Was Treadwell’s love for animals the cause of his death?
The meaning behind ‘Grizzly Man’
Grizzly Man is a documentary film, by Werner Herzog, which documents the life and death of Timothy Treadwell — an environmentalist who dedicated thirteen years to protecting bears and wildlife, filming around one hundred hours of footage in the Alaskan wilderness. The documentary is narrated in a voice-of-god style by Herzog, whilst Treadwell’s footage is shown on screen — the documentary also features interviews with scientists and officials, and family and friends of Timothy Treadwell.
From the documentary, I drew Herzog’s main claim; although Treadwell’s love for animals is somewhat admirable, his inability to see the danger he was putting himself in was, inevitably, going to lead to his death.
When we meet Treadwell’s parents in one of the interview scenes, they talk to Herzog about Timothy’s love for teddy bears, and how he took one with him everywhere — we even see this teddy bear later in some of Treadwell’s own footage, during the storm in Alaska. An active audience will read into how a grown man still carries a teddy bear, and this reflects Treadwell’s inability to realise what is fictional, and what is not. It connotes childlike innocence, but in this scenario, the audience will find this concerning.
We see Treadwell’s childlike innocence reflected further in his body language and tone, for example, when he films one of the bears scratching itself against a tree, and when it walks away, he takes the bears place on screen and shows excitement, using the high tone of his voice and stunned facial expressions, saying multiple times,
“He’s a big bear! He’s a very big bear!”
Again, when a baby fox dies and Treadwell films himself kneeling down by the fox, he has a sombre expression, his body language and tone changing dramatically to reflect his sadness. This is a technique staged to affect the audience’s mood — we can tell Treadwell has planned this scene strategically as his body is positioned unnaturally, for the sake of the camera and the effect the scene will have on the audience. He says, “I don’t understand,” and this is an example of how Treadwell does not see nature and the circle of life the same way as most adult demographics do; rather, he sees life and death in the same way a child would.
Herzog’s narration throughout often fixates on Treadwell’s childlike personality and lack of understanding, and communicates this childlike nature as insanity, and a cause for concern, rather than an innocence.
This quote furthers Herzog’s agenda, and the audience will take emphasise having heard the opinion of a close friend of Treadwell’s, as we’ll as Herzog’s exposition:
“My opinion; I think Treadwell thought these bears were big, scary looking, harmless creatures that he could go up and pet and sing to, and they would bond as children of the universe or some odd. I think he lost sight of what was really going on.” — Sam Egli, acquaintance.
The documentary opens with a scene shot by Treadwell, before any narration or exposition from Herzog, and Treadwell begins to explain about his expedition. The scene is framed with Treadwell to the right, in the foreground, with the background filling most of the frame, showing a vast wilderness and bears. The positioning of Timothy Treadwell in the foreground tells us that he is the focal point, and wants to be in control of the situation. However, where the landscape and the bears fill up the majority of the frame, although they are in the background, they hold a large amount of this scene’s hierarchy. Herzog’s use of this scene at the very start of the documentary could be a reflection of the hierarchy throughout Treadwell’s footage; Timothy Treadwell has the power over the framing of the shots, but no matter what, the bears will always have the ultimate hierarchy, and this is a fact that Treadwell’s childlike innocence does not allow him to acknowledge.
He speaks using a calm but passionate and theatrical tone, and has a slight smirk on his face at times. He says,
“Most times I’m a kind warrior out here. Most times I am gentle, I’m like a flower, I’m like a fly on the wall, observing, noncommittal, non invasive in any way. Occasionally I am challenged, and in that case, the kind warrior must must must become a samurai, must become so, so formidable, so fearless of death, so strong that he will win, he will win.”
I believe that Treadwell’s ‘persona’ represented environmentalists and animal lovers in a certain light — predominantly negatively.
Throughout the documentary, Treadwell represents environmentalists as obsessive and eccentric, having a distorted view of society, and obsessed with nature. In the opening scene he uses vocabulary such as “samurai,” and “kind warrior,” and refers to himself as a flower. This may be seen by some audiences as a joke, and this point is supported by Treadwell’s smirk in the opening scene. We can’t know whether the smirk was his genuine facial expressions, but as an audience reading into connotations and signs, the smirk along side the vocabulary he uses could come across as mockery and sarcasm.
