Introduction
EcoMuvi is a film production protocol set in place by Tempesta Films studios in 2014.1 Its approach implies a consciousness of the environmental impact of film production and seeks to mitigate the overall harm done to the Earth.2 The protocol has a list of requirements which must be met in order for a film to receive the EcoMuvi certification. Laura Di Bianco’s article, “Ecocinema Ars et Praxis,”3 discusses the appeal and some of the setbacks of the real-time utilization of this protocol in the film Lazzaro Felice,4 directed by Alice Rohrwacher and produced by Tempesta Films. The film won numerous awards, including Best Screenplay at Cannes Film Festival 2018. Lazzaro Felice’s implementation of EcoMuvi went beyond behind-the-scenes production benefits and extended into the aesthetic qualities of the film through use of expired film stock, natural lighting, and the unaltered landscape of the scenes.5 The film’s myriad themes concentrate largely on returning to the pastoral, and focus on naturalism rather than industrialization.
However, through a close reading of the narrative designs, I argue that the film’s class rhetoric functions in a way which contradicts the benefits of the EcoMuvi protocol. Lazzaro Felice is a film which can serve as a model for the real-time utilization of EcoMuvi protocols as praxis for global filmmaking with awareness of the power of individual narratives. Sylvia Wynter’s work on aesthetics and decipherment, in conjunction with Félix Guattari’s The Three Ecologies can serve as a framework for ecocinema as a tool for such praxis.
Ecocinema as Praxis and the Call for New Narratives in the Anthropocene
Di Bianco’s article details the film industry’s global carbon footprint, noting that it “is responsible for two percent of global CO2 emissions.”6 However, there is an interesting claim in Di Bianco’s work regarding the intersection of EcoMuvi as method and ecocinema as a genre. Di Bianco notes a specific diegetic trait of ecocinema’s narrative requirements of creating a bioegalitarian view between the Earth, animalia, and humans.7 Although I find the goal of bioegalitarianism to be idealistic, a degree of nuance and attention must be administered to the human character within narratives set and produced in the Anthropocene. Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Stevens’s How Everything Can Collapse offers readers various new takeaways on existing in a time of collapse. Their book covers a host of scenarios and effectively summarizes the World3 model created by MIT in the 1960s. The model itself ran data on some integral global parameters including population, industrial production, service production, food production, pollution levels, and non-renewable sources. Every outcome and tweak of the model with the statistics of the time lead to environmental collapse.8 There are two primary takeaways gleaned from How Everything Can Collapse. The first is accepting the fact that global capitalism and, subsequently, industrialization, have grown without adequate policies to mitigate their harm; it is thus effectively too late to stop climate change and societal collapse. The second is where ecocinema can be useful as praxis. How Everything Can Collapse does not close with a thesis grounded in nihilism, or pessimism. It is rather a call to imagine: “We badly need new transformative stories to help us enter a great period of uncertainty, narratives that would tell of a generation’s success in liberating itself from fossil fuels, thanks for example, to mutual aid and cooperation.”9
The call to imagine alternatives to what is currently in place is a call for something other than capitalism. Servigne and Stevens do not claim there will be one end-all disaster which creates a tabula rasa scenario: They suggest that current systems will not be able to avoid a series of climate disasters. Any global logistical system is unable to maintain operations during ecological collapse. Servigne and Stevens emphasis on anti-capitalist narrative(s) raises the question of whether a call to the pastoral which we see in films such as Lazzaro Felice is enough. With data pointing towards a collapse of current systems, including capitalist market structures, ecocinema may need to push beyond goals of bioegalitarianism within its narratives. The focus of the human character within the diegesis of films belonging to ecocinema may benefit from the inclusion of rhetoric offering adequate critiques of capitalism. I do not believe Lazzaro felice does this. Simply shifting the focus to non-human life is avoidant of the core issue which endangered non-human life to begin with. Lazzaro Felice’s narrative is ambiguous with suggestive themes of a call to the pastoral. However, the film is not adamant in any position. My critique of Lazzaro Felice will reveal what film can offer to artists during a time in need of new narratives. As a filmic genre, Ecocinema can adequately assist in acclimating viewers to a mentality of “transition,” if the films within the category adapt to include a class-conscious focus.
