Nature has a way of cutting one down to size. Any time you think you've seen it all, there's a new revelation that shows you how little you actually know!
In February this year, tiger biologist Ullas Karanth, a few other friends and I witnessed an astonishing interaction between a sloth bear and a tiger in the Nagarahole Tiger Reserve in Karnataka. I'm sure this sort of thing happens all the time in forests and that the incident wasn't 'astonishing' for either the tiger or the bear. It's just that one has to be incredibly lucky to actually see something like this unfolding. What's more, I even got some pictures! I've posted the story and a series of pictures on my revamped (finally!) website, so do have a look at www.shekardattatri.com
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Edberg Award
The Perils of Telephone Interviews!
A few days ago, I got a surprise mail from the Edberg Foundation in Sweden saying that I had been chosen by the Board for this year's Edberg award for my work in conservation and conservation filmmaking. Subsequently a Press Release was put out in India. Following the press release, I got a call from a senior journalist from a news agency, who wanted to ask a few additional questions. Normally I'm extremely wary of telephone interviews and insist that questions be sent to me by email to enable me to give precise answers. Unfortunately that day, the gentleman caught me as I was about to go out. Also, there was a power cut and my modem was dead, so the email thing could not be done that instant.
I patiently answered all the questions in detail and, at the end of the interview, requested that the copy be mailed to me for fact checking before publication. To this the journalist insisted that he had taken copious notes and was not in the habit of making mistakes. I had to leave at that.
Horror of horrors, when the report came out, I was shocked and embarrassed to find a plethora of mistakes, major and minor. The report made me sound boastful, put words in my mouth that I had not spoken and ignored all the details I had given about important environmental campaigns of which I had only been a part. The report made out that I had done things single-handedly and implied even that important court decisions had been made on the basis of my films alone, which is rubbish.
Upon seeing the report I immediately wrote a polite email to the journalist pointing out all the errors. To his credit, he called me very soon thereafter and agreed to do another piece "in the near future" setting right all the mistakes I had pointed out. Unfortunately, once a report has been released on the web it's like a genie out of the bottle; you can't put it back. Now hundreds of websites have reproduced this report and it will stay on the net more or less forever.
I can't believe that with all my experience in dealing with the media in India, I could have made the mistake of giving a telephone interview to an unknown journalist. I've been kicking myself since!
A few days ago, I got a surprise mail from the Edberg Foundation in Sweden saying that I had been chosen by the Board for this year's Edberg award for my work in conservation and conservation filmmaking. Subsequently a Press Release was put out in India. Following the press release, I got a call from a senior journalist from a news agency, who wanted to ask a few additional questions. Normally I'm extremely wary of telephone interviews and insist that questions be sent to me by email to enable me to give precise answers. Unfortunately that day, the gentleman caught me as I was about to go out. Also, there was a power cut and my modem was dead, so the email thing could not be done that instant.
I patiently answered all the questions in detail and, at the end of the interview, requested that the copy be mailed to me for fact checking before publication. To this the journalist insisted that he had taken copious notes and was not in the habit of making mistakes. I had to leave at that.
Horror of horrors, when the report came out, I was shocked and embarrassed to find a plethora of mistakes, major and minor. The report made me sound boastful, put words in my mouth that I had not spoken and ignored all the details I had given about important environmental campaigns of which I had only been a part. The report made out that I had done things single-handedly and implied even that important court decisions had been made on the basis of my films alone, which is rubbish.
Upon seeing the report I immediately wrote a polite email to the journalist pointing out all the errors. To his credit, he called me very soon thereafter and agreed to do another piece "in the near future" setting right all the mistakes I had pointed out. Unfortunately, once a report has been released on the web it's like a genie out of the bottle; you can't put it back. Now hundreds of websites have reproduced this report and it will stay on the net more or less forever.
I can't believe that with all my experience in dealing with the media in India, I could have made the mistake of giving a telephone interview to an unknown journalist. I've been kicking myself since!
Sunday, September 14, 2008
An astounding film
Mountain Patrol - Kekexili
If you haven't seen this film yet, I strongly recommend it. However, be warned that it is not for the faint hearted!
Gripping and poignant.
Read the review at this link http://www.beyondhollywood.com/kekexili-mountain-patrol-2004-movie-review/
Friday, August 01, 2008
An Introduction to Wildlife Filmmaking
By Shekar Dattatri
This article was written some years ago and first appeared in a small book called 'Wild Dreams, Green Screens' published by the Centre for Environment Education (CEE), Ahmedabad, India. Many people have written in saying that they found it useful, so I'm posting it here now. The article may not reflect the latest technical developments in the field such as new video formats or new sound recording equipment, but the basic techniques of the genre remain unchanged.
When you watch a good film, you get so drawn into it that you don’t usually pause to think of all the steps that would have gone into the making of it. But the truth is, filmmaking is a complex undertaking that involves a number of steps from start to finish. A good film is a perfect blend of creative ability and technical know- how. Making a wildlife or natural history film adds another layer of complexity, since the filmmaker rarely has any control over the subject. Unlike an advertisement film or a feature film, where one starts off with an extremely detailed script and storyboard, the wildlife film has to contend with the unpredictability of nature. Animals in the jungle cannot be made to perform for the camera according to one’s wishes. This does not mean that you cannot plan a wildlife film, only that the process of planning and making a wildlife film is quite different from what is involved in the making of a film involving people.
In addition to technical prowess and creative ability, the making of a good wildlife film also requires an in-depth understanding of nature. Such knowledge does not come from simply reading books or earning a degree in biology, but through years of watching and studying wildlife in its natural habitats. Indeed, the best wildlife filmmakers are invariably dedicated naturalists who have developed filmmaking skills rather than film makers who’ve decided to make films on nature.
How do wildlife films get made? What are the stages a film must go through from concept to completion? What does a team consist of and who does what? While it is not possible to describe all the processes in great detail in this article I have tried to give a fair idea of what wildlife filmmaking involves.
The process of filmmaking can be divided into three stages. Pre-production, Production and Post-Production.
I. Pre-production:
This stage precedes the commencement of filming, and includes the following activities, though not necessarily in the order mentioned:
Researching the subject thoroughly, through personal observation, reading relevant research papers and books, and interacting with knowledgeable individuals.
Contacting resource persons such as scientists, technicians and potential crew members.
Doing a recce to get a feel for the locations, meet people such as Forest Officers and local naturalists, check out logistical details such as availability of transport and accomodation, and gather other information vital to the success of the shoot.
Writing up a proposal and preparing a detailed budget.
Obtaining the funds necessary to make the film.
Obtaining the necessary permits. To work in a Wildlife Sanctuary or National Park in India it is necessary to get a permit from the Chief Wildlife Warden of the respective State).
II. Production:
This is the stage when the actual filming takes place. In the case of a one-hour natural history film the production stage can last up to two years or more depending on the degree of difficulty the subject poses. Ideally, by the time this stage commences, the filmmaker should have a rough shooting script in hand that will indicate all the different sequences that need to be obtained. For example, if you are making a film about the life history of the cobra, some of the sequences is your list would be: feeding sequence, mating sequence, egg laying sequence, hatching sequence, and so on. Under each sequence it is useful to make a detailed shot list of all the things that you would like to film to make it complete. The shot breakdown should include natural history details that will help the cinematographer make the most of it. For example:
Feeding sequence: set inside a village hut at night. Rats scurrying around inside, feeding on grain out of hole in a sack, fighting with one another; cobra enters hut through hole in the wall, crawls around house; close-ups of head and tongue flicking; different angles of cobra’s progress in search of rats; cobra and rat come face to face, cobra strikes, rat slinks away after being bitten; rat dies, cobra follows scent trail and swallows rat; different angles of the swallowing; cobra exits hut after meal. Other shots: people sleeping on the floor, oblivious to the drama; cobra crawling past sleeping people. Rat looking down from rafter at crawling snake. Point of View (POV) shots of snake and rat.
Apart from being an important mental exercise, the shooting script will also help you to schedule your shoots so that the crew can be at the right place at the right time. Even so, since luck has a major role to play in one’s success, it must be understood that many shots or sequences on the wish list or shooting script may not happen despite one’s best efforts. On the other hand, one sometimes gets to film something totally unexpected. This is fine and, depending on what you eventually get, changes in the storyline can be made during the third stage.
III. Post Production:
The post-production of a film begins once the shooting is over, and encompasses all the stages that go into the making of a finished film. Editing, scripting, graphics, music, narration, sound effects and incorporation of credits are all part of the post production process. Post-production needs the most meticulous care since this is when the raw material (the footage) gets turned into a finished product. Just like the best quality teakwood can turn into a crude piece of furniture in the hands of a sloppy carpenter, so can good footage be turned into a mediocre film through bad post-production. The post-production of an hour-long natural history film could take as long as 3 - 4 months of full time work.
The Crew:
Good films are the result of teamwork on the part of several professionals. A typical wildlife film crew would consist of the following key people.
THE PRODUCER: In the context of a wildlife film the Producer is the key person. While other members of the team may have a particular part to play at a particular stage of production or post-production it is the producer who is responsible for taking the film from concept to completion. Among the many duties of the producer are the following (these may vary from film to film):
- conceiving the idea for the film and writing the shooting script
- finding funds
- obtaining permits
- choosing the team
- doing the recces
- drawing up the production and post-production schedules and ensuring that everything
goes according to plan
- being answerable to the investors in the project at every stage of the film
Sometimes the producer could also be the cinematographer and/or editor, scriptwriter or sound recordist of the film.
THE PRODUCTION MANAGER: The production manager ‘manages’ the production by taking care of the hundred and one administrative details of a project. Keeping track of the expenditure, organizing air tickets and transport for the crew, coordinating between the various personnel on a project and organizing studio bookings for the post production are just some of the duties of this person who is, quite literally, the producer’s right arm.
THE WILDLIFE CINEMATOGRAPHER: This is the person who is responsible for turning the producer’s concept into reality; the person who will spend days, weeks, months or, even, years filming the sequences that the producer has envisioned. For projects that are vast in scope, or when time is limited, the producer may employ more than one cinematographer. Sometimes three to four cinematographers could contribute to a single film. This does not matter so long as the producer has a clear idea of the story to be told. On particularly demanding projects sometimes a producer might want specialist cinematographers to shoot certain segments of a film. For instance the film might call for ultra close-up shots of the breeding behaviour of spiders and this may require the services of a macro cinematographer. There may be other shots to be taken underwater for which the services of an experienced underwater cinematographer may be requisitioned, and so on.
Wildlife cinematographers are a special breed, and they need to be! To excel at this job you must be passionate about wildlife and love nothing more than to spend time in wild places. Without this almost fanatical love or fascination for nature, it would be impossible to do a job that requires great endurance and a capacity to bear all kinds of physical hardship cheerfully day after day. It goes without saying that filming wildlife requires enormous patience and perseverance as well – many species are notoriously difficult to film. But equally, the wildlife cinematographer must feel at one with the environment and with wild animals of every shape and size – from king cobras to elephants, from gold fish to great white sharks.
Hunting with a camera is considerably more difficult than hunting with a gun. Frightened or disturbed animals can be shot quickly with a gun, but do not make for good footage. To film wild animals behaving naturally in their environment calls for a thorough understanding of their behaviour, and the ability to approach them without causing distress. Along with this, it is important to be well versed in field craft. Animals have senses that are often superior to ours, and to outwit them requires considerable skill. Whether it is filming from a small, precarious platform high up in the forest canopy or from a well-concealed hide on the forest floor, the wildlife cinematographer must learn to become invisible when the situation requires it.
