Change in Environmental Film: Art + Poetry = Effective Message

[If you don’t read this blog post, I won’t mind. But please watch the short film Plastic Bag narrated by Werner Herzog. I’ve included it at the bottom of this post. It is incredible. Period.]

“Hey you! You wasteful consumer! Watch this film I made! I’m gonna show you a bunch of heightened or ambiguous facts about your unsustainable lifestyle! You are blowing it for the future of our planet! Change your lifestyle now!”

This is the imagined voice I hear when I watch several poorly made environmental films. You’ve all seen them: The PSA that you forget 30 seconds later or the awful post-apocalyptic feature film that you wish was only 30 seconds.

Or, it may not even be an environmental film. It may be Avatar in 3-D IMAX where you have a bunch of humans in robot suits destroying beautiful landscapes and its native people for a precious resource: UNOBTAINIUM!

Come on James Cameron! These generic scenarios lack effectiveness of an environmental message. But I guess that wasn’t the point. The point of the film was to spend $280,000,000 to make a bunch of cool looking 3-D stuff.

Anywho, as a filmmaker with a concern for the environment, I ask, “How do you make a good environmental film?” Several people, including myself, make environmental films but I see very few that are truly exceptional.

First, let’s start with a simple definition:

Environmental Film – A film/video whose primary subject is the natural environment, or an issue concerning the environment.

(For this discussion, an environmental film includes PSAs, films, videos, television, and online media of any length.)

In most cases, if you figure out what is bad first, it is much easier to figure out what is good.

So what makes an environmental film bad?

1. The presentation. The subject (content) may be important, and may be interesting too, but the material’s presentation (form) is poor. A lot of filmmaker’s engage with their subject but fail to engage creatively with the filmic medium itself. The result: A film lacking originality or interest.

2. The tone. Environmental films can have an overbearing tone. Instead of presenting a subject to the audience, the film turns the audience into the subject, attacking our guilt for the issue at hand. Even if our actions are at fault, this is an ineffective way to promote change. A film can try to tell us what to do, but it cannot hear our response. So instead of responding, we quickly dismiss it.

3. The audience. Both presentation and tone influences the audience of an environmental film. If the presentation is too dry, scientists may be the only ones who will bore themselves. If the tone is too strong, environmentalists may be the only ones who can tolerate it.

4. The message. I believe the purpose of environmental films is to raise awareness and promote positive change for the issue at hand. But if the film has already failed in its presentation and tone, and failed to find an audience, then the message, no matter how important, has failed to make an impact.

Okay, so it seems that environmental films have at least four components: presentation, tone, an audience, and a message.

And a good environmental film should successfully convey its message to an audience. It should promote awareness and encourage change.  Now how do you do that? Well, that’s tricky. If there was a formulaic answer, I’d be off making excellent environmental films and not thinking of it.

Instead of an answer, let’s look at 2 case studies of successful and exceptional environmental films…

1. Planet Earth.

This 11 episode television series premiered in 2006. It was the most expensive environmental documentary to be commissioned by the BBC and took 4 years to complete.

The presentation of Planet Earth is incredible. It’s subject: 11 different habitats from all over the globe. The photography (form) may be more fascinating at times then the habitats themselves (content). High-speed photography and complex camera moves provide unique views of landscapes and wildlife.

The tone of Planet Earth is casual and objective. The narration is merely descriptive. There is no address to the viewer, or guilt tripping of any sort.

The message of Planet Earth is also subtle. After watching 11 breathtaking episodes, the viewer has a greater awareness and perhaps appreciation for the global environment. At the very least, it is an entertaining and unforgettable document of nature.

You may not volunteer to protect marine life after watching Planet Earth… However, I believe that if one wants to get stoned and watch a great white shark eat a seal in super slow-motion… that is still one step forward. Appreciation must come first.

2. Plastic Bag. A short film.

This film is the reason for this post. I saw it a month ago when it made its online premiere and I haven’t been able to get it out of my head.

