Shukichi Koizumi speaks during Penang workshop in March 2014, flanked by his colleagues Juka Kawaai (to his right) and Kenichi Mizuno – Photo by Mariyam Niuma
Shukichi Koizumi, a leading Japanese documentary filmmaker and television professional, is no more. When he passed away in Nagano, Japan, on 12 November 2014, aged 81, he had been making films was more than half a century.
Koizumi was the founder and, until 2010, President and CEO of Group Gendai Films, a documentary and television programme production company in Tokyo. He also served as honorary chairman of the non-profit media organisation TVE Japan, and was a partner and ardent supporter of filmmakers, activists and educators across developing Asia.
Koizumi will be best remembered as a maker of long format documentaries on public interest scientific and environmental topics. He had a special interest in how synthetic chemicals – such as pesticides – and nuclear radiation affected both human health and nature. For years, he also visually chronicled Japan’s struggles to balance economic growth with caring for its public health and the environment.
I first met Koizumi-san in the early 1990s, when I served as a juror at EarthVision, the Tokyo Global Environmental Film Festival. In the two decades since, we collaborated on various Asian film productions and video skills training workshops.
Every time we met, I found him productive and creative – he seemed to have a never-ending supply of energy and enthusiasm. At any given time, he had several ideas for new films on nationally or globally important issues.
On his own or through Group Gendai Films, Koizumi produced a large number of broadcaster-commissioned and corporate promotional films. They kept the business going, but the ones that stand out are those he took up as personal projects. They reflected his intellectual curiosity and social concerns.
And unlike many filmmakers who prefer to move from one production to the next, Koizumi knew the significance of effective film distribution and outreach. With his friend (and TVE Japan’s Executive Director) Kenichi Mizuno, he kept on raising money from Japanese philanthropic and governmental sources to support these endeavours in Asia. He never gave up despite hard times caused by Japan’s lost decades and the global economic recession.
A longer tribute is to be published soon.
Nalaka Gunawardene (left) and Shukichi Koizumi in Chiang Mai, Thailand, in 2010
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala), published on 16 November 2014, I recount how a group of divers accidentally discovered a shipwreck while diving off the south-eastern coast of Sri Lanka close to the Great Basses Reef lighthouse. The discovery was made by Mike Wilson, who was variously talented as a diver, photographer, writer and filmmaker, who had settled down in Ceylon in 1956 at the same time as his collaborator Arthur C Clarke.
This story is fully documented in Clarke’s The Treasure of the Great Reef, and also summarised here by Dr Kavan Ratnatunga:
I just took part in a public screening of HOME, the 2009 documentary that offers a new view of our planet — from slightly above.
French photographer, journalist and activist Yann Arthus-Bertrand and his team travelled around the planet over 18 months to make this film. They filmed interesting natural and human-made locations in 50 countries — all from the air. This offers a different perspective to our growing impact on the planet’s natural processes and balances.
Technically outstanding and aesthetically enjoyable as it is, does HOME overstate the case for planet-saving action? Or does it gloss over deep-rooted causes of today’s ecological crisis? These and other questions were raised and discussed at our screening.
HOME the movie screening in Colombo, 13 March 2014
I was encouraged by over 60 people turning up – a mix of students, professionals, retirees and others – and staying transfixed for the two full hours – plus another 45 mins of Q&A. This is just a summary of wide ranging discussion moderated by filmmaker and film buff Sudath Mahadivulwewa.
We discussed both style and substance. I personally dislike the patronising narration by actress Glenn Close – who reminds me of an all-knowing old matron. But a few felt that this theme demanded just such a voice and delivery.
We agreed that HOME isn’t a typical natural history or environmental documentary. Its scope is vast (story of our planet and human civilisation), its vantage viewpoint extraordinary.
With all its stunning views and haunting music, HOME projects a strong message of anthropocentrism – that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (at least in terms of impact). This is now a dominant view among scientists who study the planet (hence the new name for our times, Anthropocene).
I sometimes wonder – as did some in my audience – whether we take too much credit for our signature on the planet. We sure are the most damaging species, but I worry about environmentalism turning into a religion-like dogma. I have always stayed clear of ‘Mother Earth’ kind of romanticising – we don’t need to turn the planet into a gigantic matriarchy to be motivated to care for it!
