Greening Hollywood, Continued!

 

During the early 2010s, the rapid technological changeover from film to digital projection was reaching high speed. As Nick Leiber of Bloomberg Businessweek explains, “To induce exhibitors to purchase the equipment, celluloid prints of new movies form majors will no longer be available in the U.S. by the end of 2013, according to John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners”(53). According to Leiber, “about 26,000 of the 40,0000 screens in the U.S. have already converted” to digital (54). The changeover to digital eliminates production of celluloid, chemical processing, and the physical delivery of thousands of film prints per major feature release. This “greening” of film production distribution and exhibition had been jump-started by the success of digital films and 3D blockbusters such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (2011) (1.3 billion in worldwide ticket sales) and Avatar (2009) (2.75 billion in worldwide ticket sales). Since 3D is now a major theatrical draw for audiences, theaters have been forced to adapt quickly by phasing in digital projection at a far higher rate than previously anticipated. IMAX Theatres, for example, have completely transitioned to digital projection. A majority of theaters worldwide will soon be projecting feature films digitally, now that box office potential for 3D has become a financial reality. 

 This success now forces far greater beneficial environmental results throughout the whole process of filmmaking and film viewing. The digital age may reduce the carbon footprint of film companies in major ways that are still being calculated. As Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller suggest, “The question is whether the digital transition will make motion pictures less ecologically destructive” despite their high-energy use and toxic waste production, especially if home viewing screens are included (75). With studio practices becoming more environmentally sound and environmental messages becoming more audience friendly, however, digital films like Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, can reach worldwide audiences, serving audiences with a potentially lighter carbon footprint. In fact, as Gendy Alimurang states in an April 12, 2012 Los Angeles Weekly piece, studios “no longer want to physically print and ship movies” because it costs only $150 for a digital copy, rather than the $1500.00/print times 4000 theatres for 35mm film. Although, as Alimurang suggests, the shift to digital will have negative consequences for independent theatres, projectionist jobs, and classic film distribution, it may also help “green” the movie business.

Greening Hollywood, Continued

 

Warner Bros. Pictures (the studio that brought us both Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II (2011) has made an effort to obtain carbon neutrality and nurture conservation initiatives on its movie productions. According to their website, “All Warner Bros. Pictures Productions use a carbon calculator to measure their footprint and inform future green production initiatives.” They note the success of the 2005 film Syriana and 2010’s New Line Cinema film Valentine’s Day as films that have “implemented numerous sustainable practices, including a first-of-its kind hybrid base camp utilizing solar power and bio-diesel-fueled generators; reusable water bottles, to eliminate the use of single-use plastic water bottles; clean-air vehicles, for both talent and equipment transportation; recycling and composting efforts; and biodegradable food ware.” According to the site, eight of the studio’s last 25 films were carbon neutral, including Due Date (2010), Flipped (2010), Green Lantern (2011), Inception (2010), The Town (2010), and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Warner Bros.’ animated films also lessen their carbon footprint (as well as their production costs) by implementing digital cinematography and distribution. 

Other studios have made the move to digital cinematography for their live-action films, such as Paramount Pictures’ Hugo (2011), or live-action/animated films, such as Twentieth-Century Fox’s Avatar (2009). Since 2007, sales of film cameras have rapidly declined, and all new cinema cameras introduced since 2007 are digital, a change that contributed to Eastman Kodak’s bankruptcy in January 2012. The success of this move to digital is demonstrated by the preponderance of digital films winning the Academy Award for cinematography. Slumdog Millionaire (2009) and Avatar’s digital production is seen by most as a large step towards “greening” Hollywood, a move that has not negatively affected either film’s profits. The success of digital blockbusters creates an even more inviting atmosphere for digital filmmaking and video digital projection. The ultimate goal is that all theatrical projectors will be digital video. 

This goal of transforming all theatres to digital projection will mean the end of using film in the production process. Computer-generated video production and exhibition, like that produced for Hugo and Avatar, ends the chemical links of producing film prints, eliminates the need to create and deliver thousands of prints for exhibition, and ends the need to destroy the prints after their theatrical runs. This transformation also means millions of dollars will be saved on every major release, while also substantially reducing the carbon footprint that creating, delivering, and exhibiting films has caused since their invention in the late nineteenth century. In Greening the Media, Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller provide a detailed description of the environmental destruction associated with celluloid film (71-75).

Greening the Film Industry?

 

Twenty-first Century films rely more fully on CGI and digital production, but even when the films blatantly address the detrimental effects on our basic needs or the dire consequences of meeting them, they still struggle with maintaining the realism expected by both Hollywood and its audiences while encouraging environmentally friendly production practices. With a budget of $200 million and a gross profit of $586 million, Quantum of Solace, a blockbuster with a blatantly environmental message against commodifying water, serves as an apt example of the dilemma filmmakers face: How can a film company provide an effective and lucrative film product and limit negative environmental externalities? 

