Author: jona-tristan.koehring

It’s Groundhog Day again – This is my sixth entry in this blog and for the fifth time I’m going to tell you that there will be a change in the trajectory of my project. More precisely I will merge my previous ideas into one. 

For this blog entry I will first recap the talk with Daniel Bauer before carrying out his advice and laying out all the topic areas.

At first we talked about my motivations in general which are nature photography and -filmmaking. We furthermore talked about SeenBlue. We went over the problems we have at Seenblue which are first and foremost gaining reach. He said that this should or could probably be my project. Finding ways to distribute our films in a way that the public actually sees them. Since our projects are important for the survival of our natural environments in and beyond the Anthropocene. From there I told him about my original ideas for my thesis which are sustainable production workflows for conservation films or a filmmaking guide for biologists to empower them to make their own films. Regarding the first one he mentioned that he can’t really see a full thesis project in it. If I wanted to write about it I had to challenge previously established guidelines and analyze them which deviates far from the guide idea. For the second one he said my thesis should be written by me for me, so the outcome benefits me instead of others and that my idea is nice but to altruistic. We furthermore talked about what I actually want. The synthesis of this was: I want to make successful conservation films. So why am I not writing about exactly that? He said that this thesis already kinda exists should not hinder me to write about the same topic since my approach would probably stray far enough from Sabine Probst’s Thesis. I should lay out a map of all the topics I want to write about and see how similar the areas are. Furthermore I should extract all the important parts research them lay out my views and challenge them. So this is what I will do in this entry. Or at least the laying out part for now: 

The Importance of Conservation in the Anthropocene:

The first thing that springs to mind is the importance of our environment and the challenges that it faces in the Anthropocene. The topic has more momentum than ever, especially when looking at the SDGs from the 2030 Agenda or the most recent update to The Limits to Growth report from the Club of Rome. Our planet is on the verge of a biodiversity crash, probably resulting in the greatest loss of species ever in Earth’s history. This is especially frightening when we look at the estimates of other mass extinction events like the Permian-Triassic Extinction, where an estimated 70% of terrestrial vertebrates and an estimated 81% of all marine species died out.

The Impact Crisis:

First of all, conservation films and nature documentaries struggle to create an actual impact. Secondly, if they create an impact, it is extremely hard to measure the exact impact they had. From my personal point of view, I see two specific problems related to two strategies when it comes to storytelling. Either the tone of the documentary is moderate to dark, but in the end, there is the silver lining that if we just start to act NOW, it is still possible to turn things around. This way of storytelling is used quite often by the BBC, especially Our Planet I and Our Planet II, as well as in A Perfect Planet among others. Here, people or politics tend to “procrastinate” since there is still time to turn things around. Or the tone of the documentary is dark throughout. Everything is basically lost already, and we can just hope to postpone or mitigate future catastrophes. With this method of telling a story, usually the state of cognitive dissonance kicks in and the viewer closes off emotionally since the truth is too hard to accept. In the thesis, I want to include perceptual phenomena and sociology to analyze why documentaries fail or succeed in creating an impact. There has to be a way to make impactful documentaries or conservation films. I will have a deeper look into why, for example, Blackfish was such an impactful documentary. A hypothesis of mine is that a conservation film needs to establish an emotional bond with the recipient. And that this has to happen not through the subject only but through a human protagonist; a researcher, a biologist, or a scientist. Their personal motivation needs to pass over to the recipient to create a sense of urgency, a sense of “I have to do something”. This is also the reason why I will include a lot of personal motivation of my protagonist in my film. I think this becomes especially important when the subject matter is not really capable of creating a bond. For example, it is easy to care for a cute panda but hard to care for a harsh ice desert.

Ethical Aspects of Conservation Filmmaking:

Basically, everything boils down to this. A documentary is a documentary; it should document reality, show things as they are. Everything added or changed is manipulation. If we follow that path, we basically shouldn’t heavily edit, grade, or support the film with music, since all those things have the potential to manipulate the viewer. However, I think this is debatable and could be an interesting chapter for my master thesis. Because if I, as the filmmaker, am in the Arctic overlooking the ice-covered ocean, the Arctic winds in my face, I can do whatever I want with the material I filmed; it will never convey the emotion I felt when filming it, no matter how I manipulate the colors or add sounds that convey isolation, it will never be the same. So every creative choice of the filmmaker that deviates from the exact reality they witnessed should support the goal of trying to evoke the same emotion. I personally think that this is what a documentary should do, and that’s why I think techniques used in contemporary film can and should be included in our documentary film. I will try to find evidence to support this and also challenge this view.

