Advocacy Filmmaking for Conservation

Preamble

There are no hard and fast rules, nor one ‘correct way’, in filmmaking. If a film manages to elicit the desired response, it can be regarded a success.  

This article encapsulates my thoughts and practices from over two decades of conservation and advocacy filmmaking.  I hope you will find it useful.​
 
Introduction
 
In the past, I used to make ‘blue chip’ natural history documentaries for international broadcasters, which focused on the splendour of nature, and fascinating aspects of animal behaviour. Some of these films incorporated overt or subtle conservation messages, and, like many producers of such films, I felt satisfied that I had done my duty to nature. However, in the year 2000, after much introspection, two truths became evident.

1. Broadcasting a beautiful natural history film to millions of television viewers around the world may create 'awareness', but this awareness rarely translates into any tangible conservation action.
2. Television is not the best medium if the main goal of a film is to achieve specific results in conservation.

 
But, why?
 
The answer is simple. People watch television to be entertained rather than to find causes to fight for. Once the programme they are watching is over, so is their active interest in it. Even if they did feel deeply about a conservation issue depicted in a TV documentary or news report, what could they possibly do about it from their couches far away? Given their day jobs and family responsibilities, usually nothing – except perhaps hope that someone somewhere would do something to fix the problem.

Indeed, if a TV programme is all it takes to motivate people to create meaningful change, we would be able to solve the world’s problems simply by broadcasting good educational content!
 
Also, gone are the days when there was just one television channel that everyone was forced to watch. Today, we have hundreds of television channels and many OTT platforms providing a plethora of content. So, how do we even know who is watching which channel? Relying on broadcasting to reach the right audience is, therefore, a hit-or-miss strategy. Given this reality, I concluded that in order to make a difference to local conservation issues through my films, I had to think differently.
 
I therefore shifted my approach from 'broadcasting' to ‘narrowcasting’. Instead of trying to reach millions of relatively helpless viewers all over the world through television, I believed that it would be more effective to target a much smaller but empowered local audience comprising decision-makers and influential local stakeholders. I discovered that screening a well-researched advocacy film to such an audience in a conducive setting led to constructive dialogue and helped trigger the right action.​ 

The truth is, an advocacy film seen by 5 empowered decision-makers can bring about more change than the same film seen by 5 million powerless viewers.

BROADCASTING vs NARROWCASTING

A film made for broadcast requires a massive viewership in order to recoup its cost of production and turn a profit. Therefore, it prioritises entertainment in order to keep the audience watching. Heavy-handed conservation messaging is avoided as it can depress people and make them change channels – a risk that broadcasters are usually not willing to take.

Narrowcast advocacy films, on the other hand, have no obligation to entertain or otherwise seduce a general viewership, as the film is primarily meant for a small, carefully targeted captive audience who know why they are watching the film – to learn something about an issue rather than to be entertained.

A broadcast film usually makes no overt or specific plea to its viewers to address or resolve any of the conservation issues it may portray. Its goal is just to create awareness about the issue.

An advocacy film makes a strong case for why a particular problem needs to be addressed and persuades its target audience to do certain things to resolve it. Action, and not just awareness, is its goal.

Films made for broadcast are required to have high production values and must conform to certain predetermined production standards as well as a set duration. Therefore, the production of such a film will need a full-fledged team of technicians with different skills, a large budget, and can take a considerable amount of time to produce. Even the process of getting an idea accepted and commissioned for production can take a long time.

​Advocacy films have no such constraints since what matters is the message. However, this does not mean that one should be careless or sloppy in producing such a film. It simply means that decision-makers won’t obsess over whether the film is in HD or 4k, or shot with this camera or that. An advocacy film can therefore be shot with very basic equipment – even a smart phone – and can be made inexpensively using several free tools available for post-production.

The very first advocacy film I made for narrowcasting, a 11-minute video called “Mindless Mining – The Tragedy of Kudremukh” (2001), played a pivotal role in turning the tide of political and public opinion against a highly destructive opencast iron-ore mining operation within the Kudremukh National Park in the Western Ghats. The film's success can be attributed to two reasons:
​

• it juxtaposed the beauty and immense natural worth of the Kudremukh National Park with the horrendous destruction that was being inflicted upon it year after year. 
• it was disseminated effectively by Wildlife First, the NGO that led the campaign to end the mining.