Of course, combined with all this, one must also have an artistic eye and be technically skilled. Split-second reflexes and the ability to consistently shoot beautifully composed images that are perfectly exposed, and in sharp focus, are the hallmarks of a successful wildlife cinematographer. Versatility – some wildlife cinematographers are equally proficient whether they are shooting in the rainforest or deep under the ocean – and an innovative bent of mind are other qualities that further enhance a wildlife cinematographer’s capabilities.
Wildlife cinematographers generally work by themselves most of the time since the producer may not always have the time to be in the field. Once the cinematographer is established in the location and logistical arrangements have been made the producer might leave him or her to get on with the job after a thorough briefing. Thus a producer can even work on more than one film at a time, juggling his or her time between different projects.
THE LOCATION SOUND RECORDIST: Sound for wildlife films is rarely recorded simultaneously while the scenes are being shot. Instead the sound is usually recorded separately and then edited into the film during post-production. It is rarely practical, affordable, or even, necessary, for a sound recordist on a wildlife film project to accompany the cinematographer every time. Usually, if a shoot goes on for a whole year, the sound recordist will visit the location just two or three times, for, say, 10 – 15 days each time. During these visits he or she will attempt to get good ambient sound recordings at different times of the day, and also attempt to record the calls of any animals or birds that the cinematographer has filmed, or hopes to film in the future. The producer will give the sound recordist a list of all specific sounds to record. As with photography, here too, luck has a role to play, and the recordist may not be able to capture every sound on the list. These missing sounds will then have to be recorded by other crew members, possibly even by the producer or cinematographer, in their spare time. In fact, with budgets for wildlife films shrinking, many cinematographers or producers also double up as sound recordists. Sometimes specific sounds can also be bought from a sound library.
The equipment of wildlife film making: There is a mind boggling variety of equipment available to cater to every professional filmmaking need. To start with, here are the basic requirements.
THE CAMERA: Wildlife filmmaking usually requires specialized equipment. Until recently most high quality wildlife documentaries were shot on 16mm film, particularly on a format called Super 16mm. The advantages of shooting on film are many. Colour negative film, which is what is used most of the time, has a very long shelf life. If properly preserved a roll of negative film can be stored for up to 200 years! Many historical documentaries include clips from film shot many decades ago. And in the future, footage of many rare animals could only be available from a film library. Film also has the advantage of being able to handle a wide variety of lighting conditions, and produce images that are extremely rich and true to life. Film cameras are very rugged and can withstand the extreme climatic conditions that many wildlife documentaries are shot in.
But shooting on film also has its disadvantages, and many people are switching over to video. For instance, with film, you cannot view your results immediately. The film has to be sent for processing and transfer to video tape, usually at a distant lab. By the time the cinematographer gets to see the ‘rushes’, many days, weeks or even months may have elapsed. Thus any problems with a lens or other equipment may go undetected for a while. There are other problems inherent in sending the film off for processing to a distant laboratory. Film rolls could get lost in transit, or they may be subject to heavy-duty x-rays at various airports along the way. Even a single pass through a new generation x-ray machine can cause irreversible fogging of unprocessed film.
Because of these and other reasons, Producers of high quality wildlife documentaries are now switching to hi-definition video. The image quality of these new generation cameras rivals that of 35mm film, with the added advantage that you can view what you’ve shot immediately. Since the capture medium is video tape, there is no processing involved. However hi-definition video cameras are still prohibitively expensive and it will be a few years before they come into widespread use. There are currently other, less expensive, video formats to shoot on. Digi-Beta, DV Cam, DVC Pro and Mini DV are some of the popular formats (DV stands for ‘Digital Video’). Of these, Digi-Beta is the most expensive and the Mini-DV the least expensive. For the beginner there is no better format to choose than Mini DV. Camcorders of this format are compact and relatively inexpensive. They also provide remarkably good quality picture and sound. Many travel shows and documentaries that you see on TV are shot on Mini DV. Of the many brands of Mini DV camcorders on the market, the Canon XL series (XL1, XL1s and XL2) is the most suitable for wildlife filming since it can accept interchangeable lenses. Still-camera lenses from a SLR camera can be mounted onto this camcorder through the use of special adapters.
LENSES: A natural history cinematographer needs an array of lenses to be able to capture different images in nature. Telephoto and long zoom lenses bring distant subjects closer, ‘macro’ lenses are a must for close-up filming of insects or other tiny subjects, and wide-angle lenses are useful for filming landscapes. Apart from these, there are also specialised lenses such as the Periscope, Borescope and Endoscope for specialised applications.
TRIPOD: A good tripod is one of the most important requirements for filming wildlife. All professional wildlife cinematographers use a rock-solid, heavy-duty tripod virtually at all times. The best film or video tripods provide smooth panning (side to side) and tilting (up and down) movements. These are called ‘fluid head’ tripods and are very expensive.
SOUND RECORDING EQUIPMENT: When using a film camera sound has to be recorded separately on an audio recorder. Nowadays the format of choice for field sound recording is DAT or Digital Audio Tape. A sound recordist uses a variety of different microphones to suit different situations just as a cinematographer uses different lenses. Shotgun microphones and parabolic microphones are used to home in on specific sounds, such as, for example, to isolate the song of a bird from other ambient sounds. Stereo mics are used to record general ambience, lapel mics are used for interviews with people and so on. When shooting on video, sound gets recorded simultaneously with the picture directly onto the video tape. Some camcorders have a provision to attach an external mic in place of the standard stereo mic that is provided with the camera.
WHEN THE SHOOTING STOPS: When all the filming is over, post-production begins. In this phase a whole new range of professionals get involved.
THE LOGGER: Typically, for an hour-long natural history film, about 25 hours of material would have been shot. Sifting through this enormous amount of footage to pick out the best shots would be extremely difficult without a detailed list of each and every shot. It is the logger’s job to catalogue the raw footage and categorise each shot. A log would look somewhat like this:
NAGARAHOLE LOG - ROLL NO.1:
00:00:00:00 – 00:03:05:10: WIDE SHOT OF SLOTH BEAR WALKING THROUGH FOREST
00:03:05:11 – 00:05:43:00: CLOSE-UP OF SLOTH BEAR DIGGING INTO TERMITE MOUND
00:05:43:01 – 00:08:32:05: BIG CLOSE-UP OF CLAWS DEMOLISHING MOUND
Special computer software is available for logging, using which it is easy to incorporate the logged files into the editing program.
THE EDITOR: Selecting the right shots and putting them together to form the story requires specialized skill. This is what an editor does. The editor will first view the rushes (the raw footage) several times and, directed by the producer, whittle down the material to about two hours of sequences strung together in the correct order. This is known as an assembly. Over many days or weeks, the assembly will be further shortened until it is close to the length of the finished film. This stage is known as the Rough Cut. In the final stage, the film will be cut down to the exact number of minutes and seconds required for television. This is known as the Fine Cut. When all the last-minute changes have been made on the Fine Cut, the ‘picture’ is said to be ‘locked’. This stage is known as ‘picture lock’ and no more changes are allowed to the fine cut after this stage. To reach the picture lock stage may require 10 weeks or more of editing for an hour-long natural history film.
THE SCRIPT WRITER: The scriptwriter comes into the Project at the Rough Cut stage. The producer will brief the scriptwriter on the kind of script required, and provide all the research materials, background information and list of references relevant to the subject. The writer will then take a copy of the Rough Cut and start crafting the sentences to go with the images. There is always quite a bit of interaction between the producer, the writer and the editor until the pictures and words come together in harmony, complementing each other. Writing the script for an hour long natural history film could take 4-5 weeks.
THE MUSIC COMPOSER: If the film requires music the producer will engage a composer to write the score and record the music. The composer will usually be brought in at the Rough Cut stage. Along with the producer and editor, he or she will view the rough cut to discuss where music is required in the film and what the mood should be for each musical piece. One sequence might require humorous music to make the audience laugh, another might require a melancholic tune. Over the next few days the composer will come up with rough musical ‘sketches’. The producer will listen to these rough pieces of music and suggest changes. The composer will keep fine-tuning the musical pieces but will turn the sketches into finished pieces only after the editing reaches the Picture Lock stage.
THE SOUND DESIGNER: The sound track of a natural history film is extremely important and has to be rich and multi-layered. Only when good images are combined with a dynamic sound track does the audience feel involved with the film. There is art and craft involved in designing the sound track for a film. The natural sounds gathered assiduously in the field cannot just be affixed at random onto the film. For instance it would be factually incorrect to put a recording of winter ambience on a scene depicting summer or vice versa. But there is more to it than just factual accuracy. To create a dynamic sound track each scene of the film needs many layers of sound. For example, to bring alive a scene depicting a herd of deer grazing in the forest at dawn, the sound designer may put a general early morning ambience on Track 1, add sound of jungle fowl crowing on Track 2, the sounds of a song bird recorded with a shotgun microphone on Track 3, close-up sounds of deer chomping grass on Track 4, and so on.
The sound design for a film involves not only cutting and layering the natural sounds (known as the “effects” track), but also accurate placement of the music and the recorded commentary. So you see, it’s not a simple job!
THE NARRATOR: After the picture has been fine cut, the writer will finalise the script. Once the producer is satisfied with the written words, a professional narrator will be engaged to narrate the script in sync with the picture. Choosing the right narrator and directing him or her is the producer’s job. Does the film need a man’s voice or a woman’s? Should the narration be dramatic or understated? Should it be fast-paced or languid? These are some of the creative decisions that the producer will need to make.
The artful mixing of natural effects, musical score and commentary results in a sound track that considerably enhances the impact of the images.
THE EQUIPMENT OF FILM EDITING: These days, virtually all picture and sound editing is done on computers incorporating special software developed by companies such as Avid and Adobe. These ‘non-linear’ editing systems make the process of editing as easy as word processing. With the click of a mouse, you can cut and paste and make changes to the picture or sound track, and move images or pieces of sound effortlessly. You can even get editing software that will work on your PC. In fact, armed with a Mini DV camcorder and a PC or an Apple Mac computer you can now produce professional quality films even with limited resources. But of course, having the right equipment is only useful if you’ve learnt the abc’s of filmmaking well.
Shekar Dattatri
This article was written some years ago and first appeared in a small book called 'Wild Dreams, Green Screens' published by the Centre for Environment Education (CEE), Ahmedabad, India. Many people have written in saying that they found it useful, so I'm posting it here now. The article may not reflect the latest technical developments in the field such as new video formats or new sound recording equipment, but the basic techniques of the genre remain unchanged.
When you watch a good film, you get so drawn into it that you don’t usually pause to think of all the steps that would have gone into the making of it. But the truth is, filmmaking is a complex undertaking that involves a number of steps from start to finish. A good film is a perfect blend of creative ability and technical know- how. Making a wildlife or natural history film adds another layer of complexity, since the filmmaker rarely has any control over the subject. Unlike an advertisement film or a feature film, where one starts off with an extremely detailed script and storyboard, the wildlife film has to contend with the unpredictability of nature. Animals in the jungle cannot be made to perform for the camera according to one’s wishes. This does not mean that you cannot plan a wildlife film, only that the process of planning and making a wildlife film is quite different from what is involved in the making of a film involving people.