Discussion with EcoMuvi Management
There is a tension between, on one end of the pole, the need for anti-capitalist rhetoric, ecocinema’s utility as praxis, and on the other, the very nature of film industry at large. Lazzaro Felice is an interesting subject in that Italian filmmaking’s production methods differ heavily from the global film industry. Unlike Hollywood, which is dominated by fiscal incentives, government funding for cinema is a norm within Italian filmmaking. I reached out to EcoMuvi directly to discuss why a production team might choose EcoMuvi, outside of virtue. Ludovica Chiarini, a Green Manager and the driving force who also spoke with Laura Di Bianco for “Ecocinema Ars et Praxis,” kindly took the time for this purpose. In our talk, Chiarini clarified that a film must meet certain criteria to receive funding in Italy, and some sort of ecological mindfulness tends to yield a higher likelihood of securing funding. Similarly, there’s very few aspects of “competition” as far as film production goes, which makes opting to work with EcoMuvi a sensible choice for filmmakers within the context of Italian cinema.
I was drawn to EcoMuvi by the protocols listed on their site. By and large, the desire for sustainability and consciousness of materials used within a film set is radically applicable to global filmmaking. EcoMuvi is largely run by Chiarini, with a few individuals assisting in the small-scale project. However, the environmental impact they have made is tremendous. I wanted to know about the application of EcoMuvi outside of Italy. I asked about a global lens, and Chiarini was adamant that sustainability looks different everywhere and that one set protocol would not fit the needs of every region. However, there does seem to be room to apply these practices to filmmaking in America. Yet, a seeming contradiction, more so than what I argue occurs within Lazzaro Felice, comes about. Can the benefit of the material conditions changed via EcoMuvi outweigh the damage caused by pro-capitalist rhetoric?
Tricia Jenkins and Tom Secker’s article, “Battling for the Future of Space in Superhero Movies,”10 notes the United States’ military’s interest in utilizing popular culture for American propaganda. While that information is not new, would the application of ecologically mindful filmmaking potentially mitigate the damage done through specifically pro-capitalist rhetoric if EcoMuvi were applied? Italian independent filmmaking is by no means equivalent to American superhero films. However, the potential for praxis within EcoMuvi can be weighed when applied to popular rhetoric such as that of mainstream Hollywood cinema. I asked Chiarini about EcoMuvi’s interest in narratives: While it was not completely disregarded, she assured me that the focus is on the production, rather than the creative process of developing the narrative. As such, in theory, anti-environmental films may take an environmental production approach. While that is unlikely due to the necessity of securing public funding, the potential was a bit alarming as the parallels with harmful rhetoric in American cinema began to occur. Lazzaro Felice does not suffer from product placement or any inherently pro-capitalist rhetoric. It does feature certain subtleties within its depiction of working-class peoples. It is still an environmentally focused film, but I am not sure it would suffice for the narratives seemingly necessary in the Anthropocene.
Lazzaro Felice
The plot of Alice Rohrwacher’s film appears to loosely retell the biblical fable of Lazarus within two major acts. The first act covers the estate named “Inviolata,” an isolated town in the countryside of Italy where a community of peasants are illegally kept as sharecroppers. The film seemingly attempts to portray exploitation as an act of “human nature” by having the head of the estate, Marchesa Alfonsina De Luna (Nicoletta Braschi), who is enslaving the workers, highlight the community’s collective abuse of Lazzaro (Adriano Tardiolo). The titular character is a boy who is routinely taken advantage of through labor and deceit within his community of laborers. The plot continues with the son of the Marchesa, a mischievous boy named Tancredi (Luca Chikovani), who notes the sharecroppers’ abuse but chooses to further use Lazzaro by soliciting the peasant boy’s assistance in staging his own kidnapping. This eventually leads to the discovery and breaking apart of the sharecropping operation. Lazzaro falls off a cliff and seemingly dies while his community goes on without him.
The second act of the film follows a flash-forward into a liminal diegetic space where Lazzaro hasn’t aged. The youth of that community are now adults living in the city. Lazzaro awakens to find his countryside home empty and eventually makes his way into the city. The viewer’s sense of time mirrors Lazzaro’s experience. The plot continues with Lazzaro reconnecting with a group of his fellow sharecroppers. Lazzaro’s first encounter with a member of his pastoral life is when he sees Nicola (Natalino Balasso) soliciting day-labor from brown, presumably migrant workers, for very low wages. The ironic parallel to sharecropping is apparent: In the instance of a former exploited worker now exploiting workers, one might consider a portrait of class being painted. However, this aspect is not touched upon again. Rather, it is a passing moment in the continued characterization of Lazzaro’s extreme innocence.
