So, back to filming again, after a few days off. Today we had two interviews (we will call them THE interviews, seeing that so far they`ll probably be the only ones we`ll have for our documentary). Our interviewees:
Oliver Harrison - lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, specialising in political theory, political ideology and ecology.
Dr. Matthew Ashton - specialising in Media, Politics, US politics
For the setting, we went for a basic back background, three-point lighting, no fancy angles or camera movements. The main focus was sound, ensuring we could record without any interference, and just in case, the paranoid in me decided to record the interviews unto a R-09 as well. Better to be safe than sorry. As a side note, because the background is really basic, we might attempt to have something in the background added in post-production (although, for chroma keying, a green screen would have been more suitable...we`ll see what we can do about it).
Each of the interviews was around 20 minutes, with three main questions.
Black Ice Documentary
Interview (Oliver Harrison)
Q: In the second half of the 20th century, we witness a shift in our view of nature, of the planet.; from a relatively stable, self-regulating system upon which human activity has little, to no influence, to an extremely complex, interdependent and fragile whole. What caused this shift and what were the consequences? (in terms of media coverage, political action, scientific inquiry).
Q: Pollution and human activity incurring damage unto the environment are notions that have been around for the past decades, but the culprit a la mode, has been different from one period to another (nuclear tests, space exploration, acid rain, etc). Today, it is increased carbon emissions due to fossil fuels. How much of this is due to scientific uncertainty and its usual updates, and how much to politics (trying to motivate the existence of a cause/an ideology)?
Q: In the past decades, the environmental issue (and with it, that of climate change) has been through ups and downs with regards its `popularity`, depending on the prevalent political credo of the day (Reaganism), economic context (oil crisis). Does the 1992 Earth Summit mark a `change of heart`, with governments choosing to take the issue more seriously?
Interview (Matthew Ashton
Q: In the USA, the right wing has been notoriously hostile towards any political measures taken in order to reduce carbon emission. Yet, in other parts of the world, for instance in Britain, the conservatives have helped promote the importance of global warming. Why?
Q: Pollution and human activity incurring damage unto the environment are notions that have been around for the past decades, but the culprit a la mode, has been different from one period to another (nuclear tests, space exploration, acid rain, etc). Today, it is increased carbon emissions due to fossil fuels. How much of this is due to scientific uncertainty and its usual updates, and how much to politics (trying to motivate the existence of a cause/an ideology)?
Q: The Wall Street Journal reported, "The global-warming debate is shifting from science to economics... The biggest question going forward no longer is whether fossil-fuel emissions should be curbed. It is who will foot the bill for the cleanup." Is green-energy turning into a big enough business to be `worth it` for capitalism to take up?
The day started off badly, with one of the lights burning out, with no answer from our interviewees and crew shortage due to personal problems. Nevertheless, we managed to get things sorted, and by the end of the day, I think we got some decent footage and certainly useful material in terms of informed opinions on the subject.