In addition to technical prowess and creative ability, the making of a good wildlife film also requires an in-depth understanding of nature. Such knowledge does not come from simply reading books or earning a degree in biology, but through years of watching and studying wildlife in its natural habitats. Indeed, the best wildlife filmmakers are invariably dedicated naturalists who have developed filmmaking skills rather than film makers who’ve decided to make films on nature.
How do wildlife films get made? What are the stages a film must go through from concept to completion? What does a team consist of and who does what? While it is not possible to describe all the processes in great detail in this article I have tried to give a fair idea of what wildlife filmmaking involves.
The process of filmmaking can be divided into three stages. Pre-production, Production and Post-Production.
I. Pre-production:
This stage precedes the commencement of filming, and includes the following activities, though not necessarily in the order mentioned:
Researching the subject thoroughly, through personal observation, reading relevant research papers and books, and interacting with knowledgeable individuals.
Contacting resource persons such as scientists, technicians and potential crew members.
Doing a recce to get a feel for the locations, meet people such as Forest Officers and local naturalists, check out logistical details such as availability of transport and accomodation, and gather other information vital to the success of the shoot.
Writing up a proposal and preparing a detailed budget.
Obtaining the funds necessary to make the film.
Obtaining the necessary permits. To work in a Wildlife Sanctuary or National Park in India it is necessary to get a permit from the Chief Wildlife Warden of the respective State).
II. Production:
This is the stage when the actual filming takes place. In the case of a one-hour natural history film the production stage can last up to two years or more depending on the degree of difficulty the subject poses. Ideally, by the time this stage commences, the filmmaker should have a rough shooting script in hand that will indicate all the different sequences that need to be obtained. For example, if you are making a film about the life history of the cobra, some of the sequences is your list would be: feeding sequence, mating sequence, egg laying sequence, hatching sequence, and so on. Under each sequence it is useful to make a detailed shot list of all the things that you would like to film to make it complete. The shot breakdown should include natural history details that will help the cinematographer make the most of it. For example:
Feeding sequence: set inside a village hut at night. Rats scurrying around inside, feeding on grain out of hole in a sack, fighting with one another; cobra enters hut through hole in the wall, crawls around house; close-ups of head and tongue flicking; different angles of cobra’s progress in search of rats; cobra and rat come face to face, cobra strikes, rat slinks away after being bitten; rat dies, cobra follows scent trail and swallows rat; different angles of the swallowing; cobra exits hut after meal. Other shots: people sleeping on the floor, oblivious to the drama; cobra crawling past sleeping people. Rat looking down from rafter at crawling snake. Point of View (POV) shots of snake and rat.
Apart from being an important mental exercise, the shooting script will also help you to schedule your shoots so that the crew can be at the right place at the right time. Even so, since luck has a major role to play in one’s success, it must be understood that many shots or sequences on the wish list or shooting script may not happen despite one’s best efforts. On the other hand, one sometimes gets to film something totally unexpected. This is fine and, depending on what you eventually get, changes in the storyline can be made during the third stage.
III. Post Production:
The post-production of a film begins once the shooting is over, and encompasses all the stages that go into the making of a finished film. Editing, scripting, graphics, music, narration, sound effects and incorporation of credits are all part of the post production process. Post-production needs the most meticulous care since this is when the raw material (the footage) gets turned into a finished product. Just like the best quality teakwood can turn into a crude piece of furniture in the hands of a sloppy carpenter, so can good footage be turned into a mediocre film through bad post-production. The post-production of an hour-long natural history film could take as long as 3 - 4 months of full time work.
The Crew:
Good films are the result of teamwork on the part of several professionals. A typical wildlife film crew would consist of the following key people.
THE PRODUCER: In the context of a wildlife film the Producer is the key person. While other members of the team may have a particular part to play at a particular stage of production or post-production it is the producer who is responsible for taking the film from concept to completion. Among the many duties of the producer are the following (these may vary from film to film):
- conceiving the idea for the film and writing the shooting script
- finding funds
- obtaining permits
- choosing the team
- doing the recces
- drawing up the production and post-production schedules and ensuring that everything
goes according to plan
- being answerable to the investors in the project at every stage of the film
Sometimes the producer could also be the cinematographer and/or editor, scriptwriter or sound recordist of the film.
THE PRODUCTION MANAGER: The production manager ‘manages’ the production by taking care of the hundred and one administrative details of a project. Keeping track of the expenditure, organizing air tickets and transport for the crew, coordinating between the various personnel on a project and organizing studio bookings for the post production are just some of the duties of this person who is, quite literally, the producer’s right arm.
THE WILDLIFE CINEMATOGRAPHER: This is the person who is responsible for turning the producer’s concept into reality; the person who will spend days, weeks, months or, even, years filming the sequences that the producer has envisioned. For projects that are vast in scope, or when time is limited, the producer may employ more than one cinematographer. Sometimes three to four cinematographers could contribute to a single film. This does not matter so long as the producer has a clear idea of the story to be told. On particularly demanding projects sometimes a producer might want specialist cinematographers to shoot certain segments of a film. For instance the film might call for ultra close-up shots of the breeding behaviour of spiders and this may require the services of a macro cinematographer. There may be other shots to be taken underwater for which the services of an experienced underwater cinematographer may be requisitioned, and so on.
Wildlife cinematographers are a special breed, and they need to be! To excel at this job you must be passionate about wildlife and love nothing more than to spend time in wild places. Without this almost fanatical love or fascination for nature, it would be impossible to do a job that requires great endurance and a capacity to bear all kinds of physical hardship cheerfully day after day. It goes without saying that filming wildlife requires enormous patience and perseverance as well – many species are notoriously difficult to film. But equally, the wildlife cinematographer must feel at one with the environment and with wild animals of every shape and size – from king cobras to elephants, from gold fish to great white sharks.
Hunting with a camera is considerably more difficult than hunting with a gun. Frightened or disturbed animals can be shot quickly with a gun, but do not make for good footage. To film wild animals behaving naturally in their environment calls for a thorough understanding of their behaviour, and the ability to approach them without causing distress. Along with this, it is important to be well versed in field craft. Animals have senses that are often superior to ours, and to outwit them requires considerable skill. Whether it is filming from a small, precarious platform high up in the forest canopy or from a well-concealed hide on the forest floor, the wildlife cinematographer must learn to become invisible when the situation requires it.
Of course, combined with all this, one must also have an artistic eye and be technically skilled. Split-second reflexes and the ability to consistently shoot beautifully composed images that are perfectly exposed, and in sharp focus, are the hallmarks of a successful wildlife cinematographer. Versatility – some wildlife cinematographers are equally proficient whether they are shooting in the rainforest or deep under the ocean – and an innovative bent of mind are other qualities that further enhance a wildlife cinematographer’s capabilities.
Wildlife cinematographers generally work by themselves most of the time since the producer may not always have the time to be in the field. Once the cinematographer is established in the location and logistical arrangements have been made the producer might leave him or her to get on with the job after a thorough briefing. Thus a producer can even work on more than one film at a time, juggling his or her time between different projects.
THE LOCATION SOUND RECORDIST: Sound for wildlife films is rarely recorded simultaneously while the scenes are being shot. Instead the sound is usually recorded separately and then edited into the film during post-production. It is rarely practical, affordable, or even, necessary, for a sound recordist on a wildlife film project to accompany the cinematographer every time. Usually, if a shoot goes on for a whole year, the sound recordist will visit the location just two or three times, for, say, 10 – 15 days each time. During these visits he or she will attempt to get good ambient sound recordings at different times of the day, and also attempt to record the calls of any animals or birds that the cinematographer has filmed, or hopes to film in the future. The producer will give the sound recordist a list of all specific sounds to record. As with photography, here too, luck has a role to play, and the recordist may not be able to capture every sound on the list. These missing sounds will then have to be recorded by other crew members, possibly even by the producer or cinematographer, in their spare time. In fact, with budgets for wildlife films shrinking, many cinematographers or producers also double up as sound recordists. Sometimes specific sounds can also be bought from a sound library.
The equipment of wildlife film making: There is a mind boggling variety of equipment available to cater to every professional filmmaking need. To start with, here are the basic requirements.
THE CAMERA: Wildlife filmmaking usually requires specialized equipment. Until recently most high quality wildlife documentaries were shot on 16mm film, particularly on a format called Super 16mm. The advantages of shooting on film are many. Colour negative film, which is what is used most of the time, has a very long shelf life. If properly preserved a roll of negative film can be stored for up to 200 years! Many historical documentaries include clips from film shot many decades ago. And in the future, footage of many rare animals could only be available from a film library. Film also has the advantage of being able to handle a wide variety of lighting conditions, and produce images that are extremely rich and true to life. Film cameras are very rugged and can withstand the extreme climatic conditions that many wildlife documentaries are shot in.
But shooting on film also has its disadvantages, and many people are switching over to video. For instance, with film, you cannot view your results immediately. The film has to be sent for processing and transfer to video tape, usually at a distant lab. By the time the cinematographer gets to see the ‘rushes’, many days, weeks or even months may have elapsed. Thus any problems with a lens or other equipment may go undetected for a while. There are other problems inherent in sending the film off for processing to a distant laboratory. Film rolls could get lost in transit, or they may be subject to heavy-duty x-rays at various airports along the way. Even a single pass through a new generation x-ray machine can cause irreversible fogging of unprocessed film.
Because of these and other reasons, Producers of high quality wildlife documentaries are now switching to hi-definition video. The image quality of these new generation cameras rivals that of 35mm film, with the added advantage that you can view what you’ve shot immediately. Since the capture medium is video tape, there is no processing involved. However hi-definition video cameras are still prohibitively expensive and it will be a few years before they come into widespread use. There are currently other, less expensive, video formats to shoot on. Digi-Beta, DV Cam, DVC Pro and Mini DV are some of the popular formats (DV stands for ‘Digital Video’). Of these, Digi-Beta is the most expensive and the Mini-DV the least expensive. For the beginner there is no better format to choose than Mini DV. Camcorders of this format are compact and relatively inexpensive. They also provide remarkably good quality picture and sound. Many travel shows and documentaries that you see on TV are shot on Mini DV. Of the many brands of Mini DV camcorders on the market, the Canon XL series (XL1, XL1s and XL2) is the most suitable for wildlife filming since it can accept interchangeable lenses. Still-camera lenses from a SLR camera can be mounted onto this camcorder through the use of special adapters.
LENSES: A natural history cinematographer needs an array of lenses to be able to capture different images in nature. Telephoto and long zoom lenses bring distant subjects closer, ‘macro’ lenses are a must for close-up filming of insects or other tiny subjects, and wide-angle lenses are useful for filming landscapes. Apart from these, there are also specialised lenses such as the Periscope, Borescope and Endoscope for specialised applications.
TRIPOD: A good tripod is one of the most important requirements for filming wildlife. All professional wildlife cinematographers use a rock-solid, heavy-duty tripod virtually at all times. The best film or video tripods provide smooth panning (side to side) and tilting (up and down) movements. These are called ‘fluid head’ tripods and are very expensive.
SOUND RECORDING EQUIPMENT: When using a film camera sound has to be recorded separately on an audio recorder. Nowadays the format of choice for field sound recording is DAT or Digital Audio Tape. A sound recordist uses a variety of different microphones to suit different situations just as a cinematographer uses different lenses. Shotgun microphones and parabolic microphones are used to home in on specific sounds, such as, for example, to isolate the song of a bird from other ambient sounds. Stereo mics are used to record general ambience, lapel mics are used for interviews with people and so on. When shooting on video, sound gets recorded simultaneously with the picture directly onto the video tape. Some camcorders have a provision to attach an external mic in place of the standard stereo mic that is provided with the camera.
