WASHED AWAY | directed by Patricio Henriquez
INTERVIEW WITH PATRICIO HENRIQUEZ
Interviewer:
Patricio, can you tell us where you are in your thinking on what your film
will be about?
Henriquez: We're going to compare three island communities that are facing the problem of rising sea levels due to global warming. At the start of the project, our plan was to compare just two communities. One was in the far north, at the top of the world. That was the town of Shishmaref, on Sarichef Island, in Alaska. And the other was in the south, where the climate conditions are completely different, but the threat of rising ocean waters is the same. That was Tuvalu, a small island country with some 11,000 inhabitants. But in the course of the production, we added New York City, and more specifically the island of Manhattan, because the two other communities were so remote from what people think of as Western civilization that we were afraid our audiences might not care enough about them. And when we discovered in the course of our research that Manhattan too faces the threat of serious flooding due to rising sea levels by the end of this century, we said, OK, this would be a good idea. Especially because of the emblematic value that New York has always had, which the events of September 11 have only amplified, we felt this was important. By presenting New York on roughly the same footing as these two other communities, we could explain in a very concrete way that global warming causes sea levels to rise and dramatically disturbs human life on islands in general, and in these three island communities, scattered around the world, in particular.
So that's the basic dramatic framework for the film. As plans stand now, there are also two underlying themes that were intended to run through the entire film and that are still there for me. One of these is the political theme, represented first and foremost by the U.S. government's refusal to date to do anything about global warming, or in any case, its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Its refusal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in a declaration by President Bush that the "American way of life" cannot allow such reductions and that energy is fundamental to its lifestyle and its standard of living. And obviously, especially with everything that is going on today, another underlying theme is going to be war. I don't want to discuss the war in my film, but clearly, the United States is isolated from the international community not only on ecological issues but also on issues of war and peace, and other issues too, like the death penalty, which I also made a film about. But anyway, there is currently a trend in this direction, and it was mentioned by one of the people whom we interviewed in New York-the scientist Michael Oppenheimer. The current American government tends to isolate itself come what may, to go it alone on just about all of the major issues. And this time we're not just talking about a split between rich countries and poor ones. As we know, the United States is even cutting itself off from Europe, or "Old Europe" as some would have it. So that too is part of a certain background that should be there in the film that I don't want to develop in detail but that is still part of the current context. And then obviously on each island we have people who will become sort of leading characters, with whom we will develop the story of who they are and how life in each of their communities is being disturbed by climate change. So in a nutshell, that's where I think the film is headed now.
Interviewer: Tell me, what message would you like your film to convey to the audience? What impact do you want it to have on them?
Henriquez: I guess it would be the feeling that I had, immersing myself in the research that you did and in general research, reading books I hadn't read before. I guess it would be discovering that the threat is far more real, even if it will not be showing up on our doorstep tomorrow, the threat is there. And I think that I discovered, through this research, for example, that New York, Manhattan Island, was threatened. I didn't know that, and it surprised me. I would like the audience to get that same feeling of surprise. It's like with any film I make. I used the research first, with my own emotions, my own sensibility. But in making this film, I realized that this threat, which we sometimes talk about in such a scientific, abstract way, is quite real. In some cases, it is already beginning to have an impact on people's lives. And further into the future, we can expect this threat to become very, very dangerous. And also from a political standpoint, Michael Oppenheimer answered our question in a positive way.
For the past few days I've been watching our interviews with Michael Oppenheimer, and I hear him again telling us that he is ready to draw the connection between the terrorist threat that has already struck New York City and may yet strike it again, and the threat of global warming and climate change. And he doesn't hesitate to put these two threats on an essentially equal footing. I find that surprising and interesting. When I asked him the question, I didn't expect such a favourable response. I was a little nervous about asking it, but it was really preying on my mind. Then after thinking for a minute, he said yes; he developed this idea on camera in front of Ground Zero. Here is someone who actually describes September 11 as having been the worst moment of his life. So we're talking about someone who actually deals with this reality. That was a dramatic moment for him, very dramatic. So when someone like that draws a parallel between the threat of terrorism and the threat of rising sea levels, you take him seriously. I think that this parallel really lets us sound the alarm and say, "Listen, this is no sterile scientific debate, this is no abstraction, this is not just some hypothetical possibility. These are very real things that are already starting to happen!"
Interviewer: So your motivation at the outset, the big issues that you wanted to address, do you think that you have the material you need to bring them out and make them an important part of your film?
Henriquez: Oh yes. I think the material is there. The problem now-maybe I shouldn't be telling you this, but I'll say it anyway, between you and me-the problem now is that I have something like 150 different doors that I can open, 150 different angles from which I can tackle this subject, and I still haven't figured out which one will be the most effective. So now is really the most agonizing part of the project, because there are so many different ways to organize the story, to give it a sort of dramatic sequence that can be expressed through a visual narrative. And I honestly don't know which one I'm going to use, but I'm not finished yet. For me, it will come once I have read through just about all of the interviews that I selected and had transcribed, as well as some other things that I want to finish reading. And then at some point, before going into the editing room, for me it's essential to have a very clear plan, a story, which I may or may not decide to alter once I start editing. But I need at least that starting point if I'm going to have an edited film in two or three weeks. And I've reached that point. I need some time to decide what I'm going to want to keep. But I go through a period of agony like this on just about every documentary I make.
Interviewer: Yes, I can seen how that would be part of the process.
Henriquez: Yes, absolutely.
Interviewer: Are there any impressions, can you talk to me about any things that especially struck you while you were actually shooting this film? Any problems, any surprises, any discoveries?
Henriquez: Yes, there are some, here and there. There's a pace you have to go along with, a pace of life that was different at each of the locations where we shot. There's one interview that I did with a seal hunter on Sarichef Island. He's camped out on a totally isolated point of land, far from the village of Shishmaref, waiting with his rifle for a seal to come by. And when we ask him what he's doing there, he says, with a trace of irony, "I'm waiting for my dinner." And his dinner doesn't come. We stay with him for a fair bit of time, and he waits. And while he's waiting, of course, that's when we interview him. So he explains some things to us. Not only does he know something about climate change, not only is he one of the people who knows the most about it, but he also has a personal perspective on life in that place. And he talks about the patience you have to have and how he keeps his mind occupied while he's waiting for the seal to come. He doesn't know when it will come, or whether it will come. The day we were there, he waited nearly six hours and he did not get a seal or anything else. He just waited behind his little all-terrain vehicle with his rifle and his thermos of coffee. So he has the time to think and to listen to the silence, as he put it to us. He knows city life, he has lived in the city, and it's not something he dreams about doing again. He loves this waiting, this patience, this reflective state of mind. And I think he has, let's say, the certainty that his environment is being polluted by the cities, by urban development, by the urbanization of the world. All of this has a direct impact on his environment. So that there, that way of living, of perceiving his own life, of appreciating it, of not wanting to live with progress, that seems interesting to me. Because elsewhere, in New York, there are some people who told us that society needs to stop looking to the scientists for all the answers. People who are living in a city like New York, in the midst of all that technological development, who are looking at what is going on around them, and who are saying that we have to start looking to the ways and the wisdom of some peoples who live far from the big cities, and their perspective on nature, the environment and the way the Earth should be managed. And that hits home for me, and I will obviously be trying to bring that out in the film. Not because I'm trying to say that all folk wisdom is good and that all progress is bad, because that's not what I think. I think that progress is not always bad, but that it is often put to bad uses. Because progress as such, you can't deny it. But at the same time-and I'm not trying to romanticize the past-but at the same time, it's also true that we can't neglect the older way of looking at things, the perspective of people who live in the opposite kind of environment and are not conditioned to a certain pace of life that we experience in the big cities.
Interviewer: Did you feel the same thing in Tuvalu?
