The pernicious pull of the black hole that is film & TV

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

'Don't bite the hand that feeds you.'

It makes a lot of sense. Damage the relationship with those who give you sustenance, in whatever form, and hardship is likely to ensue.

Cognitive dissonance: Brendan 'Wrong Way' Corrigan gets miked up for a minor TV series role.

Sometimes, however, we may be doing both ourselves and society at large a favour by not only biting that gifting hand but devouring the whole body.

A harming hand

Imagine if, in 1941, Blondi had consumed the hands, head and heart of her loving master. OK, contemplating counterfactual histories opens the door to numerous alternative probabilities but surely a world that rid itself of Adolf Hitler in the early 1940s would be a better place today. Surely.

A world without showbiz, though, would be a culturally poorer place, and a whole lot duller, wouldn't it?

Whatever one's opinion, the film and TV industry has become so entrenched in our daily lives that few can envisage a normal, nay liveable, life without it.

And seeing how this industry has been one of my most reliable forms of income over the last number of years, I more than most shouldn't be nefariously nibbling at its paying palms.

Nonetheless, I've called out its inconsistencies and inequalities before. For example, see, Enticing extras: The siren call of our times and Agents of short-change.

Flights of fancy

This time, I'm focusing on the film world's substantial carbon footprint.

It's something that I'm adding to as I write these lines, having been flown, twice, over 1000 km north of Bogotá to Santa Marta, whence I was chauffeured about 90 km east to the Caribbean coast town of Palomino to play a minor role in a new Spanish production.

Those flights, particularly the mid-filming return to Bogotá for four nights, really got me thinking about the excessive energy needs and waste for which this industry is responsible.

From a mere budgeting perspective — who cares about financial prudence these days, eh? — had the production company given me the cost of that return flight back to Bogotá, I could have used the money more wisely, and reduced my carbon footprint in the process, by staying in one of Palomino's budget hotels/hostels until I was needed on-set again.

I've seen private rooms advertised for 30,000 COP per night. That's decent value in a town that has become quite touristy over the last few years. It was more tranquil and less trodden when I first visited in 2013 (see https://wwcorrigan.blogspot.com/2013/08/palomino-and-cabo-de-la-vela-lighter.html).

For the record, rooms at the beachfront hotel resort where the production company put me up, Hukumeizi, range from about 300,000 to 600,000 COP per night.

'Viewed from a distance, the film and TV industry may appear full of stars. Yet, up close, it's more like a big black hole.'

As a relevant aside considering the theme of this piece, Hukumeizi's claim that some of its rooms are ecological is rather questionable. The bathrooms in said ecological rooms are so lacking in natural light that one has to turn on the artificial lights during the day to see properly. What's more, the hotel's policy appears to be to force guests into buying water from small plastic bottles. How ecologically benign that is!

Coming back to those flights, I was just one of over a dozen such Colombian-based actors — I'm using the label actor lightly for me here — who were flown back to their base mid-filming.

In addition to our transport to and from Santa Marta's airport, another van was used to carry our luggage. Keep those carbon emissions flowing, folks!

This is not to mention all the flights to and from Spain transporting both equipment and personnel.

Hungry stars

Then there's the filming of the series itself. It involved over 300 staff, all of whom had to be fed and watered — 300 ml plastic water bottles being the preference on set — and most, apart from locally sourced extras, had to be housed.

Add in the not-very-natural make-up used to mimic everyday dirt — a lot was needed for a series set in the 1490s, as this is — plus the chemicals used to remove this make-up, and the waste tab becomes considerable.

And one must ask, all this for what? What net benefit does it give to humanity?

OK, for me it has provided a badly needed income and a rather surreal, pleasurable experience. And I imagine that when the series airs, millions will enjoy it.

But surely the energy expended in this production could be put to a more beneficial use for both humanity and the environment in general.

There's also the argument that such high-cost productions give little back to the viewer. They're flashy and slick yet not very fine or stimulating. Easy on the eye but with little educational value. Some, however, view such opinions as arrogant and ignorant. It's a nuanced debate.

Voracious vanity

Whatever one's thoughts on the end product, it cannot be denied that it comes at a huge cost on many levels. A Time magazine article published in March 2024 says that large productions such as Barbie or Oppenheimer can emit up to 3,370 tonnes of CO2 equivalents, enough to power 656 homes for a year. One assumes that's referring to homes in high-income nations.

Advancements in artificial intelligence should help production companies reduce these costs while still delivering visually impressive content. AI can be a positive force, in some areas.

As for the living, breathing thespian talent, there's always live theatre to separate the true actors from the pretenders. There are no second takes — never mind third, fourth or fifth ones — once the curtain's up.

So society at large could do worse than appreciate more so the live stage rather than the big and small screens.

For viewed from a distance, the film and TV industry may appear full of stars. Yet, up close, it's more like a big black hole.