Besides, some geological processes — such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis — are not triggered by human action. When I hear die-hard greens trying to link these phenomena to humanity (never mind the absence of any evidence), I consider it environmental advocacy going crazy.
I also drew my audience’s attention to Alan Weisman’s 2007 best-seller The World Without Us, which offers an original approach to questions of humanity’s impact on the planet: he envisions our Earth, but without us. We may be a formidable presence right now, but if we disappear, the planet would slowly but surely reassert itself…
Is HOME political enough? Some argued the film left too much for individual thought and action when, in fact, much of today’s resource crises and environmental problems stem from structural anomalies and deeply political disparities in the world. Is this an attempt to absolve the governments and corporations of responsibility and heap it all on individuals?
Opinion was divided, but it got us talking – and thinking. I don’t know Yann Arthus-Bertrand, but perhaps he kept the message at personal level so his film can be non-threatening and benignly subversive? There are times when harsh delivery can alienate part of the intended audience.
All considered, an evening well spent. As I’d tweeted in advance, we had a slightly out of this world experience with Arthur-Bertrand as our guide – and no reality altering substances. Indeed, the stark reality facing humanity can be very sobering…
Arriving in the Philippines just two weeks after the super typhoon Haiyan (local name Yolanda) hit the archipelago nation on 8 November 2013, I’ve been following many unfolding debates on disaster recovery and resilience.
The Filipino media have been full of post-disaster stories. Among them, I came across an editorial in the Philippine Star on 26 Nov 2013, titled Stopping the Waves, which touched on the role of protecting natural barriers that can guard coastal areas from storm surges.
A key excerpt: “Nothing can stop a storm surge, but there are ways of minimizing the impact of powerful waves. Levees have been built in some countries, although the ones in New Orleans were breached by the storm surge during Hurricane Katrina. Another option is to develop mangrove forests, which can also function as bird sanctuaries and breeding grounds for marine life.”
It added: “Yolanda has revived the debate over the proposed destruction of the coastal lagoon to make way for commercial development. That mangrove forest must be protected and expanded rather than destroyed, and more mangrove areas must be propagated throughout the archipelago. You can’t roll back deadly waves, but their punch can be blunted. Natural barriers should help do the job.”
This is just what TVE Asia Pacific’s regional TV series The Greenbelt Reports highlighted. Filmed at 12 locations in four Asian countries (India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand) which were hardest hit by the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, the series showcased Nature’s protection against disasters and climate change.
It covered three coastal ecosystems or ‘greenbelts’ — coral reefs, mangroves and sand reefs. Reporters and producers from TVE Asia Pacific journalistically investigated the state of greenbelts in South Asia and Southeast Asia by talking to researchers, activists and government officials. They also looked at efforts to balance conservation needs with socio-economic needs of coastal communities.
Here’s the overview documentary (additionally, there were 12 stand-alone short videos as well):
The Greenbelt Reports: Armed by Nature: Part 1 of 3
The Greenbelt Reports: Armed by Nature: Part 2 of 3
The Greenbelt Reports: Armed by Nature: Part 3 of 3
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at PEER Science Conference 2013 in Bangkok, 3 Oct 2013
How to ‘Bell’ the policy ‘cats’?
This question is often asked by researchers and activists who would like to influence various public policies. Everyone is looking for strategies and engagement methods.
The truth is, there is no one sure-fire way — it’s highly situation specific. Policy makers come in many forms and types, and gaining their attention depends on many variables such as a country’s political system, governance processes, level of bureaucracy and also timing.
Perfecting the finest ‘bells’ and coming across the most amiable and receptive ‘cats’ is an ideal rarely achieved. The rest of the time we have to improvise — and hope for the best.
Good research, credible analysis and their sound communication certainly increase chances of policy engagement and eventual influence.
How Can Communications Help in this process? This was the aspect I explored briefly in a presentation to the PEER Science Participants’ Conference 2013 held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 1 to 4 Oct 2013.
