From Kearton to Attenborough: Fashioning the Telenaturalist's Identity

See for example Bousé Derek , Wildlife films (Philadelphia, 2000); Jeffries Michael , “BBC natural history versus science paradigms”, Science as culture, xii (2003), 2003–45; Dingwall Robert Aldridge Meryl , “Television wildlife programming as a source of popular scientific information: A case study of evolution”, Public understanding of science, xv (2006), 2006–52.

Bloor David , Knowledge and social imagery (Chicago and London, 1991), 5.

Bloor David , “Anti-Latour”, Studies in the history and philosophy of science, xxx (1999), 81–112, p. 84.

Golinski Jan , Making natural knowledge (Cambridge, 1998), 7.

Secord James , “Knowledge in transit”, Isis, xcv (2004), 654–72; see also Whitley Richard , “Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics”, in Shinn T. Whitley R. (eds), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation (Dordrecht, 1985), 3–28.

Latour Bruno Woolgar Steve , Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (Princeton, NJ, 1986).

McKechnie Rosemary , “Insiders and outsiders: Identifying experts on home ground”, in Irwin A. Wynne B. (eds), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (Cambridge, 1996), 191–212, p. 129.

McKechnie , “Insiders and outsiders” (ref. 7).

Gieryn Thomas , “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”, American sociological review, xlviii (1983), 781–95.

Yearley Steven , “Nature's advocates: Putting science to work in environmental organisations”, in Irwin Wynne (eds), Misunderstanding Science? (ref. 7), 172–90.

Latour Bruno , Science in action (Cambridge, MA, 1987), 103–8.

Wynne Brian , “Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science”, in Irwin Wynne (eds), Misunderstanding science? (ref. 7), 19–46.

Biagioli Mario , Galileo, courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism (Chicago, 1993); Shapin Steven , A social history of truth (Chicago, 1994); Morus Iwan R. , Frankenstein's children: Electricity, exhibition, and experiment in early nineteenth-century London (Princeton, 1998); Morus Iwan R. , “Seeing and believing science”, Isis, xcvii (2006), 2006–10.

Biagioli , op. cit. (ref. 13), 3.

Golinski , op. cit. (ref. 4), 62.

Morus , “Seeing and believing” (ref. 13).

Nadis Fred , Wonder shows: Performing science, magic, and religion in America (New Brunswick, 2005).

Nadis , op. cit. (ref. 17), p. xii.

Morus , “Seeing and believing” (ref. 13), 110.

Nadis , op. cit. (ref. 17), 8.

Secord Anne , “Corresponding interests: Artisans and gentlemen in nineteenth-century natural history”, The British journal for the history of science, xxvii (1994) 383–408; Morus Iwan R. , “Manufacturing nature: Science, technology and Victorian consumer culture”, ibid., xxix (1996), 403–34.

Secord , “Knowledge in transit” (ref. 5); Jasanoff Sheila , “Breaking the waves in science studies”, Social studies of science, xxxiii (2003), 389–400.

Rip Arie , “Constructing expertise: In a third wave of science studies?”, Social studies of science, xxxiii (2003), 419–34, p. 420; Turner Stephen , “What is the problem with experts?”, ibid., xxxi (2001), 2001–49.

Jasanoff , “Breaking the waves” (ref. 22), 393.

Ritvo Harriet , The animal estate (Cambridge, MA, 1987); MacKenzie John M. , The empire of nature (Manchester, 1988).

Habermas Jürgen , The structural transformation of the public sphere (Cambridge, 1989). This idea is derived from Habermas's notion that in the constitution of the Bourgeois Public Sphere, the political legitimacy of the bourgeois class was supported through claims to act in the general interest: ” The interest of the class, via critical public debate, could assume the appearance of the general interest, that is, in the identification of domination with its dissolution into pure reason” (p. 88). See also pp. 194–200 on the notion of public opinion and the presentation of special interests as the general interest. Addressing the notion of expertise through this perspective leads to the suggestion that the prominence attributed to experts in the public sphere as acting for the general interest through the increase of public knowledge they authorise is part of the success of the bourgeoisie in the conflict over the question of social order, in which it is opposed to other social groups. A link can be drawn here perhaps with Stephen Turner's “types IV and V of experts” (ref. 23, 133–8), experts created by philanthropic societies to promote their views in the wider society as scientifically sound.

I am grateful to one of the two anonymous reviewers of this paper for encouraging me to insist on this dual character of the type of expertise exemplified by natural history film-makers.

