“My Suicide” premieres at Mystic Theatre, Friday, September 25, features Penngrove screenwriter/producer Eric J. Adams and Petaluma actor, filmmaker Gabriel Sunday in lead role

There’s still time to get tickets for tonight’s North Bay premiere and benefit screening of “My Suicide” at Petaluma’s Mystic Theatre.  “My Suicide”  tells the riveting story of Archie Williams, a brilliant and troubled 17 year old ADHD, media-savvy teen who announces to his high school film class that he is going to kill himself on camera for his final film project.   Archie’s project brings  unintended but devastating consequences.  “My Suicide”  not only delivers one hell of a story, with eye-popping effects, it’s also a portal into the complex life of today’s teens who are facing pressures they feel they can’t cope with and that adults don’t understand.  The indie film was four years in the making and has numerous local connections—it was co-written and produced by Penngrove screenwriter Eric J. Adams, stars Petaluma actor and filmmaker Gabriel Sunday, and parts of the film were shot in Petaluma’s Phoenix Theatre.  The film has picked up numerous audience and jury awards at film-festivals world wide, had its West Coast premiere in May at the SFIFF52 (San Francisco International Film Festival) and as it comes off the film festival circuit, it is about to be more widely distributed though a company that Adams and his partners have set-up.   Tonight’s screening, hosted by the newly created Petaluma Film Alliance, will benefit Regenerate and Five Alive, two teen-oriented non-profit organizations working to prevent teen suicide. Following the film, Mike Traina, film instructor at Santa Rosa Junior College Petaluma campus and PFA coordinator will lead a discussion with the Adams, Sunday and others who had role in the film.

Eric J. Adams, of Penngrove, co-wrote and produced the award-winning indie feature film "My Suicide"

I recently had the pleasure of talking with both Eric Adams and Gabe Sunday about “My Suicide” and will be posting the interview with Gabe shortly.  Eric and I met on Thursday in Penngrove to chat about his experience with the film.  Heads up–this interview contains discussion about plot twists that you may wish to leave as a surprise.  These portions appear below in bold face so that you may skip them. 

Geneva Anderson: How has the film been received?

Eric J. Adams:  We’ve gotten very good reaction and lots of awards everywhere we go—audience and grand jury awards.  The goal was to create conversation around the teen experience.  It’s not even about suicide but about that teen experience and point of view.  We wanted it to be a very in-your-face movie.   Parents tend to love it because it is unquestionably from a kid’s point of view, which most parents want to understand.

The response that we get from kids is that it’s good.  We have kids coming up to us saying this movie captures how I feel more than any other one out there.   The reports we get is that it opens up conversations all over the place about who I am, what I really feel, what hurts me and that’s the conversation that needs to happen between parents and kids.  Another message is “I am not alone and this is not something that I am going through by myself.  I have a generational link with others who are going through this.”  Knowing that takes them out of isolation and isolation is the number one factor in suicide.

We actually got an email from a kid who said he went to our movie because he thought it was going to help him kill himself but, when he came out of the movie, things were different.  It was such a perfect email, we thought it was a hoax, so we contacted him and got in touch with his parents and we all sat down together and they all ended up coming to another screening at that film festival.  It was quite amazing. 

Geneva Anderson: What is important for us to know about the way you as a screen writer approached this project?

Eric J. Adams:  Well, I worked directly with David Phillips. We’ve been friends since the 1970’s, back in our hippie days and we’ve have always sort of helped each other on projects, co-writing, etc.  David created the idea of “My Suicide” and his son Jordan Miller helped him.  When we got to the script, we knew that we wanted to do something that was revolutionary and was always from the kid’s point of view. 

Whenever we were at a script moment, the question that we would ask each other was what would Archie do?  The story had to be from a young person’s point of view and a young person of today who is an aggregation of many different media.  For us, growing up, there was film and there was tv.  For them, there’s film, tv, internet, YouTube, iphone, public domain stuff, content that they’re shooting themselves, and all sorts of variants—documentary, animation, so forth.  We want to make it as if Archie took a palette of all the media that was available to him and he ran with it.

“Natural Born Killers” was one of the movies that inspired us and, as violent as it was, it was an absolutely brilliant movie and probably 15 years ahead of its time.  It used such innovative modern storytelling techniques—taking a plotpoint and creating a vignette around it rather than dramatizing it.   We did this in the opening scene where you learn all about Archie through a visual vignette and re-employed that technique to add color throughout the film incorporating wild effects, animation, etc.

Archie and Sierra's world is upside down in My Suicide

But this is really a very traditional three act story, right from the screen play, it’s the hero’s journey–the concept of the young man going on a journey to find the trurth and having to take risks and then coming back to save someone.  From the plot point of view, this is a classic story that could have been written in Rome 2,000 years ago.  

Geneva Anderson:  Is “My Suicide” anyone in particular’s story?