WHEN THE SHOOTING STOPS: When all the filming is over, post-production begins. In this phase a whole new range of professionals get involved.
THE LOGGER: Typically, for an hour-long natural history film, about 25 hours of material would have been shot. Sifting through this enormous amount of footage to pick out the best shots would be extremely difficult without a detailed list of each and every shot. It is the logger’s job to catalogue the raw footage and categorise each shot. A log would look somewhat like this:
NAGARAHOLE LOG - ROLL NO.1:
00:00:00:00 – 00:03:05:10: WIDE SHOT OF SLOTH BEAR WALKING THROUGH FOREST
00:03:05:11 – 00:05:43:00: CLOSE-UP OF SLOTH BEAR DIGGING INTO TERMITE MOUND
00:05:43:01 – 00:08:32:05: BIG CLOSE-UP OF CLAWS DEMOLISHING MOUND
Special computer software is available for logging, using which it is easy to incorporate the logged files into the editing program.
THE EDITOR: Selecting the right shots and putting them together to form the story requires specialized skill. This is what an editor does. The editor will first view the rushes (the raw footage) several times and, directed by the producer, whittle down the material to about two hours of sequences strung together in the correct order. This is known as an assembly. Over many days or weeks, the assembly will be further shortened until it is close to the length of the finished film. This stage is known as the Rough Cut. In the final stage, the film will be cut down to the exact number of minutes and seconds required for television. This is known as the Fine Cut. When all the last-minute changes have been made on the Fine Cut, the ‘picture’ is said to be ‘locked’. This stage is known as ‘picture lock’ and no more changes are allowed to the fine cut after this stage. To reach the picture lock stage may require 10 weeks or more of editing for an hour-long natural history film.
THE SCRIPT WRITER: The scriptwriter comes into the Project at the Rough Cut stage. The producer will brief the scriptwriter on the kind of script required, and provide all the research materials, background information and list of references relevant to the subject. The writer will then take a copy of the Rough Cut and start crafting the sentences to go with the images. There is always quite a bit of interaction between the producer, the writer and the editor until the pictures and words come together in harmony, complementing each other. Writing the script for an hour long natural history film could take 4-5 weeks.
THE MUSIC COMPOSER: If the film requires music the producer will engage a composer to write the score and record the music. The composer will usually be brought in at the Rough Cut stage. Along with the producer and editor, he or she will view the rough cut to discuss where music is required in the film and what the mood should be for each musical piece. One sequence might require humorous music to make the audience laugh, another might require a melancholic tune. Over the next few days the composer will come up with rough musical ‘sketches’. The producer will listen to these rough pieces of music and suggest changes. The composer will keep fine-tuning the musical pieces but will turn the sketches into finished pieces only after the editing reaches the Picture Lock stage.
THE SOUND DESIGNER: The sound track of a natural history film is extremely important and has to be rich and multi-layered. Only when good images are combined with a dynamic sound track does the audience feel involved with the film. There is art and craft involved in designing the sound track for a film. The natural sounds gathered assiduously in the field cannot just be affixed at random onto the film. For instance it would be factually incorrect to put a recording of winter ambience on a scene depicting summer or vice versa. But there is more to it than just factual accuracy. To create a dynamic sound track each scene of the film needs many layers of sound. For example, to bring alive a scene depicting a herd of deer grazing in the forest at dawn, the sound designer may put a general early morning ambience on Track 1, add sound of jungle fowl crowing on Track 2, the sounds of a song bird recorded with a shotgun microphone on Track 3, close-up sounds of deer chomping grass on Track 4, and so on.
The sound design for a film involves not only cutting and layering the natural sounds (known as the “effects” track), but also accurate placement of the music and the recorded commentary. So you see, it’s not a simple job!
THE NARRATOR: After the picture has been fine cut, the writer will finalise the script. Once the producer is satisfied with the written words, a professional narrator will be engaged to narrate the script in sync with the picture. Choosing the right narrator and directing him or her is the producer’s job. Does the film need a man’s voice or a woman’s? Should the narration be dramatic or understated? Should it be fast-paced or languid? These are some of the creative decisions that the producer will need to make.
The artful mixing of natural effects, musical score and commentary results in a sound track that considerably enhances the impact of the images.
THE EQUIPMENT OF FILM EDITING: These days, virtually all picture and sound editing is done on computers incorporating special software developed by companies such as Avid and Adobe. These ‘non-linear’ editing systems make the process of editing as easy as word processing. With the click of a mouse, you can cut and paste and make changes to the picture or sound track, and move images or pieces of sound effortlessly. You can even get editing software that will work on your PC. In fact, armed with a Mini DV camcorder and a PC or an Apple Mac computer you can now produce professional quality films even with limited resources. But of course, having the right equipment is only useful if you’ve learnt the abc’s of filmmaking well.
Shekar Dattatri
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wildlife Filmmaking in India
This article appeared in 'Sanctuary Asia' in February 2007
Wildlife filmmaking in India – prospects and challenges
Shekar Dattatri
March 1989, Chalakudy forest, Kerala: Standing on a ridge in the predawn darkness, perspiring and out of breath, there was no time to rest and let my heartbeat return to normal. I had another climb before me, and this one was straight up. My companions, Krishnan from the local Kadaar tribe, and volunteer field assistant, Suresh Sharma, stood silently, well used to the routine that was to follow. Setting my backpack on the ground, I turned to face the huge rainforest tree that rose up into the inky sky. My destination was a small platform 25 metres up, near its crown, where we had earlier put up a hide for filming a great pied hornbill nest. Gingerly, I put my foot on the first rung of the flimsy looking, homemade rope ladder. Although it swayed a bit, I knew it wouldn’t break under my modest weight. A torchlight hanging from my neck cast a small pool of light and, looking neither up nor down, I began the ascent carefully, focusing on one rung at a time. With no climbing equipment or safety harness, a slip could be fatal, but fear wasn’t an option. For months, my colleagues and I had hoped to find a filmable nest, and this was an opportunity not to be missed.
A female hornbill and her chick occupied the nest cavity in a tree opposite the hide. They were completely dependent upon the male to bring them food, and my climb in the dark was to ensure that he remained completely unaware of my presence. Sending my helpers away, I would sit alone in the hide the whole day, in complete silence, and climb down only after dark. This is the universal dictum of responsible wildlife filmmaking: your subject’s safety comes first.
Once on the platform, I lowered a rope threaded through a pulley to haul up whatever I would need – a heavy tripod, the backpack containing the camera, and food and water for the day. Then the wait began. Everyday, for ten days, I sat in the hide up in the treetops for what would turn out to be a 3-minute sequence in our documentary on south India’s shola forests. The film, ‘Silent Valley – an Indian rainforest’ went on to win national and international awards, and catapulted us into the rarefied world of international wildlife filmmaking. Since then, much has changed – equipment, techniques and programming styles – but one thing remains the same: it is still extraordinarily difficult to succeed as a professional wildlife filmmaker.
Making it as a wildlife filmmaker
The specialized field of natural history filmmaking has never been easy to break into, no matter what your nationality is or which country you live in. The rate of attrition is extremely high and only the most persevering and talented can even gain a foothold. The odds are even higher for Indian filmmakers, who have to contend with a host of special difficulties. To survive and grow in this profession one must gain the acceptance of reputed international channels as a producer or cameraperson. But with no support of any kind, and lacking outlets for wildlife films on Indian television, Indian filmmakers have virtually no opportunities for gaining the experience and expertise needed to compete in the highly crowded and intensely competitive international arena. Although India now has a bewildering number of homegrown television channels, none of them commission wildlife programmes, which are highly expensive and time consuming to produce. The Indian arm of the Discovery Channel and the Asian arm of the National Geographic Channel sometimes acquire films made by Indian filmmakers, but are not yet into commissioning programmes in a big way. Exorbitant government filming fees and highly restricted access to wildlife compound the problem, and are sounding the death knell for this genre of filmmaking even before it has a chance to bloom properly.
Problems aplenty
The most basic assurance that a wildlife filmmaker needs is reasonably unrestricted access to his or her subjects for extended periods of time. Without this basic assurance, no film can be planned, and no proposal can be submitted to a broadcaster. Most wildlife in India, especially the charismatic species that are attractive to television audiences, exists only in Protected Areas such as Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks, which are controlled by the government. Special permits are required for filming in PAs, and these are usually not easy to obtain. When granted, they invariably come with a whole host of restrictions. Wildlife films often take months to shoot, if not years, but the people in charge of issuing permits rarely understand this. Recently, a friend of mine who applied for permission to film in a rainforest for ten days was told that since his presence “would disturb the forest”, permission would only be granted for three days of filming! Needless to say, my friend, an experienced and dedicated naturalist, had to give up the shoot.
In the event that you manage to get permission from the government for an extended length of time, you are then faced with many field restrictions that make filming difficult, if not altogether impossible. Take the entry and exit times from PAs, for instance. The hours around sunrise and sunset are the most crucial times of the day for wildlife filmmakers because of the possibility of beautiful light and because there is often a lot of animal activity at dawn and at dusk. You need to reach the point where your subjects are before sunrise, and be there when the sun goes down. However, if you’re only allowed to enter the park at 6.00 am along with all the tourist vehicles, and have to leave the park at the same time as the tourist vehicles, you end up missing the best times of day for filming.
Hide photography is another case in point: a great deal of wildlife filmmaking happens from hides either on the ground or up in trees. Yet, getting permission to put up a hide in an Indian National Park or Sanctuary is often very difficult. The same goes for accessing areas that are off-limits to tourists, such as the core area of a National Park. So, in effect, a wildlife filmmaker in India is usually only allowed the privileges extended to ordinary tourists but, unlike the ordinary tourist, he or she has to pay a hundred or thousand times more for the same privileges.
Until the mid 90s, filming fees in PAs were fairly reasonable, often not more than a few hundred rupees a day. This meant that an independent filmmaker in possession of the right equipment could scrape together some money and spend time in the forest collecting footage, with the idea of eventually turning it into a film. This situation changed when PAs were thrown open to foreign crews with liberal budgets in dollars and pounds. This opening up happened at a time when wildlife filmmaking was at its peak internationally, and dozens of crews poured into India. As a result of this influx, almost all states hiked up park fees into the stratosphere, with no distinction made in most states between struggling Indian filmmakers and well-funded foreign filmmakers. Today, park fees across most of the country are so high that only those representing big broadcasters can afford to film in India’s PAs. Aspiring Indian filmmakers without the ‘right contacts’ can only watch in frustration from the sidelines.
The challenge of new technology
Changing technology has added to the woes of present day wildlife filmmakers. Until about 6 years ago, most wildlife films were shot on 16mm film stock. The cameras were simple and rugged, and were virtually indestructible. Even if you could not afford top of the line, new equipment, you could get by with old, used equipment. Many cameras allowed the use of still camera lenses with a lens adapter, helping to cut costs. Today, international broadcasters require programmes to be shot on Hi-Definition. The sophisticated cameras and accessories needed for this cost upwards of $100,000, putting them out of the reach of most independent filmmakers. Almost certainly, the cost of this equipment will come down with time, but, unlike film cameras, video equipment goes obsolete every three years. So, unless you have very deep pockets, or manage to hire your equipment out to other productions when you are not using it, it is impossible to think of owning such equipment. Even the rent for hi-definition cameras is extremely high at the moment – as much as Rs.25,000/per day, and this without the special lenses and accessories needed for filming wildlife! In any case, renting equipment is never practical for wildlife work because most equipment hirers in India will send two people along with the camera, and the equipment may not be available when you need it.