Lazzaro’s innocence is a problem for his old “family.” The former sharecroppers exist in extreme poverty and get by through various instances of petty theft or street swindling. The characters bond over a mutual hunger and relearning about what were assumed to be inedible plants growing throughout the city. Lazzaro reminds them of the natural world around them, which eventually prompts the group to return to Inviolata, despite the trauma they faced as sharecroppers. Lazzaro remains behind. His friendship with Tancredi prompts him to demand a local bank restore power to the now impoverished De Luna family, which gets him beaten to death by civilians who believed Lazzaro was attempting to rob the bank. It should be noted they only do so upon realizing that Lazzaro does not have an actual weapon.
The final scene ends with Lazzaro transformed into a wolf. Animal life is equated as an escape from senseless violence and exploitation. The narrative elements here are seemingly absurd to make a point about human nature. Regardless of class, humanity is villainous. Lazzaro Felice generalizes humanity rather than taking a nuanced approach such as a multi-faceted interpretation of personhood or a class-based look in a narrative which features class-based discrimination. I argue for narrative’s importance in anti-capitalist rhetoric with the aim of inspiring viewers as a call to action, not to displace a human-oriented framework in favor of the glorification of animal life.
Lazzaro Felice’s aesthetic decisions intersect with its ecologically conscious production per its adherence to the EcoMuvi protocol. Within the first act, the recycled 16mm film and the use of natural lighting favors the greens of the countryside.11 By the end of the film, the dulled natural light in the cityscape turns to a gray palette. As an auteur, Rohrwacher is guiding the emotional sentiment with the use of lighting and slow shots. However, the film never fully exists as a form of slow cinema but rather something between genres. Lazzaro Felice’s liminal diegetic relationship to time is an interesting aesthetic decision. The temporal aspects seem to not only invoke slow cinema but transform slowness into something new, through the use of a non-diegetic score blending with the diegetic sounds of nature. Nonetheless, the rhetoric of the plot is concerning. Rohrwacher effectively equates the abuse the peasants face under capitalism to a human suffering the reprieve of which is to be found in pastoral living, where one can exist off plant-life. Surprisingly, labor is not highlighted. By the end of the plot, the peasants do not wish to relive the trauma of picking vegetables, but ultimately succumb. The thought of returning to Inviolata becomes painless rather than acknowledging the labor required to harvest crops. In this impasse, we turn to Sylvia Wynter.
Green, Friendly Specters
In order for EcoMuvi (which is serving as a simulacrum of environmental activism within the global film production industry in the case of this paper) to function as an effective form of praxis, one can look to Sylvia Wynter’s “Rethinking ‘Aesthetics’” and how she reimagines the function of criticism. Wynter argues for “decipherment,”12 a relationship akin to the Nietzschean form of the transvaluation of values. As opposed to criticism functioning separate from the work of art, here it becomes an extension of the work, fundamental when speaking of art as praxis. The same extension is applied to the consciousness of the one engaging in the work of art. Wynter notes the significance of moving beyond the “‘specious autonomy’ of ‘cultural production’”13 in this process, effectively moving beyond preconceived concepts and creating a sort of symbiotic relationship with the artwork itself. The external relationship of the other, in this case, EcoMuvi, could serve as praxis to function alongside the work of art with the individual viewing a work, desiring to engage in that same environmental praxis. However, for this relationship to occur, the narrative itself must allow space for utilitarian benefit.
The relationship between criticism and EcoMuvi as a form of environmental praxis comes about from EcoMuvi’s functionality within capitalism. Ecologically conscious production methods must be a profitable system in order for film studios to adapt the practice and subsequently function as environmental praxis within capitalist societies. To reiterate, for an American Hollywood film which already functions as a mode of propaganda to ever adapt this sort of praxis, there must be some form of capital gain or simply, profit. The profit in this sense may also come from a film being labeled “Eco-Friendly,” in that it can be advertised as environmentally conscious piece of media, thus garnering more attention. Félix Guattari writes about this conflagration of ecology and what he refers to as “Integrated World Capitalism” (IWC)14 within the framework of his work The Three Ecologies. In order for EcoMuvi to function as a meaningful practice with a utilitarian goal, the adaptation must extend beyond a policy and into a rhizomatic relationship with the entirety of film production. In this sense, production is literal. The script would need to effectively offer narratives in line with the narratives of transition suggested in How Everything Can Collapse. In order for a film to be ecologically valuable, the narrative, rhetorical, and directorial decisions must also account for class.