Eric J. Adams:  No, it’s not based on anyone.  Both David and I are children of the 1960’s and 1970’s and a lot of the emotion was there from that—we brought a lot of our own teen years into it.  When Gabe came on, he became the major editor and this was after we had a good credentialed Hollywood name editor work on it and give us something that didn’t fit.  We went right back to the drawing board and started with Gabe and he delivered what we wanted.  He turned the tone correct.

Geneva Anderson: How old was he at that point?

Eric J. Adams:  About twenty, I’d say.  I worked with him up here when he was 18 and I saw his brilliance and this was around the time that Dave and I were putting together our LLC for this film.  He’s a young adult now, who has some distance on adolescence but can still jump back in.  He looks young…you actually see him from 18 to age 22.  We kept on filming the entire time it was being edited and added the little scenes here and there.  For example, the ending was shot 3 or 4 years after the principle photography was done.  He has that puffy face teen look in many of the scenes.  We rented him that back house, which is the guest house in the movie, gave him a camera and a green-screen and said “go at it, investigate your character, create Archie from a character point of view.”

Geneva Anderson:  Do you remember your teenage years as being so traumatic?  What accounts for the tremendous dissatisfaction we’re seeing in today’s teens like Archie?

Eric J. Adams: I question that statement…I have 18 and  20 year old sons and I don’t see them or their friends as being dissatisfied.  I think I see the same ratio of craziness to goodness that I saw when I was a kid.  The craziness is just getting more hype.  And I don’t think kids are that much different today but they have additional pressures.  For example, with the Internet they have access to instant pornography, hard core stuff, which they can access at a very young age.

Geneva Anderson: Yes, so they are “experts” on sex or violence with no practical experience.  In fact, that is what media offers–familiarity without any practical experience.  Combine that with raging hormones and you’ve got serious volatility.

Green-screened Archie rants at a surreal and epic rally in My Suicide.

Eric J. Adams:  Yes, and that actually puts some pressure or fear in them.  Now, when they see sex, especially the hard core porn which is scary stuff even if you’re a seasoned sexual person, they must feel pressure.  That could almost delay their entry into sexuality, that along with the pressure of knowing how you’re expected to perform and everything that’s supposed to happen.  On the other hand, teens are very sophisticated today, savvy as consumers and as humans.  They understand that people are trying to sell to them. 

Geneva Anderson: sophistication wrapped in cynicism.

Eric J. Adams: Exactly and the roots of that started with our generation, the war.  We are the first cynical generation of adults but they have learned a new trick–that they can manipulate as much as they are being manipulated.  They are so much more comfortable with the tools of manipulation.  They know how to take a camera out and make a YouTube video.  They know how to do things.

Geneva  Anderson: Let’s talk about Archie, Gabe’s character. The situation at home, his connection with his parents is stressed, which is typical for kids that age.  This has lapsed into a serious disconnect though and when teens are dissatisfied with a connection, they really feel the severity of it.  His awareness is curious.  He seems to think he has seen it all and is ready to pull the plug but, actually, he’s done very little.  He’s a loner who lives a mediated existence through his camera.  He’s really very innocent and bright.  He’s not hardened or into drugs.  He’s a virgin, which is made a huge deal in the film, which further underscores his innocence.  He’s just starting out.

 

My Suicide's Archie (Gabriel Sunday) is obsessed with the perfect girl, Sierra, played by Brooke Nevin.

Eric J. Adams:

Right. We wanted a kid who was on an epic journey and you can’t start a journey necessarily if you are jaded.   The kid, of course had to have potential and everyone does but they don’t see it.  We also did a lot of research on suicide and teen narcissism and one thing we learned was that people who are suicidal are often very ambivalent about their suicide.  We wanted to take an idea that has been romanticized and really put it into play.  That’s why it was so important to us to show that suicide so graphically because if we romanticize it, it remains an ethereal concept.  When you see that kid hanging from the rope, you are sobered and it’s immediate.

Geneva Anderson: The cliché we hear “suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem” which is delivered first through Sierra Silver really become the film’s mantra.  After Archie reaches out to Sierra, his life has taken on meaning.

Eric J. Adams:  You can’t deliver a message like that on the nose, you see how that works in the film…it is just a cliché.  We chose to work through storytelling channels that would have a better chance of reaching kids.  Teenage years are affected by an incredible amount of narcissism. It’s all about me.  My parents are the worse parents in the world.  I’m the only one who feels this way.  The whole flow of the film is to take this self-absorbed narcissistic kid on a journey that shows him he can grow out of narcissism and grow into maturity and responsibility.  He learns that lesson at the end of the movie–that you can kill the part of yourself that you don’t like, that you don’t have to kill your whole self, that you’re really much better off when you start taking that camera and looking elsewhere, looking at the grace of the world and helping others.  That’s when you can let go of the pain and that’s the lesson he learns through saving Sierra Silver and that’s the lesson for both of those young adults by the end of the film.