Plastic Bag by writer/director Ramin Bahrani is a poetic triumph. The film personifies a plastic bag that wanders a long existential journey in search of its maker. It starts with its “first breath” at the grocery store and ventures all the way to the “Vortex,” a plastic utopia in the middle of the ocean. The plastic bag’s voice is narrated by none other than Werner Herzog. Bahrani’s regular collaborator, cinematographer Michael Simmonds, creates powerful images that strike an emotional cord with their raw simplicity. An elegant score from Sigur Ros’ Kjartan Sveinsson accompanies the visual beauty. Moments of light humor ground the film from any pretension. 

First and foremost, Plastic Bag succeeds as a short film and a work of art. Furthermore, it succeeds as an environmental film. Its message is clear and direct: We live in a disposable society that is creating a serious problem of plastic pollution. But Bahrani never attempts to address this issue directly. Instead, he turns the issue into a character, a plastic bag, and seeks to tell a great story of that character with every element of the filmic medium. He creates a great film first, that happens to appeal to a broad audience, and coincidentally carries a strong environmental message.

I believe making art and poetry is one of the most effective means for change and that this film creates a new direction for environmental film. Enjoy!

Plastic Bag is one of eleven short environmental films that make up the online series Futurestates presented by PBS’ ITVS (The Independent Television Service). I’ve only started watching a few of the other shorts. After Plastic Bag, my expectations were high and could not be met. One of the other shorts fell into the cliché post-apocalyptic scenario and I stopped watching.

Change in Film: Purpose, Value, and Waste

[WARNING: The following may only interest filmmakers or critical thinkers.  Basically, I consumed a ridiculous number of awful films that made me seriously consider the production of my own films and others.  This is a long rant that is partly analytical, theoretical, critical, philosophical, and self-reflecting.]

This past week marked the end of my pre-screening process for the Ann Arbor Film Festival. Over the last two months, I have watched 320 films, narrative and documentary, that were submitted for consideration in the 48th AAFF which will take place March 23-28, 2010 at The Historic Michigan Theater. Of those 320 films, I recommended approximately 40 to the next round of screening with only five or six films that I really liked- thank you to those few filmmakers.

This long exhaustive process has changed some of my ideas about filmmaking and the types of films I want to make.

First off, I don’t think the majority of filmmakers ever intend to make a bad film. But let’s face it: bad films happen. It’s really hard to make a good film and it takes almost a miracle to make a great film.

Regardless if it awesome or god awful, a majority of films take a lot of time, money, and energy.

So before funds are raised and the camera starts rolling, filmmakers should ask themselves, “Why am I making this film?” It seems self-explanatory but I’m not so sure after watching hundreds of films made within the last year.

After some contemplative thought, I have devised a few main categories that describe the purpose of the filmmaker to participate in film production along with the purpose of the viewer or audience to participate in film consumption. [For this discussion, the filmmaker is the primary person responsible for the creation of the film. The categories can be extended to additional filmmakers and crew members necessary for film production but it is not the primary interest of the discussion.]

These categories are interchangeable in many cases and most filmmakers, films, and viewers have multiple purposes although there may be a primary purpose.  For example, the purpose of a film like Farenheit 9/11 may have been political, but it also made a ridiculous amount of money.  Who knows whether or not that was Michael Moore's purpose too or just an accidental end?


PURPOSES OF FILMMAKERS AND FILM PRODUCTION

1. Money. The purpose is to make money. The content of the film does not matter. The film can be Citizen Kane or really dirty pornography- as long as it makes money.

2. Entertainment. The purpose is to entertain an audience. The filmmaker may also experience pleasure and amusement in doing so and may experience similar pleasure in the making of the film itself. So there is entertaining the audience, and entertaining oneself. Entertainment can be commercial, artistic or both.

3. Art. The purpose is to explore film as an art form and push its boundaries.

4. Social. The purpose is to explore social issues. It may be the intention to raise audience awareness on the issues at hand. The content of the film can vary from private and personal to global matters. Social factors may also participate in film production and not just the film itself.

