14C

yan Magenta Yellow

Black15

15 M AY10 I M AG I N E W W W I M AG I N E N E W S .C O M

Living DownstreamAn Interview with Documentary Filmmaker Chanda Chevannes

F E AT U R E

cancer has been in remission for 29 years. During that time she has often been living in a state that she describes as “watchful waiting.” Dr. Steingraber invited Ms. Chevannes’s team to follow her into her yearly medical appoint-ment where a very personal procedure known as cystoscopy is performed. A week later she received a phone call from her doctor that lab results turned up abnormal cells. “The world suddenly feels like a very different place now…I might be on an entirely different path.” The am-biguous test results not only alter the arc of her personal story but add signifi cant emotional resonance to the fi lm.

Dr. Steingraber spent most of her childhood in Tazewell County in Illinois, home to many carcinogen-emitting industries. Not only was Dr. Steingraber’s mother diagnosed with cancer but cancer seemed to run in her extended fam-ily. When Dr. Steingraber herself was diagnosed with bladder cancer at age 20 it came not just as a shock but provoked a fundamental ques-tion. Why me? Dr. Steingraber was adopted. This led her to question the conventional assumption that cancer in families was usually related to a genetic predisposition. This in turn led her on a lifelong journey leading to an academic career in environmental biology and then transitioning into a full-time public advo-cate calling for the abolition of cancer causing chemicals in our environment.

Toronto-based, documentary fi lmmaker Chanda Chevannes was just 19 in 1998 when she fi rst read “Living Downstream”, written by Sandra Steingraber. Considered one of the most infl uential books of the modern environ-mental health movement, twelve years later Ms. Chevannes has brought Dr. Steingraber’s combination of scientifi c polemic and personal memoir to the screen, a journey years in the making.

LIVING DOWNSTREAM falls within the genre of documentary fi lmmaking that is advocacy based rather than an objective accounting of facts. The fi lm charts the life and work of Dr. Steingraber: a biologist, author, cancer survivor and public advocate. She is constantly tour-ing, speaking to audiences across the world about the link between carcinogens in our environment and the 600,000 cancer deaths each year in the United States and Canada alone. Dr. Steingraber and Ms. Chevannes are currently on tour across a handful of American cities screening the fi lm to select audiences. A screening was held at Kendall Square Cinemas in Cambridge on April 28th and attended by an audience largely composed of Boston’s leaders and opinion makers in the fi elds of environ-mental health and education.

Ms. Chevannes, who in partnership with her husband created The People’s Picture Company, said she was attracted to the project because the book read cinematically. “I felt like I could see the movie in my head. Her writing style is very visual.” When Ms. Chevannes fi rst ap-proached Dr. Steingraber about making a docu-mentary, she told Sandra that fi lm would take 10 days of her time. Instead it took four years. When I interviewed Ms. Chevannes I asked her what transpired that altered that original time line. “She {Dr. Steingraber} became much more of a collaborator than I anticipated…but because “Living Downstream” is Sandra’s book, it really wasn’t a situation where I could go fi lm her and make it myself. She was really invested in the project.” She agreed it may be different than how other documentary fi lmmakers work but it is her preferred style

“I had no idea of what the arc of the story would be. I had written a pretty tight treatment. I kept thinking of the fi lm as something that would evolve over chapters; there would be a chapter on chemical use, a chapter on atrazine, a chapter on PCBs.” Ms. Chevannes quickly realized this approach would not work. “Film is a time-based medium, you feel like you’re stop-ping and starting, stopping and starting {in the cut that was structured in chapters}…I didn’t want that. We worked to create a seamless story arc where the chemicals were inter-woven and where the larger story was what Sandra was doing.” However the arc of Sandra’s storyline was dramatically altered when it was learned that Sandra had “ambiguous” test results after going in for her yearly bladder cancer checkup.

Dr. Steingraber’s learning of her ambiguous test results are one of the more powerful scenes in LIVING DOWNSTREAM. Dr. Steingraber’s

By Bruce Dillenbeck

clockwise from top rightDirector Chanda Chevannes and Director of Photography Benjamin Gervais, fi lming in Massachusetts. Photo by Benjamin Gervais.

Dr. Steingraber looks out at her most favorite landscape - that of the Illinois River. Photo by Benjamin Gervais.