Apart from being a treasure trove of biodiversity, Kudremukh National Park is the origin of three rivers, the Tunga, the Bhadra and the Netravati. Collectively, these rivers irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of cropland and provide water for industrial and domestic needs. One of the main messages of the film, that Kudremukh’s value as a watershed far outweighed its worth as a source of low-grade iron ore, resonated powerfully with farmers and policy makers alike.
 
The film was made in English and Kannada (the language of Karnataka) and was screened to political leaders, senior members of the bureaucracy, farmers downstream from the mine, religious leaders who had their places of worship along the Bhadra River, and renowned literary figures in the state, who amplified its message and added their voices to save the National Park and its rivers. It was also admitted as evidence in a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) that was being heard in the Supreme Court against renewal of the mining lease for a further 25 years.
 
The success of ‘Mindless Mining’ in changing hearts and minds reinforced my belief that what matters in advocacy filmmaking is not the number of viewers you reach, but who those viewers are. The more powerful they are, the fewer you need to reach in order to resolve a problem.
 
What is an advocacy film?
 
I’d like to think of an advocacy film as a ‘conservation film on steroids’, whose goal is to issue a loud and clear call to action. It exists to educate rather than to entertain, and therefore does not need to shy away from being didactic or, even, a tad preachy. It has one purpose and one purpose only – to draw attention to a specific conservation problem and demand its resolution from those who have the power to do so.
 
A typical advocacy film of mine will take one specific conservation problem, depict it vividly, and list well-researched, pragmatic solutions. The decision-makers who view the film thus get an authoritative snapshot of the issue and its solutions and, if so inclined, can move directly to the action that they are empowered to take.
 
Advocacy films can thus be very effective in helping to solve local conservation issues – provided they are made and used appropriately.
 
Here’s what I mean by “made” appropriately

1. Decision-makers are busy people, and are usually able to grasp things quickly. So, I keep my advocacy films short and snappy. Often, 10-15 minutes is more than enough time to convey the salient points of an issue. The film’s main objective should be to ‘hook’ the target audience’s interest, rather than bore them to death with too many complex details. Once you’ve grabbed their attention with the film, they are usually open to subsequently being filled in with all those extra details. The filmmaker must therefore resist the temptation to overload the film with everything that he or she knows about an issue. With advocacy filmmaking, knowing what to leave out is as important as knowing what to keep in. 

2. Advocacy filmmaking is not journalism. Hence, the advocacy filmmaker is not obliged to explain all the sides of an issue. The film’s job is to speak up forcefully and truthfully on behalf of nature. Think of it as an advocate in a courtroom fighting for a client. Here, you are nature’s advocate. If an opposing party wants to put their perspective across, that’s up to them.  
​
Here's what I mean by “used” appropriately”
 
Merely posting a powerful advocacy film online in the hope that the right people will watch it and do something to resolve the issue is wishful thinking. For the film to have a chance at being effective, it must directly reach those handful of carefully identified people who have the power to help solve the issue. Those persons may be a minister in the government, Members of Parliament, senior officials in appropriate government departments, judges, or all the above.
 
As the filmmaker, you may not have direct access to such people. So, it’s important to ally with those that do. So, the campaign team needs to find ways to show the film to the right decision makers in small groups or, if preferable, individually.
 
Incidentally, conservation campaigning is not for the faint hearted. Vested interests don’t like people ‘interfering’ in their business and there is always the danger of retaliation. ‘Lone Rangers’ are easily trampled or tossed aside, so having many allies makes good sense in other ways too.
 
My mantra for advocacy filmmaking

• Keep the film short and succinct, with strong visuals and an unambiguous script.
• Every story works better with a good beginning, a middle and an end.
• Focus on one main issue. Multiple issues in the same film dilute its focus.
• If necessary, crowdsource appropriate visuals to illustrate the film.
• Be factual and truthful.
• Don't assume knowledge on the part of the audience. 
• Never embellish or exaggerate (one false statement, and the credibility of the entire film will be questioned).
• Show evidence. Seeing is believing.
• Suggest pragmatic solutions based on science and the best knowledge.
• Appeal to the head and the heart.
• Understand your target audience and tailor the film to have an impact on them.
• Use a professional narrator. Narration is an art and can make or break a film.
• Once the film is made, leverage the power of conservation networks and personal contacts to ensure that the right decision makers watch the film.
• Try to create ideal conditions for each screening. If the picture and sound are not crystal clear, or if the decision maker is distracted or preoccupied with other matters, all the effort that went into making the film will have been wasted.
• A strong and clear 'ask' at the end of the film is a must. Don't leave decision-makers guessing as to what you would like them to do regarding the issue.

