• Jean-Baptiste GouyonEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Science and Popular Culture book series (PSSPC)


Wildlife documentaries are one of the main sources of knowledge of nature for non-scientific publics. They are about knowledge, and their makers need to find ways of convincing viewers that they can speak authoritatively on behalf of nature. The wildlife making-of documentary (MOD) is one of the means by which film-makers solicit trust from their audiences. By disclosing aspects of film-making, MODs redefine the relationship of wildlife films with objectivity and with nature. MODs make the case for wildlife documentaries to be seen as participants in the scientific endeavour. This book tries to understand how the way in which British wildlife television was practiced from the early 1950s to the early 2000s has become the accepted stereotype of how nature appears on-screen.


  1. Attenborough, D. (2010). Life on air: Memoirs of a broadcaster. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  2. Azéma, M. (2006). La représentation du mouvement au Paléolithique supérieur: Apport du comparatisme éthographique à l’interprétation de l’art pariétal. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 103(3), 479–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.Google Scholar
  5. Bousé, D. (2000). Wildlife films. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruzzi, S. (2006). New documentary. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, J. (2001). The illumination of the animal kingdom: The role of light and electricity in animal representation. Society & Animals, 9(3), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chris, C. (2006). Watching wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Corner, J. (1996). The art of record: A critical introduction to documentary. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  11. Daston, L., & Mitman, G. (Eds.). (2005). Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and modern cultures. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Gouyon, J.-B. (2011a). From Kearton to Attenborough: Fashioning the telenaturalist’s identity. History of Science, 49(1), 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gouyon, J.-B. (2011b). The BBC natural history unit: Instituting natural history film-making in Britain. History of Science, 49(4), 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gouyon, J.-B. (2016). ‘You can’t make a film about mice just by going out into a Meadow and looking at mice’: Staging as knowledge production in natural history film-making. In M. Willis (Ed.), Staging science (pp. 83–103). London: Palgrave Pivot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenhalgh, P. (1989). Education, entertainment and politics: Lessons from the great international exhibitions. In P. Vergo (Ed.), The New Museology (pp. 74–98). London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  17. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Haraway, D. (2015). Cosmopolitical critters: Preface for cosmopolitan animals. In K. Nagai, et al. (Eds.), Cosmopolitan animals (pp. vii–xiv). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Lightman, B. (2009). Victorian popularizers of science: Designing nature for new audiences. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Louson, E. (2018). Taking spectacle seriously: Wildlife film and the legacy of natural history display. Science in Context, 31(1), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mills, B. (2017). Animals on television: The cultural making of the non-human. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitman, G. (1993). Cinematic nature: Hollywood technology, popular culture, and the American Museum of natural history. Isis, 84(4), 637–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitman, G. (1999). Reel nature: America’s romance with wildlife on film. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Morus, I. R. (2006). Seeing and believing science. Isis, 97(1), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Outram, D. (1996). New spaces in natural history. In N. Jardine, et al. (Eds.), Cultures of natural history (pp. 249–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Razac, O. (2002). L’écran et le zoo. Spectacle et domestication, des expositions coloniales à Loft Story. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
  27. Ritvo, H. (1987). The animal estate: The English and other creatures in the Victorian age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ritvo, H. (1997). The platypus and the mermaid and other figments of the classifying imagination. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shapin, S., & Barnes, B. (1976). Head and hand: Rhetorical resources in British pedagogical writing, 1770–1850. Oxford Review of Education, 2(3), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations