That 10:10 Film – Brave, Bold, Bad.
So, 1010 have, it seems, attempted to gain publicity by releasing a film which was clearly going to be controverial, waiting for people to upload it onto youtube, then removing it and apologising.
I’m going to do exactly what they want, and post the film. It’s here:
This well worn tactic for ensuring things ‘go viral’ is, of course, pretty clever. It is also taking a big risk. They take the chance of offending lots of people by producing something which is genuinely different and likely to generate discussion.
So, for these reasons, they should be congratulated. Too often, NGOs chicken out of doing anything scary because if anyone objects, then the action is seen as ‘too controversial’.
Activists should be controversial. The opposite is being ignored.
However, I’m afraid I’m going to line up with the ranks of lefty bloggers saying that this really was pretty terrible.
I have no problem using images of people being blown up to make a point. I understand the arguments aruond violent imagery, but if it helps communicate a message as urgent as the need for rapid action on climate change, then fine.
The problem is not that it was a bad way to communicate the message. The problem is that it was a very good way to communicate a very bad message: essentially, it says ‘climate change is your fault. You should be feeling more liberal guilt. If you don’t, you are evil. Even if you are a small child.’
And if you blame people for something that they don’t feel like they have actively chosen to do, then they don’t feel guilt. They feel like they are under attack, and so they defend. They deny. If you don’t believe this, then look at the fact that the Act on CO2 campaign earlier this year was one of the biggest publicity campaigns in the history of the British Government. Yet it corresponded to one of the biggest increases in climate denyal. It’s true that the lies about the Climate Research Unit provided a hook for this, but people were certainly very quick to believe the story.
More to the point, not only is it counterproductive to make people feel like they are individually to blame for climate change, it is also a lie.
Overconsumption of fossil fuels is not something that happens because of the individual consumer decisions we make, but because of our economic system, our transport system, our planning system – how we organise our society.
And yes, we are all responsible for these things. But we are responsible not as consumers but as citizens. When 10:10 tell people that we must reduce our carbon footprints or we are evil people, they are re-inforcing the lie that we can successfully solve a massive problem which how we arrange our society by changing our personal consumer habits. And until we stop re-inforcing this lie, we will never avert climatic disaster.
Now, that isn’t true of the whole 10:10 campaign. In fact, they have done a good job of getting big businesses, and even governments, to sign up (though whether they should be allowing some of those who have to use their brand is quite rightly controversial). But it is true of this film.
So, given the discussion that this film has generated (which I am guilty of perpetuating) we can only say, hats off to 10:10. NGOs always try to get films to ‘go viral’. We almost always fail. They have communicated their message very effectively.
But unfortunately the message that they have re-inforced in the film is one which is massively damaging to the climate movement as a whole. 10:10 say in their apology that they will learn lessons from this. I hope that people don’t take away from this whole episode the false lesson that shock tactics and risks and cotroversy are a bad idea. I hope we do learn that if you launch an attack on the people you are trying to win over, you will inevitably fail.
All ethnographists shluod invest in this app! Haha. As technology continues to evolve, it is necessary for anthropologists and social nutheads to progress with technology. This app will help provide widespread accessibility for the contemporary emerging practice of sensory ethnography. Kudos to the designer.DT
This film indeed took a risk. It has received negative and positive comments. You have to watch it to know your side.
Further to this: the RSPB have just awarded MacDonalds a ‘good business award’. I believe they’ve done this deliberately to undermine my point, the bastards.
If I could tell my party to issue press releases…
You need to distance yourselves from them a bit more than calling them Brave and Bold – tell your party to issue a press release condemning 10:10 – because the worst thing this film does is a) speak on behalf of all those fighting climate change, and b) confirm every stereotype about greenies being extreme, irrational, anti-human, and so on
Yeah, coz obviously Franny Armstrong and Richard Curtis represent the whole green movement, even when we universally condemn them
If I had a Green Party/green movement membership card, I’d probably tear it up and piss on its remains, as a response to this fucking video.
It takes a special gift to make Bin Laden’s line on anything seem moderate:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html
“Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, has condemned the US and other industrial economies, holding them responsible for the phenomenon of climate change.
