Environmental Filmmaking: Can Cinema Ever Be Truly Green? is the first of three free discussions put on by Time Out at the 53rd London Film Festival. It questions whether films can have a green future, and if so what differences will we see. The panel was led by Lucy Siegle, environmental writer for The Guardian; Leo Hickman, author and journalist of several environmental and ethical books and features; Andy Whittaker, distribution and business strategist for Dogwoof; and Nikola Giuggioli, co-founder of Brightwide.com.
We are well into the new green movement. An era where environmental knowledge and awareness is gradually seeping into the fabric of everyday life, although to some the gradient needs to be steeper.
Political parties, education institutions, large and small business and the creative economy are all going to have to succumb to the green switch. Although complacency is still rife, it is clear that fragments of belief in a more responsible and sustainable world are growing. The creative economy controls a critical grasp on the welfare of the global economic future and as the environment begins to hit our news pages more and more, we must consider the changes, choices and approaches to creative output, in particular the highly demanding film industry.
Almost immediately Leo Hickman noted that the Los Angeles film production industry is the largest air polluter of the city, moving the discussion straight into the studio system and its future. The studio system, or more to the point Hollywood, has been at the top of the food chain for almost the entirety of cinematic history. No exaggeration, it is fucking massive. There is no question that the studios should be leading the cohorts by setting defiant examples towards greener production ethics.
One example of a studio moving forward, in some respects, is Project Pinewood (pictured). It’s a purpose built production village with the aim of incorporating all the external components of film production and logistics (most of which consume huge amounts fuel) and containing them in one place. This move could prove fruitful, in fact it almost certainly will.
As one of the world’s most esteemed studios for UK film production, it is a responsible move in the right direction at least, although is it really a worthwhile example for other studios to follow? Well, yes. But studios will also need to incorporate more original strategies rather than just shifting their consumption down a notch. There are in fact several movements towards changing the consumption of studios; recycling unneeded sets, using solar power to run basic devices for filmmaking and contributing financially to the various organisations that are trying to combat climate change are just a few approaches being adopted.
It has been a busy decade for new media, in particular websites like YouTube and Vimeo, which now act as a vessel for free global distribution. Now, of course YouTube is not exactly the first choice for film distribution, but it is at least in the right place for getting creative filmmaking online. The latter, Vimeo, is a slightly more clean shaven approach to video streaming and regularly refreshes viewers creativity by launching overnight film competitions.
This antithesis in competitive film production is arguably closer to a green industry than the studios are. And interestingly there is a growing bond between zero-budget filmmaking on Vimeo and green policies in the studio system. This could, in years to come, be prophetic of the changes both new media and big studios will have to make.
Although some members the panel felt differently; arguing that instead of there being a bridging of two ends of the industry, instead, due to there still being a desire to be part the studio system, younger filmmakers utilising web distribution will have the responsibility of retaining their integrity and supporting the mainstream films that work towards greener production. Nicola Giuggiolo is behind a responsible approach to film distribution and sharing, and tries to give exposure to unsung political or socially led films, rather that the mainstream.
This new media movement is also taking shape inside the cinemas, where digital versus film is the topic of much discussion. It is something that, as audiences and filmmakers, we will have to go with. There are still a large amount of filmmakers who adore and stick by the use of 35mm celluloid, but the environmental costs, when weighed against digital, look pretty bleak.
From shoot to screening, thousands of reels of heavy 35mm stock have to be flown and shipped across the globe, not to mention the reproductions to either 35mm or 70mm for cinematic purposes. This, on top of a film’s DVD release and marketing package, puts a huge added pressure on the future of a green film industry. The arguments for digital are growing and overshadowing film. With iTunes now selling high quality films, affordably, across the web, and several cinemas converting to digital projection, we can expect to see a lighter distribution and transport weight on the shoulder of the industry, but only if there is the sufficient support behind it.
The panel and audience highlighted many rarely discussed issues regarding cinema and the environment and also opened up the realities that audiences are going to have to be aware of. As a huge aspect of the global economy, one loved by literally billions, the film industry will have to be responsible and greener with the billions of pounds it spends, as well as the billions of people it sells to. So, can cinema ever be truly green? Yes, but only if its billions of contributors play by the same rules.