It brought together over 40 principal investigators and other senior researchers from over a dozen Asian countries who are participating in Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) Science program. PEER Science is a grant program implemented by the (US) National Academies of Science on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and in cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF).
I flagged some key findings of a global study by SciDev.Net (where I am an honorary trustee) which looked at the different contextual settings within which policymakers, the private sector, NGOs, media organisations and the research community operate to better understand how to mainstream more science and technology evidence for development and poverty reduction purposes.
I like show and tell. To illustrate many formats and approaches available, I shared some of my work with LIRNEasia and IWMI, two internationally active research organisations for which I have produced several short videos (through TVE Asia Pacific) communicating their research findings and policy recommendations.
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala), I pay tribute to Nelson Mandela whose 95th birthday was on 18 July 2013 — which was marked worldwide as Nelson Mandela Day.
See also my English essay published earlier this week:
L to R – Moneeza Hashmi (Jury chair), Clarence Dass, Young-Woo Park (Regional Director, UNEP), Yang Binyuan (AIBD Director)
Fijian filmmaker and broadcaster Clarence Dass is a star at Asia Media Summit 2013 in Manado, Indonesia, this week.
First, he won the coveted World TV Award in the Science and Environment category, for his futuristic, dramatized film titled “A Day at the Beach” made for and broadcast by Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) TV.
That earned him US$ 5,000 prize money, a trophy and a certificate – as well as an all expenses paid trip to Manado, where he just collected them in front of 350 broadcast managers and professionals from across Asia Pacific.
To top it up, he then spoke passionately and articulately during a session on taking action for sustainable development: how can media help?
While TV productions are all team work, public speaking is a solo art. Coming last of five panelists and youngest among them, Clarence made the most perceptive and practical remarks of all.
Clarence would have done well in any case. Now in his early 30s, he has been active in Fiji media since 2001, having started in newspapers as a music journalist, before moving onto radio presenting/producing and then TV production.
He is very digitally savvy, but as his panel remarks showed, also people savvy.
“Today, we have to produce media on-the-go for people who are constantly on the go,” he said. “We have to find ways to bring sustainable development elements into this.”
In “A Day at the Beach”, Clarence imagines a futuristic, climate ravaged Fiji and the Pacific in 2063. A young girl asks: did it have to be this way? Wasn’t there something earlier generations could do?
A bit evocative of The Age of Stupid movie (2009), which I had mentioned during our training. But it’s a universal theme.
Clarence offered some advice from his station’s experience. Key among them is to mix information with entertainment, so as to attract and sustain audiences who are constantly distracted these days.
“As Fiji’s national broadcaster, we provide info-tainment and edu-tainment programmes all the time,” he said.
Clarence Dass speaks on sustainable development how can media help at Asia Media Summit 29 May 2013
Other nuggets of wisdom from the amiable Pacific islander:
* Always ask for whom we are creating content. Knowing and profiling our audience is essential.
* We must make our content engaging. We need to find the right level so our programming appeals to both between laymen and experts.
* Beware of using too many effects and gimmicks, which can dilute the message. How much creativity is too much? Every producer has to ask that question.
* Small scale broadcasters in developing countries have to make content interesting on very limited budgets. Funding is a huge issue. But if managed properly, limited funds can still be made to go a long way.
Since its 2007 release, the film has inspired discussion and debate. It had its global premiere at the UN Headquarters, and been screened at high level meetings of people who share this concern. It has also been broadcast on United Nations TV and various TV channels, and is available on DVD.
Synopsis: Scientists and the military have only recently awakened to the notion that impacts with Earth do happen. “Planetary Defense” meets with both the scientific and military communities to study our options to mitigate an impact from asteroids and comets, collectively known as NEO’s (Near Earth Objects). Who will save Earth?
How did you choose this topic for a scientific documentary?
I take a great interest in writing/filming subject matter which is so big, that it should shape the way we go about our daily lives, like if we contacted extra-terrestrials (ETs), or colonized Mars. Those big events would have major consequences on our re-thinking of our real place in the Cosmos.
The threat of being wiped out by an asteroid is similarly humbling. Most of us don’t think about Extinction Level Events on a day-to-day basis and what we might do about it.