Morus , “Manufacturing nature” (ref. 21), 405, n. 13.

Bloor , Knowledge (ref. 2), 15.

Secord James , “The crisis of nature”, in Jardine N. (eds), Cultures of natural history (Cambridge, 1996), 447–59, p. 449.

Gieryn Thomas F. , “Boundaries of science”, in Jasanoff Sheila (eds), Handbook of science and technology studies (London, 1995), 393–443; Cartwright Lisa , “‘Experiments of destruction’: Cinematic inscriptions of physiology”, Representations, special issue, “Seeing science”, xl (1992), 1992–52, p. 130.

Secord Anne , “Science in the pub: Artisan botanists in early nineteenth-century Lancashire”, History of science, xxxii (1994), 269–315; Star Susan L. Griesemer James R. , “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’, and boundary objects”, Social studies of science, xix (1989), 1989–420.

See the introduction to Boon's Timoth Films of facts: A history of science in documentary films and television (London, 2008). See also Burt Jonathan , Animals in films (London, 2002), and Bousé , op. cit. (ref. 1), for discussions of various conducts engaged with the production of footage of animals and plants. Gregg Mitman makes a related point when he discusses ” The multiplicity of meanings that visual representations can convey to different audiences” and suggests that failure to acknowledge such diversity is the consequence of an “unwillingness to break from a diffusionist model of popularization” (Gregg Mitman, “Cinematic nature: Hollywood technology, popular culture and the American Museum of Natural History”, Isis, lxxxiv (1993), 1993–61, p. 638).

Wise Norton M. , “Making visible”, Isis, xcvii (2006), 75–82, p. 80.

This form of cinema can most evidently be analysed using the concept of ‘the cinema of attractions’ developed by Tom Gunning. We will come back to this topic later, since this analytical category can be usefully employed to highlight some characteristics of Kearton's own cinema. At this point suffice it to say that Gunning defines the cinema of attractions as a primarily non-narrative one, a cinema whose makers were principally interested in the capacity of this technology to show things, and emotionally and sensitively engage the spectators. Tom Gunning, ” The cinema of attractions: Early film, its spectator, and the Avant-Garde”, in Knopf Robert (ed.), Theater and film: A comparative anthology (New Haven, 2004), 37–45. For a discussion of similar topics see Burt , Animals (ref. 33).

Kohler Robert E. , Landscapes and labscapes (Chicago, 2002), 125–7.

Allen David , The naturalist in Britain (Princeton, 1994).

On this kind of cinematographical experiments see, for example, Landecker Hannah , “Microcinematography and the history of science and film”, Isis, xcvii (2006), 121–32; or Bellows Andy M. McDougall Marina (eds)., Science is fiction (San Francisco, 2000) on the work of Jean Painlevé.

This is the title of a small paperback published during the war, by J. Valentine Durden, Mary Field and F. Percy Smith, the two latter having been involved in the making of the nature film series Secrets of nature (1922–33) and Secrets of life (1933–50). The book is educational in content, presenting ” The wonderful means adopted by these creatures for the perpetuation of their kind” (p. 9), and concentrates on micro-organisms and insects. It is illustrated by pictures taken from the series Secrets of nature and Secrets of life. Durden J. V. Field Mary Smith F. Percy , Cine-biology (Harmondsworth, 1941).

Morus , “Seeing and believing” (ref. 13). Boon , op. cit. (ref. 33), draws attention, for example, to the claims laid by Charles Urban “for the potential of the cinematograph as an instrument of scientific and medical research” (p. 24). Similarly Frederick Talbot, an early promoter of cinema technology, thus concluded his Practical cinematography and its applications (London, 1913): ” The value of animated photography is not yet appreciated. Directly the sciences realise its significance, and see that it constitutes an indispensable aid to investigation and research, the invention will be given the recognition it deserves” (p. 258).

These various producers of footage showing animals all had the possibility to sell them to film dealers, which would re-sell them to show organisers who would include them in their music-hall spectacles. For more on these networks see Chanan Michael , The dream that kicks (London, 1996); see also Boon , op. cit. (ref. 33).

These first films of birds and small mammals, taken on the British Isles, were intended to illustrate his brother Richard's natural history lectures. See Mitchell W. R. , Watch the birdie (Seattle, 2001).

The brothers' biography by W. R. Mitchell (ref. 42), even though mostly focused on Richard Kearton, provides a vivid evocation of the first years of Cherry Kearton's life as a “moor bird”.