Dr. Steingraber takes a moment to be grateful after a normal bladder cancer screening. Photo by Benjamin Gervais.

Cape Cod, where researchers are studying elevated rates of breast cancer and where Sandra reveals her ambigu-ous bladder cancer screening results. Photo by Benjamin Gervais.

Dr. Steingraber has often been described as an heir to the legacy of Rachel Carson, who wrote the groundbreaking book “Silent Spring” in 1962 that has been credited with giving birth to the modern environmental movement and inspiring the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. There are excerpts of Ms. Carson taken from television interviews and testimony before Congress that are some of the most haunting images in the fi lm. We learn that just as Ms. Carson was bringing to public consciousness the impact of pesticides on the environment she herself was dying of breast cancer. Like Ms. Carson, Dr. Steingraber believes “knowledge is power and that people have a right to know what is going on in their environment and how it may be affecting their health.” She believes it is the duty of the scientifi c community to be public advocates and not simply neutral investigators. She calls cancer “a serial killer” and views cancer prevention as a human rights issue. According to the Breast Cancer Fund there are an estimated 80,000 synthetic chemicals registered for use in the United States today yet only 7 percent have been fully tested for their impacts on human health.

I asked Ms. Chevannes if she saw a link between her philosophy as a documentary fi lmmaker and Dr. Steingraber’s view that scientists have a role as public advocates. “I think so. I consider

myself a social justice fi lmmaker. I’m interested in presenting issues to people in a way that makes them feel compelled to do something about it…I am hoping that it will inspire people to think a little about our use of chemicals and the way our economy is built around them.”

When asked what were the greatest diffi cul-ties in making a feature length documentary - besides raising money - she laughed. “Money is always number one; after that, fi guring out what story you want to tell. Even when you have a great book, which is a really great starting point, books can go on at length and give you lots of information. Films are reductive. You have to fi gure what pieces of the book you want to convey. That was a real challenge for me: focus-ing down, focusing down, on what the nugget was and focusing on the story arc for Sandra. It was challenging because the book is set in the past. She tells the story of her cancer diagnosis, which happened thirty years ago now. That wasn’t something we could do without doing recreations, which I thought would be really strange for the fi lm. We decided to set it in the present day but then what is that story about? Is it about her speaking engagements or her personal life or a bit about both? Finding that is why it took more than ten days. We spent more time fi lming with her following different trains to see where it would lead.”

During the making of the fi lm, Dr. Steingraber began working on writing an updated version of “Living Downstream.” At the Cambridge screening Dr. Steingraber remarked that she found that the making of the fi lm infl uenced her own style as a writer. She believes that the language of cinema – visual storytelling – gave an added dimension to her writing, a more “lyrical” style. She added that she was amazed at how the camera’s “eye” mimicked the way she viewed the world, as if Ms. Chevannes had gotten into her head. I asked Ms. Chevannes to respond to Dr. Steingraber’s observations. “I didn’t know that she would see the fi lm as being so directly connected to her… I fi nd that extraordinary, that wasn’t actually my intention. I read the book, and there were images that I wanted to capture. She talks about the chains on the swing and the feet on the grass. They weren’t there in her fi rst edition. But these were things that I see and that my director of photography, who is amazing, sees. And so, it was based on the book, inspired by the book

continuedon page 28

Black

28

28 M AY10 I M AG I N E W W W I M AG I N E N E W S .C O M

29

continued from page 6 continued from page 15

continued from page 9

“The efficiency (of the new lights) offers savings in terms of buying lamps less often, changing the lamps and doing the mainte-nance less often. It’s easier to maintain and, incidentally, there’s a savings in maintenance costs.

“The English teacher who’s directing Romeo and Juliet can walk into the theater, and be-cause of the well-designed system, can hit a button that’s specifically for (the teacher) to use during rehearsals, or during just a plain reading. Then, when it’s time for an actual performance, one of the kids can come in, and run a more elaborate setup. Everything is much more accessible.”

On Earth Day, 2010, Barbizon made itself ac-cessible for those interested in environmen-tally-friendly lighting. An exhibit displayed the latest in energy-saving lighting technol-ogy. Barbizon’s local Sales Manager, Sara Wil-ley, came up with the idea for the exhibit.

“It was the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day, which I (became aware of) sometime in January. Over the past six months to a year, we started to get a lot more inquiries about how to go more energy efficient, especially with all the government rebates that are out there, things like that.