 

Sierra Silver (Brooke Nevin) visits Archie's (Gabriel Sunday) lair for the first time.

Geneva Anderson:  What is Sierra Silver’s role in the film?  Hers is actually is the more authentic trauma—she’s lost her brother, she’s living with a deep family lie and she’s a perfectionist who’s a compulsive cutter.  Next to her, Archie is a poser who flirts with this from behind his camera but she is the real deal.

Eric J. Adams:  Our research revealed two types of kids who kill themselves.  The first is the “I’m mad” kid and the second is the perfect child who hates herself and—this does apply more to girls– has to be the best (has a 3.9 G.P.A. instead of a 4.0), the most popular and perfect in every way.  So Sierra Silver is that other type of suicidal person.  She personifies the shame around suicide and the drive and need to be perfect at all times which is, of course, unobtainable.

Geneva Anderson: Is there any evidence of more suicides occurring in large urban settings?

Eric J. Adams:  No.  The states with the highest rates–Montana, Wyoming, Kansas–are places with the greatest isolation; at the lower end are NY, CA, Mass.   The reason for that is isolation is a huge factor, as is access to guns.  Girls attempt suicide four times as much as boys do but boys are four times more successful.  This is because girls tend to pick pills, cutting–slower methods–so there’s time for intervention and it’s more a call for help.  Boys pick up a gun and it’s over.  If you have a gun in the house with a teenage boy, your risk of suicide skyrockets.  In terms of ago, the largest growing rate of suicides is among kids in the 11 to 14 age range which is horrific.

Geneva Anderson:   In terms of adult characters in the film—from the film teacher, to the therapist, to the psychiatrist, to his parents, to her parents.  You’ve basically laid out several possibilities which he treats as obstacles to get around.   He doesn’t have any authentic connections with adults except the temporary one with the therapist.

Eric J. Adams:  Well, we unabashedly told the story from a teen point of view.  We did not try to be fair or just but shot through the eyes of an extremely upset young man.

Animated Archie goes nuts at the psychiatrist (Joe Mantegna) in My Suicide.

There’s two times he does connect with adults…we wanted to show that a good mental health professional can be extremely helpful.  You’ll notice right after that scene where he speaks with Joe Mantagna who says “be a kid, it’s not so bad,” Archie thinks it over and invites Sierra Silver to his place and he opens himself up to chance on being a kid.

  The second time you see the connection is near the end with his parents when they confront him in the guest house and tell him “We love you but this is the truth about us and we can’t handle it any more.”  And there’s the scene at the funeral when they finally come together as a family and you know that even though the resolution is thin there, you know they are going to have a new relationship from that moment on.

Geneva Anderson: How much of the film was shot locally?

Eric J. Adams: The documentary stuff where it’s real kids talking back…that’s all done in Petaluma and a lot of it at the Phoenix Theatre. In the beginning when you hear the kids saying they want to learn—shot at the Phoenix.  The kid who says “we know more than they will ever know,” we saw that he had a friend with him who seemed to have a lot to say but never said anything.  So when we shot the film, those two kids became the inspiration for the two kids Earl and Corey—the one who kills himself and the sidekick who says “Do it man, do it….I’ll do it tomorrow.”  The spirit of Petaluma and the Phoenix is throughout the film.

Geneva Anderson:  How do all these other media add or subtract from your job as  screenwriter…what’s the synthesis with Internet, iPhone, so forth?

Eric J. Adams: It’s the new screenwriter’s toolbox and I love it.  Now, when I go and see straight narrative films, it’s hard for me to sit still because it’s just the narrative story…where is the visual creativity?  I believe “My Suicide” is the beginning of the next generation of film because the next generation will be done by kids where media is media and there are no lines drawn.  To them, it’s all the same…they can appropriate anything they want at any time.  Film is visual and you can readily pull things together. 

Geneva Anderson: Actually one of the reviews I read dished your film saying it could just as easily be on the internet, implying that it could have been done on YouTube.  So what?

Eric J. Adams: Exactly.  It’s just like what “Blair Witch Project” did with the consumer camera, where it became part of the plot.  For us, the internet is part of the plot as is media everywhere, which is the way we saw it and the way we tell it and the way we live.

Geneva Anderson: What’s the new distribution deal?

Eric J. Adams:  We’re hoping to engage a three tier structure.  We’ll start with a limited release in the NY, SF, and LA areas and, based on success in those areas, we will move to a wider area, college towns–Boulder, Madison, etc., and the third tier is to go really wide, to Miami and Dallas.  

Geneva Anderson:   Do you have a distributor right now?