The Responsibility of a Filmmaker:

This ties in with the impact crisis and the ethical impacts of conservation filmmaking. The goal is, of course, to create an impact but not at all costs. For example, anthropomorphizing an animal may help to create an emotional connection between the subject of the film and the recipient but ultimately it conveys the wrong message. Animals are not humans and even describing their actions with our words and language doesn’t do them justice. I found an interesting thesis on the topic which I will explore further. When it comes to the ethical aspects of conservation film, the filmmaker must be aware of the potential impact and therefore benefit for the environment the film has and the potential threat the film can impose. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we cannot observe anything without changing it or as Michael Crichton so elegantly put it, “Discovery is always rape of the natural world, always.” There will always be evidence of the discovery or in this case the filmmaking. In the end, the only question is if that evidence only tracks in the snow or a destroyed habitat. Filmmakers must be aware of the choices they are making. It is always a question of the greater good, and I will try to find a solution for this. This is probably the best way to tackle the responsibility or sustainability question in this thesis without meddling with guides and analyzing if the proposed method of carbon dioxide reduction on set really makes sense even though this is nonetheless an interesting topic, just not for me, not at this time.

How to Actually Make an Impact:

This aspect is probably the most important of them all to creating an impactful conservation film and the one I am least looking forward to researching or writing about. Even if you create the best film ever, if nobody sees it, it has basically been for nothing. But how to set up distribution in a way that actually works? Social Media? Probably. It is important but I hate to work with it. Ever since I worked as a Social Media Manager for half a year and I know what Social Media actually is and what needs to be done that the algorithm likes you, I hate it. Nevertheless, it is important. But it is not the sole thing that can be done. Of course, film festivals are a way. But it is kinda the same problem the scientific community has. Where they tailor and distribute everything to other scientists, filmmakers tend to do the same but for other filmmakers. This cycle needs to be broken. Information must be somehow presented to and tailored to the general public or politics, to someone who can actually change the world. I know that this is basically the holy grail of conservation film, and I don’t expect to find the perfect answer, but I will try to find it.

Science Communication:

I scratched the surface of this in the previous part; Science and Biology are part of this have the problem that it doesn’t want and doesn’t know how to tailor their messages to the general public. Film could prove a valuable tool here. Biologists could empower themselves to create impactful messages. To actually distribute their findings not only to other biologists but to the general public. Biologists could aspire to become rockstars just as mathematicians did when chaos theory emerged. So the thesis could also address biologists to create and film. I am not quite sure yet how and if to incorporate this but I got a contact from the Karl Franzens Universität that tries to do exactly this – Convince scientists to distribute their findings in an “entertaining” or impactful way. And maybe the next blog entry or probably the one after the next will be about my talk with Dr. Helmut Jungwirth.

Anyway, this is everything, or at least everything I can think of at the moment that I find interesting and am motivated to research about. Everything kinda ties into the general goal to create a guide on how to actually create an impact with conservation film. And now that I have written down everything, I am also convinced that this strays far enough from Sabine Probst’s Thesis even though we’ll probably share a similar title.

Thesis Evaluation: Viewing Nature A Reception Analysis of Anthropomorphizing in Nature Documentaries by Mardie Vermunt, Science Education and Communication Utrecht University

Level of design

I’m not really quite certain what exactly is meant by that. The „Design“ probably does not refer to the structure of the thesis, since this is aspect is to described and analyzed further down the line. So I assume the actual design of the thesis meant by this. This can be dealt with very swiftly since the thesis is simply not designed at all. Since the thesis was written at university with a scientific focus it was probably required to layout the thesis professionally. Which is most presumably the reason why it is not „designed“. 