The narratives of transition within collapsology are particularly interesting as by design, they function to erode normalized concepts of being—effectively functioning in how Wynter argues decipherment in aesthetics can work. Artists must not write of the dystopia, rather, artists imagine the alternatives. What is occurring is an answer to the stasis written about by Mark Fisher within both his concept of “hauntology,”15 or, the slow cancellation of the future, and “capitalist realism,” where no alternative to the current system seemingly exists. Fisher’s relation of capitalism and narrative does not directly adhere to Guattari’s work years earlier, but calls into a question an epistemological problem for the auteur and audience of the work of art. EcoMuvi as praxis developed beyond production protocols has the potential to assist in this problem.
Guattari’s The Three Ecologies calls for new narratives in the form of what he refers to as a new “ecosophy,”16 shifting away from the issues of IWC, or the affiliation of ecological consciousness within capitalist mechanisms. Guattari quotes Walter Benjamin on the necessity of newness:
When information supplants the old form, storytelling, and when it itself gives way to sensation, this double process reflects an imaginary degradation of experience. Each of these forms is in its own way an offshoot of storytelling. Storytelling…does not aim to convey the pure essense of a thing, like information of a report. It sinks the think into the life of the storyteller, in order to bring it out of him [sic] again.17
This call for new narratives predates Sylvia Wynter’s integration of decipherment. However, two decades go by until Fisher declares the cancellation of the future. Understanding the problem of hauntology in the framework of capitalist realism is integral to understanding the stasis of narratives created within this system. In other words, the ending of Lazzaro Felice was unsurprisingly within this epistemological framework of art production.
Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism opening quote, “It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”18 is often attributed to Slavoj Zizek, Fredric Jameson, J.G. Ballard, and any other theorist on the left in the past fifty years. The inability to imagine something other stems from an inability to critique what already embodies critique. The second chapter of Capitalist Realism discusses the problem of critique, through Slavoj Zizek, noting that a disavowal of capitalism is integrated within the ideological framework of capitalism itself. Fisher writes: “So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange.”19 Fisher uses an example of a charity festival which is fully integrated into the problem of consumption and seemingly does no concrete benefit to the system which causes the root of the problem requiring charity. However, it is not just the inability to critique but the material conditions which must be examined when discussing narratives.
Fisher’s concept of hauntology is worth mentioning in the discourse of ecocinema as praxis in that he directly addresses the problems auteurs face in creating new works. New, in this sense, is not temporal, but novel. Fisher’s central thesis hinges upon his adaptation of the original Derridean concept of hantologie to a haunting of contemporary aesthetics by the past. Fisher writes largely on a resurgence of “retro,”20 but more blatantly argues that a listener from the 1990s would not be shocked at music from the 2010s whereas a listener from the 1970s would be radically surprised at the novel changes in sonic aesthetics during that period. Fisher contends that a large part of this issue is due to material concerns of the conditions under globalized neoliberal capitalism, as well as the epistemological conundrum of capitalist realism. He writes: “…the link between late capitalism and retrospection centres on production. Despite all its rhetoric of novelty and innovation, neoliberal capitalism has gradually but systemically deprived artists of the resources necessary to produce the new.”21
What is so fascinating about Lazzaro Felice and EcoMuvi is the integration of the material to create the abstract. The use of natural lighting and recycled film stock creating the visual aesthetic of the film is a case of creating from a place of recognizing preventative material conditions like accelerated climate change—in essence having the artwork itself be materially a tool of rebellion. If the narrative were to allow room for what Wynter refers to as decipherment, this method of rebellion would function as a praxis for viewers. However, our close reading of the rhetoric of the film’s ending shows a wall to working class praxis in favor of a seeming call to the pastoral. An environmentalism which lacks intersectionality lacks the nuance needed to transition to new narratives in the Anthropocene.
While a message of returning to the pastoral is a safe subject, one must confront realities: the working class is the most affected by events like pollution or climate catastrophe, and class analysis will always intersect with race. I offer Kathryn Yusoff’s words from A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None: “Foraging a new language of geology must provide a lexicon with which to take apart the Anthropocene, a poetry to refashion a new epoch, a new geology that attends to the racialization of the matter.”22 Yusoff’s work revolves around acknowledging and re-framing the politicization of the Anthropocene to acknowledge futures which move against anti-blackness; “It embraces its intimacies with the inhuman. It asserts an insurgent geology for the end of the world, for the possibility of other worlds not marked by anti Blackness, where the inhuman is a relation, no longer an appendage of fungibility.”23 The rhetoric of the Anthropocene, including policies for change and cinema itself are tools for shaping the future of a world rapidly upon us.