Henriquez: A bit less. I saw less of that aspect in Tuvalu. But the people do definitely have a very, very highly developed form of spirituality. They are very religious, really very religious, while personally, I'm not much of a believer. But I will say that I have a great deal of respect for people who believe in something spiritual, something religious. I may take a critical view of some aspects of religion, but at the same time, there is a kind of dignity that I respect a lot in their way of life. For example, at one point in our interview with Tuvalu's Minister of Finance, he says quite clearly, à propos of Bush, that God is going to be mad at him. There are certain boundaries that they cannot cross. And he says it with great conviction, which for me is more meaningful than Bush's proclaiming his faith in God while going off to war. Let's just say that there is one way of proclaiming faith in God that seems more worthy, more just, and more fitting than the other, that's for sure.
Interviewer: And that's their way of responding to climate change?
Henriquez: To climate change, yes, but also to the reactions of the empire, to Bush's reactions, and to the refusal to budge, to do anything, to ratify Kyoto, to stop greenhouse gas emissions, to do anything about that whole aspect. So at one point in the interview, the minister says, yes, God will get angry, there is a limit to his patience. Of course my vision is different. But I found it interesting to present this spiritual perspective on an issue that seems so practical. Maybe this spirituality can even provide some answers that I personally could not find in it, but that doesn't matter. I can put it across without any problem, and let people decide. There is a kind of dignity in religious belief that I find very interesting.
Interviewer: So would you say that you're fairly happy with the film that you're in the process of assembling?
Henriquez: I don't know whether I'm happy. I don't know.
Interviewer: You haven't gotten there yet?
Henriquez: Not yet, anyway. But I've never been 100% happy with any film that I've made so far. There are degrees of satisfaction. But I certainly can't tell you at this stage.
Interviewer: To finish up, tell me, are you still using the same title?
Henriquez: No. I'm not the one who chose the title. For me, it was always just a working title. For the moment, I don't have another one. But in fact, since it's a working title that we used, it's OK. But the title... sometimes I already know what title I want to use, it's clear to me from the very start. Other times, I have a lot of trouble deciding on a title. And still other times, I can make a lucky choice as I finish the editing. Or an unlucky one. But let's say that that's not our goal.
We'll do some brainstorming with everyone who worked on the film. There's no reason for me to always do these things on my own.
Interviewer: Is there anything else that you'd like to say about the film?
Henriquez: It's going to be these three islands. You followed it with me, the process, so we made some decisions together. New York was certainly not there to begin with, but now they make an interesting kind of trinity, with one in the extreme north, another in the extreme south, and another in the centre, very much at the centre of the universe: New York. So obviously, that's going to be the overall framework. But within that framework, I don't know yet whether I want to develop the story by doing an establishing sequence at the beginning and then going back and forth between locations as I deal with various well defined themes throughout the film. Or whether I want to just do an introduction at the beginning about what's coming next, with a sort of leitmotif, and tell the first story, then the second one, then the third one, and then wrap up with a general conclusion with characters from all three places. Both possibilities have their attractions, as well as their drawbacks. But either one presents some real problems as far as sustaining audience interest is concerned.
In any case, I haven't finished making my choices. Right now, I'm screening all the footage that we shot. I've gotten to Tuvalu, so I'm most of the way through it. My way of working is to get transcripts made - not of all the interviews; I make a selection of the interesting ones. Everything that works for me, I have it transcribed. That's how I develop my plan, by reading all that. I record all the images in my head. I have a good memory. So I'm screening everything, absolutely everything. I'm up to cassette 66, and I have about 90 in all. So I view all my cassettes. I know what's on them, I have a very good recollection of the expressions that people have on their faces when they say something on camera. But to create the structure for my film, I need to see something in writing. This definitely means that I take more time at this stage, not to mention the resources involved, since I have to pay to get the transcripts made. But the upside is that when it comes time for me to edit, my structure is already planned. I don't have to start looking for it while I spend five weeks editing. I would consider that very dangerous, because what if, after five weeks of editing, I had nothing to show for it? I would have lost five weeks. Instead, when I go into the editing room, if I already have a structure, even if it's a bad one, and even if it's not finalized, at least I can start editing and then improve on it later. Once the foundation is there, you can make changes.