Degree of innovation

When we look at the publishing date of the thesis it has to be concluded, that the degree of innovation is not particular high. That does not mean the topic is not interesting. However the discussion of anthromorphizing animals in documentaries has been around for some years. And not only in the field of contemporary animals but also in extinct ones such as dinosaurs. That the topic is not freshly invented becomes obvious when we have a look at the described sources which frequently date back more than five years. The thesis tries to summarize previous research in the field while also adding new findings trough independent research.

Independence

This brings us to the next part: Independence: As declared, this thesis was most presumably written independently. 

Outline and structure

The Theis well structured and has a clear outline. However It is not particular easy to navigate since it doesn’t have numbered chapters and sub-chapters which makes it harder to skim trough the thesis effectively. In general the thesis follows a clear line of argument/research by presenting general, theoretical information in the beginning and laying out the foundation for the methodology. The findings are presented well. The appendix again is hard to navigate since the individual parts are not numbered and miss distinct headlines. 

Degree of communication

I am not to sure how to answer this, but everything in this thesis is communicated well. The objective is clear at any given point and it becomes very obvious there is a lot of sense of purpose involved.

Scope of the work

The objects are clearly defined and spin from personal motivation. The method chosen to accomplish the task is well suited and within the limitations surrounding a master thesis, in comparison to a PHD, the task was accomplished.

Orthography and accuracy

The thesis does not have to seem any orthographical flaws and the style of writing is precise and appropriate.

Literature

The Literature used is curated very well and professional. The sources are mostly journal entries written by field veterans and experts alike. The literature list is not only qualitative but also quantitative. The range of sources is very wide 

Last week, I had a meeting with glacier expert, who is engaged in a study on the accuracy of long-term weather forecasting in relation to glacial developments. Her research revealed notable challenges, particularly in polar regions, where long-term weather forecasts tend to be less reliable. One contributing factor is the scarcity of measuring stations in these areas compared to warmer regions or urban areas.

She also identified shortcomings in the current forecasting system, emphasizing its potential for improvement. This issue has significant global implications, given the crucial role of accurate forecasts in polar regions for predicting glacial development and, consequently, influencing broader climate patterns.

In January, she  plans to return to Spitzbergen, the location of her initial research, to further investigate her findings and collaborate with fellow researchers. I am currently working on documenting her research for my master’s film project, which involves various activities such as using snowmobiles to access remote measuring points, conducting ski tours with precautions against polar bears, and monitoring oceanic weather patterns.

Interestingly the whole thing has a lot to do with one of my previous entries. Chaos Theory: Weather behaves as a nonlinear equation, constituting a chaotic system. The accuracy of weather forecasts depends on precise initial values, and even minor variations in these values can lead to significantly different outcomes. For instance, a slight difference in initial conditions could result in a forecasted thunderstorm instead of sunshine a week later. This underscores the critical importance of obtaining and utilizing precise data in weather forecasting, especially in complex environments like polar regions.

Maybe Chaos Theory could prove an interesting angle to tell the story, although it also has the potential to be less engaging for the audience. In my mind, delving into the intricacies and consequences of chaotic systems is always fascinating, reminiscent of Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park cautioning John Hammond about the doomed nature of his project due to a lack of knowledge about the initial conditions of the prehistoric, chaotic system he created. However, I recognize that for some, this might come across as too scientific and boring. Perhaps there’s another way to narrate this story. The butterfly effect, a manifestation of pure chaos, is likely more accessible and captivating. I need to ponder on this.

Regarding sponsorship, I’ve pinpointed key sponsors, including clothing brands. Currently, I’m in the process of designing sponsorship packages, ranging from small contributions for a mention in the credits to more significant contributions for direct product placements in the film. My initial rough estimate suggests that I’ll need about 4500 to 6000 Euros to realize this project. For potential sponsors, I’m preparing a concise presentation that includes a treatment and other essential information.

That’s all for now.

Finding my footing with the topic has proven to be a challenging journey since my last entry. Unfortunately, Dallas and the Norwegian Orca Survey are yet to respond to my emails, leaving me in a state of uncertainty. Despite the hurdles, I’ve decided not to abandon my chosen subject, yet the struggle persists. It’s a paradoxical situation.