How realistic are the prospects of a large enough asteroid colliding with our Earth?
David Morrison (former NASA Space Scientist) said in my film, Planetary Defense: “If we actually found an asteroid on a collision course, we could predict the impact decades in advance. And we believe we have the technology in our space program to deflect it, so that the event doesn’t even happen. I could study earthquakes all my life, and I might be able to improve my ability to predict them, but I could never develop a technology to stop an earthquake from happening. In studying asteroids, I not only have the potential to predict the next calamity, but actually to avoid it.”
Interview clip with NASA scientist David Morrison:
I like to present the options where we have the ability to change our destiny (or not act upon it at all). That’s a story that interests me. (Besides, it’s the ultimate literary conflict: Man vs. Nature!) It’s that ability to do something about possible calamity (as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist and Frederick P. Rose Director of the American Museum of Natural History, says in my film) that leaves the viewers “scared for our future, but empowered to do something about it”.
What was the most surprising element you uncovered during your information research for this documentary?
There were several surprising factoids:
• The fact that only a handful of people, a hundred or so around the Earth, are working on the NEO Mitigation Hazard issue.
• The fact that so few people think about something that is unlikely to happen in our lifetime — but the consequences of not doing something about it are too horrible.
• The fact that we COULD do something about it, unlike the dinosaurs, because we have a Space Programme!
• The fact that there is so little day-to-day concern or knowledge about it among ordinary (non-technical) people.
• The fact that so little (sustained or pulsing) force is required to move a big asteroid or comet (once it is de-spun) so that it misses the Earth entirely.
As Arthur C Clarke concluded in the last interview clip in Planetary Defense (before the Epilogue): “The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space programme!”
What were the reactions to your film ‘Planetary Defense’ when it was first released in 2007?
Prior to the final edit, I sought out editorial reviews from the key participants. The scientists who participated in it also advised me as they each received advance copies. I listened to each expert and made appropriate changes so I knew the content would be spot-on.
The reaction, upon release, was spectacular! There are four major reviewers of educational content in the United States. To get a review from any one of them is not easy. “Planetary Defense” received two of the four with simultaneous reviews in both “Booklist” (Chicago) and “The Library Journal” (NYC).
Following that, the United Nations TV premiered it understanding immediately how this is a global issue. It has aired in Canada a few years running.
The infamy was not comparable to the effect of Orson Welles’ (1938) CBS radio broadcast of H. G. Wells’ novel “The War of the Worlds” (1898) elicited on the public; but I was happy with the appreciation from both the scientific and educational communities.
Spaceguard is a scientifically credible concept, yet it has not received too much political support. Why?
For two reasons. One, policy makers have limited budgets. They ask: “Who was the last person to die from an asteroid impact? After the laughing subsides, the vote is taken (if any) that this issue can be kicked down the line for a few more years, to the next administrations’ budget.
Two, the second reason is also sad. Humans have very little memory for horrible events unless it happened to them, as a people or a country.
For example, outside Indian Ocean rim countries and Pacific island nations (that are exposed to tsunami hazard), how many westerners really empathize and think regularly about tsunamis? About 250,000 people perished in the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, and yet it’s a bygone memory outside those affected areas.
Planetary Defense, a SpaceViz Documentary by M Moidel
Can the Siberian meteorite on 15 February 2013 change this?
Siberia just experienced an actual airburst, a one in a 100 year event. This time around, unlike the 1908 Tunguska event, there were plenty of video cameras to record the event from all angles. After going viral for not even a week, the story has died down from the news (not enough devastation or death?) and people are going about their daily business.
Although the Russian government is now calling for Space-faring nations to cooperate and work on a Space Defense or Planetary Defense, it might take a few more near-misses, on a regular basis, to make any real ‘impact’ in human beings acquiescence to this threat!
What, in your imagination, is the best thing that can happen for political leaders to take NEO impact threat more seriously?
Well, it almost happened with the airburst over Siberia. As I said, we have short attention spans (when not enough death and destruction) or when it doesn’t happen to “us”. So either more regular, deadly impacts are required — or hopefully, films like mine can wake up a few more policy makers before all that death and destruction occurs. I’m doing my part…
‘Planetary Defense’ sounds a bit Utopian on a highly divided planet?
