'Birders: The Central Park Effect' aims to make birdwatching cool

( Unrated ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

Director Jeffrey Kimball doesn't focus enough on the 'birders' who watch the skies, but the nonviolent look at nature is enjoyable.

Courtesy of Music Box Films
One of the subjects director Jeffrey Kimball speaks with his author Jonathan Franzen, a devoted bird watcher.

Birders have always had a bum rap as binocular-wearing geeks. Jeffrey Kimball’s documentary, “Birders: The Central Park Effect,” aims to change all that. First broadcast on HBO and now released into theaters, it’s an affectionate movie about people who are delightedly obsessional about all manner of birds, specifically the more than 100 species that congregate at various times of the year in New York’s Central Park – about one quarter of the total bird species in the United States and Canada.

Kimball is himself a birder, which means he isn’t condescending to the dozen or so birders he interviews. And although this is his first feature film (he’s spent most of his career doing sound work in movies), he knows how to capture revelatory shots of birds in flight or in repose. The trick is patience. A lot of patience. Hours can be spent waiting for that one moment when a red-tailed hawk or a hermit thrush alights or takes to the sky.

Most of the people he interviews are defiantly upfront about their passion. Chris Cooper (not the actor) says that birding “turns every morning into a treasure hunt.” His friends understand that from the high migration dates of April 15 to Memorial Day, they “won’t see me nowhere.”

Jonathan Rosen says, “If you’re not out birding, you’re missing something, not just intellectually but almost in a bodily way. It’s just some deep human impulse really.”

Jonathan Franzen (yes, the author) talks about the first time he really noticed the birds in Central Park – it was as if “the trees were hanging with ornaments.” He’s very funny about the usefulness of birding as a way of avoiding writing, but it’s clear that the head-clearing that comes with it is vital. (Although not mentioned in the movie, Franzen’s New Yorker essay “My Bird Problem” is one of the best pieces ever written about how birding can change one’s life.)

Franzen is also very funny about the dweeb factor in birding.

Unlike the other people who are interviewed, he acknowledges the stereotype and even agrees with it. “You’ve got the binoculars up, and you’re demonstrating that you need something. That’s the essence of uncoolness.”

A legend among birders is the matriarchal Starr Sapphir, a former Shakespearean actress who has been guiding birder tours through Central Park for more than 30 years. (At $8 a pop, it looks like a real bargain.) Terminally ill with breast cancer, she still manages her seasonal schedule with no-nonsense exactitude.

She’s compiled more than 80 notebooks over the years, logging all the species she’s sighted. “The fun is in the counting,” she says.

The appeal of birding in Central Park is obvious: It’s a little piece of nature right in the city. As Franzen says, “It’s one of those rare times in an adult’s life where the world suddenly seems more magical, rather than less.”

Kimball doesn’t delve deeply enough into the lives of these birders, perhaps because he doesn’t want to upstage the birds, or maybe because he feels that everything nonbirdy about birders is for the birds.

He also is a tad too touchy-feely about the ornithological wondrousness of it all. One observer notes that birds can be ruthless in search of food, but this comment is a brief blip in the lovefest. Still, I’m glad Kimball doesn’t go in for a lot of tooth and claw close-ups. One of my pet peeves about nature documentaries is that we always end up watching some poor beast being stalked and gored.

In “Birders,” by contrast, nature is one big entrancing show; a world of tweets without “tweets.” Grade: B+ (Unrated.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.