FEED: What are the differences between UK and US studios? Is there a difference in UK vs American thinking generally that has any effects?
PIPPA HARRIS: I’m not sure there’s a huge difference in thinking, but clearly the DNA of the British film industry is very different from the DNA of Hollywood. In Hollywood, there are powerful studios working day in, day out on dozens of films. If Universal orWarner Bros make a decision about how they’re going to handle waste management, they can implement that and it can have a big effect very rapidly. In the UK, we have a number of smaller production entities who make, as I said, only one film every couple of years. Clearly, as individual producers, you can affect what you’re doing, but it’s very difficult to make those big structural changes on your own.You need the backup either of a studio or distributor or a large entity. One example is the handling of waste material.The moment you go into a studio situation in the UK, be that Pinewood or Shepperton or Leavesden, the individual producer and production have to work out their own systems for recycling, both during production and at the end of production.Whereas I feel that the studios themselves need to be setting up very, very clear waste management programmes, which each production can simply, as it were, ‘log in’ to. We had the experience on 1917 of aiming to get the Albert certification
for a sustainable production – we were the first major feature film to do that – and it was very noticeable to me.We had to go around literally putting in place our own blue waste bins, because they weren’t in place in the various locations and studios where we shot. In order to get greater adherence to sustainable goals, you need to make it as easy as possible for people. Another massive area is diesel generators.You have this ludicrous situation at the moment where each production is hiring their own generators, and taking them around the country with them.They’re often going into big studios, like Pinewood, and taking generators with them. And as we know, those are one of the biggest culprits in terms of the carbon footprint of a production. On 1917 , we looked into using electric generators. And the truth is we couldn’t find enough to work for us.We did find generators that used waste vegetable oil, which are significantly better for the environment than the diesel ones, but they’re still not as good as being able to use electric. Again ideally, there should be some infrastructure in place, something that the studios invest in, and you simply plug into it as a production.You don’t have to hire it from scratch.
FEED: Is there a tipping point that can be reached where we can get people coordinating better?
PIPPA HARRIS: People like me, other producers, have to start shouting more loudly about sustainability, and about what they want for their productions when they go to a studio and the support they want from the people who are funding them. We were lucky on 1917 in that our production company, Amblin, had an equal focus on sustainability. It was very keen that we have environmental assistance on set the whole time monitoring what you did. And it’s a bigger question than simply sustainability. It’s also looking at the impact your production has on biodiversity and how you treat the environment in which you’re filming. It was very helpful with all of that and gave us enough money to pay for environmental assistance on set.That isn’t the case with all financiers. So we need everyone to step up to the plate. It can’t just be left to producers and line producers and production managers to reinvent the wheel each time they set up a production.
“I FEELTHATTHE STUDIOS THEMSELVES NEEDTO BE SETTING UPVERY,VERY CLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMMES”
feedmagazine.tv
Powered by FlippingBook