For the Love of Penguins
Luc Jacquet's March of the Penguins is a visual feast. The exotic setting of Antarctica ensures the feast is rich: from the white snow covering every centimetre of ground; to the turquoise of looming icebergs, whose sharp edges are set against a clear sky; to the striking emperor penguins with their sartorially elegant 'suits' of black tails, white shirts, and swirling orange collars.
However, one thing troubled me about the film. It's a feature that is common to Hollywood films with animals as subjects, namely that the animals are often portrayed as if they were humans--i.e. they are anthropomorphised.
My suspicions were raised in the first few minutes of the film when narrator Morgan Freeman announced this was a love story. The 'love' angle is played out by shots of male and female parnters caressing each other and by the emphasis on their being monogamous. Note: the sole mate is kept for one season only--come next season, the field is entirely open.
The Weekend Australian carried a thoughtful piece by Imre Salusinszky on the film ("Rear View", Review p. 40). His question in the third-from-last paragraph is on the money:
Salusinszky is also right to draw attention to the staggering devotion of Jacquet and his team to their subject--filming in minus 80 degrees celsius being just one example of this. Although I can't go the whole way with his conclusion that this film is about the unique, grand love of humans for nature. Spending a year or two to make a doco seems more an act of artistic adoration (worship?) than love.
Yet this still leaves me with a question: if it's misleading to portray the love of animals for their own as completely like the love of humans for one another, then what is the nature of animal affection? When a bitch feeds her pups or when a hen broods over her chicks, what sort of love is this?
Any biologists out there--or well-informed non-biologists--who can inform me?
However, one thing troubled me about the film. It's a feature that is common to Hollywood films with animals as subjects, namely that the animals are often portrayed as if they were humans--i.e. they are anthropomorphised.My suspicions were raised in the first few minutes of the film when narrator Morgan Freeman announced this was a love story. The 'love' angle is played out by shots of male and female parnters caressing each other and by the emphasis on their being monogamous. Note: the sole mate is kept for one season only--come next season, the field is entirely open.
The Weekend Australian carried a thoughtful piece by Imre Salusinszky on the film ("Rear View", Review p. 40). His question in the third-from-last paragraph is on the money:
If the parents can abandon their children, confused and shivering on the edge of the Ross Sea, isn't the story of March of the Penguins more one of self-sacrifice to preserve the genetic inheritance than of anything we might call love?
Salusinszky is also right to draw attention to the staggering devotion of Jacquet and his team to their subject--filming in minus 80 degrees celsius being just one example of this. Although I can't go the whole way with his conclusion that this film is about the unique, grand love of humans for nature. Spending a year or two to make a doco seems more an act of artistic adoration (worship?) than love.Yet this still leaves me with a question: if it's misleading to portray the love of animals for their own as completely like the love of humans for one another, then what is the nature of animal affection? When a bitch feeds her pups or when a hen broods over her chicks, what sort of love is this?
Any biologists out there--or well-informed non-biologists--who can inform me?
posted by Sauntering Walker at 1:13 PM
4 Comments:
Compare human love and penguin love. Can a penguin choose a lover based on compatibility of personality? Can a penguin make a decision to be celibate? Can a penguin respect its partner?
Despite all appearances, it seems that human love is an intensely cerebral process, requiring all sorts of abstraction (do I really love her?), self-restraint (I love her, so I won't fool around with you), self-awareness (I'm in love!) and extrapolation (she said this, but what does she really mean?) of which animals are simply incapable.
What we do share with some animals is instinctive love, if it can be called a "love", to protect and nurture our offspring. But because we're sentient, we can overlay that instinct with a plethora of higher, more abstract loves, such as pride in the achievments of an adept child, or loving discipline for a naughty child.
Perhaps it's because the roots of instinct are the same that we are able to anthropomorphise penguin parenthood so easily.
Thanks Bland, your comments are very helpful. One thing that springs to mind as I think of the abstractions you mention is all the mis-understandings and mis-communication that 'love' involves. Clearly, we're not yet perfect 'abstracters'!
I think the "roots of instinct" could be a separate, tortuous subject in itself.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." (Matt 23:37)
Interesting that Jesus chose an animal simile to describe His passionate (and unrequited) love for His people!
Anyway, regarding whether animals can 'love'...
Sometimes I think my dog (a kelpie/german shepherd) loves us - her family. When one of us is hurt or upset, she knows it.. and tries to shower us with kisses as if in an attempt to fix the problem! (e.g. one time my sister slipped down the stairs and was badly winded. Even though she couldn't make a sound, the dog knew she was hurt and was fussing over her and whining etc).
Other times she's just downright affectionate (although it could just be that she suspects that's a good way for her to get affection from us).
But then, if it's true that domestic dogs believe their human family to be their 'pack', then trying to look after us or strengthen her relationship with us could be merely springing from a survival instinct afterall?.. albeit somewhat misplaced!
Cheers Deb.
Humans' affection for their pets is obvious (a bit too obvious sometimes, I think). And, yes, as you say, no doubt pets return their owners' affection.
Both seem fair enough given that God made humans to have a special relationship with creation, which includes animals.
It's when I try to understand animals' part in this relationship or their relationship with one another that I feel I as though I'm swimming in deep and murky water.
Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home