The road ahead
So where does all this leave the aspiring Indian wildlife filmmaker? In an extremely unfortunate state, I’m afraid! There are now more people eager to enter this field than ever before, but the challenges have never been more daunting. Even established production companies in the west are struggling to survive. During the slump of the late 90s, dozens of big name production houses had to shut shop and many veterans had to throw in the towel. Recently there has been a slight upsurge in international wildlife film production, but budgets are now lower than they were six years ago. Broadcasters no longer allow filmmakers the luxury of spending years shooting a film. Today an innovative storyline is more important than capturing unusual animal behaviour. Filmmakers are expected to produce ‘exciting’ films quickly, and on a budget that would have been laughed at a few years ago. Yet, in India, park fees keep going up, regulations are becoming tighter and wildlife scarcer. Unless there is a sea change in the policies governing wildlife filmmaking, and a drastic reduction in filming fees for Indian filmmakers, the dreams of most aspirants to this field will come to nothing. This will be a great loss, not just to the few affected individuals, but also for India. At a time when the planet is in great peril, India needs talented filmmakers to increase public appreciation for the wild wonders of our country and the ecosystems that sustain all life. Without this awareness, there can be no understanding or action.
END OF PART 1
BOX ITEM 1:
Wildlife Filmmaking – changing international trends:
This is not a chronological account of the history of wildlife filmmaking, merely a quick peek into how international trends have been changing during the last three decades.
Internationally, the UK and the USA have been the strongholds of natural history television programmes because of a vast and dedicated viewership. In the UK, the BBC has been the driving force behind natural history films, although several companies such as the famed Survival Anglia gave it stiff competition in the past. Between them, and a host of independent production companies in the two countries, natural history filmmaking was transformed into a high art form, with extraordinarily innovative techniques and breathtaking production values. The advent of rugged 16mm cameras that were compact and silent enabled wildlife cameramen and women to go out into the remotest habitats and bring back images never seen before. Filmmakers like Alan Root, Dieter Plage and Des and Jen Bartlett, among many others, pushed the boundaries of wildlife filmmaking with each production, spending years on location to capture amazing animal behaviour on film. At the same time, others, like Peter Parks, Sean Morris and their colleagues at Oxford Scientific Films, were developing astounding techniques for macro cinematography, capturing the fascinating lives of insects and other small creatures for the first time. These astonishing scenes, which we now take for granted, required specialized equipment that had to be designed from scratch and built by hand. Today, a veritable arsenal of equipment is readily available for those who can afford it – periscopes, borescopes, time slice, time lapse, motion control, night vision, incredibly long zoom lenses and ultra close-up macro lenses; but the driving force still remains the vision and dedication of the men and women who wield these tools.
Filmmakers in the west benefited immensely from the ‘competitive creativity’ that was unleashed with the popularity of the first wildlife films. Every time a new technique was showcased, someone else refined it and took it further in the next production. A highly efficient and talented fraternity developed, where information was freely shared and ideas constantly exchanged. While the cinematographers were the heroes, a vast support system evolved around them – producers, researchers, writers, specialist editors, composers, sound designers, narrators and graphic artists. This synergy, and the resulting cross-pollination of ideas, made it possible for filmmakers in the UK and the US to reach an unimaginable level of creative and technical excellence. The relatively plentiful television slots for wildlife programmes meant that literally hundreds of people could make a decent living working exclusively on natural history programmes.
Blue chip – the driving force
For decades, the mainstay of natural history on television was the so-called ‘blue chip natural history film’, which is, usually, a painstakingly crafted film about a single species or an ecosystem. Such films typically take over two years to produce, and require a huge budget. But thanks to their timeless appeal, they tend to be long-term money-spinners for the broadcasters, getting sold all over the world and being shown repeatedly.
Blue chip programmes were extremely popular until cable TV burst onto the scene in a big way. Suddenly, from requiring just a few hours of natural history programming every week, broadcasters found themselves needing many hours worth of programmes everyday, resulting in a boom in film production. But, without much more money to play with, broadcasters began spreading their resources thin. The market was soon flooded with low-budget, mediocre films, which didn’t go down well with audiences who had become used to seeing very high quality programmes. Ratings plummeted and the demand for blue chip went down, forcing many production companies to shut shop.
Enter the ‘Crocodile Hunter’
It was at this time, in the mid-90s, that a brash Australian zookeeper burst onto the scene. Steve Irwin was his name, and jumping on crocodiles was his game. Dubbed the ‘Crocodile Hunter’ his daredevil antics and his over-the-top mannerisms quickly became a big hit. Broadcasters were quick to realize that this was a win-win formula, and sensational ‘presenter-driven’ shows became the norm on wildlife television. The public, seemingly, couldn’t get enough of this brand of television, in which presenters got ‘hands-on’ with creatures great and small. Broadcasters struggling to survive got a fresh lease of life, as this new brand of programmes was relatively easy and cheap to produce, and garnered high ratings. For the price and time taken to produce one blue chip film, a broadcaster could film 3- 4 episodes of a presenter-driven programme. Blue chip became a bad word literally overnight, ending the careers of a great many giants among the wildlife filmmaking community.
Today, as with anything that becomes commonplace, the popularity of cheap presenter-driven programmes is slowly tapering off. With the advent of spectacular high definition television screens, there seems to be a move to produce new blue chip films. Whether adequate budgets will be available for a true blue chip renaissance, only time will tell. SD
BOX ITEM 2
The challenge: can Indian wildlife filmmakers compete with their counterparts in the west and ‘make it’ on the world stage?
The answer to this question is, yes, no and maybe! The good news is that there is no discrimination in this field. If you have the talent, and can deliver the goods, western broadcasters will treat you on par with their own. The bad news is that, having watched a number of films made by aspiring Indian wildlife filmmakers during the last few years, I’m dismayed by the poor quality of camerawork and the low production values. Granted, Indian filmmakers face many constraints, but there is no reason why a low-budget film should be badly shot and sloppily put together in this day and age.
Poorly made films may sometimes win awards on the strength of their powerful subject matter, but such awards rarely sway the broadcasters. The only thing that matters to them is whether they can count on you to deliver world-class films consistently, justifying their investment. During the last 25 years only a small handful Indian filmmakers have made a mark in the world of international television. With most of them on the road to retirement, there is now a space for young talent to take over. It won’t be easy, but then, it never has been.
What every commissioning editor will want to see from a newcomer is an impressive first film or show reel. Even if the footage hasn’t been shot on the most expensive format, he or she will specifically look at storytelling ability, the construction of sequences and the quality of the camerawork. Aspiring producers should somehow go out and make at least one good film, even if it’s just 10-minutes long, enter it in festivals and ensure that as many industry professionals as possible see it. Aspiring cinematographers should put together a show reel that will demonstrate their abilities and impress busy Commissioning Editors. In this highly competitive sphere, if the first three minutes of a film or the first few shots of a show reel don’t impress, there is little chance of making it further.
Wildlife filmmaking in India is not a ‘growth industry’. Given all the constraints and obstacles, only a half a dozen people can survive doing this full time. To succeed in this specialized field, one not only needs talent, natural history knowledge and aptitude, but also patience, perseverance and dogged persistence. The ones who are most like to succeed are either those who can do excellent camerawork and have a good understanding of the grammar of filmmaking, or producer/directors who have good storytelling abilities and can assemble a top class team to work with them. SD
Wildlife filmmaking in India – prospects and challenges
Shekar Dattatri
March 1989, Chalakudy forest, Kerala: Standing on a ridge in the predawn darkness, perspiring and out of breath, there was no time to rest and let my heartbeat return to normal. I had another climb before me, and this one was straight up. My companions, Krishnan from the local Kadaar tribe, and volunteer field assistant, Suresh Sharma, stood silently, well used to the routine that was to follow. Setting my backpack on the ground, I turned to face the huge rainforest tree that rose up into the inky sky. My destination was a small platform 25 metres up, near its crown, where we had earlier put up a hide for filming a great pied hornbill nest. Gingerly, I put my foot on the first rung of the flimsy looking, homemade rope ladder. Although it swayed a bit, I knew it wouldn’t break under my modest weight. A torchlight hanging from my neck cast a small pool of light and, looking neither up nor down, I began the ascent carefully, focusing on one rung at a time. With no climbing equipment or safety harness, a slip could be fatal, but fear wasn’t an option. For months, my colleagues and I had hoped to find a filmable nest, and this was an opportunity not to be missed.
A female hornbill and her chick occupied the nest cavity in a tree opposite the hide. They were completely dependent upon the male to bring them food, and my climb in the dark was to ensure that he remained completely unaware of my presence. Sending my helpers away, I would sit alone in the hide the whole day, in complete silence, and climb down only after dark. This is the universal dictum of responsible wildlife filmmaking: your subject’s safety comes first.
Once on the platform, I lowered a rope threaded through a pulley to haul up whatever I would need – a heavy tripod, the backpack containing the camera, and food and water for the day. Then the wait began. Everyday, for ten days, I sat in the hide up in the treetops for what would turn out to be a 3-minute sequence in our documentary on south India’s shola forests. The film, ‘Silent Valley – an Indian rainforest’ went on to win national and international awards, and catapulted us into the rarefied world of international wildlife filmmaking. Since then, much has changed – equipment, techniques and programming styles – but one thing remains the same: it is still extraordinarily difficult to succeed as a professional wildlife filmmaker.
Making it as a wildlife filmmaker
The specialized field of natural history filmmaking has never been easy to break into, no matter what your nationality is or which country you live in. The rate of attrition is extremely high and only the most persevering and talented can even gain a foothold. The odds are even higher for Indian filmmakers, who have to contend with a host of special difficulties. To survive and grow in this profession one must gain the acceptance of reputed international channels as a producer or cameraperson. But with no support of any kind, and lacking outlets for wildlife films on Indian television, Indian filmmakers have virtually no opportunities for gaining the experience and expertise needed to compete in the highly crowded and intensely competitive international arena. Although India now has a bewildering number of homegrown television channels, none of them commission wildlife programmes, which are highly expensive and time consuming to produce. The Indian arm of the Discovery Channel and the Asian arm of the National Geographic Channel sometimes acquire films made by Indian filmmakers, but are not yet into commissioning programmes in a big way. Exorbitant government filming fees and highly restricted access to wildlife compound the problem, and are sounding the death knell for this genre of filmmaking even before it has a chance to bloom properly.
Problems aplenty
The most basic assurance that a wildlife filmmaker needs is reasonably unrestricted access to his or her subjects for extended periods of time. Without this basic assurance, no film can be planned, and no proposal can be submitted to a broadcaster. Most wildlife in India, especially the charismatic species that are attractive to television audiences, exists only in Protected Areas such as Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks, which are controlled by the government. Special permits are required for filming in PAs, and these are usually not easy to obtain. When granted, they invariably come with a whole host of restrictions. Wildlife films often take months to shoot, if not years, but the people in charge of issuing permits rarely understand this. Recently, a friend of mine who applied for permission to film in a rainforest for ten days was told that since his presence “would disturb the forest”, permission would only be granted for three days of filming! Needless to say, my friend, an experienced and dedicated naturalist, had to give up the shoot.
