nature kick

I went up to Purchase to watch Chester graduate with my family. Someone has a DVD set of "Planet Earth" - the BBC documentary series. Of course it is completely amazing. I remember that the EPN was on a nature-kick for a while, and anyway, I've got to say that this should be required viewing...

There are two main things I was thinking about while watching. The first, and much less universally significant, but interesting to me as an artist, is how this documentary is given dramatic structure that seems influenced by hollywood conventions. Each story in the series is turned into the conventional storytelling arc, with a clear problem that leads to a climax - sometimes this is just a dressing-up of a story that was really playing out in front of the cameras, but at other times it is artificially constructed - even if remaining true to the reality of the situation. This injection of entertainment value is accomplished through narration, the sheer wealth of raw footage available to the editors which allows them to use hollywood conventions such as the establishing shot and extreme close-ups to accentuate emotional reactions, and the anthropomorphization of the animals - although one of the profound lessons of this series is that much animal life is as complicated socially as our own so perhaps this is more of a reverse anthropomorphosis - an animalization of humanity? (This also lead me to think about how much of my exposure to animals has been to that of the cartoon variety, a symptom of a larger cultural phenomenon - that we are attracted to "cute" animals - kudos to the show for actually discussing these issues in the last episodes). The most obvious method used to dramaticize the show is the sound - both through a sound track that ranges from symphonic cry-fests to creepadelic contemporary noise experiments - it never drops to the level of grand kitch, but it comes rather close. The foley - the addition of sound effects that mimic the real sounds - also has been given deep attention and is particularly effective. These add up to create an artificially-constructed plot that seems simultaneously more real and more fictional than less expensively produced nature shows (this effort by the BBC is said to be the most expensive of it's kind). This raises a larger question, one that I am always dealing with, which is that fantasy is a huge part of our everyday life. People can't observe things without incorporating them into the grand story of their life or constructing eleaborate fantasies about what is happening. Anthropomorphization is one aspect of this primal urge, but our self-conception is as well, a conclusion I've read over and over again from neuroscientists, and zen teachers and experienced directly myself while observing my own mind (and yes it's obvious I've not get gotten through). I discussed some of these ideas with Chester, who was particularly aware of what the producers were doing with sound, and I would not have noticed these things if it were not for him.

The other thing that was on my mind of course is the environmental destruction humans have caused. If anyone can watch this doucumentary and not feel this lesson at a profound level, then I don't understand how they think at all (not that I don't respect them and want to understand how they think, but just that I can't empathize with someone who thinks so differently than I do and a lot of explaining would be required). I'm a person who doesn't put my faith in any idea very easily, and I tend to dwell in the details of how to understand day to day life rather than point our grand truths about "why" questions that may be interpretated morally, but it is impossible for me not to interpret the ideas in this show as anything less than a grand injunction to not destroy the environment. In the episode "ice worlds" there is a story about a polar bear that is so overwhelmingly heartbreaking that I can't stop thinking about it. But my interpretation of the situation leads me a more profoundly upsetting idea - the polar bear is starving and desperately needs to find food or he'll die. For him, food is a baby walrus, but the baby walrus doesn't want to die either and the walruses fight back with all their power. What is nature but an endless cycle of struggling and death? What caused chemicals on this planet to line up to form these complicated things that have feelings and desires and that don't want to die? Where does that desire come from? Is there any alternative? What can be done about the neverending cycle of desire and suffering? And specifically, what about my role in it? Why do I feel so sad about it? What is that sadness? Am I morally responsible? What does it mean to be morally responsible? It seems as though action is required, right? What actions can I take? Or are actions insignificant - would it really make a difference if the polar bear situation had a different ending? If so, why didn't the film crew intervene? If this is not where the true significance lies, what about the fate of an entire species? Is this any different or is it just a change in magnetude? What about my fate? What about my life is any different from the polar bear's life? Is it possible to stop the cycle just inside myself? Or is the urge to stop it just a part of its continuation? Is focusing on myself approaching the solution to the problem, or is it misled - just part of the continuation of environmental destruction through apathy? Is the true solution external? Taking action? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they are important. I'm pretty sure that these questions were not raised directly in the show, but they were highlighted in my mind by the show and so I must say that this show is truly meaningful and may be one of the great art pieces of our time.

I am having a lot of trouble sleeping lately - I can bearly type - so forgive me if this post is a little wild. But with these impossible questions sometimes it is difficult to think clearly. The mind can seems pretty wimpy and get all scattered and full of holes. I think this is somewhat similar to thinking about the solution of a koan - any impossible questions will do, but koans are impossible questions that at first glance appear insignificant and uninteresting, whereas the questions "Planet Earth" led me to ask myself are obviously relevant and would seem to have some kind of practical or logical solution that requires action. But perhaps this is wrong. A koan can lead to enlightenment, but maybe the kind of impossible question that's been on my mind leads to something else...