Treadwell also represents environmentalists as unlawful and disrespectful, as he breaks the law by being within too close a proximity of the bears, setting up camp too close to their dens, and furthermore breaking the laws of nature by interfering with the salmon run. Treadwell claimed that he was a saviour, and said, “If there were a god, he’d be very, very pleased with me.” Although Treadwell saw what he was doing as an admirable protest, Herzog’s agenda brings to note how he was infringing on laws put in place to protect and isolate the bears and human kind from each other, for safety.
“Treadwell saw himself as the guardian of this land and stylised himself as Prince Valiant, fighting the bad guys with their schemes to do harm to the bears. But all this land is a federally protected reserve.”
Herzog interviews Sven Haakanson, Ph.D., who comments on how Treadwell disrespects and damages the bears, by trying to habituate them, and crossing a line. This interview backs up Herzog’s exposition, as it is an educated opinion based on factual information rather than emotions, and this makes Grizzly Man an impartial documentary.
Furthermore, Treadwell represents environmentalists negatively, as he builds up a persona determined to protect and save bears and wildlife, but when poachers obtrude and start throwing rocks at one of Treadwell’s bears, Timothy only hides behind foliage and films, whimpering, rather than taking the opportunity to help the bears he so passionately loved. Therefore Herzog uses this moment in his documentary to expose Treadwell as a fraud, but without giving his opinion, making this scene observational, and leaving the audience to take their own connotations and assumptions from the scene.
Treadwell’s appearance and personality often contradict, as we see him wearing bandannas, opaque sunglasses and loose, camouflage clothing. The primary connotations and semiotics that we take from these clothes are relations to the military/forces, or a biker. Neither of these roles in society are often associated with compassion, tenderness or nature, so therefore the visual appearance of Treadwell clashes with his personality, and this reflects how Treadwell’s ‘persona’ is mostly staged. Therefore as an audience we question his believability and authenticity, and this may affect how much we empathise for the character throughout the documentary.
I believe that the primary audience for Grizzly Man extends across both genders, as the documentary explores both the deaths of Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend, Amie Huguenard. However, the main focus is Timothy’s death, which may lean the primary audience towards males, as they will feel more of a connection with Timothy’s character. Furthermore, the primary audience will target ages 18 to 60, as the documentary focuses on middle-age persons, and contains graphic nature unsuited for children. The documentary targets environmentalists, who will understand and empathise withTimothy further than a secondary audience would; this links to the uses and gratifications theory, as environmentalists may serve as the primary audience, seeking education and identification from Grizzly Man.
The documentary explores a range of formats, including exposition — Werner Herzog uses ‘Voice of God’ narration throughout the documentary to educate, persuade and inform the audience further about the visuals and issues at hand. An example of this is a scene nearing the end of the documentary, when Treadwell films himself signing off his expedition, swearing, and insulting the Park Service. During parts of this rant, Herzog mutes Treadwell’s voice to comment:
“His rage is almost incandescent. Artistic. The actor in his film has taken over from the filmmaker. I have seen this madness before on a film set. But Treadwell is not an actor in opposition to a director or a producer. He’s fighting civilisation itself. It is the same civilisation that cast Thoreau out of Walden and sent John Muir into the wild.”
Secondly, the documentary often obtains an observational format, as Herzog strives not to ‘become’ the documentary and remains unseen, only showing footage recorded by Treadwell, and interviews, during which he remains off camera. This allows the audience to access the information on screen without having the physical presence of the filmmaker forcing an opinion upon them, rather, they’re subtly guided towards an opinion by his commentary. All though — an example of the documentary using a participatory format is when Herzog is seen with Jewel, listening to the tape audio of Treadwell and Huguenard’s deaths. In this scene Herzog sits with his back facing the camera, and only half on screen, therefore we notice his presence but it doesn’t dominate the scene, rather Jewel acts as the focal point, so we focus on her facial expressions and body language. I believe the purpose of Herzog’s only presence throughout the entire documentary in this scene is to emphasise the emotional distraught and tension during this moment, and encourage the audience to be more engaged and empathetic.
The documentary builds contract with the viewer, as Herzog structures the documentary in a way which gains the audiences trust — — He offers factual, educated opinions and statistics, to support his agenda, and also allows the audience to develop their own conclusions, rather than causing discomfort and being biased.