Kearton Richard , British birds' nests (London, 1908; first publ. 1895).

Kearton , British birds' nests (ref. 44), p. v.

Ibid.

For a detailed and exhaustive bibliography see Mitchell , op. cit. (ref. 42). It is to be mentioned that Cherry Kearton provided photographs that were used to illustrate the famous Gilbert White's Natural history of Selborne.

Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37), 207.

One factor which helped diffuse this fashion, David Allen emphasises, was the vogue, from 1895 onwards, of natural history photography. The other one, still according to Allen's analysis, was the fashion of bird feeding. Of course, rather than a linear process of an effect following a cause we are dealing here with a feedback loop, photography benefiting from the passion for ornithology, then reinforcing this passion, and so on and so forth. Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37).

Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37), 207.

Ibid.

Kearton Richard , Wild life at home, how to study and photograph it (London, 1901; first publ. 1898), p. viii.

Roosevelt Theodore , “The American wilderness”, in Callicott J. Baird Nelson Michael P. (eds), The great wilderness debate (Athens, GA, 1998), 70.

Kearton , British birds' nests (ref. 44), p. vii.

Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37); Young Linda , Middle class culture in the nineteenth century (Basingstoke, 2003).

MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 25).

Tichelar Michael , “‘Putting animals into politics’: The Labour Party and hunting in the first half of the twentieth century”, Rural history, xvii (2006), 213–34.

Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37), 205.

Kearton , British birds' nests (ref. 44), pp. vii–viii.

Kearton , British birds' nests (ref. 44), p. vii.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 13), 251, 258.

Kearton Richard , With nature and a camera (London, 1911; first publ. 1897), p. ix.

Daston Lorraine Galison Peter , Objectivity (New York, 2007), 121.

Kearton , With nature (ref. 62), 341.

Daston Galison , op. cit. (ref. 63), 381.

The same rhetoric associating the technical skills of the photographer with his personal virtues as evidence for his trustworthiness is recognised in the introduction Theodore Roosevelt wrote to Cherry Kearton's later book, Wildlife across the world (London, 1913). See Mitman Gregg , Reel nature (Cambridge, MA, 1999), 13.

Mitchell , op. cit. (ref. 42).

MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 25). Of course big game hunting did not cease with the First World War: It is still practised today. But the most legendary figures of Victorian big game hunting died during the war (Selous died in 1917) or soon after. In the 1920s, the movement of increased restriction of big game hunting which had started in the last years of the nineteenth century, along with ” The replacement of a forceful, confrontative model of colonial domination by one with greater emphasis on stewardship” ( Ritvo , op. cit. (ref. 25), 281), was gaining steam. And “[b]y the 1930s conservation had become an almost unarguable creed” ( MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 25), 306–7). Kearton thus started his operation in a quasi-vacuum. It might be suggested that Kearton's films favoured this development and in turn benefited from it. It could also be argued that Kearton's success benefited from the popularity of watching animals peacefully alive which could be attributed to the disgust provoked by the carnage of the First World War. However it might also be that his films were seen by institutions such as the Empire Marketing Board (EMB) as useful propaganda tools to develop potentially profitable activities such as game tourism in the Empire. See Stephen Constantine's study of the efforts the EMB deployed to advertise the Empire to its inhabitants so as to make it more profitable. Stephen Constantine, “Bringing the Empire alive”, in MacKenzie John M. (ed.), Imperialism and popular culture (Manchester, 1986), 192–231.

Mitchell , op. cit. (ref. 42).

Janet Browne remarks on the fact that travel was a crucial component of the history of natural history in the “straitlaced Victorian era”. Browne Janet , “Biogeography and Empire”, in Jardine (eds), Cultures of natural history (ref. 30), 305–21, p. 306.

Kearton Cherry , Adventures with animals and men (London, 1936), 28–29.

MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 25).

Ritvo , op. cit. (ref. 25), 280.

Franklin Adrian , Animals and modern cultures (London, 1999), 107–10.

Though Even , as Mitman (Reel nature (ref. 66)) and Haraway ( Haraway Donna , Primate visions (London, 1989)) both emphasise, the American conception of a democratic access to nature was a means to spread and consolidate the social and moral values of the ruling élite of white, capitalist sportsmen.

Biagioli , op. cit. (ref. 13), 3; Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 13), 126–9; Golinski , op. cit. (ref. 4), 58.