In an audio tape obtained by Al Jazeera, bin Laden criticised George Bush, the former US president, for rejecting the Kyoto pact and condemned global corporations.”
WHat appals me more than anything else is the CALLOUSNESS of this piece of ‘media’….
Not so much because of the blood and gore, bad enough as it is, what with children in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere actually experiencing bomb blasts, flying searing shrapnel and the aftermath of trauma for those who ‘survive’ ….. paid for by our taxes, our purchases of consumers goods made by Corporations owned by The Banks whilst we are told endlessly to ‘work for the economy’, that we WILL be made (encouraged/coerced) to chose work over what are called euphemistially called ‘state benefits’ in low paid jobs…..
What is trully galling is the lack of empathy, the hidden assumption that adults have some god given ‘right’ to coerce children.
“Well, you’ve made your choice….” in a sweet voice, then bang! “this is for your own good” is a phrase that abusers of all kinds use, again and again…..
The Fear of God and The Fear of an Abuser and The Fear of CC Global Warming all sweetly spun in a web of intergenerational trauam patterning.
Children readily SEE THROUGH the hypocrisy of the adult world and many many young children are aware that their futures are in the hands of a bunch of nutters, and it’s scaring the pants off them and WORST OF ALL, thay cannot enagge in a rational, honest discussion of this with the adults intheir lives…
If only there was a paper that was editted by 8 – 15 year olds, with no holds barred, outlining what they see and hear and how they feel about the adult world….. I’d read THAT every day, pay a £1 a page to read it I would…
And it’s not going to happen is it?
Shock and Awe, that is. Sock and Awe would be a good name for a radical puppet show.
Oh, and for them to use Premiere League football as an example of the “kind of change we all can make ” – that sticks in the throat, doesn’t it? They pay people 50,000 A WEEK to spend on mansions, holidays, brand new sports cars twice a year. They are the EPITOME of over-consumption and greed. They build giant stadiums with enough lights to turn NIGHT INTO DAY. And because they’ve chosen energy efficient light-bulbs, they’re the fucking environmental good guys, while school kids are the enemy? I don’t think so.
This film is so stupid on so many levels, I, don’t where to start. And someone should tell Curtiss that Monty Python, while being visually offensive at times, had JOKES or A POINT. And since Sock and Awe, images of people pushing buttons big red and children dissolving into mince – well, it’s just not funny any more.
What a dumb and offensive film. I’m off to burn some tyres.
Gary’s comment about the way authority figures function in this clip is key. It would have been a very, very different film (still probably counterproductive, but more interesting) if it was the teacher, boss and coach (and politician…) being blown up for failure to act.
http://politicaldynamite.com/ Political Dynamite put two blogs forward on this subject today..!
Agreed. (Blog + comments = You are obviously all vastly intelligent and insightful.)
i think the issue that made this film shocking was the images being harder than the message – people will accept shocking images in an NSPCC advert against child abuse because child abuse is a more tangibly shocking and devastating message, unfortunately climate change is just not that hard-hitting for most people.
I also think there was a fundamental failure on the part of 10:10 to do anything about the response. The bold thing would have been to defend their decision, not cower in fear at having upset a few people. By trying to be everyone’s friend 10:10 have created a very weak campaign that, as you point out Adam, sets back years of re-framing the debate away from individual responsibility.
I also think people and NGOs put too much stock in having a ‘viral’, it doesn’t really mean anything. Better to put the time, money and energy into getting people to actually DO something.
Hi Jim, hmm, well, on RSBP, I don’t particularly disagree – though my point was more that they don’t challenge the united interests which preserve our economic system, rather than that they confront specific developers etc.
On films, in general I agree – I spend a lot of my time complaining about the use of ‘creative campaigning’ as a shortcut to movement building, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t sometimes be willing to be controversial.
I was going to put some caveats into the RSPB thing but decided it made the point too confusing. They certainly don’t have a ‘political’ remit – but they do confront vested interests, developers and government all the time… and win.
