species, but they also, raise awareness from a misguided perspective. Through the visual motif of close-up shots on “tragic” or “survival failure” moments in wildlife, documentaries exploit humans’ innate sense of exceptionalism to promote environmental protection rather than emphasizing the interdependence between humans and nature. In episode 1 of Our Planet, a zoom-in shot lingers on the trembling legs of a flamingo chick, weighed down by heavy salt, struggling not to fall, almost on the verge of collapse. The camera’s tight focus amplifies the chick’s vulnerability, highlighting tragedy and impending failure. By capturing this intimate moment, the documentary forces the audience to confront the harshness of nature, pulling the reader’s heartstrings of empathy, sorrow, and a sense of helplessness . This emotional manipulation appeals to a savior complex, portraying humans as protectors of the weak and suggesting human superiority, as if they are exempt from the harsh realities of natural selection and survival challenges that other species face. However, this narrative overlooks the fact that humans, like all species, are vulnerable, part of nature, and reliant on it—depending on the same freshwater lakes that the flamingo chick seeks for its own survival.The true reason for protecting nature should stem from this interdependence, rather than from a sense of superiority or the belief that humans are god-like saviors.

Similarly, in Our Planet II, Episode 1, zoom-in shots capture individual chicks navigating their path to find food, unaccompanied by their parents and obstructed by obstacles like tree branches. These visuals may subconsciously prompt audiences to compare the chicks’ struggles to the perceived safety and ease experienced by human infants, reinforcing a sense of human privilege and moral responsibility to “protect” these species. This perspective is rooted in the belief that these animals lack the complex parental relationships or favorable environments that align with human standards. Such framing can justify practices like creating sanctuaries or keeping animals in captivity, where they are cared for in ways considered “better” than their natural habitats by human standards, even if those conditions are unnatural for the animals. Additionally, protecting certain species or keeping them captive disrupts natural processes, such as the death of a chick nourishing decomposers. By intervening out of a savior complex, especially after watching these emotional scenes, humans disrupt ecological balance. Instead of focusing on saving individual species or isolated moments, humans should adopt a broader, more holistic approach—preserving the health of entire ecosystems rather than interfering in nature’s cycles. The motif of zoom-in shots on animal vulnerability in documentaries appeals to human exceptionalism and a savior complex, imposing human standards on animals’ living conditions, overlooking the shared dependence of all species on nature, and disrupting natural processes.

In Episode 1 of both Our Planet I and Our Planet II, the motifs of sweeping drone shots, anthropomorphized storylines of natural fauna, overrepresentation of certain species, and heartbreaking zoom-in shots reveal how nature documentaries, despite their conservation goals, reflect the projection of human consciousness onto the natural subjects. Commodifying nature and adhering to certain stereotypes in documentaries may be seen as a necessary strategy to promote conservation, as the appeal of visually stunning or emotionally charged content is often what attracts viewers and keeps them engaged—after all, no one is drawn to boring or overly technical material. To get the conservation message across, this method of visual rhetoric can be seen as a concession to the reality that, without such appeal, the message may not reach as wide an audience. However, sacrificing accuracy in the process is not a worthwhile trade-off. Once audiences are drawn in by a false narrative of nature’s pristine beauty, they may become disillusioned upon realizing that nature documentaries, as part of the entertainment industry, prioritize viewership over accurately depicting the natural world. This disillusionment can lead to disengagement, undermining the very cause the documentary aimed to promote. Therefore, such visual rhetoric is not only irresponsible but also misleading, as it fails to equip audiences with a true understanding of the environmental issues at hand, leaving them ill-prepared to take meaningful, sustained action for conservation. Ultimately, prioritizing entertainment and spectacle over honesty does a disservice to both the cause and the audience, potentially eroding the trust needed for long-term commitment to environmental protection.

Works Cited

Fothergill, Alastair, and Keith Scholey. “One Planet.” Our Planet I, episode 1, Netflix, 2019.

Fothergill, Alastair, and Keith Scholey. “World on the Move.” Our Planet II, episode 1, Netflix, 2024.