Simon Hoggart

Shocking cheats

The most egregious example of cheating in wildlife photography was...

The most egregious example of cheating in wildlife photography was the 1958 Disney film Wild Wilderness. They wanted footage of lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs into the sea — heaven knows why, since lemmings do no such thing. Since the crew were in Alberta, where neither sea nor lemmings can be found, they bought the little creatures in from Manitoba, and filmed them on a giant turntable, so it looked as if there were thousands instead of dozens. Then they chucked them into a river, which slightly resembled the sea, and there they drowned.

The makers of wildlife programmes had a more robust attitude to their subjects then. In Bill Oddie’s One Hundred Years of Wildlife Films (BBC4, Saturday) we saw an early American series in which a husband-and-wife team filmed lions and rhinos in close-up. They had to be in close-up because, just as they began to look peeved, the wife raised her rifle and shot them dead. This was regarded as a highly satisfactory outcome. Today it seemed as shocking as if David Attenborough, while describing a tiny fly whose iridescent wings flap at 3,000 times a second, allowing it to hover motionless over these colourful orchids, were to take out a swatter and squash it.

It was the early films that were most fascinating. The first-ever wildlife footage, of ducks on St Kildas. Cherry Keaton, a chap in spite of his name, who was the first filmmaker to realise that viewers were almost as interested in him as in the animals. Sir Peter Scott, who didn’t. His main contribution to many films was to say, ‘Yerrrs,’ thoughtfully. But he had some luck. No sooner had he arrived in Komodo than he saw a dragon. Others were less fortunate.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Keep reading with a free trial

Subscribe and get your first month of online and app access for free. After that it’s just £1 a week.

There’s no commitment, you can cancel any time.

Or

Unlock more articles

REGISTER

Comments

Don't miss out

Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.

Already a subscriber? Log in