In the case of nonfiction film the

In the case of nonfiction film the situation is very different. Film scholars with a special interest in documentaries have long debated the differences between fiction and nonfiction film—and the latter’s exact relationship to reality. It is notoriously difficult to draw a clear line between the two modes of film, and when it comes to the depiction of cinematic environments it is particularly difficult to sustain.39 Yet most viewers would feel betrayed if they learned that the spectacular landscapes they see in a nature documentary were filmed in a different location or that the wild animals featured in them are in fact tame and trained for the part. Even more than nature writing, nature film promises the vivid evocation and presentation of authentic natural environments, allowing viewers to explore and feel them from afar. As the environmental historian Gregg Mitman points out in Reel Nature (2009), “nature films . . . have sought to capture and recreate an experience of unspoiled nature” (3), regardless of the fact that, like all other modes of filmmaking, “the camera lens must impose itself, select its subject, and frame its vision” (4). Replacing one environment for another would break the unwritten contract between the makers and viewers of such films.40