In the event that you manage to get permission from the government for an extended length of time, you are then faced with many field restrictions that make filming difficult, if not altogether impossible. Take the entry and exit times from PAs, for instance. The hours around sunrise and sunset are the most crucial times of the day for wildlife filmmakers because of the possibility of beautiful light and because there is often a lot of animal activity at dawn and at dusk. You need to reach the point where your subjects are before sunrise, and be there when the sun goes down. However, if you’re only allowed to enter the park at 6.00 am along with all the tourist vehicles, and have to leave the park at the same time as the tourist vehicles, you end up missing the best times of day for filming.
Hide photography is another case in point: a great deal of wildlife filmmaking happens from hides either on the ground or up in trees. Yet, getting permission to put up a hide in an Indian National Park or Sanctuary is often very difficult. The same goes for accessing areas that are off-limits to tourists, such as the core area of a National Park. So, in effect, a wildlife filmmaker in India is usually only allowed the privileges extended to ordinary tourists but, unlike the ordinary tourist, he or she has to pay a hundred or thousand times more for the same privileges.
Until the mid 90s, filming fees in PAs were fairly reasonable, often not more than a few hundred rupees a day. This meant that an independent filmmaker in possession of the right equipment could scrape together some money and spend time in the forest collecting footage, with the idea of eventually turning it into a film. This situation changed when PAs were thrown open to foreign crews with liberal budgets in dollars and pounds. This opening up happened at a time when wildlife filmmaking was at its peak internationally, and dozens of crews poured into India. As a result of this influx, almost all states hiked up park fees into the stratosphere, with no distinction made in most states between struggling Indian filmmakers and well-funded foreign filmmakers. Today, park fees across most of the country are so high that only those representing big broadcasters can afford to film in India’s PAs. Aspiring Indian filmmakers without the ‘right contacts’ can only watch in frustration from the sidelines.
The challenge of new technology
Changing technology has added to the woes of present day wildlife filmmakers. Until about 6 years ago, most wildlife films were shot on 16mm film stock. The cameras were simple and rugged, and were virtually indestructible. Even if you could not afford top of the line, new equipment, you could get by with old, used equipment. Many cameras allowed the use of still camera lenses with a lens adapter, helping to cut costs. Today, international broadcasters require programmes to be shot on Hi-Definition. The sophisticated cameras and accessories needed for this cost upwards of $100,000, putting them out of the reach of most independent filmmakers. Almost certainly, the cost of this equipment will come down with time, but, unlike film cameras, video equipment goes obsolete every three years. So, unless you have very deep pockets, or manage to hire your equipment out to other productions when you are not using it, it is impossible to think of owning such equipment. Even the rent for hi-definition cameras is extremely high at the moment – as much as Rs.25,000/per day, and this without the special lenses and accessories needed for filming wildlife! In any case, renting equipment is never practical for wildlife work because most equipment hirers in India will send two people along with the camera, and the equipment may not be available when you need it.
The road ahead
So where does all this leave the aspiring Indian wildlife filmmaker? In an extremely unfortunate state, I’m afraid! There are now more people eager to enter this field than ever before, but the challenges have never been more daunting. Even established production companies in the west are struggling to survive. During the slump of the late 90s, dozens of big name production houses had to shut shop and many veterans had to throw in the towel. Recently there has been a slight upsurge in international wildlife film production, but budgets are now lower than they were six years ago. Broadcasters no longer allow filmmakers the luxury of spending years shooting a film. Today an innovative storyline is more important than capturing unusual animal behaviour. Filmmakers are expected to produce ‘exciting’ films quickly, and on a budget that would have been laughed at a few years ago. Yet, in India, park fees keep going up, regulations are becoming tighter and wildlife scarcer. Unless there is a sea change in the policies governing wildlife filmmaking, and a drastic reduction in filming fees for Indian filmmakers, the dreams of most aspirants to this field will come to nothing. This will be a great loss, not just to the few affected individuals, but also for India. At a time when the planet is in great peril, India needs talented filmmakers to increase public appreciation for the wild wonders of our country and the ecosystems that sustain all life. Without this awareness, there can be no understanding or action.
END OF PART 1
BOX ITEM 1:
Wildlife Filmmaking – changing international trends:
This is not a chronological account of the history of wildlife filmmaking, merely a quick peek into how international trends have been changing during the last three decades.
Internationally, the UK and the USA have been the strongholds of natural history television programmes because of a vast and dedicated viewership. In the UK, the BBC has been the driving force behind natural history films, although several companies such as the famed Survival Anglia gave it stiff competition in the past. Between them, and a host of independent production companies in the two countries, natural history filmmaking was transformed into a high art form, with extraordinarily innovative techniques and breathtaking production values. The advent of rugged 16mm cameras that were compact and silent enabled wildlife cameramen and women to go out into the remotest habitats and bring back images never seen before. Filmmakers like Alan Root, Dieter Plage and Des and Jen Bartlett, among many others, pushed the boundaries of wildlife filmmaking with each production, spending years on location to capture amazing animal behaviour on film. At the same time, others, like Peter Parks, Sean Morris and their colleagues at Oxford Scientific Films, were developing astounding techniques for macro cinematography, capturing the fascinating lives of insects and other small creatures for the first time. These astonishing scenes, which we now take for granted, required specialized equipment that had to be designed from scratch and built by hand. Today, a veritable arsenal of equipment is readily available for those who can afford it – periscopes, borescopes, time slice, time lapse, motion control, night vision, incredibly long zoom lenses and ultra close-up macro lenses; but the driving force still remains the vision and dedication of the men and women who wield these tools.
Filmmakers in the west benefited immensely from the ‘competitive creativity’ that was unleashed with the popularity of the first wildlife films. Every time a new technique was showcased, someone else refined it and took it further in the next production. A highly efficient and talented fraternity developed, where information was freely shared and ideas constantly exchanged. While the cinematographers were the heroes, a vast support system evolved around them – producers, researchers, writers, specialist editors, composers, sound designers, narrators and graphic artists. This synergy, and the resulting cross-pollination of ideas, made it possible for filmmakers in the UK and the US to reach an unimaginable level of creative and technical excellence. The relatively plentiful television slots for wildlife programmes meant that literally hundreds of people could make a decent living working exclusively on natural history programmes.
Blue chip – the driving force
For decades, the mainstay of natural history on television was the so-called ‘blue chip natural history film’, which is, usually, a painstakingly crafted film about a single species or an ecosystem. Such films typically take over two years to produce, and require a huge budget. But thanks to their timeless appeal, they tend to be long-term money-spinners for the broadcasters, getting sold all over the world and being shown repeatedly.
Blue chip programmes were extremely popular until cable TV burst onto the scene in a big way. Suddenly, from requiring just a few hours of natural history programming every week, broadcasters found themselves needing many hours worth of programmes everyday, resulting in a boom in film production. But, without much more money to play with, broadcasters began spreading their resources thin. The market was soon flooded with low-budget, mediocre films, which didn’t go down well with audiences who had become used to seeing very high quality programmes. Ratings plummeted and the demand for blue chip went down, forcing many production companies to shut shop.
Enter the ‘Crocodile Hunter’
It was at this time, in the mid-90s, that a brash Australian zookeeper burst onto the scene. Steve Irwin was his name, and jumping on crocodiles was his game. Dubbed the ‘Crocodile Hunter’ his daredevil antics and his over-the-top mannerisms quickly became a big hit. Broadcasters were quick to realize that this was a win-win formula, and sensational ‘presenter-driven’ shows became the norm on wildlife television. The public, seemingly, couldn’t get enough of this brand of television, in which presenters got ‘hands-on’ with creatures great and small. Broadcasters struggling to survive got a fresh lease of life, as this new brand of programmes was relatively easy and cheap to produce, and garnered high ratings. For the price and time taken to produce one blue chip film, a broadcaster could film 3- 4 episodes of a presenter-driven programme. Blue chip became a bad word literally overnight, ending the careers of a great many giants among the wildlife filmmaking community.
Today, as with anything that becomes commonplace, the popularity of cheap presenter-driven programmes is slowly tapering off. With the advent of spectacular high definition television screens, there seems to be a move to produce new blue chip films. Whether adequate budgets will be available for a true blue chip renaissance, only time will tell. SD
BOX ITEM 2
The challenge: can Indian wildlife filmmakers compete with their counterparts in the west and ‘make it’ on the world stage?
The answer to this question is, yes, no and maybe! The good news is that there is no discrimination in this field. If you have the talent, and can deliver the goods, western broadcasters will treat you on par with their own. The bad news is that, having watched a number of films made by aspiring Indian wildlife filmmakers during the last few years, I’m dismayed by the poor quality of camerawork and the low production values. Granted, Indian filmmakers face many constraints, but there is no reason why a low-budget film should be badly shot and sloppily put together in this day and age.
Poorly made films may sometimes win awards on the strength of their powerful subject matter, but such awards rarely sway the broadcasters. The only thing that matters to them is whether they can count on you to deliver world-class films consistently, justifying their investment. During the last 25 years only a small handful Indian filmmakers have made a mark in the world of international television. With most of them on the road to retirement, there is now a space for young talent to take over. It won’t be easy, but then, it never has been.
What every commissioning editor will want to see from a newcomer is an impressive first film or show reel. Even if the footage hasn’t been shot on the most expensive format, he or she will specifically look at storytelling ability, the construction of sequences and the quality of the camerawork. Aspiring producers should somehow go out and make at least one good film, even if it’s just 10-minutes long, enter it in festivals and ensure that as many industry professionals as possible see it. Aspiring cinematographers should put together a show reel that will demonstrate their abilities and impress busy Commissioning Editors. In this highly competitive sphere, if the first three minutes of a film or the first few shots of a show reel don’t impress, there is little chance of making it further.
Wildlife filmmaking in India is not a ‘growth industry’. Given all the constraints and obstacles, only a half a dozen people can survive doing this full time. To succeed in this specialized field, one not only needs talent, natural history knowledge and aptitude, but also patience, perseverance and dogged persistence. The ones who are most like to succeed are either those who can do excellent camerawork and have a good understanding of the grammar of filmmaking, or producer/directors who have good storytelling abilities and can assemble a top class team to work with them. SD
Endangered - Wildlife Filmmaking in India
This piece appeared in 'Tehelka' on January 27, 2007
Endangered: Wildlife Films
With Wildscreen arriving in India, Shekar Dattatri lays out the pitfalls of Indian environment filmmaking.
Wildscreen, arguably the world’s most prestigious wildlife and environmental film festival, is coming to India. Synonymous with excellence in wildlife filmmaking, the mission of the 25-year-old festival is to use the power of the moving image to promote the appreciation and conservation of our living planet. Its Panda Awards are to wildlife filmmakers what the Oscars are to the makers of feature films. In the past, most entries for the awards tended to be of the straight natural history variety, highly expensive ‘blue chip’ films that were the virtual monopoly of the UK and the US. More recently, however, a host of new categories have been introduced, where content takes precedence over production values. This has opened the field for filmmakers from countries like India, places where there’s enormous talent but where resources are slim. The success of a few Indian films at recent Wildscreens has made Indian filmmakers more aware of this festival. In the early 90s, there were usually just two or three Indian faces in the crowd. In 2004, India had the fourth largest number of delegates of all the countries represented.
This increase in numbers, however, belies the sorry state of wildlife filmmaking in the country. Not only are there no incentives for it at all, there are a vast number of obstacles that make its survival virtually impossible.