In many ways this Bond film failed to achieve the “green” message of the story in its production practices. According to Randee Daniel of Hollywood Reporter, for example, Quantum of Solace was shot in six countries, and this on-location film is, according to RPS Group “among the most expensive and carbon-intense stages of film production. Large crews and quantities of equipment must be flown abroad, and diesel generators are used to power the lighting and heating of temporary sets.” In Bregenz, Austria during the scenes of the performance of Tosca and its aftermath, 1500 extras were used, and for a later scene, the Palio di Siena at the Piazza del Campo in Siena was recreated in Italy; for a scene where Bond emerges from the Fonte Gaia, 1000 extras were hired, according to the film’s production diary on the MI6 website. Bill Dawes of FX Guide also reveals that a full-scale replica of the hotel building’s exterior was used for the exploding segment in which Bond and Camille escape in South America. 

Yet efforts were made to “green” this film production, as well. Although six Aston Martins were destroyed during the making of Quantum of Solace, the film also featured environmentally friendly Ford Motor Company cars: A Ford Ka EV, which seems to be electrically powered, and a fleet of Ford Edge Fuel-Cell EVs. The film also relied heavily on CGI, with over 900 visual effects shots stirring up adventure, according to a VFX World interview recorded by Bill Desowitz. Like other James Bond films, Quantum of Solace was produced at Pinewood Studios, whose carbon footprint was recently evaluated by RPS Group to support its plan to build a “1400 unit residential development – that also doubles as a giant 15-location film set for Pinewood Studios.” The assessment report suggests that between 60% and 90% reductions of greenhouse gas emissions may be possible if the development is approved, and using “streetscapes for filming will achieve a 44% annual reduction over business-as-usual location shooting abroad.” 

 These changes to the studio seemed to bode well for future James Bond productions until the carbon footprint-heavy Skyfall (2012), but other action adventure films have more successfully implemented “green” production practices. With a budget of $90 million, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) for example, “exemplifies eco-friendly filmmaking,” according to Gerri Miller of the Mother Nature Network, and still has already grossed $543 million. Because the film was part of Warner Brothers’ Green Initiative, the studio brought in Greenshoot as a consultant to “assist the production in lowering the carbon footprint [of the film] and to help implement more sustainable production practices in conjunction with and to complement the Green initiatives already set out by Warner Bros.” According to Co-producer Lauren Meek, “Construction set waste and food waste were key issues for us” (quoted in Miller). As Meek explains, “We diverted 756 tons of film waste from landfill with a recovery rate of 98.6 percent which was a zero landfill achievement. We saved 2500 tons of CO2 form being emitted by using Greenshoot and adopting green practices throughout the production, and saved money through Greenshoot's services into the productions” (quoted in Miller). Some of this was achieved by making the film digitally, but “visual effects enabled the production to cut down on travel and shoot everything in England, except for a few establishing shots” (Miller).

Can the Film Industry and the Environmental Movements Mix?

Even though oil drilling films we examined in Film and Everyday Eco-disasters attempted to show us that oil and water can mix, at least if appropriate safety precautions are in place, the filmic representations of everyday eco-disasters explored throughout this book all highlight the negative consequences (externalities) of fulfilling our basic needs. They also demonstrate that, more often than not, these eco-disasters also jeopardize those needs. Total Recall, for example, illustrates the repercussions of oxygen deprivation, but it also emphasizes the cause of unequal distribution of air: turning resources into commodities. Quantum of Solace, despite its James Bond action-adventure genre, demonstrates similar consequences, this time in relation to water as a necessary resource. Our Daily Bread, The Cove, Norma Rae, Blue Vinyl: The World’s First Toxic Comedy, The Last Mountain (and the other eleven mountaintop removal mining documentaries), and Black Wave: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez primarily emphasize the eco-disasters associated with fulfilling our basic needs, yet they also effectively illustrate how these everyday eco-disasters threaten the needs of both human and nonhuman nature. 

All these films, to a greater and lesser extent provide an environmental reading based on everyday eco-disasters associated with our everyday lives. Some focus on how our acquisition of our needs sometimes causes an everyday eco-disaster. Others highlight how our drive to commodify those needs endangers both the resources and ourselves. And still others show how our consumption practices risk the resources that sustain us. Yet, because these are all products of the film industry, whether made independently or as a Hollywood blockbuster, they all also contribute to the environmental degradation that translates into an everyday eco-disaster when it affects our ability to meet our basic needs. 

To illustrate, Total Recall was one of the last major blockbusters to make large-scale use of miniature effects rather than computer generated imagery, a carbon-heavy approach that draws on multiple resources, leaving behind waste that is typically disposed in landfills rather than recycled. According to Eric Lichtenfeld, five different companies were brought in to handle the film’s effects. The only CGI sequence was a 42-second scene produced by MetroLight Studios that showed the x-rayed skeletons of commuters and their concealed weapons (258). In contrast only a year later, blockbusters such as James Cameron’s Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) moved almost entirely to CGI. In spite of its message about the negative ramifications of turning oxygen into a commodity available to the privileged rather than the “commons,” Total Recall integrated production practices with a heavy carbon footprint.