Eric J. Adams:  We’re creating a hybrid distribution plan right now.  Now, all our work is toward distribution.  In today’s economic climate where distributors are not picking up film, you create your own distribution company by pulling in P&A (prints and advertising) funds—that was what distributors were always all about.  We’re working on that right now. We’ve hired our marketing team.  This is good.  You own your own copyright and create your own marketing plan as you see fit.  You retain the ability to make money throughout the process.

Geneva Anderson: You also bear all the risk.  Has this made you more realistic and less idealistic?  Are you tainted by the market?

Eric J. Adams: Yes and no.  I am tainted and I am bitten too.  After that first dance, you will keep dancing whether you want or not. This is the greatest and biggest thing I have done and learned as an adult.  To start to build something from scratch…we started with investments at $5K/pop.  I made mistakes but I have learned. 

Geneva Anderson:  With that backdrop, what is your next project?

Eric J. Adams: I have just signed a deal with Halle Berry’s company “Good Shepherd Productions” and her manager Vincent Cirrincione.   The script I wrote is based on a true story in Sonoma County.  The story begins at Pelican Bay State Prison on the Oregon border, the home of the Arian brotherhood and Robert Scully, who was released from prison after 14 years.  He started driving down 101, got stopped by a cop, panicked, shot the cop and killed him and ditched his car, entered a house and took the family hostage. Low and behold, it’s the only black family in the neighborhood.  A true story.  I got the rights, wrote the script and her company has optioned it.

 “My Suicide” (2008)(105 minutes) not rated, would likely be rated R for harsh dialogue, some nudity and sexual scenes: screens 7:30 p.m. McNear’s Mystic Theatre, Friday, September 25, 2009.

SFIFF52: “My Neighbor, My Killer” award-winning filmmaker Anne Aghion’s unflinching look at Rwanda 15 years after, signs of hope and healing

It has now been 15 years since the tragic genocide in Rwanda which in 100 days claimed an estimated 800,000 Tutsi lives at the hands of Hutu power, demonstrating again how swiftly humanity can betray itself.  I lost two dear friends in that war, one is dead and the other was so haunted by the experience of reporting the genocide that he had a breakdown.  Why should we here in the Bay Area look back at that horrific event now?  We should look because war is a great teacher.   We should look because it continues to be a controversial event because of the apparent indifference of the international community to the plight of the Tutsi.   The San Francisco International Film Festival, April 23- May 7 gives us an opportunity to explore genocide and war crimes through the eyes of two seasoned filmmakers Anne Aghion and Pamela Yates whose documentary feature films “My Neighbor My Killer” and “The Reckoning” are both Golden Gate Award Documentary contenders.  Both filmmakers will be attending the festival and participating in post-screening discussions.

“My Neighbor, My Killer” is a hold review film, which means I am limited in what I can say about it here because it is pending U.S. distribution, but I strongly encourage you to go see the film.  Last year, the Rwandan government decided to clear its genocide caseload and according to some reports more than a million cases were adjudicated as some 12,000 “gacaca” or open-air community courts for genocide were convened across the country.  The idea behind these gacaca (ga-CHA-cha) which literally means “justice on the grass,” which were announced in 2001 and ended this year, was to allow for the truth to come out so that the nation could heal itself.  As part of this experiment in reconciliation, confessed genocide killers are sent home from prison, while traumatized survivors are asked to forgive them so that they can resume living side-by-side.  Through the emotional catharsis of letting flow what has remained hidden deep inside, individuals and society can move forward, collectively healing the psychosis which has gripped Rwanda.

Aghion’s film, her fourth since 2002 on Rwandan genocide, focuses on the proceedings in a village and through live footage and interviews shows the impact on the women there who are involved in confronting the men who slaughtered their husbands and children.  The emotions run the gamut but what is remarkable is the capacity for forgiveness that emerges from the hurt and bitterness and the modicum of release and dignity this offers.   

Rwanda lost about 10 per cent of its population through the 1994 genocide, but its population growth rapidly recovered due to a birth rate that is currently resting at about 5.25 children per woman.  That means that about 42 per cent of Rwandans were born after the genocide and have no direct memory of the slaughter but everyone has relatives who were murdered.  Since 1994, the Rwandan government has imposed a moratorium on teaching about the event, reasoning that the manipulation of history fuelled the genocide and there would be no education until there was consensus on how to teach it.   In this context then, the “gacaca” or community courts for genocide offer an important means of education and offer some form of closure for victims and perpetrators.  The gacaca courts are not presided by professional magistrates, but by people of high esteem in the community.  Recent news reports stemming from the flood of trials this year, indicate that the process has been problematic.  In March 2009, for example, one of the judges of a Kigali gacaca was himself accused of complicity to commit genocide and crimes against humanity in 1994, but was later acquitted on appeal.   Other reports indicate that known perpetrators changed their names, relocated and have been operating successful businesses under the protection of complicit officials.