In an attempt to reignite my passion for this topic, I took a step back and revisited the core reasons behind my initial interest. Here’s what I uncovered:

1. I aspire to create a guide.
2. The inclusion of science, particularly biology, resonates with me. (I can’t help but ponder whether marine biology might have been the ideal field of study for me, but now is not the time for such contemplation – a haunting thought, nonetheless.)
3. My guide should incorporate filmmaking know-how.
4. The desire for a unique and impactful topic persists.
5. The end goal is a thesis that is not only informative but also practical and influential.

As I reflected, it dawned on me that there must be others like me – individuals eager to capture the beauty of the outdoors through film but lacking either a biology background or cinematic expertise. Perhaps my guide could cater to both worlds: “Biology for Filmmakers” or “Filmmaking for Biologists.” Sustainability remains a crucial aspect, but maybe it’s more aptly termed as responsibility – the duty a conservation filmmaker holds toward their subjects and the environment, ensuring respect for boundaries and avoiding harm. Narrowing the focus to underwater filmmaking seems fitting, given the distinct conditions and requirements compared to land-based filming.

This comprehensive guide could equip filmmakers with the knowledge they need to navigate the intricacies of planning, producing, and publishing environmentally focused films.

On a completely different note, I had the idea for another thesis topic. It spawned from a project concept for a short film I had where a marine biologist who worked in the field for decades gets more and more depressed with the state of the ocean and ultimately drowns herself in it, because she can’t handle the lifeless once life full water anymore. This would convey a very strong emotional and also environmental message. A possible research question here could be, how to implement environmental messages in films.

I have to think about this.

While researching my current thesis topic, “Sustainable workflows in nature conservation films,” I discovered that sustainable practices in the film industry are predominantly applicable to major motion picture productions. Guidelines for sustainable practices in the film industry also primarily cater to these large-scale projects. The aspects relevant to my topic include on-set behavior and the streaming issue. The first point encompasses concerns such as habitat destruction, overexposure of certain locations, and disturbance of animals, as explored in my previous entry. Regarding the second point, filmmakers must weigh whether the film’s message outweighs the CO2 emissions generated through streaming.

However, this is insufficient to develop a comprehensive thesis. I attempted to broaden my perspective on sustainability to encompass ethical considerations, specifically the well-being of the environment and its inhabitants. For instance, I considered the potential disturbance caused by drones or the harm inflicted by flash photography on animals. Essentially, I contemplated the notion that no observation can occur without interfering with the observed subject, echoing Michael Crichton’s statement in his bestseller, “The Lost World”: “Discovery is always rape of the natural world. Always.”

Ethics, however, pose a challenging dilemma—where does one draw the line? When does filming for a conservation film harm the environment more than the film benefits in educating people about the subject matter?

It seemed like a dead end, but I was reluctant to abandon the topic. In recent days, I revisited the book I quoted (probably for the fifth time), “The Lost World.” It delves into subjects larger than dinosaurs wreaking havoc and killing people, exploring extinction and its connection to chaos theory. Earth has witnessed five major extinction events, each wiping out a significant portion of its inhabitants. We are now on the brink of the sixth major extinction event, predicted to be the most extensive loss of biodiversity in our planet’s history, possibly occurring sooner than previously estimated (Club of Rome revised the timeline from 2050 to 2035). The challenge lies in the unpredictability of these events—we cannot precisely calculate the outcomes due to unknown variables.

Using Yellowstone National Park as an example, when wolf populations dwindled into double digits within a few years, the entire ecosystem teetered on the verge of collapse. This illustrates the inherent instability of living systems, as nothing is in equilibrium—everything is in constant motion and change.

“Living systems are never in equilibrium. They are inherently unstable. They may seem stable, but they’re not. Everything is moving and changing. In a sense, everything is on the edge of collapse.” Michael Crichton, „The Lost World“.

“We don’t know what the key species are in every ecosystem. We don’t know which animal’s absence will lead to a cataclysmic chain reaction, and ultimately, we may be the ones facing dire consequences,” as Sir David Attenborough aptly puts it: “There is no reason to suppose that our stay here will be any more permanent than that of the dinosaur.”

Conservation films could serve as powerful tools to educate people and raise awareness about these critical issues. Perhaps the focus of nature documentaries should shift from merely showcasing animals and constructing fictional narratives to highlighting the research surrounding them.

Maybe here lies an opportunity to adapt my research question. I will ask Dallas who is in charge of Shark Week from National Geographic for help. I met him once in Croatia and maybe he’ll respond. 