 
 What I avoid

• Breaking any laws while making a film, even if it is for a good cause (this can come back to bite you badly and haunt you for years).
• Unnecessary statistics or too many complex details. If you bore your audience to death, they will just tune out.
• Making the film too slick or cerebral. I prefer to keep it simple, direct, and authentic.
• Talking heads. Interviews are often boring and pointless. I use them very, very sparingly, and usually only when someone has been an eyewitness to an event and can convey what they saw more powerfully than I ever could through my script. Throwing in an interview just because one lacks the right visuals is not good filmmaking. Usually, someone somewhere has the right visuals. It's the filmmaker’s job to find these.

 
Some additional tips

• A catchy and descriptive title can make a huge difference.
• A crisp introduction that encapsulates the issue helps to hook the audience.
• A succinct recap at the end helps the audience remember the most important points.
• Logic and irrefutable facts make a case more compelling.
• A link to a larger common cause always helps – if conserving a species or an ecosystem will also benefit people in a tangible and substantial way, explaining that clearly will strengthen the case with decision-makers.
• The tone and tenor of a film matter – be direct and forceful without attacking the very people you are trying to convince.
• Make a local language version and always use the appropriate version to suit your audience.
• Sometimes, a full-fledged film isn’t necessary; in my experience, even just stringing together a few powerful clips in the right order with a little text has been enough in some cases to bring about the desired result when shown to the right person or persons. This is particularly true of issues where destruction is imminent or ongoing and must be stopped or stayed immediately. In such cases, one may not have the time to make a proper film.
• Finally, not all causes or issues lend themselves to a film. So, a careful and objective analysis is a must before leaping into production.

 
Postscript
 
Filmmaking is a complex marriage of art and craft. Merely owning a camera and a computer cannot magically turn someone into an effective filmmaker any more than possessing a piano can turn one into a concert pianist.
 
If my very first advocacy film back in 2001 succeeded, it was thanks to the 15 or more years of filmmaking experience that I had accumulated at that point. Short films, in particular, take a great deal of skill to produce because they must convey a lot in relatively less time. If you’ve never made a film before, or lack sufficient expertise, enlist the help of an experienced filmmaker.
 
A good script is the backbone of a powerful film. Simple language will ensure that the drift of the script is understood even by someone without a perfect grasp of the language. However, notwithstanding how good the script is, a film will only move people to action if it is accompanied by the right visuals. Making an advocacy film without strong visuals is a wasted exercise.
 
Narration can make or break a film. I use different kinds of narrators depending upon the type of film I’m making. For my advocacy films I prefer an authoritative-sounding professional, Indian narrator (using a foreign narrator may give some in the audience the wrong impression that a foreigner is trying to preach to them about an Indian issue!).
 
Since the target audience is likely to see a film only once, they should be able to understand everything that the film is trying to convey in one pass and feel persuaded enough to act; hence the need for a logical structure and flow to the film, a crisp and unambiguous script, and a crystal clear voice over.
 
After I'm done editing a film, I tweak it repeatedly until I’m completely satisfied that it delivers the message clearly and persuasively. I then screen the pre-final cut to at least one trusted reviewer and make further changes – if necessary – before I finalise it. I cannot overstate the importance of this step. It is all too easy for filmmakers to get so close to their film that they miss something that might be obvious to an objective third party!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appended are two of my advocacy films, 'Mindless Mining - The Tragedy of Kudremukh' (2001) and 'From Killer Roads to Humane Highways' ​(2017).

​
Below: An untold number of wild animals – from elephants to amphibians  – are killed by vehicles speeding on roads through natural habitats. 'From Killer Roads to Humane Highways' exposes the severity of the problem and suggests practical solutions for mitigation.