Resources abound on Rwanda but Philip Gourevitch’s “The Life After”  in this week’s New Yorker is excellent, as is the magazine’s podcast “Rwanda in Recovery.”   JUSTWATCH, The International Justice Watch Discussion List is an excellent online searchable forum which captures daily international news coverage of international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda (and ex-Yugoslavia) as well lively discussion of related issues including the conflicts which gave rise to the tribunals, the International Criminal Court, international humanitarian law (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes), and other armed conflicts and humanitarian emergencies.

“My Neighbor, My Killer” screens:  Wed April 29, 9:00 pm, Thurs April 30, 4:15 pm, Fri May 1, 3:45 pm, all at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.   

“The Reckoning” screens: Sun May 3, 5:30 pm at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas, Tues May 5, 6:00 pm at PFA, Wed May 6, 6:15 pm at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.

SFIFF52 review: “A Sea Change” a riveting new documentary on ocean acidification by Barbara Ettinger and Sven Huseby

Sven Huseby and grandson Elias at the Monterey Aquarium

We could all be so lucky to have Norwegian Sven Huseby as our grandfather.  After he read Elizabeth Kolbert’s riveting article “The Darkening Sea” in the New Yorker, ( PDF) Huseby, a retired schoolteacher, and his wife, director Barbara Ettinger, were so impacted that they spent two years traveling the world and documenting the scientific impact of ocean acidification on sea life.  Sven becomes enamored with pteropods, or sea butterflies, which evolved during the Cenozoic Era as the dinosaurs were becoming extinct.  These beautiful creatures have fragile shells made from calcium carbonate, as are many sea species’ shells and skeleton. As the ocean water becomes more and more acidic, it is this calcium carbonate which is dissolving and inhibiting the calcification process which forms new shells and skeletons.  This is driving species, from tiny pteropods and phytoplankton to massive corals, to extinction and undermining the food chain and ecosystem of the ocean. Ultimately as sea life dies, its impact will cascade beyond the oceans to land animals and eventually man. The film makes us uncomfortably aware that all of life is at risk along with Huseby’s beloved tiny pteropods.

 Ocean acidification is one of the many little known and dire side effects of our anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases and is due primarily to our burning fossil fuels for energy.  While the most popularized consequence is global warming (the gradual increase in the average worldwide temperature), the ever increasing levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are also being rapidly dissolved into our oceans, driving its pH down and increasing acidity. Ocean acidification is the dark cousin of Global Warming. While the oceans have always been part of the overall balance in absorbing CO₂ as part of the natural Carbon cycle, the massive emissions of man have overwhelmed the ocean’s natural balanced capacity to absorb CO₂.

The message of “A Sea Change” is that we have reached one of many tipping points due to our CO₂ emissions.  A tipping point is a point of no return. The damage done becomes irreversible or actually begins positively feeding itself and accelerating.  With near universal agreement, scientists say that we are burning fossil fuels at a rate that is fundamentally altering the ocean chemistry.  CO₂ emissions have dramatically increased our atmospheric CO₂ which is driving excessive carbonic acid H₂CO₃ formation.  This is the acid in the acidification.  After absorbing the equivalent of 118 billion metric tons of CO₂ in the past 200 years and 42% of that in the past 20 years, the ocean’s capacity for absorbing CO₂ without any change in pH has been stressed too far.  Acidification has increased and is currently increasing at an unprecedented rate.  Steady increases in CO₂ emissions and the steady rise in ocean acidification will result in a complete bottom-up collapse of the world’s fish and this could last millions of years.  This is a mere blip in geologic time but it is longer than man as a species has existed on Earth. We risk not just damaging the ocean’s eco-system; we are threatening life on Earth’s very foundation.  The Earth does not care: it will recover as it did after the dinosaur’s age. We should care because our survival is at stake.

The film strongly makes the point that ocean acidification is a FACT and while it may be too late to reverse the situation, we need to buy as much time as possible to prepare alternative forms of energy and to learn to live on this planet without depleting it.  This is just one of many CO₂ emission-based crises we face due to our generation’s hunger for energy.  We need to both inform and change direction NOW.    If you have children, grandchildren or any investment in life on this planet, “A Sea Change”  is a must see film that tells this story through the voice of a grandfather who is concerned that his American grandson, Elias, will never know the seas as he did.  Huseby invites us along on his own learning journey and we gather information with him and share in his letters, postcards and phone calls to his grandson, Elias.

Huseby begins his journey by meeting Elizabeth Kolbert, the author of “The Darkening Sea,” the article that so grabbed his attention.  Kolbert admits she was saddened by her own teenager’s remark that the world is a now degraded place and this is the problem of having been born so late.  We accompany Huseby to Alaskan fishing villages to witness the devastation of the Exxon Valdez spill, to the barren glacial beaches of arctic Ny Alesund, Norway, to conferences and laboratories, capturing breathtaking oceanic cinematography.  Sven’s travels are interwoven with warm conversations with his grandson, teenagers and leading experts on ocean acidification who themselves have children and grandchildren.  In asking his grandson what gift he would like brought back from Seattle, Elias asks for a dinosaur.  Might this be another veiled reference to the last great age of dominance by the dinosaurs on our planet Earth and their fate of extinction?