An Environmental Toolkit for the New Zealand Screen Production Industry:

Given that my thesis will address Sustainable Production Workflows in Independent Nature Conservation Films, I aim to explore established guidelines designed to ensure eco-friendly production practices. It’s worth noting that many existing guides primarily focus on feature films with various involved parties, such as makeup departments and lighting crews. In this blog entry, I intend to assess the feasibility of applying some of these concepts to independent conservation film productions. Additionally, I’ll examine if there are any pertinent aspects missing in this guide or others that could be relevant to such productions.

This specific toolkit was developed by South Pacific Films in collaboration with the Ministry for the Environment, Landcare Research, and Waitakere City Council. I chose this particular guide because it offers more comprehensive information compared to others like the Green Toolkit Film & TV.

Since environmental films are typically shot in natural settings rather than studios, I will primarily focus on the environmental impacts at the filming location. Here, the guide outlines the following impacts:

1. Vehicle use
2. Damage to natural landscapes
3. Damage to wildlife habitats
4. Overexposure of sensitive and protected environments
5. Modifications to natural landscapes
6. Noise and artificial light pollution
7. Damage to infrastructure, such as historic buildings and monuments

All of these factors are indeed applicable to independent conservation film production.

Werner Heisenberg once said that it’s impossible to observe something without altering it. For most of the last 300 years, scientists believed they could objectively observe the natural world without influencing what they were studying. They presented their scientific findings as if no specific person had made the observations. This approach differed from fields like the humanities and theology, where the observer’s perspective was an integral part of the subject. In the scientific realm, the observer seemed detached, with no apparent influence on the results.

However, in the 20th century, this perception changed. Scientists realized that when they attempted to observe very small particles, such as atoms, their observations unavoidably altered the particles’ behavior. For example, trying to measure the position of an atom would change its speed. This concept became known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: When you closely monitor something, you unavoidably affect it. Ultimately, it became evident that all scientists were active participants in the universe they were studying, and they couldn’t remain purely detached observers.

With this in mind, it’s essential to understand the impact that filming, essentially glorified observation, can have on an environment. The guide refrains from providing specific examples, but based on personal experience, I’ll offer an example. When you observe nature using a drone, it becomes evident how your observation alters the subject’s behavior. Drones are unnatural objects that most animals fear. Birds flee from them, and they can startle horses. This is one of the reasons why flying drones in Protected Areas is prohibited.

Returning to the guide, it lists several reasons for complying with its recommendations, such as the necessity of protecting nature to maintain picturesque backdrops for stunning productions.

In the “Office” section of the guide, you’ll find additional guidelines that are applicable to independent conservation films, including:

1. Working digitally
2. Minimizing printing

Many of the office guidelines are tailored to companies with multiple employees. I’ll skip over makeup and lighting since they are not relevant to my research.

The most significant aspect for my thesis is production and post-production, so let’s continue with that:

1. Unplug video players, television monitors, and other equipment with stand-by mode when not in use.
2. When purchasing or renting technical equipment, inquire about energy-efficient alternatives or more efficient ways to use the equipment.
3. Use digital processes for filming and sound recording where quality allows.
4. When using film, ensure that your suppliers have end-of-life management programs compliant with local regulations for disposing of photographic processing chemicals.
5. Explore recycling options with your film supplier to avoid sending waste film to landfills.

In general, these recommendations are all applicable to conservation films. However, this section of the guide seems relatively brief. Considering that this is the most relevant part of my project, it will be intriguing to delve into how specific equipment choices can make a more significant impact.

Now, let’s proceed to post-production:

1. If available and suitable, use tapeless post-production workflow systems.
2. Utilize the energy-saving features of technical equipment and computers.
3. If compatible with your customers, distribute projects and demonstration reels on DVD.
4. Apply the purchasing, energy efficiency, water conservation, and waste reduction tips provided for the office.

These post-production guidelines are also applicable, but, as before, it seems that there is potential for further expansion in this section.

In conclusion, it’s worth noting that these guides tend to skim over production and post-production aspects, which is unfortunate because there is much to discuss in these areas. For instance, it’s essential to explore which camera companies align with eco-friendly practices and carbon emissions reduction in filmmaking.