Not just another film about Jane Goodall

By I.M.

IN 1960 Jane Goodall moved to Tanzania to study chimpanzees. She was only 26 years old; her credentials consisted of a love of animals and a secretarial qualification. The first of “Leakey’s angels” (also known as “the trimates”)—Ms Goodall was one of three women encouraged by Louis Leakey, a renowned paleoanthropologist, to observe apes in their natural habitats to see what insights it might yield about early man. Scepticism abounded, but Ms Goodall was determined. She astonished everyone when, towards the end of her six-month trial, she wrote to Leakey having observed a chimp adapting a twig to capture termites. Leakey sent back a telegram: “Now we must redefine tool. Redefine man. Or accept chimpanzees as human.”

Overturning the assumption that only humans used tools was the start of Ms Goodall’s illustrious career in research, activism and education. She is now an iconic figure. At 83, she rarely spends more than a few months in one place, instead travelling the world to raise awareness for her causes. She started the Jane Goodall Institute, an organisation which has created sanctuaries for apes, in 1977 and has worked on community development for 40 years. Roots & Shoots was established in 1991 to encourage awareness of environmental and conservation issues among schoolchildren. It now operates in 140 countries.

Ms Goodall felt that her story had been sufficiently told: she is the subject of more than 40 films. But “Jane”, released on October 20th in America and on November 24th in Britain, finds plenty to say. At its heart is footage from the National Geographic archives, unearthed in 2015, of Ms Goodall’s early years in Tanzania. Totalling 140 hours, the material was untouched for 50 years and thought lost. Brett Morgen, dubbed the “mad scientist” of documentary film for his immersive, experiential style of film-making, was brought on to direct. Though Ms Goodall seems a far cry from his previous subjects—Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, the Rolling Stones, maverick producer Robert Evans—Mr Morgen insists that “she is my type of subject” as, like those rock stars, “she’s lived life by her own rules and redefined her field.” He adds: “In that sense she’s the biggest rock star I’ve ever filmed.”

Mr Morgen had his own reservations about the necessity or novelty of another Jane Goodall film, but he was bowled over by the quality of the footage taken by Hugo van Lawick, Jane’s camera-man (and then-husband). He felt what had been captured was a one-off. Ms Goodall’s approach to the chimpanzees, unencumbered by contemporary scientific protocol, was ground-breaking: she did not number the chimps—she named them, became close to them and bonded and formed relationships with them. After an outbreak of polio among the chimpanzees in 1966, thought to have been transmitted by humans, researchers were forbidden to make physical contact with them, so those early days were unique. Mr Morgen compares it to the moon landing, one of “the most profound intersections of wilderness and civilisation that has ever happened”.

“Jane” benefits from a fascinating subject matter, but it is an impressive piece of film-making, too. Van Lawick’s extraordinary footage is worked into an evocative audio-visual collage made even more striking by the cinematic and Disneyesque score from Philip Glass. It is at times joyful and life-affirming—such as when Ms Goodall makes first contact with the chimpanzees, or when her and van Lawick fall in love and have a baby, affectionately known as “Grub”. At other times, it is deeply sad. Jane is heartbroken when the chimps get polio. She is devastated to discover, too, that they are not “nicer versions of us”, instead capable of savaging each other in all-out war. This scene, captured in grainy black-and-white film, is upsetting. “Jane” has a great emotional weight: it is unsurprising that Mr Morgen says he was spiritually affected by making it.

As well as these insights, a large part of the appeal of the Jane Goodall story is inevitably what she faced as a woman in a male-dominated field. Men, including Leakey, made unwanted advances towards her. She was dismissed and ridiculed. In one article in the 1960s she was referred to as a “willowy blonde with more time for monkeys than men” (in the film Ms Goodall acknowledges that “people said my fame was due to my legs. It was so stupid”).

Mr Morgen says that Ms Goodall does not see herself as a feminist icon, and he thinks that “she transcends that”—her ability to achieve what she did without ever compromising her integrity makes her an inspiration for anyone of any gender. The same drive and determination that is apparent in the 26-year-old in “Jane” is still in her at 83 years old. Though she may not be in the field in Tanzania anymore, she devotes every day to her vision and ideology. If people need heroes, Mr Morgen says, “there’s no greater role model than Jane Goodall.”