At a University of Washington Conference on Climate change in Seattle, Huseby meets Dr. Edward Miles, University of Washington, who admits “We the scientific community had underestimated both the magnitude and rate of global climate change.”  Dr. Miles is seemingly referring to the heavily politically motivated conservatative predictions made by the scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Huseby meets with conference participant oceanographer Dr. Richard Feely, of NOAA, (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and learns that we now have equipment to precisely measure CO₂ output, ocean acidification, and the changes in temperature, chemistry, ecosystems and biology that are happening simultaneously.  Scientists have learned that our oceans are absorbing 22 million pounds of CO₂ daily and they initially thought the solution was to enhance that absorption. When they went out to sea and collected data, they learned instead that the ocean’s absorptive capacity has been taxed and the consequences are dire.

There are now 387 parts per million of CO₂ in the air, the highest figure in 650,000 years.  Experts agree that we are facing a potential mass extinction event for coral in a world that reaches 500 parts per million and there’s no telling how mankind will fare as the chain reaction kicks in.

In Alaska, Husbey meets Jeff Short, NOAA, Ocean Chemist who tells him “This is a tremendously high stakes crap shoot, and the more acid we put in the ocean, the more likely it is that fundamentally bad things will happen…no more coral reefs, shell fish… forever.. for our human race.   You can’t talk nature out of this. We’ve been in this very stable environment, climatologically, for 20,000 years and now we are committed to leaving that stable environment and we don’t really know where we going to go but we do know it’s get a lot more variable and a lot of things are going to die.  There will be a lot of extinctions.”

Running about an hour and half, the film covers the topic in a thoroughly understandable way.  The science is clear and the delivery visually dynamic.  Want to drive home the point to kids or kids at heart?  Learn to speak their language— scientist Deborah Williams, President, Alaska Conservation Solutions, collected spare baby teeth from children and soaked these teeth in acidified water (water with added CO₂  with pH = 4), (normal water is pH =7).  Within three weeks, the acid had cracked the teeth.  Imagine what is happening to our coral reefs or to delicate pteropod shells.  It gets very scary when later in the film Huseby gets in a row boat with a long time friend in Norway and they row themselves out to the melting glaciers where they (and we) can see and hear the impact of the melt.  Might Huseby be eluding to yet other catastrophic consequence of our energy addiction and CO₂ emissions of dramatic sea level rise and the potential thermohaline circulation shutdown by melting ice’s fresh water?  These are two other ocean-related consequences threatening our survival along with ocean acidification that emerge in this one shot in the film.

We have only enough fossil fuel to last two centuries, which seems significant to individuals now living, but to use this fuel, we are changing the ocean for millions of years.  Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institute, Stanford University puts it bluntly “We are running an irreversible experiment in the one ocean we have.  We are saying we’re going to acidify the ocean and see what happens.  We have no idea what it will do to higher life forms but we will know in a few decades, so just hang on.”

Huseby takes us to the cutting edge Solstrand Hotel in Bergen, Norway, which is heated entirely with wind turbines and no CO₂ generation.  He takes us to Sostra Island, West of Bergen, to see these giant wind turbines and talks with two men who dream of developing a large wind park that will completely power all of Norway. This is a glimpse of hope at what so far has been a dire journey through just this one acidification consequence of our anthropogenic emissions of CO₂.

Back in the US, Huseby meets with Miyoko Sakashita, an environmental lawyer at the Center for Biological Diversity, who believes it is not too late to solve the problem.  In the absence of much-needed national CO₂ emissions regulations, the center is focused on legal and policy strategies that various states can enact.  It has initiated a lawsuit that has convinced the EPA to look into the possible application of the Clean Water Act to tighten its water criteria for ocean acidity.  The center is asking several coastal states to use the Clean Water Act to regulate CO₂ emissions and to place segments of the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans under the states’ jurisdictions as “impaired” for pH on their Clean Water Act 303(d) lists.  Once these water bodies are listed, states are required to take action to limit the pollutants causing the problem.  The Endangered Species Act is another very strong law that the center is working with to protect endangered ocean species.

The Center for Biological Diversity’s approach via the CWA and EPA is to be applauded but Huseby fails to mention the important need for strong international policy in this area and that only an all out effort will turn this crisis around.  The efforts of coastal states are minuscule…coastal bodies are but a drop in the bucket…the larger seas they connect to and the lack of US support for the Kyoto Protocol which attempts to limit greenhouse gases.