It should be noted, as Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66), 7, points out, that Roosevelt in this film is never seen actually shooting an animal.

Kearton Cherry , Photographing wildlife across the world (London, 1923), 223.

Kearton , Photographing wildlife (ref. 78), 227.

Kearton , Photographing wildlife (ref. 78), 87.

MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 25).

MacKenzie , op. cit. (ref. 25), 211.

Kearton , Photographing wildlife (ref. 78), 13–14.

On the way racial representations prevailing in the colonies served as models for the perception of social stratification in the metropolis and vice-versa, see for instance Magubane Zine , Bringing the Empire home: Race, class, and gender in Britain and colonial South Africa (Chicago, 2004).

Kearton Cherry , “Big game hunting. Sport with the camera”, The Times, supplement to issue no. 45155, 19 March 1929, p. x.

Young (op. cit. (ref. 55), 63) makes here reference to the notion expressed in Weber's essay “Class, status, party”, that ” The development of status is essentially a question of stratification resting upon usurpation. Such usurpation is the normal origin of almost all status honor”. Quote taken from Weber Max , “Class, status, party”, in From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, transl. by Gerth H. H. Mills C. Wright (London, 1970), 180–95, p. 188.

Or so it was suggested.

Anonymous, “The King's Big Game expedition”, The Daily Mirror, 20 December 1911, 3.

Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66).

Latour , Science in action (ref. 11), 78.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 13), chap. 3.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 13), 221.

LeMahieu D. , in his study of the development of mass communication in Britain in the early decades of the twentieth century (A culture for democracy (London, 1988)), emphasises (e.g., p. 162) the development of popular press as an advertising medium. In this development, pictures came to play a pivotal role for they allowed association of ideas which was recognised as a more powerful way of conveying an argument than simply using words. Kearton's use of the King's travel in order to advertise his film could perhaps be further analysed in this light.

This interpretation bears on the analysis developed by Jonathan Crary in his Techniques of the cbserver (London and Cambridge, MA, 1992) of the scopic regime which was instated in the early nineteenth century following new research on the physiology of vision. This scopic regime rested on the notion that vision was a subjective phenomenon, observation became “a question of equivalent sensations and stimuli that have no reference to a spatial location” (p. 24, my italics). According to this scopic regime, knowledge of natural objects could be acquired through vision alone (see Noordegraaf Julia , “The emergence of the museum in the ‘spectacular’ nineteenth century”, Proceedings of the Visual Knowledges Conference, The University of Edinburgh, <http://webdb.ucs.ed.ac.uk/malts/other/VKC/dsp-all-papers.cfm>). To be physically present in India contemplating natural objects there or to gaze at representations of these same objects did not make any difference in terms of the knowledge acquired of these objects. Anne Friedberg further examines the notion of a virtual mobilization of the cinematic spectator's body through the gaze (Window shopping (Berkeley, 1993), 143–8). Following Friedberg's notion of the “mobilized virtual gaze”, it seems possible to suggest that Kearton's India film was presented to spectators as a means of effecting the King's travel for themselves, the camera not only conveying a sight but also an experience, not only the image of a thing but also its context and a way of seeing it. The film thus works as a participatory device in the sense that it allows the crowd to participate in the élite sensory experience.

Chanan , op. cit. (ref. 41), 208–11.

Kearton , Adventures with animals (ref. 71).

Anonymous, “‘Nature's Zoo.’ Mr. Cherry Kearton's Achievement”, The Times, 11 April 1913, 9.

Kearton , Adventures with animals (ref. 71), 292.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 13), 219, 250.

Anonymous, “The cinematograph in British East Africa”, The Daily Mirror, 15 October 1910, 8–9.

Anonymous, “Films from the Jungle: Mr. Cherry Kearton returns to England with wonderful cinematograph pictures of animals”, The Daily Mirror, 20 December 1911, 1.

Anonymous, op. cit. (ref. 101). It should be remarked that this comment does make little sense given that a rhinoceros charges straight on. As noted by the big game hunter Denis Lyell in his memoirs: “Some of these ‘charging’ photographs give themselves away at the first glance, as the beast is seen at an angle, whereas a real charge is straight on, if photographed from the front. Of course a charge at someone else could be taken from the side, but one does not often see that kind in books or magazines.” Lyell Denis , Memories of an African hunter (Boston, 1923), 157–8.

Anonymous, “New nature scenes from Africa”, The Times, 28 July 1924, 10.