5. Political. The purpose is to explore, expose, or propagate political issues. It may be the intention to influence the political views of the audience.

6. Education and Experience. The purpose is to educate an audience. Also, the filmmaker will mostly likely gain knowledge and experience from the production of the film itself.


PURPOSES OF THE VIEWER, AUDIENCE AND FILM CONSUMPTION

1. Entertainment. The purpose is to entertain oneself. The kind of pleasure varies greatly from the type of film, the type of viewer, and the type of consumption. Pleasure may not even be dependent on the film itself, only the type of consumption. For example, teenagers may go to a movie theater to get away from their parents and make-out with their significant others. What is on the screen is insignificant.

2. Art. The purpose is to view film as an art form, see its boundaries being pushed, and enlighten one’s experience and understanding of film and art.

3. Social. The purpose is to gain insight, knowledge and/or understanding of the social issues the film addresses.

4. Political. The purpose is to gain insight, knowledge, and/or understanding of the political issues the film addresses.

5. Educational. The purpose is to gain general knowledge and insight of a particular interest.


VALUE

Each purpose for film production merits a particular value. Value describes the worth, importance, or usefulness of producing a film. Although value is somewhat subjective, most would agree that certain purposes have higher value than others. For example: a documentary may merit social value for raising awareness of a global concern. A simple comedy may merit value in its ability to entertain. Although the latter has an important function in society, one would not argue the greater value of the former.


FILMMAKER EXECUTION AND AUDIENCE RECEPTION

The purpose of filmmakers and film production should be distinguished from the purpose of the film itself. The purpose of the film itself is related to both the filmmaker and audience. If the filmmaker’s efforts are well executed, their purpose may continue with the film itself. For example, if a filmmaker’s primary purpose is to make an entertaining film, and the production of the film is well executed, then the film may be entertaining. There is then the possibility that the film, with its purpose to entertain, may entertain a viewer whose purpose for consuming the film is to be entertained. However, if the production of the film is not well executed, the film may not be entertaining and may not entertain the viewer. If the primary purpose for producing a film is not met by the film itself, it may have little to no value for existence or for an audience.


NARRATIVE AND DOCUMENTARY

Based on quantity and not quality, it seems the primary purpose of most narrative film production is to entertain while the primary purpose of most documentary film is social, political, or educational.

A poorly executed narrative film that does not entertain yields little to no value for its primary purpose of production. However, a poorly executed documentary film that does not adequately engage its topic still seems to yield some value. Perhaps its because the original purpose could be considered of higher value and the act of partaking in a documentary film production raises awareness, however small, to its topic or cause.


VALUE VS. COST

A film’s value should be weighed against its cost. It takes a lot of time, energy, and resources to make a film. If the end product has little to no value, then the film and its production is waste and the filmmaker could be considered wasteful for that matter. Filmmakers with a primary purpose to make money understand this concept quite well: if the cost to produce a film is greater than its revenue, it has lost or wasted money and was not worth the effort.


CONCLUSION

I enjoy nearly all types of films for a variety of reasons. I see value in each purpose of film production and consumption. I do not necessarily think particular genres of films have more value than others. I think creativity determines that. Unfortunately, a majority of narrative films are unoriginal and a waste of time and resources. The only time a cliché melodrama makes me cry is during the end credits, knowing that a lot of money, people and energy were used to create a lot of waste.

I’ve begun to think that I, myself, may have a greater purpose by pursuing documentary filmmaking whereas I once thought I would become a director of narrative features. The lifestyle of a documentary filmmaker seems more engaging, active, and appealing right now.  Especially if there are some travel perks...

Who knows what I'll ultimately do or become.  I’ve labeled this last section “Conclusion” but I have yet to get to the bottom of anything...

If you bothered to read all of this, thank you!  I would appreciate any feedback.  If you think this blog post sucks, let me know.  I apologize and will try better next time.  At least the production of blogs post uses little resources and only wastes my time and yours.  If I had produced a film about this instead, I would have wasted several people's time, money, and resources and that would have been devastating.