Huseby takes us to Google’s innovative and energy-efficient headquarters in Mountain View, CA, where Suntech Energy Solutions of San Rafael designed and installed 7 acres of solar panels which supply 1.6 megawatts or 30% of all power used by Google.   Accolades to Google, but it is one of the most profitable companies of all times; what can smaller companies who currently cannot afford to implement solar solutions do to move towards energy independence?   What additional incentives should be offered them?  

Thomas W. Van Dyck, a Sr. VP and financial consultant at CIMA (Greenwich, CT), tells Huseby that clean technology will eclipse information technology as the new industry of the 21^st Century.  Products focused around reducing carbon output as means of adding value that can be exported should be the focus of entrepreneurs and our nation.  The point, not expressed strongly enough, is that we as a nation need to make this our urgent priority.  And it goes without saying–if we don’t move forward and capture the market in this area, the Chinese will.

Currently, Germany, Japan and Spain have larger markets for solar energy than the US but we have a huge solar opportunity.  While the movie did not mention this, a January 8, 2008 article in Scientific American “A Solar Grand Plan” stated that $420 billion in government subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would fund the infrastructure to switch our country from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants.  By 2050, these plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S. electricity and 35 percent of its total energy.  That investment is substantial, but the payoff is even greater.

Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume.  For roughly one half our current military budget, this plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, dramatically reducing U.S. trade deficits and easing political tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere.  By the way, this cost is slighlty more than the already spent $350B of the $700B total authorized for the recent bank bailout.   Are banks more important than our oceans and potentially life on Earth?   A plan similar to the “Solar Grand Plan” would not only help protect our ocean’s from acidification but free us from our oil addiction and lead us to true energy independence with far reaching ecological, economic and social benefits.   It’s too bad that the film was completed after this poorly-executed fiasco.

“Because Solar technologies are almost pollution free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emission from power plants by 1.7 billion tons per year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid.  In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005, putting a major brake on global warming.”  The Solar Photovoltaic technology that is the basis of that plan dramatically benefits in cost and size from technological advances over time as in Moore’s Law that drove the semiconductor and PC revolution. That same miracle that took us from 1970s transitor radios to today’s cell phones, PDAs and PC’s could be applied NOW to the oil addiction, energy, CO2, Global Warming and ocean acidification problem in a manner similar to the “Solar Grand Plan”.  If we don’t, the Chinese will as the Japanese did with electronics and automobiles. If we can spend trillions of dollars on wars in part to protect our oil supplies, bail out banks and save our automobile industry, why wouldn’t we apply some of that money to the Moore’s Law leveraged photovoltaic solution that is so obvious? Over 50,000 times the total energy usage of the entire world is simply wasted every day as sunlight falls warmly on the Earth while our oceans slowly die.

 “A Sea Change” presents compelling facts and it should be shown and discussed in every school and home in America.   The screening of this film could go hand in hand with a discussion of some of the things the film did not have time to develop such as  the geo-engineering that might safely absorb some of the CO₂  that could buy us time–massive reforestation, ocean iron fertilization and neutralization and CO2 scrubbing, capture and storage techiques.   For those of us from the generation who rocked to Creedence Clearwater Revival’s 1969 “Bad Moon Rising” we need to take heed…there is a bad moon rising and we need to sound the alarm for the generation that will inherit this mess.  

A special forum “Ocean Acidification: Imagining a World Without Fish” will take place Saturday April 25, 5:45 pm, following the screening with several of the experts featured in the film present to discuss the latest findings.

Screens: San Francisco International Film Festival: Sat April 25, 3:45 pm, Mon April 27, 6:15 pm, Thurs April 30, 1:30 pm, all at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.  Tickets:  www.sffs.org , or by phone (925) 866-9559 or in person at the main ticket outlet, Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.  Price $12.50 general public.

52nd San Francisco International Film Festival, April 23- May 7, 2009

It’s film festival season again and nothing beats the San Francisco International Film Festival, which offers an exceptional program of global cinema—151 films from 55 countries in 34 languages with 54 West Coast, 9 North American, and 1 global premiere.  Fortunately, a number of angels stepped up with generous financial sponsorship so the economic crisis would not impact this year’s 15 day festival which draws over 75,000 people.  I am especially attached to SFIFF because the programming is wonderfully diverse offering narrative features, feature documentaries, works from new directors, and shorts from all over the world that can loosely be divided into over 20 causes- the arts, environment, health, family issues, world culture, war, youth, and Cinema by the Bay (locals).  All screenings include engaging Q&A with the directors, actors, and film crews. The festival takes place in San Francisco (Sundance Kabuki Cinemas, Castro Theatre, and Landmark’s Clay Theatre) and Berkeley (Pacific Film Archive).  Most of these films sell out, so buy your tickets in advance.

Here are my must-see flics, biased by my heavy interest in global politics, environmental concerns and penetrating storytelling.  I will be posting full reviews of several of these films in coming days.