What’s Next? Understanding the Rhetoric of Lazzaro Felice, and EcoMuvi’s Potential
To reiterate the research of Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Steven’s, it is far too late to reverse accelerated climate catastrophe in late-stage capitalism. There is no policy or inherent change on the individual level which can be done to reverse the damage done during the Anthropocene. A global agreement of bureaucratic oligarchs and subsequent rapid action might help, but that concept is closer to an act of unfounded faith. However, this does not mean there is no hope. Rather, a different kind of hope is born. Scholar Megen de Bruin-Molé discusses author China Miévillle’s concept of a reframing of hope in what’s to come in the context of “Salvage-Marxism.” Bruin-Molé’s citation of Miéville reads: “hope that abjures the hope of those in power,” a call to praxis. Bruin-Molé herself writes: “Salvage-Marxism asks us to reframe and re-evaluate the utopian impulse through hope’s opposites: pessimism, rage, and spite…”24 Salvage-Marxism authors like China Miéville and other speculative fiction writers seek to distort traditional narratives of the future as dystopia in favor of a utopia at the hands of those working to exist in the Anthropocene. The sorts of narratives within speculative fiction are inherently rebellious and ought not be confined to genre work. There is no reason why documentary filmmaking or works of slow-cinema should be similar to Lazzaro Felice. Unlike traditional prose narrative, filmmaking is where the material costs of the abstract become prevalent in the production practice. This is exactly why EcoMuvi as a protocol has so much potential in reshaping how we view cinema, provided the narrative aligns with the material changes to inspire a transition out of what audiences already understand. In other words, narratives must aid in the function of Wynter’s “decipherment” to allow for an interpretation of a salvageable existence within the Anthropocene.
In the current state of climate change, the benefits of all individual ecological measures are suspect. However, EcoMuvi is not an individual protocol. It is an industry-scalable protocol that could potentially provide a model of change for a major source of pollution (informational and material), Hollywood.25 I must reiterate my conversations with Chiarini of EcoMuvi, who does not believe the protocol is a one-size-fits-all answer to sustainable filmmaking. Laura Di Bianco similarly echoes the belief that ecocinema does not need a framework.26 What I am proposing is not so much a framework for theorists or audience, but a tool for creating works in this unique time of the Anthropocene. When creating, especially art with the intent of praxis, auteurs ought to be mindful of the significance of class and intersectionality within the rhetoric of their narratives.
Counterargument(s)
There are three potential counterarguments which I will give space to: (1) There is no uniform method in telling stories and no artist needs to conform when sharing their work; (2) EcoMuvi as a protocol was designed to scale Italian filmmaking which is significantly smaller than Hollywood and may not apply to global filmmaking; (3) Artists should not be concerned about criticism or rhetoric, as that is the job of critics and not auteurs.
I firmly agree there is no uniform method in creating narratives nor is it necessary. However, there is a deontological and virtue argument which must be accounted for. What stories does one tell at the birth of a new world, during the collapse of the old? One could argue that shared and public narratives have a duty to provide rather than cause detriment to the needs of the global society. As for EcoMuvi, currently, the policies are not applicable to Hollywood. EcoMuvi is not trying to do that. However, the project is ambitious and has potential to serve as a model for global film production. In order to maximize EcoMuvi’s ability as praxis, narrative ought to be accounted for. Regarding the role of artists concerning themselves with rhetoric, I believe Wynter’s work on decipherment comes about from a fusion of the interpretation of the audience and the mindfulness of an author weaving rhetoric within a narrative. I am advocating for an awareness of the necessities of those who inhabit this Earth.
Conclusion
EcoMuvi’s production protocols have great potential for global film production. However, the narratives which auteurs tell need to be in line with ecological praxis, for praxis to be meaningful as such, it must inspire people to take action. Lazzaro Felice does not accomplish that, despite its ecologically green production. Using EcoMuvi and Lazzaro Felice as an example, auteurs can model narratives for the transition into a differing mode of existence and create the different kind of hope referred to by authors like China Miéville. If narratives incorporate a mindfulness of the Earth’s current standing in the Anthropocene, the decipherment Sylvia Wynter writes about will be easier for audiences to process and learn from. Narratives which fail to account for class will falter into the problems of stasis and lack of critique, as outlined in both Mark Fisher’s framework of capitalist realism, and Félix Guatarri’s IWC. There is no one method for storytelling, however one thing is clear: narrative needs a method for the Anthropocene.
NOTES