CANE TOADS - Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities - page 158

that beautiful, unique animal, which I can only say I was totally in love with—this
was something I was really wrapped up in—died in my arms in tetanic contractions.'
Scenes like this serve a dual purpose. On the one hand, viewers are given a detailed
explanation of precisely how the cane toad's bufotoxin works, acting on the cardiac
muscles. By extension, the death of Archer's native cat also functions to emphasise
the broader threats cane toads pose to native Australian mammals (later spelled out
by Archer). And on the other hand, Lewis hints at his profound wariness of science
as a practice inured to emotion, challenging the mode of scientific expertise that has
so far dominated popular representations of ecological issues. With the aid of his
'mirror box', he also accentuates the blurring of official and public lives, allowing
viewers to experience instances of what feels like direct eye contact with scientists
and other officials, imparting a sense that these experts are sharing intimate know-
ledge with them. In this way, Lewis intensifies the subtle questioning of scientific
expertise by emphasising the subjective perspectives and personal experiences of the
scientists he interviews. 14
The second strategy in Lewis's repertoire of techniques is his use of animal-eye-
view shots to alternately reinforce and contradict the various ideologies espoused
by his interviewees. Lewis argues that in both his films he tried to recreate the cane
toad's perspective.
We tried to tell much of the story from the cane toad's point of view, using
exceptionally low camera angles—in effect, giving a voice to this animal that
couldn't speak for itself yet was at the centre of so much controversy.
(Lewis, 2010: 25-26)
This animal-eye-view characterises his approach to filmmaking, and is employed
in two key ways. First, Lewis frames humans as if they are seen from a cane toad's
perspective. This feature announces itself from the start of Cane Toads: An Unnatural
History . The film begins with a number of interviewees, filmed from below in an
obvious reference to Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda films but also mimicking the
toad's viewpoint. The perspectives the interviewees put forward are jarring and
wildly different, as these excerpts demonstrate: 'One male and one female in
Darwin is more than sufficient to populate the entire top end of the Northern
Territory'; 'The best thing is to get rid of them—get a big stick and hit 'em with
it'; 'I couldn't do without them—they're friends.' The novelty of the camera's
upward angle, combined with the humour implicit in seeing these characters as a
cane toad might, looming above us, has the effect of creating a sense of uncertainty.
The attentive viewer is invited to explore the political dimensions of each of the
interviewee's arguments, exposing their ideologies, while also emphasising the
myth of documentary realism.
Jim Frazier's innovative lenses, developed during the production of the original
film, were instrumental in the creation of a second type of animal-eye-view, in
which cane toads seem to look back at the viewer. At various points in the film
cane toads are depicted sitting inertly, catching insects, looking directing back at