 “A Sea Change”: Dir. Barbara Ettinger (USA 2009, 84 min)   Did you happen to read Elizabeth Kolbert’s penetrating article “The Darkening Sea” in the New Yorker? (PDF) Norwegian grandfather Sven Huseby and his wife, director Barbara Ettinger were so impacted by Kolbert’s findings that they spent two years traveling all over the world and documenting the scientific impact of ocean acidification on sea life.  The urgent and accessible message delivered by Huseby is that we have reached a turning point: CO2 is acidifying our oceans and this is going to dramatically alter life on our plant for coming generations.  Ocean acidification is the flip side of global warming and if you have children, grandchildren or any investment in life as we know it continuing on this planet, this is a must-see film.  This is our generation’s legacy and we need to both inform and change things now.  Screens: Sat April 25, 3:45 pm, Mon April 27, 6:15 pm, Thurs April 30, 1:30 pm, all at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.

A special forum “Ocean Acidification: Imagining a World Without Fish” will take place Saturday April 25, 5:45 pm, following the screening with several of the experts featured in the film present to discuss the latest findings.

“The Reckoning”: Dir. Pamela Yates (USA, 2008, 95 min)  The ICC (International Criminal Court) was set-up by 108 countries in response to repeated crimes against humanity.  This riveting documentary sheds light on this important permanent international tribunal that has been established to try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide regardless of their power or influence and to punish them.  The film is the story of the ICC’s first six tumultuous years: it follows the dynamic ICC prosecutor Luis Ocampo for three years, across 4 continents as his team doggedly pursues Lord’s resistance Army leaders in Uganda, tries Congolese war lords, presses the U.N. Security Council to indict Sudan’s president for the Darfur massacres, and tackles Columbian criminals…the film is spoken in 6 languages.  The film will inspire and inform…no matter how painful, coming to terms with painful history is the best way for our civilization to heal and move forward.  Screens: Sun May 3, 5:30 pm at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas, Tues May 5, 6:00 pm, at PFA and Wed May 6, 6:15 pm at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.

“Speaking in Tongues”: Dir. Marcia Jamel, Ken Schneider (USA 2009, 60 min)   Is America’s commitment to remaining an “English-only” nation a wise course in an increasingly interconnected world?   So far, thirty-one states have voted to make English their official language and even in liberal Palo Alto, a Mandarin language immersion program was viewed as extremely controversial and nearly stopped.  “Speaking in Tongues” explores bilingual language immersion through the compelling stories of four San Francisco public schoolchildren enrolled in Chinese and Spanish language-immersion programs.  The children enter immersion programs for different reasons and while they grow impressively at ease with the portal language offers, becoming impressive global citizens and much better students, their parents argue.  Screens: Sun April 26, 3:15 pm, Sat May 2, 11;45 am and 3:30 pm, Thurs, May 7, 2:30 pm, all at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.

“Oblivion”: Dir. Heddy Honigmann (Netherlands, 2008, 93 min)   Set in the forgotten city of Lima, Peru, we meet some of the city’s residents, real characters, who use poetry, escapism, humor and creativity to battle “el olvido” oblivion, that results from being the disempowered citizens of an impoverished country that has been largely forgotten by the modern world.  Filmmaker Heddy Honigmann who received the SFIFF 2007 Persistence of Vision Award was born in Peru and returns to this forsaken country to explore its dispossessed citizens, capturing them in their victory as well as despair but never ever defeat.   The wisdom and sage humor in this film directed against its politicians and life itself makes it well worth seeing.  Screens: Sat April 25, 4:15 pm at PFA, Sun April 26, 6:30 pm, Tuesday April 28, 12:30 pm and 3:15 pm, all at Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.

“The Other One”: Dir. Patrick Mario Bernard, Pierre Trividic (France 2008, 97 min)     Forty-seven year-old social worker Anne-Marie is newly single after an amicable break with her (much) younger lover, Alex, whom she encouraged to find someone more appropriate for the long-term.  He takes her advice but her replacement turns out to be another older professional woman rather than the gorgeous creative model-type that Anne-Marie imagined he should be with.  What starts off as mild curiosity about the other woman morphs into out of control jealousy and a meltdown.  Screens: Friday May 1, 4:15 pm, Sun May 3, 9:30 pm, Wed May 6, 6:00 pm, all at the Clay Theatre.

Each year the festival asks a culturally prominent public figure to address pressing issues in contemporary cinema.  Mary Ellen Mark, voted by the readers of American Photo as the most influential woman photographer of all time, will deliver the 2009 State of Cinema address on Sunday May 3, 3 pm, at the Sundance Kabuki Theatres, giving a tour of her film-set images and discussing the legendary figures in her famous frames as well.  She will also show us her photo essay “Twins.”

SFIFF52 tickets:  available at www.sffs.org , or by phone (925) 866-9559 or in person at the main ticket outlet, Sundance Kabuki Cinemas.  Price $12.50 general public.