I found that certain interview scenes were staged, although made to seem impromptu and ‘in the moment,’ such as the scenes with the mortician in the morgue, explaining the deaths, and the scene where he gives Jewel Treadwell’s watch. These scenes rely on the audience’s contract with the viewer, and how Herzog has set up the rest of the documentary genuinely, non biased and fact-based, to gain the audience’s trust. I also believe that Herzog’s staged, ‘real life’ interviews are a reflection of how Treadwell films ‘genuine, in the moment’ footage over and over again, passing it off as impromptu. This as a whole is a reflection of how documentaries document the truth, and impromptu actions, but are still staged to add a sense of structure and agenda.
Grizzly Man, however, breaks conventions of particular media theories, such as Steven Barnett’s Disneyfication theory — this theory states that television feels the need to broadcast media that will gain high ratings, rather than serious documentaries that inform and teach society about historical, social, ethical and political issues and events. Werner Herzog’s documentary wholly addresses the truth and tragedy of Treadwell’s death, rather than being ‘dumbed down’ for passive audiences. However, the documentary ends with three of Timothy Treadwell’s close acquaintances scattering his ashes in Alaskan wilderness, and flying home, singing a song. Some might argue that Barnett’s Disneyfication theory applies to this section of the documentary, as we’re almost presented with a new equilibrium, when the complete truth would be that the death of Treadwell will haunt family and friends for a long period of time, possibly forever. This ending ‘rounds off’ the documentary, bringing it to a close, which is a convention that, as an audience, we often find satisfying.
John Corner’s ‘five central elements of documentary’ theory applies to Herzog’s documentary, as Grizzly Bear features observation, interviews, dramatisation, Mise en Scene and exposition; every element that the theory discusses. The documentary features first hand footage of Alaskan wildlife and grizzly bears, recorded by Timothy Treadwell, which provides the audience with genuine observation, and allows us to conduct our own conclusions.
Secondly we watch interviews with friends, family, acquaintances and professionals, which all support and/or contrast Herzog’s argument, and deliver a key message throughout the documentary — Treadwell was putting himself in the danger that caused his death. However, we may question whether or not the documentary is biased, as Herzog interviews acquaintances overcome with grief and personal opinions driven by emotions, and also professionals who did not know Treadwell personally, and provide us with statistics as to why Treadwell was in the wrong. Therefore we’re lead to believe that Herzog’s claim is true, and Treadwell’s death was his own fault.
The documentary uses a sense of dramatisation to build conflict and emphasis towards Herzog’s agenda, and the audience acts as eyewitnesses to these events. Examples of dramatisation is during the interview with Jewel, where we see Herzog listen to the tape of Timothy’s death, but we cannot hear the audio. We’re lead to focus on Jewel’s traumatised facial expressions, which will reflect onto the audience’s mood. Secondly, Herzog uses Treadwell’s footage of two male bears fighting for the right to mate with a female bear, which emphasises and dramatises the danger that bears pose to human kind.
Mise en Scene is carefully considered throughout Grizzly Man to communicate specific messages to the audience — an example would be during the mortuary scene, where the mortician describes the corpses of Treadwell and Huguenard; the lighting is cold and harsh, and the scene is drained of colour; slightly tinted blue, which reflects a tense and emotionless atmosphere. His costume, a pale blue apron, conveys to the audience that his role is to deal with bodies, and the location that we’ve established tells us that he deals with corpses. An active audience may then read into stereotypes and representations of morticians, and make assumptions and decisions about this character based upon lighting, colour and costume.
And finally, throughout the documentary Herzog uses a ‘Voice of God’ style commentary, providing the audience with details about Treadwell’s life, and also building his agenda about the danger of grizzly bears, and Treadwell’s cause of his own death. An example of Herzog using exposition to build his agenda would be how he uses the words ‘murderer’ and ‘killer’ to describe the bears, despite showing footage of Treadwell admiring the animals. I also noticed Herzog using rhetorical questions to place doubt amongst the audience, and encourage the audience to think actively about his agenda — When presenting us with footage of a bear presumed to be Treadwell’s killer, he says,
“…is this bear 141?”
As well as using exposition to strengthen his point about the danger of bears, Herzog expresses admiration and awe for Treadwell and the bears, commenting on the beauty of the wildlife that Treadwell strives to protect, and this creates a impartial balance that allows the audience to come to their own conclusions.