Anonymous, “Animal photography”, The Times, 9 January 1912, 9.

Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37). It could be objected that this stands in contradiction with the opposition to egg-collecting voiced, as was previously mentioned, by Kearton Richard . However, the form of egg-collecting Kearton was opposed to was that practised by children and other people who did so in order to sell them to collectors, for a profit. On the contrary, Kearton very much encouraged egg-collecting provided that it was intended to advance knowledge in ‘Oology’ (the science of eggs). He himself wrote a book, Birds' nests, eggs, and egg-collecting (London, 1915; 1st edn 1890), in the preface to which he wrote: “This book is not intended to encourage the useless collecting of birds' eggs from a mere bric-a-brac motive, but to aid the youthful naturalist in the study of one of the most interesting phases of bird life. It is to be hoped that the Act of Parliament empowering County Councils to protect either the eggs of certain birds, or those of all birds breeding within a given area, will be of great benefit to many of our feathered friends” (n.p.).

Meadow Mark A. , “Merchants and marvels”, in Smith Findlen (eds), Merchants and marvels (New York, 2002), 182–200.

Daston Lorraine , “The factual sensibility”, Isis, lxxix (1988), 452–67, p. 455, quoted in Meadow , op. cit. (ref. 106), 184.

Meadow , op. cit. (ref. 106), 184.

Kearton , Photographing wildlife (ref. 78), 263.

Anonymous, op. cit. (ref. 101).

Anonymous, “Pictures of the jungle. Mr. Kearton's new film”, The Times, 30 April 1926, 12.

Gunning , op. cit. (ref. 35).

Gunning uses this category to analyse the cinema principally produced between 1896 and 1906, arguing that the conception of cinema as a story-telling medium progressively overtook the cinema of attractions between 1907 and 1913. However, Gunning also emphasises that the cinema of attractions did not disappear following the advent of story telling in cinema, but remained as an underlying component, more obvious in some genres than in others. The assumption made in this paper is that one of these genres is the cinema of natural history, which can be seen more as “a way of presenting a series of views to an audience, fascinating because of their illusory power … and their exoticism”, than as a means of telling stories through a character-based situation. The quote is taken from Gunning , op. cit. (ref. 35), 38.

Gunning , op. cit. (ref. 35), 39.

Griffith Alison , Wondrous differences (New York, 2002), 143.

Secord , “Science in the pub” (ref. 32); Morus , “Manufacturing nature” (ref. 21).

Anonymous, “The cinematograph industry”, The Times, supplement to issue no. 45155, 19 March 1929, p. vi.

Kearton , “Big game hunting” (ref. 85). This quote points towards the notion that in order to be truthful to the public it is necessary to deceive the animals. This is reminiscent of the practice of the habituation of animals by field researchers and described for example by Rees. In order to be able to observe natural behaviours, analysts have first to habituate animals to their presence and second to make animals ‘forget’ that they are here. This idea of deception also points towards one of the tenets of natural history film-making and which is that the film-maker, in order to represent truthfully to the audience the behaviour of animals, to be ‘true to nature’, is allowed to deceive the public by staging some sequences or editing-out from others what is considered useless. On field researchers see Rees Amanda , “‘A place that answers questions’: Primatological field sites and the making of authoritative observations”, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, xxxvii (2006), 311–33; and Rees Amanda , “Reflections on the field: Primatology, popular science, and the politics of personhood”, Social studies of science, xxxvii (2007), 2007–907. On the “truth to nature” authorised to natural history film-makers see Parson Christopher , Making wildlife movies: An introduction (Newton Abbot, 1971).

In her discussion of popular accounts by field primatologists, Rees points towards the facts that students of primates in the field “hoped to become an expected part of the animal groups' landscape, but still a part of the group's social landscape — Not a rock, or tree, or an invisible monitor, but another organism, whose movements must be attended to and apprehended”. There is an evident contrast here between the aspirations of the field researcher, interested in piecing together the intricacies of the social life of great apes, and those of the natural history film-maker, preoccupied with collecting and displaying images of animals unsuspicious of human presence. It is tempting to interpret this difference as evidence that natural history films are the expression of an approach to nature which is not structured around a dialectic between question and answer, but nevertheless incorporates some of the theoretical knowledge developed by field researchers to construct the narratives embedding the pictures. See Rees , “Reflections on the field” (ref. 118). The quote is taken from page 886.

