Film Is Dead?

 In the Sept. 9, 2012 issue of The New York Times Arts and Leisure section, an essay co-written by the papers two primary film critics, Manohla Dargis and A.O.Scott, riff off the title Film Is Dead? Their concern is over the rapid technological and economic change from the photo chemical process of creating and projecting moving images to a computer generated/digital process.

Their cultural/aesthetic concerns focus on how this overwhelming change will affect the quality of the screened image, and while championing the look of celluloid, the critics are careful to explain that the switch to digital is here and has particular advantages, along with a host of problems. This new wave will transform both economic and aesthetic practices within the industry and influence film/digital audiences around the world.

While the critics thoughtfully examine the potential aesthetic changes that they see occurring they never once consider the enormous positive change that will take place in the "deep ontological and phenomenological shifts that are transforming a medium." That change involves the enormously reduced environmental and ecological impact produced by the 19th and 20th century industrial practices of the photo chemical process of creating celluloid and the finished film product and the energy required to deliver such a product to world wide audiences. From this perspective digital production, distribution and exhibition is a quantum leap in reducing the destructive chemical/carbon  footprint that has dominated the film industry since the 1890's. What is reduced in this switch from the film process to the digital process that an overwhelmingly majority of film critics refuse to analyze and write about?

The production process of celluloid itself involves the enormous use of water, chemicals and energy. The process of turning celluloid into "film" involves more of the same. Many of these chemicals turn into waste products that have been polluting the environment for over a 100 years. The eco-damage caused by the total film production process is hard to calculate but studies done examining the effects of  Kodak's film production processing in Rochester has been well documented by Toby Miller and Richard Maxwell. The creation and ultimate processing of celluloid around the world has contributed to many pollution problems which will be eliminated  by the digital takeover. Chemicals, of course, are involved with the process of film making from the initial creation of celluloid, to the processing of the negative, to the work prints and ultimately the finished prints that are shown in theaters. The final destruction of millions of film prints over the century has also produced a variety of enviro/eco disasters. All this disappears with the introduction of digital. For example, despite the environmental costs of hardware and servers, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows diverted 756 tons of film waste from landfill with a recovery rate of 98.4 percent and saved 2500 tons of C02 from being emitted by using Greenshoot and adopting green practices throughout the production, and saved money through Greenshoot's services into the production.

The distribution process which requires enormous carbon expenditures to deliver thousands of bulky prints to theaters all over the world also is eliminated by digital. Digital "films" are now delivered by dvd's, or hard drives or by transmitting signals by satellite. It is hard to calculate the final reduction of carbon by eliminating delivering celluloid, but the film industry which sometimes spend 3 million dollars for the physical production and physical delivery of the prints for just one film, is seeing an enormous decrease in the costs of distribution. This inspires the industry to move more quickly to digital since they readily see the new profits to be made by no longer having to pay for the creation of film prints and the enormous costs of delivering them and eliminating them after their value has ended. The final area of exhibition is also influenced by digital. With the removal of bulky film, new projectors and new means of transmitting images to audiences have reduced the costs of theater owners who, of course, share in distribution expenses.

The rise of digital may produce a flood of aesthetic questions, but from the perspective of the ecofilm critic, it is a new age that reveals a potential reduction in pollution and environmental damage that makes it well worth any anxiety over the new viewing experience that vexes so many mainstream film critics today.