To be effective, a scientific documentary must be both engaging and informative. This is especially vital in the environmental sciences, since public awareness can convince people to take action to curb their own influence. For example, a documentary could communicate the effects of human activity on global extinction rates, emphasizing the importance of biodiversity for both ecosystem stability and climate change. However, a documentary delivering thisinformation in a boring or uninteresting manner would be simply turned off by most viewers, leaving little impact. Thus, filmmakers must find a balance between engaging their audiences and clearly informing them of the topic of interest. One strategy is to develop films around a central narrative and attempt to appeal to audiences’ emotions. While emotional appeal is usually considered taboo within the sciences, it can offer “increased comprehension, interest, and engagement” for general audiences (Dahlstrom 2014). More specifically, emotional appeal and an overarching narrative are not only able to reach a broader audience, but they also help focus the content of a documentary. In contrast, documentaries that rely strictly on logical arguments may fail to reach people if they ignore or contradict the audiences’ emotional instincts. The content delivery, both technical and conceptual, should emphasize the central narrative and emotional appeals.
Though the primary goal of a documentary is to convey factual information, documentaries can reach a larger lay audience than published articles. A member of the general public must actively seek out a research article, but they may watch a documentary because it is readily available on television or online. Most documentaries actively target the general public by including background information that would not be included in a published research paper. For example, documentaries covering the sixth mass extinction event explain broad concepts like the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection, and food chains, as well as the abundance of bacteria in the environment (Churchill and Hutton 25:00; da Cruz and Gallo 7:20). The inclusion of this background knowledge demonstrates the accessibility of documentaries to audiences unfamiliar with these concepts.
However, since a lay audience may not be engaged by the information alone as the audiences of a published paper may be, Michael Dahlstrom, the Director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University, argues that documentaries should use pathos, such as in a narrative, to help communicate the central message (2014). Compelling emotional appeals add interest, make calls for action seem more convincing, and encourage the audience to share the information with others (Dahlstrom 2014; Berger and Milkman 2012). Emotional appeals are taboo in the sciences because they are harder to argue against than logical evidence, yet most of the public is already exposed to narratives in science through their daily interactions with the mass media (Dahlstrom 2014). Dahlstrom also notes that putting too much emphasis on emotional appeals may make the documentary appear manipulative. However, if pathos is used in balance with and to complement factual information, then it emphasizes the central message while helping to convey it to a larger number of people.
Throughout this discussion, the documentary appeals to the viewer’s emotions by spotlighting topics that are commonly considered interesting or lovable.
The documentary “Extinction!” (episode three of the Nova series Evolution) successfully uses a variety of emotional appeals to engage its audience. The documentary first introduces the five historical mass extinctions, then covers the sixth, modern extinction event, caused by human activity. Throughout this discussion, the documentary appeals to the viewer’s emotions by spotlighting topics that are commonly considered interesting or lovable. For example, when describing the previous mass extinctions, the directors Kate Churchill and Richard Hutton almost immediately skip to talking about dinosaur fossils and the emergence of small mammals (6:14). Though the conditions of the current mass extinction event closely parallel those before the Permian extinction about 250 million years ago, Churchill and Hutton gloss over this earlier era when only organisms like trilobites (now-extinct marine arthropods) were predominant (Lidgard 2009). Similarly, the film’s examples of endangered species are all either considered impressive—tigers and leopards—or lovable—birds and monkeys. In contrast, examples of invasive species—rats, mussles, snakes, and weeds—are not. “Extinction!” also includes an interview with a farmer whose livelihood was directly affected by an invasive species. This sub-narrative makes the abstract issue of invasive species not only more concrete but also more personal. Even in interviews with field experts, the scientists often discuss why they originally became interested in their areas of research (Churchill and Hutton 13:58). More generally, Churchill and Hutton describe aspects of large issues that are physically visible; their examples of past extinction events center on species physically disappearing from the fossil record, and the idea of extinction is often brought back to changes in the species composition of a specific forest. These decisions are examples of how the content of a documentary can be concentrated around emotional appeals and topics that are more likely to engage its audience.
A shot of the late Alan Rabinowitz (left) and his team elated after discovering that their camera had caught a Siamese Crocodile, previously thought to be extinct in Thailand (Churchill and Hutton 52:38)
In fact, “Extinction!” frames its content around a focal emotional appeal in the form of its central narrative. This narrative follows a group of scientists, led by Alan Rabinowitz, surveying the “hidden, unspoiled world” of a national park near Bangkok, a forest known for its biodiversity in the past (Churchill and Hutton 22:40). While collecting data, the scientists interact with a nearby village, observe animal tracks, and notice that some of the cameras have been hijacked by poachers. Since this narrative is intertwined with facts about increasing global extinction rates, the audience expects that the forest will have lost its extensive biodiversity. However, at the conclusion of the documentary, the scientists examine the final camera data and discover that the forest still houses many animals, including some that are thought to be extinct elsewhere (Churchill and Hutton 51:35). While some of the information provided, such as how their camera system is set up, is not entirely relevant to discussing the sixth mass extinction, the build-up to their discovery gives it more emotional impact. This narrative gives the documentary an optimistic outlook—which is consistent with its sub-narratives, for example that of a family farm overcoming an invasive species outbreak—while suggesting that the problem still needs more attention. This central narrative effectively emphasizes that, if we take action, the world’s ecosystems can still flourish.