Well, that’s an excellent question. But at the risk of repeating myself, people have short attention spans — and shorter memories when it doesn’t affect them directly.
What’s odd is it does affect all of us directly — and we can do something about it! It is not cost-prohibitive either to search for NEOs, test deflection mechanisms or actually engage in a defensive mission.
Currently, NEO searches are being done on minimal budgets. The how-to’s are being thought out by some of the greatest minds on the planet. The military is (also) awakening to the threat.
The recent airburst over Siberia has fueled Russian interest in Space Defense technology. Decades of planning, command and control, NEO characterizations and deflection techniques — all these are critical in mitigating impacts with the Earth. All these aspects are covered in my film (aside from an overview of the subject). The road map is in place!
For all these reasons and more, my film is still very timely! So yes, we can all come together to work on this because it’s not cost-prohibitive (and the cost of doing nothing is simply…unthinkable).
Perhaps it won’t take a deadly impact nor a Utopian dream. Perhaps knowledge of the threat from ‘out there’ might finally imbue logic upon the denizens of Earth and we can act as one world (or at least one people) in the cause of self-preservation and the continuation of ‘life as we know it’. There is no “Plan B for Planet Earth”.
Earthrise: Apollo 8's enduring legacy (image courtesy NASA)
This week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala) is dedicated to the memory of the world’s worst peace-time maritime disaster in terms of lives lost.
No, it wasn’t the sinking of the Titanic. It’s a disaster that happened 75 later, on the other side of the planet – in Asia.
It is the sinking of the MV Doña Paz, off the coast of Dumali Point, Mindoro, in the Philippines on 20 December 1987. That night, the 2,215-ton passenger ferry sailed into infamy with a loss of over 4,000 lives – many of them burnt alive in an inferno at sea.
Nobody is certain exactly how many lives were lost — because many of them were not supposed to be on that overcrowded passenger ferry, sailing in clear tropical weather on an overnight journey.
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala), I write about an Indian friend of mine: Moji Riba, filmmaker and cultural anthropologist, who lives and works in India’s north-eastern Arunachal Pradesh.
It’s an isolated remote and sparsely populated part of the country that is home to 26 major tribal communities,. Each one has its own distinctive dialect, lifestyle, faith, traditional practices and social mores. They live side by side with about 30 smaller communities.
A combination of economic development, improved communications, the exodus of the young and the gradual renunciation of animist beliefs for mainstream religions threatens Arunachal’s colourful traditions. “It is not my place to denounce this change or to counter it,” says Moji. “But, as the older generation holds the last link to the storehouse of indigenous knowledge systems, we are at risk of losing out on an entire value system, and very soon.”
For the past 15 years, he has been documenting it on video and photos. Read my English blogposts about him in Nov 2008 and Jan 2009.
I caught up with him in Delhi last week, which inspired this column.
Moji Riba has been working since 1997 to document Arunachal Pradesh's rich cultural heritage. Image courtesy Rolex Awards
Surrounded by young monks, Moji Riba films rituals celebrating Buddha’s birth at Galden Namgyal Lhatse monastery. Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, India, 2008 (Photo courtesy Rolex Awards)
සංස්කෘතික පර්යේෂණ හා ලේඛනගත කිරීමේ කේන්ද්රය (Centre for Cultural Research and Documentation, CCRD) අරඹමින් තවත් ඔහු වැනි ම කිහිප දෙනෙකු සමඟ ප්රාන්තයේ ජන සංස්කෘතිය ගැන වීඩියෝ වාර්තා චිත්රපට නිපදවීම ඇරඹුවා.
Riba teaches Hage Komo the basic camera skills that will allow the young Apatani to film an interview with his father and an animist priest, thus recording his tribe's oral history (Photo courtesy Rolex Awards)
Hage Komo gets video instructions from Moji Riba, who is enlisting local young people to capture the oral histories, languages and rituals of their tribes for his project. Komo films his father gathering bamboo in a grove outside Hari Village. (Photo courtesy Rolex Awards)
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 