Unlike IT or biotechnology, which generate thousands of jobs, bring in huge foreign investment and provide valuable services cheap to global markets, Indian wildlife filmmaking will do none of the above, and is therefore of little or no interest to the government. Indigenous television channels too are unlikely to venture into this specialised segment, given the cost and time involved in producing such programmes. But without local outlets that pay for and broadcast fledgling productions, aspiring wildlife filmmakers don’t have a chance to hone their skills. Lacking experience, they will not be able to compete with filmmakers from the West, who have a far greater degree of access to knowledge, techniques, equipment and funding.
The other great obstacle faced by Indian wildlife filmmakers is the crippling cost of access to wildlife. All national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in India are under the control of the respective state governments, and special permits are required for filming in them. Apart from the red tape that is enough to quell most ambitions, there is no uniform policy or fee structure for filming. With the enlightened exception of one or two states, Indian wildlife filmmakers do not enjoy preferential rates for filming and have to pay the same exorbitant fees as foreign crews. A good wildlife film can take over a year to shoot, but with fees being what they are, Indian wildlife filmmakers cannot afford to spend the time needed to gather footage.
Until a few years ago, a really determined Indian filmmaker could just about scrape together enough money to buy a new or used 16mm or Digi-Beta camera and a few lenses, and either independently produce a film or get commissioned by a Western broadcaster. That era has now passed into history, with the world firmly set on the path to Hi-Definition broadcasting. To protect their considerable investments in these programmes, most Western broadcasters now only accept films shot with incredibly expensive Hi-Definition equipment, the kind most Indian filmmakers can only fantasise about owning. Yet, without one’s own camera and specialised accessories, it is almost impossible to make wildlife films. Hiring equipment from commercial rental houses is highly expensive and impractical, given the uncertain durations of shooting schedules and the hostile field conditions in which one has to operate.
In the past, a few of us managed to ‘make it’ in the highly competitive world of international television through a combination of grit, native ingenuity, talent and, often, secondhand equipment. Could I do it again if I had to start from scratch? I seriously doubt I have the financial muscle it would take.
While the Wildscreen Festival in India is extremely welcome, its potential impact on wildlife filmmaking in the country is debatable, given the general lack of interest in this genre. The most unfortunate thing is that even if the festival manages to enthuse a whole lot of young people, nothing will change until India relaxes its restrictive policies toward those producing documentaries.
Endangered: Wildlife Films
With Wildscreen arriving in India, Shekar Dattatri lays out the pitfalls of Indian environment filmmaking.
Wildscreen, arguably the world’s most prestigious wildlife and environmental film festival, is coming to India. Synonymous with excellence in wildlife filmmaking, the mission of the 25-year-old festival is to use the power of the moving image to promote the appreciation and conservation of our living planet. Its Panda Awards are to wildlife filmmakers what the Oscars are to the makers of feature films. In the past, most entries for the awards tended to be of the straight natural history variety, highly expensive ‘blue chip’ films that were the virtual monopoly of the UK and the US. More recently, however, a host of new categories have been introduced, where content takes precedence over production values. This has opened the field for filmmakers from countries like India, places where there’s enormous talent but where resources are slim. The success of a few Indian films at recent Wildscreens has made Indian filmmakers more aware of this festival. In the early 90s, there were usually just two or three Indian faces in the crowd. In 2004, India had the fourth largest number of delegates of all the countries represented.
This increase in numbers, however, belies the sorry state of wildlife filmmaking in the country. Not only are there no incentives for it at all, there are a vast number of obstacles that make its survival virtually impossible.
Unlike IT or biotechnology, which generate thousands of jobs, bring in huge foreign investment and provide valuable services cheap to global markets, Indian wildlife filmmaking will do none of the above, and is therefore of little or no interest to the government. Indigenous television channels too are unlikely to venture into this specialised segment, given the cost and time involved in producing such programmes. But without local outlets that pay for and broadcast fledgling productions, aspiring wildlife filmmakers don’t have a chance to hone their skills. Lacking experience, they will not be able to compete with filmmakers from the West, who have a far greater degree of access to knowledge, techniques, equipment and funding.
The other great obstacle faced by Indian wildlife filmmakers is the crippling cost of access to wildlife. All national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in India are under the control of the respective state governments, and special permits are required for filming in them. Apart from the red tape that is enough to quell most ambitions, there is no uniform policy or fee structure for filming. With the enlightened exception of one or two states, Indian wildlife filmmakers do not enjoy preferential rates for filming and have to pay the same exorbitant fees as foreign crews. A good wildlife film can take over a year to shoot, but with fees being what they are, Indian wildlife filmmakers cannot afford to spend the time needed to gather footage.
Until a few years ago, a really determined Indian filmmaker could just about scrape together enough money to buy a new or used 16mm or Digi-Beta camera and a few lenses, and either independently produce a film or get commissioned by a Western broadcaster. That era has now passed into history, with the world firmly set on the path to Hi-Definition broadcasting. To protect their considerable investments in these programmes, most Western broadcasters now only accept films shot with incredibly expensive Hi-Definition equipment, the kind most Indian filmmakers can only fantasise about owning. Yet, without one’s own camera and specialised accessories, it is almost impossible to make wildlife films. Hiring equipment from commercial rental houses is highly expensive and impractical, given the uncertain durations of shooting schedules and the hostile field conditions in which one has to operate.
In the past, a few of us managed to ‘make it’ in the highly competitive world of international television through a combination of grit, native ingenuity, talent and, often, secondhand equipment. Could I do it again if I had to start from scratch? I seriously doubt I have the financial muscle it would take.
While the Wildscreen Festival in India is extremely welcome, its potential impact on wildlife filmmaking in the country is debatable, given the general lack of interest in this genre. The most unfortunate thing is that even if the festival manages to enthuse a whole lot of young people, nothing will change until India relaxes its restrictive policies toward those producing documentaries.
Recommended Reading
This Review of mine appeared in 'Seminar' some months ago
A View from the Machan – How science can save the fragile predator
By K.Ullas Karanth, 153 pages, Permanent Black, 2005
According to Ullas Karanth, wild animals have dominated his consciousness ever since he can remember. His father, a well-known Kannada writer, was not only deeply interested in the natural world himself, but also lacked faith in formal education of any kind. So, until he joined high school directly at the age of 11, Karanth was free to wander the woods around their home in rural Karnataka to his heart’s content, picking up natural history skills that would prove vital years later.
Today, Karanth is a renowned wildlife scientist who has spent virtually his entire adult life actively involved in conservation. His training and single-minded dedication, combined with a gift for clear thinking, makes him a formidable voice of reason, and this collection of 13 essays an invaluable contribution to the growing body of literature on India’s wildlife and its conservation.
Karanth’s metamorphosis from amateur naturalist to wildlife scientist is both unusual and fascinating and is well documented in the first few essays of the book. After graduating from college he tried his hand at being an Engineer and, later, toiled for several years as a farmer on the outskirts of the Nagarahole forest. Wildlife was a hobby, albeit a serious one. Then, well into his thirties, he took a radical decision to abandon both vocations and train himself as a wildlife biologist. This decision was spurred by the conviction that for conservation to succeed it had to be “based on a solid foundation of modern wildlife biology”. A meeting with a delegation from the Smithsonian at the Bombay Natural History Society’s international wildlife conference in 1983 paved the way for his journey to the United States to pursue a degree in Wildlife Biology.
Since then, it is the study of the tiger that has dominated his life, and he has come to be recognized around the world for his exemplary work on the severely endangered big cat. This fascination with the ultimate predator was probably fuelled in no small measure by the shikar tales that he read as a school student, in particular, the “feverishly gripping” accounts of Kenneth Anderson. Anderson’s books of high adventure in the south Indian jungles have inspired many an Indian naturalist and Karanth too came under their spell. He got to know Anderson quite well later, and writes with admiration, affection and humour about the irascible Scot, whose enthralling stories have lost none of their shine to this day.
The first six essays in the book are in the nature of personal reminisces, written in an easy conversational style. These cover the period up to the beginning of Karanth’s study of predator-prey relationships in Nagarahole, Karnataka, in the mid-80s, and include a chapter on his close friend of nearly four decades, the courageous and steadfast Forest Range Officer, K.M.Chinnappa. The two first met in Nagarahole in the late 60s and found common ground in their passion for watching animals rather than hunting them.
Under Chinnappa’s diligent and tough stewardship, the Nagarahole that Karanth had come to know, with it’s large-scale logging and rampant poaching, gradually underwent a miraculous transformation, turning into one of Asia’s finest wildlife reserves. It was undoubtedly this transformation that made Karanth’s pioneering research here so productive for over two decades.
While the book’s first five chapters are engaging and informative, its true worth lies in its latter eight. Karanth’s incisive intellect is at work here, and he provides us with rare insights into the world of tigers, helping to dispel the fog of confusion that seems to enshroud their conservation. These essays do demand more from the reader, but they are, in my opinion, essential reading for every serious naturalist and conservationist.
Almost throughout the book Karanth highlights the need for science in conservation and decries the ‘science deficiency’ that extends to almost every aspect of wildlife management in India including, importantly, the monitoring of tigers. In the chapter ‘The many ways to count a cat’ he demolishes fundamentally faulty “home-grown” methods of monitoring wildlife populations, such as ‘waterhole census’, ‘block census’ and ‘pugmark census’, which have gained widespread acceptance because they have gone unchallenged for too long. This “pseudo-data”, according to him, then enters the public domain without going through the scientific process of peer review and publication. The result of this, he says, is that reliable, scientifically proven methods are ignored.
Wildlife conservation, he asserts, is no different in many ways to running a large and complex business enterprise. In this enterprise it is imperative that wildlife scientists be the accountants and auditors. While recognizing that “old-style natural history and field craft – the domain of traditional hunters, collectors and naturalists – still forms the backbone of modern wildlife biology” he points out that this is only valuable when brought under the framework of science. He warns that without scientifically accurate methods to measure the effectiveness of our actions, our efforts are “ bound to flounder, much like a business enterprise that carries on without ever drawing up a balance sheet”.
The last two chapters of the book are devoted to a discussion of the larger questions confronting conservation in India today. How do we define wildlife conservation? Why should we try to conserve wildlife? In these chapters Karanth argues against the “newly fashioned paradigm of ‘sustainable use’” whose proponents advocate “wise use’ of nature reserves by ‘local people”. He cites a world-wide study of wildlife hunting that concluded that most local hunting in tropical forest areas, either for the pot or for markets, is unsustainable because it is occurring at intensities way above the productivity of the targeted animal populations.
Karanth is one of the most lucid and pragmatic voices in wildlife conservation today and, in this deceptively small book, he articulates a strong case for more science in conservation. The book’s discrete chapters are extremely useful because I can see readers wanting to delve into some of the essays again and again. This is an important book that has come at a time when the tiger’s domain is besieged by numerous problems, and needs to be read by everyone who is concerned about the conservation of this “fragile predator”.
Shekar Dattatri
(The reviewer is a wildlife and conservation filmmaker)
A View from the Machan – How science can save the fragile predator
By K.Ullas Karanth, 153 pages, Permanent Black, 2005
According to Ullas Karanth, wild animals have dominated his consciousness ever since he can remember. His father, a well-known Kannada writer, was not only deeply interested in the natural world himself, but also lacked faith in formal education of any kind. So, until he joined high school directly at the age of 11, Karanth was free to wander the woods around their home in rural Karnataka to his heart’s content, picking up natural history skills that would prove vital years later.
Today, Karanth is a renowned wildlife scientist who has spent virtually his entire adult life actively involved in conservation. His training and single-minded dedication, combined with a gift for clear thinking, makes him a formidable voice of reason, and this collection of 13 essays an invaluable contribution to the growing body of literature on India’s wildlife and its conservation.
