Holly and wood are both green
The Ministry for the Environment has launched Greening the Screen, a comprehensive online guide for film makers on how to reduce the environmental impacts of their productions. It is a good well-designed site with a lot of information that would be useful in any business.
I note particularly that in the Behind the Scenes: Art section it says:
Store, sell or donate unwanted set materials to local theatres, high schools and acting schools before opting for disposal. Collate a list of charities who would be willing to pick up unwanted set materials and props at short notice, make this list readily available and keep it updated.
It would be good if big time film makers picked up on these measures alone. Apparently when the LOTR team dismantled Edoras in the Southern Alps, all the materials were burnt to prevent souveniring and reuse and locals were not allowed to rescue plain timber that had no recognisible marks on it for reuse in their community. Hopefully, this new guide will help prevent that sort of silliness from happening again.
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Alas, the film industry makes progress at glacial pace. It may be well and good to ask Wingnut Films to think greener, but here is their chain of reporting for King Kong:
Wingnut Films -> Mirimar Pictures -> Universal Studios -> General Electric.
I don’t think GE or the MPAA are going to be too receptive.
That said, I’m absolutely first in line for unwanted props for the NZ LARP Society - http://diatribe.co.nz/
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:00 pm
These Ministry of Environment guidelines should be written into all contracts for public funding from NZOA [TV] and Ministry of Trade & Enterprise [film production fund grants].
Approval for commercials filmed in NZ to go to air should only be granted if they comply with these guidelines.
Guidelines are fine, but they need teeth to be effective.
Before producers and ‘free traders’ complain about ‘more bureaucracy’, the guidelines will save producers money, and incentives for compliance [such as speedy final payments] would also save them money.
But will the other bureaucrats co-operate with Ministry of Environment?
How about giving the TV/film and TVC production industry 12 months to work with the MofE people to work through issues and voluntarily incorporate the guidelines - and then make them compulsory?
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Worth mentioning a current and hopefully invisible change to movie print production that will have a large positive environmental impact.
Until fairly recently, the optical soundtrack on all 35mm movie prints has been printed using the same black and white printing technique used from the earliest days of photography, using silver solutions and nasty chemicals. In effect a movie print is printed and developed twice, once for the colour image, and again for the soundtrack.
The new practice being adopted by film production labs is to print the soundtrack onto the cyan colour layer, removing the need for the separate black and white step. This saves millions of pounds of silver being dumped into landfills every year.
Its also meant that every 35mm cinema that wishes to show current material has had to upgrade their optical sound readers. For many cinemas, especially the non-digital houses, this has meant a distinct improvment in the quality of movie sound reproduction.
A silent revolution in movie soundtracks, and a win for the environment. Some days are better than others.
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:29 am
The biggest measure to reduce the environmental impact of the New Zealand film industry would be to stop using other people’s money to subsidise it. Why subsidise people who are doing something you find destructive?
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:44 am
here is the previous commenter ‘libertyscott’ over at national party mouthpiece/blog ‘david farrar’ talking about the greens..
“..The Greens have always been one of the most pro-violence parties in Parliament. Except they think that violence is legitimate, when the state carries it out to implement their policies of banning, taxing and forcing people to do what they want…”
ignore him..he is a raving rightwing loon…..:)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:08 am
Reading his blog a few minutes leads me to understand him as a staunch Libertarian.
Libertarians are indeed rightwing and IMHO a little bit in error, but we have a lot in common with them as well. Touch him on drug policy or social justice issues or religion issues and he will likely be supporting many of the same things we do.
The error of course, is the belief that the state is the enemy and we should be completely free to do as we please as long as we can afford to do it (and nobody else is hurt). That principle is OK if the commons is priced fairly along with everything else… at which point the equations of affordability and accountability will make his position look almost identical to our own. The problem with it is that the commons doesn’t get a price tag put on it by the market… it has to be done by the government, and this smacks of interference of the worst sort. That it is necessary for the system to work properly is beside the point. Government doing anything is “bad” in Libertarian terms.
Libertarians are actually quite close to MANY green positions. Few of them seem to realize the fact.
You’re right though, if he’s posting here he’s probably trolling.
respectfully
BJ
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I agree with our Libertarian mate. OPM [other peoples money] or, in this case, taxpayers money, shouldn’t be used to support things we Greens find destructive.
For a start, let’s halt taxpayer support for farmers who ruin the environment, for researchers trying to introduce GE, for businesses that condone poor environmental and labor policies, for the pharmaceutical industry that industrializes health, for the road transport industry which supports roads at any cost, for the racing industry which breeds gamblers, for the multinational tourism companies that ruin iconic sites, and the list could go on, because I haven’t even started on government and local body agencies that make wanton with OPM.
Would the National Party endorse our Libertarian visitor’s views? I doubt it. Would Labour, hell no. Would ACT, some aspects that didn’t harm profits maybe. Would NZ First, no way. Would Dunne’s mob, hell no again.
As BJ comments, libertyscott has more in common with the Greens than any other political party except ACT. Welcome:)
November 24th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Raving right wing loon? Now there is a way of encouraging debate.
BJ - your position isn’t entirely far from mine. The question is what the “commons” are, and to keep with the issue, I don’t think the film industry is. On drugs the Greens are on the right path and Nandor gave our submission the greatest respect when the select committee inquiry into the status of cannabis was held a few years ago.
DR- I agree, and thank you for the welcome. except I wouldn’t be funding the things you like either - people could choose.
I think many Green supporters have good intentions, and some good aspirations, but I also think you can get a lot of what you want by simply acting voluntarily - using your money, use argument and debate, not state force to change things.
November 24th, 2005 at 5:06 am
libertyscott said..”..Raving right wing loon? Now there is a way of encouraging debate..”
not trying to stop you from engaging….just putting you into context..:)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 24th, 2005 at 7:57 am
–The biggest measure to reduce the environmental impact of the New Zealand film industry would be to stop using other people’s money to subsidise it. Why subsidise people who are doing something you find destructive?–
Why subsidise something we find destructive? Well, because we acknoledge that many film projects will happen in places that aren’t New Zealand if they don’t get a subsidy here, and if we don’t try to subsidise them for being more responsible, someone else will subsidise them just to get their business.
In a green sense, we’re thinking about the fact that pollution elsewhere in the world effects New Zealand, too.
November 24th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
hehe fair enough Phil - as long as the raving left wing loons don’t mind me.
Ari, your argument is bizarre. Why take money from New Zealanders who could choose to spend their own money on things they want for themselves, their families or loved ones, to give to people who do something you find destructive because those who DO those things might get money from someone else? Are NZ taxpayers needing to be in competition with taxpayers elsewhere for funding something bad?