Kearton Cherry , In the land of the lion (London, 1929), 165. It should be emphasised here that the cheetah is a diurnal animal while the leopard is a nocturnal one. The distinction which Kearton draws is thus a heavily loaded one, which attributes positive virtues to the realm of daylight and associates evil feelings to the darkness of the night.

Kearton Cherry , My friend Toto (London, 1924).

Kearton Cherry , My animal friendships (London, 1928).

Kearton , Adventures with animals (ref. 71), 274.

Not to mention that it is a perceived friendship.

Ritvo , op. cit. (ref. 25), 85.

Anonymous, op. cit. (ref. 111).

Ritvo , op. cit. (ref. 25), 228.

Kearton , Adventures with animals (ref. 71), 275.

Ibid., 274.

Kearton , In the land of the lion (ref. 120).

Ibid., 167.

Ibid., 125.

Ibid., 139. It should be emphasised that the exact same theme is elaborated upon by David Attenborough in his commentary during the famous sequence with the gorillas in the 12th episode of the 1979 BBC series Life on Earth.

Ritvo , op. cit. (ref. 25), 267.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 13), 130.

This was the case in particular of the famous Disney series True life adventures (although some were broadcast by the BBC in the late 'forties) and of the films made for the American Studio RKO by the Belgian cinematographer Armand Denis. For more on this topic see Bousé , op. cit. (ref. 1) and Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66). About Disney's natural history film-makers, it should be noted, as Gregg Mitman remarks, that similarly to what has just been discussed in this paper about Kearton and what will come now about Attenborough, their claims to cognitive trustworthiness was supported by evidence that they were first and foremost participants in the amateur culture of natural history, and not scientific practitioners, that they “shared in a love of nature [and were united by] a patience and passion for watching nature” ( Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66), 118) instead of a common theoretical framework.

The forefront role attributed to Kearton in this paper, and the claim that he was particularly influential in defining the social identity of the natural history film-maker, could be disputed. Indeed, as noted in the first section of this paper, other film-makers producing footage of animals and plants were active before the First World War and during the inter-war period in Britain, Oliver Pike, Charles Head or F. Percy Smith, H. A Gilbert, or Captain C. W. R. Knight to name just a few of them. However, the pre-eminence attributed here to Kearton stems from the fact that none of the film-makers mentioned above was as much a public figure as Kearton was, as suggests the content of newspapers of the time. For example, when The Times ran a supplement to its issue from the 19 March 1929 (no. 45155) intended to present to their readership the various aspects of the cinema industry, Cherry Kearton was asked to write an article presenting his “Big game cinematography” (ref. 85), whereas another paper presenting the natural history films taken in Britain was written by an anonymous correspondent. The other film-makers were operating as employees of cinema companies whereas Kearton was a freelance who actively engaged in fashioning his personal identity. In addition, the claim underlying this paper that a genealogy can be traced from Kearton to Attenborough seems to be supported by the fact that Attenborough declared that Kearton, in particular, was an inspiration to him (W. R. Mitchell, “A pioneer and an inspiration”, Yorkshire Post, 23 February 2007, available online at <http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/A-pioneer-and-an-inspiration.2074071.jp> [last accessed 8 July 2009].

Attenborough David , Life on air (London, 2002).

Attenborough David , “Hidemanship”, in Hawkins Desmond (ed.), The second BBC naturalist (London, 1960), 24–28.

Attenborough , “Hidemanship” (ref. 139), 25.

Kearton , “Big game hunting” (ref. 85).

Attenborough to Mary Adams, 31 July 1953, BBC Written Archives Centre (WAC) Folder T6/444/1.

This is in particular the case of Armand and Michaela Denis who made their debuts on British television on 5 October 1953, with a presentation of their film Below the Sahara. Their films, principally shot in East Africa, were considered during the 1950s and early 1960s as archetypal of wildlife film-making, and were hugely popular in Britain. In 1960, Julian Huxley endorsed Armand Denis's work, describing his 1938 film Dark rapture as ” The finest African nature film ever made” ( Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66), 188).

Attenborough to Television Publicity, 4 August 1955, BBC WAC Folder T6/444/1.

Attenborough to Mary Adams, 31 July 1953, BBC WAC Folder T6/444/1.

On the history of entomology in nineteenth-century Britain, see Hoolerbach Anne Larsen , ” of sangfroid and sphinx moths: Cruelty, public relations, and the growth of entomology in England, 1800–1840”, in Kuklick Henrika Kohler Robert (eds), Science in the field (Osiris, 2nd ser., xi (1996)), 201–20. See also Allen , op. cit. (ref. 37).

