Home

Link to HD Youtube

Free climate documentary is worldwide hit but bombs in U.S.

Publication: Environment and Energy Daily | Article Date: 11/10/2009 | Author: Nathanial Gronewold

NEW YORK-- It's arguably the most famous and influential environmental documentary you've probably never heard of.
This past summer, on June 5, the film "Home" opened at box offices worldwide in front of millions. It caused a sensation in Europe and reverberated across much of Africa and Asia, especially China. To date, at least 200 million people have seen the film, and that number grows every day as schools around the world request DVDs to screen in front of their students.

But aside from an opening-day screening in New York's Central Park, reviewed later by The New York Times, the film has received barely any mention in the United States.

"It was not distributed in any theater here. There was a public screening in Central Park in New York, and I'll organize a screening in Los Angeles myself," said the film's French director, Yann Arthus-Bertrand, in an interview. "In America, it was quite difficult to show the movie."

"Home" is a film comprised entirely of aerial photographs of the Earth's landscape and oceans, and mankind's mark on them. The English version is narrated by the actress Glenn Close and recounts the origins of life on this planet and the factors that made life possible. The film argues that humans are actively destroying those life-support systems, but ends on a hopeful note.

Arthus-Bertrand is famous throughout Europe for his work mixing aerial photography and environmental activism. He is an award-winning photographer and hosts a popular weekly television show on environmentalism. But even though he continues to receive accolades for his motion picture debut on the other side of the Atlantic, Arthus-Bertrand says he is struggling to get the movie's central message across to American audiences.
A bigger global movie than Al Gore's
The film he is working so hard to promote in the United States is the culmination of his work promoting environmental protection through vivid visual representations. For two hours, the film's cameras sweep over ancient volcanoes, lakes, mountain ranges and dramatic scenes of human alterations to the environment. In a review, environmental magazine The Ecologist says that after viewing "Home," "you come away with these fantastic images floating around in your head, reminding you of how beautiful this planet actually is."

The movie intersperses images of a vast stretch of frozen Siberian lakes with the black, churned earth of Alberta's oil sands. Pristine wilderness is juxtaposed with vast expanses of Southeast Asian rainforests converted into palm oil plantations. Compact villages living off the land are contrasted with the urban expanses of Los Angeles and Tokyo.

Producers say the film about three years to make and cost roughly $15 million. Hundreds of days were spent shooting over locations in 54 different countries. Rosita Crone, an official with the Paris-based GoodPlanet Foundation, one of the sponsors of the film, said the film continues to run in syndication on television in Europe and Asia and likely enjoys a broader distribution than former Vice President Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

"It was distributed all over the world," Arthus-Bertrand said. "In France and some countries, the impact was very big. In some other countries, we don't know exactly."

Arthus-Bertrand says that although the movie's worldwide premier went off without a hitch, distribution in the United States is now the main challenge he faces. And he believes he knows why it has been such a flop in this market so far: because the movie is free.

In an effort at environmental philanthropy, the financial backers of the $15 million project decided early on to distribute "Home" entirely for free, with no copyright or licensing restrictions. DVDs are sent out for free upon request or handed out at private screenings organized by activists. Television stations are invited, even urged, to air the film freely and without having to obtain the requisite permissions beforehand. The entire film has already been uploaded to YouTube.
An inconvenient business plan
The aim was to reach as many people as possible, to visually represent to the world what humans are doing to the planet, how modern practices are unsustainable, and how mankind has to find a new development model to avoid catastrophe. But ironically, the model the film's boosters used to reach the world makes it almost impossible to screen it in the largest movie market of them all.

"When there's no money involved to show the movie, the circuit breaks down completely," said Arthus-Bertrand. "It's quite difficult when you have a nonprofit movie. I think it was a mistake to do a movie like that."

The promoters of "Home" say U.S. television stations largely don't know what to do with a film they can screen for free. Its untested nature makes them reluctant to spend money promoting the film. Arthus-Bertrand says National Geographic ran it recently but did almost nothing to advertise or promote the film, resulting in a very weak response from viewers.

An agreement has been reached with FOX to distribute the film to U.S. audiences, but to almost no effect. "The guys at FOX don't believe in the movie. I don't know why," Arthus-Bertrand complains.

"Home" will have another shot at gaining notoriety next month. Officials say a screening is being organized in Copenhagen to coincide with the year's international climate change conference. Three thousand copies of the film's DVD will be handed out like candy at the talks, with the hope that at some point, an American attendee will pick up the film and spread the word as broadly as it has already been spread elsewhere.