I was just chatting with someone about this and she said ‘but it’s an easy sell, protect the birds. Much easier than protect single mothers.’ I think that shows how much they *have* reframed the debate that we can think it’s easier to convince someone to protect a bird’s habitat than it is to protect a persons’…
I’ve become a bit jaundiced with hard-hitting slick youtube films because you can see the hand of luvvies in it. It’s like when you can tell an actor is acting – it breaks the spell.
I’d like information I can trust told in a way that makes me feel it’s information, not spin, and I’d like that information connected to real campaigners who have some sort of say over the material that is produced in their name… sort of thing.
Hi Jim, I agree with the first half of what you say – NGOs obsess with media coverage and celebrity because movement building is hard. I’m not sure I agree entirely about RSPB being a good analogy – they rarely do much which genuinely challenges entrenched power, or re-frames national debate. To do that, we do need to do the hard slog of mass face-to-face communication and movement building, but things like controversial and hard hitting you-tube films could well be a useful tool. However, not shit ones like this. And, to be honest, I’d probably trust Dan Vockins who runs 10:10 day to day to make one more than I would Richard Curtis & Franny Armstrong, so no need for the celebrity stuff.
Adam, my concern is that NGOs do media focused campaigning which leads them to put form over content and, inevitably, leads them on the Bob Geldoff road to prioritising their personal influence with particular individuals in the elites and against challenging the vested interests that stand in the way of tackling climate change.
This film, which says that authority is wise and ordinary people are scum to be dispensed with is actually a very reasonable metaphor for the way some NGOs see their supporters.
The very drive for ‘creative’ campaigns is one that prefers Richard Curtis being on board than having active groups doing real work.
Example: the RSPB is one of the largest, most effective ‘green’ environmental groups in the country with large numbers of *active* members. When’s the last time they did a shocking video or took a controversial campaigning style?
Within their remit they are one of the most influential lobby groups in the country because they do the work not mess about with media consultants.
Hi Gary, yeah, I do agree that the film isn’t even good. But my point is that I worry that cautious NGOs will respond not by stopping doing bad, or stupid things, but by being even less willing to do anything controversial.
I do like Adam’s point about the central fallacy of 10:10 – that Josephine Public can do any damned thing about climate change by turning the thermostat down. I know and like some of the 10:10ers and I feel a bit crappy about kicking them when they’re down, but I’ve never understood why they chose to depoliticise this hugely political issue.
Disagree with Gary about the imagery as well – I did actually find it quite shocking. But then I’m pretty non-robust about that sort of thing.
Their argument, which as I predicted, was that it would generate a discussion is pathetic. All it has done is created a backlash against their own campaign, and meant that anyone who previously has dragged their feet on taking individual steps to address their own consumption or lifestyle can now without any guilt, point at this campaign as a way of demonstrating what dickheads environmentalists can be, and live unsustainably without a shadow of guilt on their conscience. In turn, when it comes to lobbying the government to change the law, are they likely to help us? Doubtful.
Gary, that’s a really good point well made.
Esp. the last bit.
Adam,
I agree with your conclusions but I think you give 10:10 too much credit for their supposed “boldness”.
All day I’ve seen people misinterpreting the reaction as being reflective of the ‘edgy’ imagery, the potential for ‘offense’ and ‘controversy’, and as a result how ‘risky’ and ‘brave’ it was.
Rubbish. That kind of comic gore on display here would not be out of place in an advert for childrens’ sweets. I was offended because its political intent is reactionary, and because its execution is counter-productive and ineffectual, not because of its Dario Argento-esque assault on the boundaries of modern cinema.
Dear old Oscar said: “As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular.” So it is with this flop. I don’t want 10:10 to have the glamour of people thinking they took a big, ballsy risk and sadly failed but props to them for their courage. The risk they took was in siding with the powerful against the powerless, not throwing a bit of ketchup around; and their failure was not unfortunate but 100% deserved.
Sadly their apology (“Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended”) implies they believe their own hype, that the failure of the film has to do with the British public being delicate and sensitive flowers with zero sense of humour.
It does not. It had to do with what inevitably happens when you say “we hate you and blame you” to literally every single person in your target audience while letting the teacher, the boss, the Secretary of State, the corporation – the figure of authority wherever it is found – off scot free.