Matthews Leo Harrison , “Successful collaboration of zoo and television”, The Times, 4 January 1955, 7.

Picathartes gymnocephalus or White-necked Rockfowl, although Attenborough in his account for the first series suggests that there is no common name for this bird, which all through the programme was referred to by its Latin name. This could be analysed as a demonstration of cognitive authority of the most blunt kind. Accounts of this first Zoo quest series can be found in Attenborough, Life on air (ref. 138) and Zoo quest to British Guiana (London, 1958).

Attenborough to Miall, Head of Talks, Television, 21 July 1954, BBC WAC Folder T6/444/1. Attenborough's choice was in complete opposition to the recommendations of the BBC's film department which advised a professional cameraman.

From an undated press clip from the Daily Mail (probably 1953) announcing the expedition.

Regal Brian , “Amateur versus professional: The search for Bigfoot”, Endeavour, xxxii (2008), 53–57.

Regal , op. cit. (ref. 151), 55. The 1954 Daily Mail Abominable Snowman Expedition is an example of what Regal describes as attempt on the part of amateurs and scientists to come together in the hunt for “anomalous primates”. Such attempts, as would be the case with this one, ending with scientists‘ using the lack of tangible results to argue that the amateurs were unreliable dreamers and reinforcing the amateurs’ resentment of scientists. In the press clip from the Daily Mail quoted in the text, it is indicated that “Dr. F. Wood Jones, F.R.S., F.R.C.S., D.Sc., curator of the Hunterian collections of human and comparative anatomy in the Royal College of Surgeons, has kindly offered to identify any specimens that may be obtained…. All such material will be submitted to him for critical analysis” (n.s., n.d, Daily Mail).

Attenborough to Television Publicity, 4 August 1955, BBC WAC Folder T6/444/1.

Benjamin Walter , “The storyteller”, in Benjamin W. , Illuminations (London, 1999), 83–107.

Miall Leonard , Inside the BBC (London, 1994), 181. This notation from Miall, head of the talks department, indicates the necessity of a double expertise, naturalist and film-maker, in order to appear as a credible natural history film-maker, or telenaturalist. Lester lacked the second one which is why he was replaced. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer of this paper for pointing this out to me.

Miall to Attenborough, 19 January 1955, BBC WAC Folder T6/444/1.

Miall , op. cit. (ref. 155), 182.

The role of the physical contact with great apes in establishing the credentials of a credible spokesperson for the natural world has been highlighted in Haraway , op. cit. (ref. 75).

Serpell James Paul Elisabeth , “Pets and the development of positive attitudes to animals”, in Manning Aubrey Serpell James (eds), Animals and human society (London, 1994), 127–44.

Latour Bruno , Politics of nature (Cambridge, MA, 2004).

Attenborough David , “British expedition captures a caiman”, The Times, 11 May 1955, 11; “Zoologists capture monster fresh-water fish”, The Times, 28 May 1955, 7; “Blowpipes and medicine men”, The Times, 22 June 1955, 11; “Hoatzin and manatee captured”, The Times, 16 July 1955, 7.

Attenborough , Zoo quest to British Guiana (ref. 148), 39.

Available on line at www.wildfilmhistory.org/film/240/Zoo+Quest+to+Guiana.html.

In her discussion of the social relationships that occur in primatological research field sites, based on interviews with field primatologists, Rees highlights the fact that local field assistants “have made major, though little acknowledged, contributions to educating the scientists themselves…. Recalling how the guard taught him to move through the bush and how to identify animals and plants, [a] researcher described himself as ‘a First World expatriate coming in, being trained by Tanzanians’”. This usefully points towards the notion (which would need to be further explored) that the BBC natural history film-makers tend to maintain with field scientists a relationship which places them in the position of holders of a local knowledge, as opposed to the claims to universality commonly associated with the pursuit of scientific knowledge. The quote is taken from Rees, “A place that answers questions” (ref. 118), 325–6.

Attenborough , Zoo quest to British Guiana (ref. 148), 84.

Allegedly for administrative reasons, the Indonesian government having opposed an exportation of the animal to Britain.

