Quotes from the Earth: on celluloid
Sucharita Sengupta, Source: terragreen
The average Indian cinema-viewing audience loathes to watch anything but regular Bollywood fare. So how
does one get them interested in documentary films addressing serious issues such as the environment? This was the question that evoked deep introspection from all present at the three-day long (3–5 November 2006) environment film festival, Quotes from the Earth, organized by Toxics Link in New Delhi.
The festival showcased a number of films on the three broad themes of earth, water, and survival. The longest films ran for as long as 150 minutes, while the short films ran for just a minute. Yet, each carried a message that can be ignored only at the peril of mankind. Besides several Indian films, foreign films – from Serbia, Switzerland, Germany, South Africa, and the US – were also screened and were well appreciated.
Point Calimere told the tale of a slowly degenerating migratory bird sanctuary situated on the Tamil Nadu coast. Only an Axe Away depicted the struggle of the people of Kerala against a dam proposed in the pristine Silent Valley. Other films documented the vanishing mangroves of the Sunderbans (A Green Agony); conservation plans in the Great Himalayan National Park (Turf Wars); the rare phenomenon of rain forests in Costa Rica (Mountains in the Mist); the story of recycling of car scraps by refugees in Belgrade (Pretty Dyana); and uranium toxicity near the nuclear test site in Nevada, the US (Downwind: depleted uranium weapons). Notable too were the award-winning film that predicted the devastating Uttarkashi earthquake (Call of the Bhagirathi) and traditional, successful water harvesting techniques in arid Rajasthan (Journey: traditional water harvesting). Two classic films were also screened at the event: Cheluvi, a bilingual by Girish Karnad based on a Kannada folk-tale and Ganashatru, by Satyajit Ray.
The film screenings were accompanied by a panel discussion on the topic ‘Are environmental documentaries only addressing the converted?’ Panelists included Pradeep Saha, Managing Editor of the magazine Down to Earth, Sanjay Kak, a filmmaker-activist, and Alec Wohlgroth, a Swiss filmmaker. The audience, which comprised of students, journalists, filmmakers, activists, and ordinary people concerned about the environment, participated enthusiastically. Although much was said, we present various arguments in a nutshell.
Those who saw essentially nothing wrong in showing environmental documentaries to the ‘converted’, emphasized that this small group is not insignificant. These are the people who can take the cause forward and create an impact. In fact, precisely because it is a fragile minority, it must be enlightened through films. Often, the converted themselves may not have full understanding of the complexities involved. Watching films may help them to engage with different issues.
The opposite view was that there is an acute need to drag environmental issues from the fringes to the centre of public attention. Earlier, environment was seen to be outside the purview of politics. However, matters related to waste or water are dealt with by municipalities, thus bringing them within the ambit of mainstream policy. The idea is not to get approval from the ‘converts’, or increase the number of environmentalists to whom the films reach. The films must be able to reach the politician, the policeman, or the bureaucrat, and get them to think differently.
The attention soon turned from the issue to the craft of filmmaking. Environmental documentaries are often accused of being ‘boring’ or similar in look and make. One view was that constraints of time, money, and specifications of funding agencies kill creativity. Also, making documentaries on the environment has become a safe bet, in terms of getting funds. Playing safe is the death of imagination. It reduces filmmaking to just another job and takes away passion.
However, there can be no excuse for bad art, or for that matter, poor social communication. A panelist pointed out that in general, social communication in India was poor. Environmental documentaries have followed the model of ‘Beginning ® Case Study ® Ending’. This model must be challenged and changed, and imaginative ideas infused into the craft. Perhaps one could use the tact of creating a thought provoking scenario to grab people’s attention.
Marketing and circulation turned out to be the major concerns. Besides making more interesting films it is important that they must also be widely circulated. Since environmental films have gained a relatively wider acceptance in the West, it is not difficult to circulate them or garner revenues. Films such as March of the Penguins or An Inconvenient Truth were testimony to this fact. But this continues to be a bottleneck in India. While some panelists suggested the development of a new business model, others said that films could be circulated via e-mail and Internet.
The audience raised several pertinent questions, including ones demanding solutions. Documentaries discuss matters but rarely come up with solutions. Perhaps filmmaker’s job is not to provide custom-made solutions, but only to provoke people into thinking. There were several voices of disagreement, demanding some kind of solution.
Lamenting inadequate research before making films, audience also highlighted the lack of channels devoted entirely to documentary film. Some suggested that these films should be beamed on slots reserved on private television channels. Filmmakers commented that one must be wary of making such a move, for several compromises will have to be made in the process, thereby deviating from the issue.
This engagement of filmmaker and audience comprising people from the India and abroad, all point to a space for ideas that is screaming to be filled. The festival must be taken beyond the posh walls of the India International Centre, to schools and colleges, and perhaps, homes. It would be a very ambitious, but a necessary step.
Environment and Health Public Lecture Series 