In contrast, The Sixth Extinction, a documentary made directly for the internet, exemplifies the issues that can arise when the directors attempt to avoid using pathos. The Sixth Extinction covers content similar to that in “Extinction!”, but its directors, José da Cruz and Jorge Gallo, try to incorporate many logical arguments instead of using emotional appeals. For instance, da Cruz and Gallo tend to describe ecosystems in the abstract instead of using specific animals; then, when examples are used, they often spotlight beetles and other insects, instead of animals that are generally well-liked (5:50). They even actively reject the conservation efforts of some traditionally beloved animals such as pandas, elephants, whales, and pumas, saying that they are “doomed to become extinct and there’s no solution” (da Cruz and Gallo 46:38). Da Cruz and Gallo argue that these conservation efforts direct resources away from other efforts that are more likely to succeed, but, especially without any concrete examples of alternate conservation efforts, this is not enough to overcome the viewers’ negative emotional response. This argument alienates audiences who experience a visceral emotional response when told that beloved animals should be left to die.
Without a central narrative, The Sixth Extinction also suffers from the lack of a thematic and conceptual focus.
Without a central narrative, The Sixth Extinction also suffers from the lack of a thematic and conceptual focus. Instead of building their content around a central narrative, da Cruz and Gallo try to cover more logical arguments in support of conservation than “Extinction!” does, such as benefits to human welfare and the likelihood of larger ecosystem collapse. Because of this tactic, the directors give much more background information, which is occasionally distracting or misleading. For example, the information about how volcanic ash may have caused the Permian extinction is unnecessary (da Cruz and Gallo 17:20); the discussion of how atmospheric oxygen was once technically a pollutant suggests that pollution is not necessarily a major problem (da Cruz and Gallo 8:45); and the repeated emphasis that ecosystems can bounce back from extinction events or that trees can handle strong metal pollution is misleading, since it implies that the environment will also be able to bounce back from the current extinction event (da Cruz and Gallo 27:30). The documentary even describes how there is no “good savage,” claiming that human nature has always been able to expand and use the environment to its advantage, which implies that there is no sustainable way to fix the damage to the environment without removing humanity entirely (da Cruz and Gallo 23:20). The large amount of background information both muddles their central point and tends to bore the audiences. The Sixth Extinction tries to cover too much information to effectively describe all of it and thus could greatly benefit from a central narrative to give it a conceptual and thematic focus.
Once a central narrative is established, the technical execution of the documentary should emphasize and complement it. Confused technical execution can distract from the emotional impact of the narration, as exemplified by The Sixth Extinction. While there are some effective shots, such as a tall tree falling when the documentary discusses deforestation (da Cruz and Gallo 26:30), da Cruz and Gallo made many technical decisions that distract from the narration. The music is occasionally too intense, and some jarring transitions between topics distract from the intended messages. For example, one message of hope describing a group of Costa Ricans who successfully live in a forest without exhausting its resources is undermined by the harsh transition to the next topic (da Cruz and Gallo 46:18).
Unaddressed shot of an automaton walking on a globe (da Cruz and Gallo 47:14)
Additionally, some shots are confusing and questionably related to the content; for example, the section covering the last ice age features a distracting computer-generated shot of the ice of Antarctia appearing radially from the South Pole (da Cruz and Gallo 32:20). During the discussion of the myth of “the good savage,” the documentary shows several unnecessary shots of naked men holding spears and hacking at large leaves, which may make some audiences uncomfortable (da Cruz and Gallo 23:39). There are also two unexplained shots of a humanoid automaton walking on a globe—possibly representative of humanity’s actions changing the planet—which are jarring and confusing (da Cruz and Gallo 21:58, 47:00). While these images may be intended to engage a general audience and add visual appeal, they are poorly executed in a way that distracts from the information they are trying to convey. In contrast, “Extinction!” contains several close-up shots of the researchers’ elated expressions at the conclusion of the central narrative, emphasizing the emotional impact (Churchill and Hutton 47:08).
A powerful documentary effectively supports its central message with both logical evidence and emotional arguments. When done well in both writing and technical execution, the emotional appeals complement the scientific reasoning, both engaging the audiences and likely convincing a greater portion of them to take action. Considering the effectiveness of emotional appeals, directors should structure their documentaries around a central narrative; doing this adds impact to the conclusion of the narrative and focuses the rest of the content, both thematically and conceptually. A documentary that successfully utilizes pathos can convey its central message to many people who would not be reached by a published review or public lecture. It is vital to inform the general public about environmental science issues, and creating a well-made, publicly available documentary can effectively engage broad audiences.
Works Cited
Berger J., Milkman K.L. (2012) What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research 49(2):192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353
Dahlstrom, Michael F. “Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences.” PNAS. September 16, 2014 111 (Supplement 4) 13614-13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
“Extinction!” Evolution. Directed by Kate Churchill and Richard Hutton, narrated by Liam Neeson. PBS, 2001. Youtube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-HLzexmQws.
Lidgard, Scott, Wagner, Peter J., Kosnik, Matthew A. “The Search for Evidence of Mass Extinction.” Natural History, 00280712, Sep 2009, Vol. 118.
The Sixth Extinction. Directed and written by José Ramón da Cruz and Jorge Sánchez Gallo. Grupo Secuoya, 2014. Youtube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY2fvsgqj5o.