It also coincides with the replacement at the position of secretary general of the Zoological Society of Leo Harrison Matthews by Sir Solly Zuckerman. Whereas the former had strong ties with the British milieu of amateur field naturalists, the latter did not, and was even doubtful as regards to the relevance of fieldwork as opposed to observations in controlled environments. On Solly Zuckerman and his views on field research see Burt Jonathan , “Solly Zuckerman: The making of a primatological career in Britain, 1925–1945”, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, xxxvii (2006), 295–310.

Morris Desmond , Animal days (London, 1979), 107, 110–44.

Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66), 75.

Mitman , Reel nature (ref. 66), 133. It also suggests, given that twenty years earlier Julian Huxley's project of installing a film unit in the zoo had been judged by the governing council of the society contrary to ” The prestige of the Zoo as a learned society” (op. cit., 75), a radical difference between the perception of cinema and that of television. The former was definitely equated with entertainment whereas the latter was rather seen as a means of reaching people in their home and providing them with what one thought they needed, or was good for them — Or for the general interest, or the interest of the institutions.

Smith to Attenborough, 10 October 1956, BBC WAC Folder T6/439/1. Charlie could not be seen because it was kept in quarantine. The fact mentioned in this letter, that members of the public cannot distinguish between individual animals, can be interpreted as the affirmation that animal experts such as zoo curators and natural history television presenters possess this skill to recognise individual animals, therefore pointing towards the “Janus-faced nature of witnessing” (Amanda Rees, personal communication).

Davies Gail , “Science, observation and entertainment: Competing visions of postwar British natural history television, 1946–1967”, Ecumene, vii (2000), 432–59.

On Desmond Morris's own account, competition for the audience between Zoo time and Zoo quest was fierce and Attenborough had been cited to Morris as his main rival. See Morris , Animals days (ref. 168).

Attenborough to Matthews, 13 April 1956, BBC WAC Folder T6/439/1.

Secord , “Corresponding interests” (ref. 21), 394.

This appears to be the actualization in the specific case of Zoo quest of an evolution which took place during the whole of the first half of the twentieth century in the milieu of natural history and which accompanied the slow rise of a growing interest for the study of behaviour as opposed to that of morphology (see Kohler Robert E. , All creatures (Princeton, 2006)). Hollerbach (op. cit. (ref. 146)) makes a similar point in her study of the shift from collecting to observing in British entomology from 1800 to 1840, and emphasises the extent to which this shift was accompanied by the emergence of concerns for the humane treatment of animals. It should be pointed out that when the first Zoo quest was planned, the London Zoological Society had not set up collecting expeditions for a while. See Attenborough , Life on air (ref. 138).

The “concept” of the programme remained that some of the animals seen in the films would be exhibited live in the studio. Furthermore, they needed to capture the animals in order to be able to film them in close-up. On the third Zoo quest expedition see Attenborough David , Zoo quest for a dragon (London, 1959).

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177).

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177), 95–96.

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177), 102.

A full page in the Daily Mirror described how Lagus brought back Benjamin the bear to his home in London, where his wife bottle fed it together with their daughter (Daily Mirror, 11 September 1956, 11).

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177), 115.

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177), 116.

Ibid.

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177), 117.

Attenborough , Zoo quest for a dragon (ref. 177), 118.

Morus , “Seeing and believing” (ref. 13).

Smith to Attenborough, 10 October 1956, BBC WAC Folder T6/439/1.

Rees , “Reflections on the field” (ref. 118), 896. The enculturation referred to here can be described as a reciprocal process, which involves humans entering into a relationship of mutual acknowledgement to animals. It is what Donna Haraway designates “a dance of relating” which transforms all the participants and their perception of the world they live in. See Haraway Donna , When species meet (Minneapolis and London, 2008), 25.

Latour , Science in action (ref. 11).

A creed central to the ethos of the BBC as a public service broadcasting and particularly in 1955–56 when television broadcasting had been open to competition.

Tudor Andrew , “The panels”, in Bennet T. (eds), Popular television and film (London, 1981), 150–8, p. 152. The term ‘telenaturalist’ is constructed after Andrew Tudor's ‘Telexpert’: “a loquacious, single-minded and infallible guide to right and wrong, truth and lies … the telexpert is to lend us his framework; we are to see through his eyes. He is to tell the story and we are to listen” (p. 153).

Pound Reginald , “Critic on the hearth”, The Listener, 1 November 1956, 724.

See McGivern to Director of Television Broadcasting, 18 March 1957, BBC WAC Folder T31/385.

Parsons Christopher , True to nature (Cambridge, 1982).

Golinski , op. cit. (ref. 4), 73–75.