here's my review of Disney's new documentary, "Earth" -- very impressive!
And not too scary for the kids (ie, no bloody scenes).

on my site:
http://www.frederica.com/writings/earth.html

and on Christianity Today Movies:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2009/earth.html


***************

Earth

Deck: Glorious nature cinematography tracks three animal families over the
course of a year.

Stars: 4

Rated: G

Genre:  Documentary

Theater Release: April 22, 2009; DisneyNature

Directed by: Alistair Fothergill, Mark Linfield

Runtime: 85 min

Cast: James Earl Jones (narrator)



Earth

By Frederica Mathewes-Green



“Earth,” the first release from the Disneynature films, lives up to its
publicity; this film is 85 minutes of jaw-droppingly beautiful clouds,
waterfalls, icebergs, and savannahs; of graceful animals, scary animals,
funny animals, and excruciatingly cute baby animals. James Earl Jones
delivers a narration that is mild and accessible to children. (A typical
line: after a shot of a penguin sliding on his belly, Jones says, “You might
not know this, but penguins are one of the few creatures born with a
built-in toboggan.”) It reopens the tradition of Disney nature
documentaries, as in the “True Life Adventures” films of 1948-1960, and a
better family-friendly nature film can’t be found.



I know how enrapturing travel documentaries can be; after viewing one
in 5thgrade, I came home and told my mother that I really, really
wanted to go see
New Jersey, the Garden State. What makes “Earth” different from all previous
documentaries, however, is the advances in technology which enable
never-before-possible footage. A Cineflex mount that holds a camera steady
underneath a helicopter (collectors of odd words will be delighted to hear
it’s called a “Heligimbal”) made it possible to film sequences that would be
otherwise inaccessible to, or unsafe for, humans. A scene of wolves hunting
caribou, for instance, was filmed from above, one kilometer away. The
Heligimbal also enables a dizzying shot in which the audience is carried
over the edge of a waterfall and then looks back at it, head-downward. That
kind of thing, I have to admit, puts New Jersey in the shade.



The film is the work of Alistair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, both of whom
have worked in the BBC’s Natural History Unit (Fothergill was its head from
1992-1998). Some filmgoers have noticed that they’ve seen some of this
footage before, in the BBC-Discovery Channel miniseries called “Planet
Earth”. At a press conference following the screening, Fothergill explained
that the movie and TV projects were commissioned at the same time, and some
material appears in both, though employed to tell different stories. It took
five years to complete filming, with 2000 days in the field. An audience
member asked whether Fothergill and Linfield had to do much editing. The
answer was yes.



“Earth” is structured around the migrations of three animal families: a
polar bear and cubs, an elephant and calf, and a humpback whale and her
milk-guzzling baby (150 gallons a day). Each family must migrate in search
of food (or, in the case of the elephants, water), and each faces danger
along the way. There are poignant moments; a dust cloud descends upon the
elephants, and when it lifts one calf is seen all alone, still following his
mother’s footprints, but now going in the wrong direction. Yet, while never
denying the harsh truths of the “circle of life,” the film does not include
bloody scenes of slaughter. We see a cheetah race toward its prey, a young
deer-like creature, and as it draws closer the little one stumbles and
cannot regain his footing. The cheetah overtakes the deer, surrounding it in
an embrace that looks balletic and almost tender. At that moment the camera
cuts away, and every parent in the audience stifled a cheer.



That sort of delicacy is deliberate, according to co-director Mark Linfield:
“If any parents at all thought that they couldn’t bring their children to
see this, because we’d put a little bit of blood in there, that would be a
shame.” After all, we can come to see that nature must be “red in tooth and
claw” without having to see it full-screen. After rooting for one creature
or another to survive throughout the film, we are confronted at the end with
a dilemma that has no obvious resolution. We don’t want the polar bear, whom
the narrator calls “Dad”, to die of starvation, yet we don’t want him to
succeed in killing a walrus pup either. The ambivalence the audience
experiences at this point is instructive; we grasp, quietly and surely, that
earthly life is compelled to subsist on death. Yet when the moment of truth
came, it was depicted so subtly that I didn’t at first catch what had
transpired. Well done!



Another tech advance is a super-slow-motion movie camera. Think this through
with me: when running at regular speed, a movie camera takes 24 still photos
(frames) per second; that’s the point at which the human eye links together
still images so that they appear as continuous motion. It’s easy to do fast
motion; just delete some of the frames. Some early movie cameras ran at less
than 24 frames per second, which is why those old movies look jittery.



Slow motion, on the other hand, is harder; it requires *more* shots than 24
per second. The camera must fill the desired time with a greater number of
still photos, so it must take them very fast, and the possible speed of such
cameras has gradually edged upward over the decades. The makers of “Earth”
used cameras that can shoot 1000 frames per second, permitting action to be
slowed down *40 times*. When a Great White shark shoots out of the water,
the leap lasts mere seconds; in the movie we see an astounding display as
the shark lifts its entire body out of the water and appears to linger in
the air.



The movie concludes after the polar bear-walrus cub dilemma, with a montage
of beautiful and exuberant clips, all depicting the world’s creatures
reveling in their habitats.  The last line of narration is, “Yes, it’s full
of harsh realities, but somehow it’s just—paradise.” Some viewers have been
disappointed that the film doesn’t speak more explicitly of global warming
or environmental damage. An audience member at the screening told the
directors, “The world originally was paradise, but it certainly isn’t any
more.”



Alistair Fothergill responded that, while other documentaries have addressed
these questions, he and his co-director believe “people come to the cinema
to be entertained, to be amused, to escape. …It has a subtle environmental
message, and a lot of people who have seen the movie have said, ‘We’ve come
out inspired.’ I think there’s quite a strong argument that, how can people
be expected to care if they’re not inspired? … These wildernesses are still
there, these animals are still out there, and I think that if we expect
people to care, and if we expect them to change the way they behave, they
need to know what they’re preserving. What you’ve just seen is what we think
is worth caring for.” Hear, hear!




Talk About It



1. How did you feel when the polar bear was trying to attack the walrus pup?
Did you root for one side or the other? Why do we have a world where some
creatures must kill to stay alive?



2. Did you see anything in this movie (whether animal or landscape) that was
brand-new to you, that you had never seen before? How did it make you feel?



3. Was the lack of direct comment on the environment in this movie
irresponsible on the part of the directors?



4. Many of the beautiful images in this film induce awe and gratitude to
God. But is the beauty really out there, or is it just an interpretation we
humans place on things? Animals don’t seem to notice the beauty around them.
Why do we?





The Family Corner



There is much to delight children of any age, and no bloody scenes. However,
we do see some animals in great danger, and in some cases can conclude that
they died. Some children might find that distressing; know your kid.


-- 
********
Frederica Mathewes-Green
www.frederica.com
_______________________________________________
Frederica-l mailing list
*** Please address all replies to: frederic...@gmail.com ***
You can check your subscription information here:
http://lists.ctcnet.net/mailman/listinfo/frederica-l

Reply via email to