Having been pulled into it, I can see its voracious vanity. Yes, it occasionally feeds me. But at what price?
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

A pet hate

@wwaycorrigan

[For an audio/vlog version of this story, click here.]

A farmer's work is never done. Be it tillage or livestock, caring for animals and crops is a perpetual process.

Anyone who has worked on a farm appreciates — or at least should appreciate — this.

Cute but costly.

Therein lies a problem in today's urban-centric world. Many people haven't worked on a farm. They do little to nothing to produce the food they eat. And no, driving to the supermarket or, for the more affluent and smug, the farmers' market is not a step in the production of foodstuffs.

So it wouldn't be the worst idea ever mooted to have city dwellers, particularly the wealthier ones who will most likely rise to positions of influence and power, spend a year of their young lives labouring on a farm.

In this way, they might acquire a greater appreciation for the work required to keep the masses, rich and poor, munching contentedly.

Even better, with more hands-on labourers, the use of that damaging, polluting farm machinery would be reduced. It's one way to address the pullulation of princes and princesses which has resulted in a paucity of proles in high-income nations.

Virtuous vegans

Yet, for those earmarked to serve their time on livestock farms, I've no doubt there would be a fair few conscientious objectors.

The objection: 'Raising animals for human consumption is a cruel and immoral practice, and one that also causes substantial environmental damage. Today's humans don't need meat and other animal products to survive. Thus, to partake in livestock farming is to knowingly and unnecessarily destroy the planet as we know it. I shall have no part in it whatsoever.'

Many who hold this view practice what they preach. They don't eat meat, and some don't even consume food from farmed animals that must be kept alive to get their produce, such as dairy products and eggs.

The vegetarian/vegan versus omnivore debate is far from novel. A recent renewal of it can be heard on BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze.

'The worst of these activists are those with an aggressive mongrel who believe that their little ball of fur is the God of dogs.'

I've mentioned before on these pages that many in the comfortable classes could do with eating less meat. Some could do with eating less, full-stop.

Also, as somebody who was raised on a small cattle farm, I do realise that some livestock holders could, indeed should act in a more environmentally friendly way. What's more, in certain areas, cattle-raising is perhaps not the best use of the land at one's disposal.

So, I'm not unsympathetic to certain elements of the vegetarian/vegan stance.

Dog dinner

Where I do cry foul — and f·o·w·l —however, is with the militant-esque no-more-meat activists who are also pet owners, particularly those who keep cats and/or dogs.

If one is vehemently against livestock farming in terms of cruelty and environmental damage, these same arguments can be aimed at pet owners.

Speaking about domesticated dogs specifically, most of them, particularly in urban areas, only get out and about when allowed to by their owners. They're not exactly free, are they? Their wild cousins in Africa would surely view such an existence as, at best, restrained.

OK, pet dogs are just that. They've been kept for centuries as human companions. Some of them are put to work, so they're not just a drain on the planet's finite resources. They contribute, they provide a tangible benefit. In certain parts of the world, people make a meal out of their mutts: not a dog's dinner but an actual dog dinner.

Yet, most dogs around today are pets and pets only. It's why, from the perspective of humans who like to be controlled and have most of their concerns taken care of by someone else, we have the expression, 'It's a dog's life.' (If I had to be one or the other, I'd choose to be a wild dog rather than one tied to a Homo sapien.)

These pets, of course, have to be fed and watered.

Carnivorous curs

According to Gregory Okin, a professor from the University of California Los Angeles quoted in an earth.org article, it's estimated that an average-sized dog generates 770 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions annually. For an even bigger dog, the figure can be upwards of 2,500 kg, which is twice as much as the emissions from the use of a standard family car per year. An average-sized cat, for the record, can produce carbon dioxide emissions of about 310 kg in a year.

That earth.org article also states that the meat consumption of pets in the US generates about 64 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars. If cats and dogs in the US were their own country, they would rank in the top six for meat consumption globally. (Another piece that delves into this area is The Guardian's Throw a dog a bean: how to reduce the carbon footprint of your pets. See, I'm not completely anti-The Guardian.)

This should give some pause for thought to any cat- and/or dog-owning vegan activist who hounds pet-less meat-eaters. One may not be as green as one thinks.

In my experience, the worst of these activists are those with an aggressive mongrel who believe that their little ball of fur is the God of dogs. A my-pet-can-do-no-wrong green Gestapo. It's often the case that the most vociferous on a certain topic are the most hypocritical.

Thus, it can be argued that farming livestock is closer to a net benefit for humanity, and perhaps even the environment overall, than keeping pets.

If we had to scrap one and keep the other, would humanity suffer more from the loss of pets or the loss of livestock?

Human consumption of dog meat might shoot up around the world if the latter were to come to pass.
__________________________________________________________
Listen to The Corrigan Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".