Karanth’s metamorphosis from amateur naturalist to wildlife scientist is both unusual and fascinating and is well documented in the first few essays of the book. After graduating from college he tried his hand at being an Engineer and, later, toiled for several years as a farmer on the outskirts of the Nagarahole forest. Wildlife was a hobby, albeit a serious one. Then, well into his thirties, he took a radical decision to abandon both vocations and train himself as a wildlife biologist. This decision was spurred by the conviction that for conservation to succeed it had to be “based on a solid foundation of modern wildlife biology”. A meeting with a delegation from the Smithsonian at the Bombay Natural History Society’s international wildlife conference in 1983 paved the way for his journey to the United States to pursue a degree in Wildlife Biology.
Since then, it is the study of the tiger that has dominated his life, and he has come to be recognized around the world for his exemplary work on the severely endangered big cat. This fascination with the ultimate predator was probably fuelled in no small measure by the shikar tales that he read as a school student, in particular, the “feverishly gripping” accounts of Kenneth Anderson. Anderson’s books of high adventure in the south Indian jungles have inspired many an Indian naturalist and Karanth too came under their spell. He got to know Anderson quite well later, and writes with admiration, affection and humour about the irascible Scot, whose enthralling stories have lost none of their shine to this day.
The first six essays in the book are in the nature of personal reminisces, written in an easy conversational style. These cover the period up to the beginning of Karanth’s study of predator-prey relationships in Nagarahole, Karnataka, in the mid-80s, and include a chapter on his close friend of nearly four decades, the courageous and steadfast Forest Range Officer, K.M.Chinnappa. The two first met in Nagarahole in the late 60s and found common ground in their passion for watching animals rather than hunting them.
Under Chinnappa’s diligent and tough stewardship, the Nagarahole that Karanth had come to know, with it’s large-scale logging and rampant poaching, gradually underwent a miraculous transformation, turning into one of Asia’s finest wildlife reserves. It was undoubtedly this transformation that made Karanth’s pioneering research here so productive for over two decades.
While the book’s first five chapters are engaging and informative, its true worth lies in its latter eight. Karanth’s incisive intellect is at work here, and he provides us with rare insights into the world of tigers, helping to dispel the fog of confusion that seems to enshroud their conservation. These essays do demand more from the reader, but they are, in my opinion, essential reading for every serious naturalist and conservationist.
Almost throughout the book Karanth highlights the need for science in conservation and decries the ‘science deficiency’ that extends to almost every aspect of wildlife management in India including, importantly, the monitoring of tigers. In the chapter ‘The many ways to count a cat’ he demolishes fundamentally faulty “home-grown” methods of monitoring wildlife populations, such as ‘waterhole census’, ‘block census’ and ‘pugmark census’, which have gained widespread acceptance because they have gone unchallenged for too long. This “pseudo-data”, according to him, then enters the public domain without going through the scientific process of peer review and publication. The result of this, he says, is that reliable, scientifically proven methods are ignored.
Wildlife conservation, he asserts, is no different in many ways to running a large and complex business enterprise. In this enterprise it is imperative that wildlife scientists be the accountants and auditors. While recognizing that “old-style natural history and field craft – the domain of traditional hunters, collectors and naturalists – still forms the backbone of modern wildlife biology” he points out that this is only valuable when brought under the framework of science. He warns that without scientifically accurate methods to measure the effectiveness of our actions, our efforts are “ bound to flounder, much like a business enterprise that carries on without ever drawing up a balance sheet”.
The last two chapters of the book are devoted to a discussion of the larger questions confronting conservation in India today. How do we define wildlife conservation? Why should we try to conserve wildlife? In these chapters Karanth argues against the “newly fashioned paradigm of ‘sustainable use’” whose proponents advocate “wise use’ of nature reserves by ‘local people”. He cites a world-wide study of wildlife hunting that concluded that most local hunting in tropical forest areas, either for the pot or for markets, is unsustainable because it is occurring at intensities way above the productivity of the targeted animal populations.
Karanth is one of the most lucid and pragmatic voices in wildlife conservation today and, in this deceptively small book, he articulates a strong case for more science in conservation. The book’s discrete chapters are extremely useful because I can see readers wanting to delve into some of the essays again and again. This is an important book that has come at a time when the tiger’s domain is besieged by numerous problems, and needs to be read by everyone who is concerned about the conservation of this “fragile predator”.
Shekar Dattatri
(The reviewer is a wildlife and conservation filmmaker)
Honey Hunters in the Nilgiris
This review appeared in 'The Hindu' in November last year
Of Honey Hunters and their Habitat
Honey Trails in the Blue Mountains:
Keystone Foundation
Post Box 35, Groves Hill Road
Kotagiri – 643217. Rs.395.
Shekar Dattatri
Having evolved over millions of years, the Western Ghats are a treasure trove of biodiversity and have been recognized as an ecological ‘hot spot’ of global significance. The altitudinal gradient of the mountains, combined with their orientation to the monsoons, has led to the evolution of a wide variety of interconnected ecosystems that range from scrub jungle in the rain shadow regions to moist evergreen forests on the rain drenched slopes and, at the very top, montane shola forests nestled in the folds of undulating grasslands. This varied habitat mosaic is home to over 4000 plant species, and an extraordinary variety of creatures great and small, including elephant, tiger, Nilgiri tahr and lion tailed macaque. It is also home to many indigenous adivasi communities, who lived in traditional equilibrium with the land until the influx of hundreds of thousands of people from the plains during the last few decades.
The adivasis now eke out a living as daily labour on estates and plantations, and by collecting Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) for supply to markets. One of the most important NTFPs from the hill forests is honey, with which virtually all the indigenous communities here have deep-rooted cultural connections. ‘Honey Trails in the Blue Mountains’ chronicles these connections, whilst providing us with a larger picture of the region.
A labour of love
Since 1995, Keystone Foundation, a Non Governmental Organization, has been working with the adivasi communities in the Nilgiris to document their traditional knowledge, particularly, of bees and honey. The book under review is, according to the authors, the result of three years of work on their ‘Honey Hunters of the Western Ghats’ Programme, which was supported by the IUCN – Netherlands Committee. The data collected, and insights gathered, during this period have been compiled into a valuable reference book for all those who are interested in the ecology, anthropology and land use of this region. The book focuses its attention on the 5520 sq. km. block of landscape known as the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR), which straddles the three south India states of Tamilnadu, Kerala and Karnataka.
The book is divided into two sections and is illustrated with colour and black and white photographs, maps and line drawings. The first section gives a broad overview of the Biosphere Reserve, including its ecology, people, NTFPs and livelihood issues. The second section delves into each of the nine eco-regions that make up the NBR, and provides an analysis of their ecology, economy and land use patterns. The chapters contain interesting and useful nuggets of information in the form of many tables that provide details of NTFPs collected, major honey zones in the Nilgiris and major nesting trees for bees. There are also numerous boxes that recount adivasi lore and go into a bit of extra detail about the honey collection practices of particular tribes. Six annexures at the end provide information on a range of subjects, including geology and soils, endemic species and forest classification. However, an index would have been useful, as also, captions for all the photographs. The legends and place names on some of the maps are so tiny as to be unreadable and this needs fixing. Hopefully, these minor problems will be rectified in the next edition.
Fresh impetus needed
Designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 1986 under the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme, the goal of the NBR is to conserve genetic diversity of species, restore degraded ecosystems to their natural conditions, provide baseline data for ecological and environmental research and education, and function as an alternative model for sustainable development. Sadly, lacking collective vision on the part of the three states, little has happened in the last two decades to further these objectives. This book will hopefully provide a fresh impetus to meet these objectives, as it brings together varied streams of information into one handy volume, and could serve as a launch pad for further investigation and action. ‘Honey Trails in the Blue Mountains’ is an important work that deserves to be read widely, particularly, by decision makers, and all those who have a role to play in the NBR.
Here's the original link: http://www.thehindu.com/br/2007/11/20/stories/2007112050021400.htm
Of Honey Hunters and their Habitat
Honey Trails in the Blue Mountains:
Keystone Foundation
Post Box 35, Groves Hill Road
Kotagiri – 643217. Rs.395.
Shekar Dattatri
Having evolved over millions of years, the Western Ghats are a treasure trove of biodiversity and have been recognized as an ecological ‘hot spot’ of global significance. The altitudinal gradient of the mountains, combined with their orientation to the monsoons, has led to the evolution of a wide variety of interconnected ecosystems that range from scrub jungle in the rain shadow regions to moist evergreen forests on the rain drenched slopes and, at the very top, montane shola forests nestled in the folds of undulating grasslands. This varied habitat mosaic is home to over 4000 plant species, and an extraordinary variety of creatures great and small, including elephant, tiger, Nilgiri tahr and lion tailed macaque. It is also home to many indigenous adivasi communities, who lived in traditional equilibrium with the land until the influx of hundreds of thousands of people from the plains during the last few decades.
The adivasis now eke out a living as daily labour on estates and plantations, and by collecting Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) for supply to markets. One of the most important NTFPs from the hill forests is honey, with which virtually all the indigenous communities here have deep-rooted cultural connections. ‘Honey Trails in the Blue Mountains’ chronicles these connections, whilst providing us with a larger picture of the region.
A labour of love
Since 1995, Keystone Foundation, a Non Governmental Organization, has been working with the adivasi communities in the Nilgiris to document their traditional knowledge, particularly, of bees and honey. The book under review is, according to the authors, the result of three years of work on their ‘Honey Hunters of the Western Ghats’ Programme, which was supported by the IUCN – Netherlands Committee. The data collected, and insights gathered, during this period have been compiled into a valuable reference book for all those who are interested in the ecology, anthropology and land use of this region. The book focuses its attention on the 5520 sq. km. block of landscape known as the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (NBR), which straddles the three south India states of Tamilnadu, Kerala and Karnataka.
The book is divided into two sections and is illustrated with colour and black and white photographs, maps and line drawings. The first section gives a broad overview of the Biosphere Reserve, including its ecology, people, NTFPs and livelihood issues. The second section delves into each of the nine eco-regions that make up the NBR, and provides an analysis of their ecology, economy and land use patterns. The chapters contain interesting and useful nuggets of information in the form of many tables that provide details of NTFPs collected, major honey zones in the Nilgiris and major nesting trees for bees. There are also numerous boxes that recount adivasi lore and go into a bit of extra detail about the honey collection practices of particular tribes. Six annexures at the end provide information on a range of subjects, including geology and soils, endemic species and forest classification. However, an index would have been useful, as also, captions for all the photographs. The legends and place names on some of the maps are so tiny as to be unreadable and this needs fixing. Hopefully, these minor problems will be rectified in the next edition.
Fresh impetus needed
Designated as a Biosphere Reserve in 1986 under the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme, the goal of the NBR is to conserve genetic diversity of species, restore degraded ecosystems to their natural conditions, provide baseline data for ecological and environmental research and education, and function as an alternative model for sustainable development. Sadly, lacking collective vision on the part of the three states, little has happened in the last two decades to further these objectives. This book will hopefully provide a fresh impetus to meet these objectives, as it brings together varied streams of information into one handy volume, and could serve as a launch pad for further investigation and action. ‘Honey Trails in the Blue Mountains’ is an important work that deserves to be read widely, particularly, by decision makers, and all those who have a role to play in the NBR.
Here's the original link: http://www.thehindu.com/br/2007/11/20/stories/2007112050021400.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
