Business screen magazine (1946)

Which way for the environment film: useful public service, or scary sensationalism? BY STUART FINLEY Not every film wc s--e on the screen today is as honest as it ought to be. In fact, delihcrate distortion is sometimes injected into sponsored films intended to sell a product or an idea. This could be called relatively harmless since the viewer can usually detect the bias easily. But a more subtle and dangerous form of dishonesty can be built into a diKumentary film when it fails to come to grips with its subject matter substantively. These films or television programs can seriously mislead their audiences and are often counter-productive to the public interest and eventually to the interests of (he sponsor. • Will an interlock with recognized authorities substantiate the film in a general way and in every word of the script? • Is it an honest representation of the subject? • Does it avoid unjustifiable emotionality? • Is it showmanly, visual, concisely written, and easy to watch without nodding off to sleep? The typical client for an environmental film is a government agency. Usually, the public affairs official wants to stimulate public interest and action but avoid extreme negativism which can result in dispirited lethargy 64 . . . America is not really going to hell in a handhasket.' Environmental films are susceptible to this kind of dishonesty. The subject area is complex, and when script research is casual, the film may point in all sorts of false directions. Sometimes, the sponsor's and the producer's tendency is to take the easy road and produce "scare" films. These can be sensational and fascinating to the uninitiated, particularly susceptible school children. Even older students seem to seek this material in today's perverse mood of discontent. TTie question that everyone concerned with ecological problems should face is: What should an environmental diK-umentary say? What should its editorial policy be? What should it try to achieve? After seventeen years of film-making in the area of environmental matters, I have some firm opinions. These are my criteria: • Is the film useful and helpful? • Dih:s the viewer learn more about the subject? • Is the subject presented in true perspective? 99 or even a nihilistic attitude. Producing a film for such a client is like walking a tightrope. If you lean too far to either side, you'll tumble. The solution is quite simple. Immerse yourself in the substance of the problems and solutions involved and withdraw from general policy considerations. These should become inherent in the total presentation. In other words — inform, don't caterwaul. The subject matter available is endless, if you take the trouble to ferret it out. Here are some current subjects we're filming: • Cieneral Electric's newly developed vt)rtex incinerati>r which promises to reduce the volume of municipal wastes dramatically without creating air pifllution because of its new high temperature combustion process; • Bell and Howell's imaginative packaging priK;esses which will diminish the creation of solid waste in manufacturing by clever application of the principles of reuse recovery; • Armco's award winning stcci waste water recovery system at Middletown. Ohio plant; • Dow Chemical's ingenious automated effluent monitoring and control system at its complex of plants at .Midland. Michigan; • Tahoe's interesting lash-up of existing previously-proved sew age treatment technology int an effective treatment system • The new UNOX system for hypoing sewage treatment employing long-known but littl used basic principles: • The Environmental Protection Agency's new and successful rural solid waste collection s>'sicm developed by Chilton County. Alabama; ' • And so on and on. . . . The point is that when \ou mix this material in with burning dumps outfalls, and stack emissions, you car develop a balanced story which relate: urgent contemporary problems to sig nificant current progress. The viewei can watch and be motivated to par ticipate without being crushed by ar avalanche of seemingly ovenvhelminj difficulties. What I am really saying is tha while we have a huge and trouble some conglomeration of enNironmen tal problems toda\. .America is no really going to hell in a handhasket This is the rea.son I just stall whci people call to buy stock fixitagi o sewage discharges, fishkills, .ind oihe negaiiN e manifestations. Sometimes you can't find the righ client for an en\ironment.il film idea Our solution is to produce it an\wa for distribution. Back in I96h. ou cincmatographer. Ted Jones, K-eam' fasinated with the subject of solii waste management and conceive; "The Third Pollution". This was th first ci>mprehensi\e film ever made this subject. It went to the Edinburg l-ilm Eestival and won six other majo .iw.irds TodaN, there are five hundi* 56 BUSINESS SCREEfl