“There’s also a lot going on, just in the general light bulb business, about things that are being discontinued, about efficiency regulations that are being enacted, that are limiting the supply of different products, to drive toward the use of new, energy-efficient products.

“So, Earth Day sounded like a good day to look at all of those options. Things from LED (Light Emitting Diode) products to fluorescent for studio. (So) we just had a big open house to kind of look at everything that was available at this time.

“What we did was to look at our customer base, and what they’re interested in. And we have different aspects (of that base): the TV/Film base, the theatre base, and we have the ‘other’ base. So, we looked at it through dif-ferent categories. We had an energy-efficient studio that we lit with LED’s and fluores-cents, with no tungsten or incandescent light. Then, we had a direct shootout, where we had a series of LED or energy-efficient products, where you could actually compare apple to apples, and oranges to oranges, and see what the different fixtures could do against their competition.

“Then, we had a different section that was light bulbs, and direct replacements, so if you had a lighting fixture of a certain type, or a light bulb of a certain type, and you wanted to know the direct replacement, the energy-efficient replacement, we could show you the “A” lamp, and the LED lamp, which could retrofit to that.

“We kind of set up stations throughout the building, and took people to their respective interests, and let them see what the new products were, how they worked and what they did.”

In terms of environment-friendliness, what stood out? “In the studio world, the fact that we’re going from a 1000 watt tungsten halogen fixture to a less than 100 watt fluorescent fixture. (We’ve had) those for a long time, but people aren’t necessarily aware of the cost savings, as far as energy, or just sheer cost. In our studio, we talked about that in depth. It’s a real eye-opener

to people who were just used to the older fixtures, what they do and how they work.

“As far as some of the LED products, again, were talking significant savings as far as the wattage that they use, as well as the heat that they produce. And then, everybody wants to know what’s out there as far as replacing your traditional household lamps, how bright they are (and) what the color is, things like that.”

All well and good; all cost-saving, and eco-friendly. But, what about the purpose for which this equipment was built? Can the new green, clean and cheaper lights produce the same desired effect (and effects) as their older brothers? Sara Willey doesn’t see that as a problem.

“Especially in studios, what we’re finding is that (the customers) aren’t utilizing all the light that they have the ability to produce with the larger, older fixtures. The newer cameras don’t need that much light. You can balance to a much lower light level. So, you do sometimes get less of an output in some of the florescent fixtures, and also the LED fixtures, but they don’t really need that light. It’s just as good quality light. It’s an easy trade-off. They don’t need all the light, and they’re wasting most of it anyway.

“Most of what they’re producing with the older fixtures is heat, so, they’re now saying, ‘Let’s save some costs on energy, and some costs on cooling.’”

Between forty and sixty people showed up for Barbizon’s Earth Day event. Who were they? According to Sara Willey, “They were across our entire customer base. We had cable access stations, theater groups, a cou-ple of consultants, architects and a couple of general contractors. Kind of a general range of our customer base.

“I think the major reason that people are interested in pursuing energy efficiency is that they’re hearing more and more about the rebates available. Ultimately, everybody wants to do what’s good, whether it’s for the environment or themselves. But, if they can do it, and save money doing it, then, they’re more willing to do it.”

Peter McNamee definitely agrees that the rebates have helped spur interest in and business for the new energy-efficient products. “Many of the energy companies—I think all of them, in fact—have programs in place that will provide a rebate if you’re buying an energy-efficient upgrade. Back in the early ‘90’s, we did an upgrade at one of the network stations downtown. It was an expensive upgrade, and 45% of it at least was paid for by the utility company. We’re talking in excess of $90,000. That was not a little bit of money. We’ve done that at other facilities in six figures.

“It not only makes sense to go with efficien-cy in terms of the budget, the maintenance and the application, but in terms of the incentives that are out there to be had, if you’re familiar with the whole, long process, which we are.”

It also makes sense in terms of the relative lack of blown fuses. As Sara Willey says, “We’re not drawing anywhere near the amount of power that we did with the older fixtures. Blowing fuses, having to pull more power into the building; there’s just savings all around. You’re talking about fixtures that draw less than a hundred watts, vs. fix-

tures that are drawing anywhere from five hundred to a thousand watts. Huge savings there.”

But savings for whom? Jonathan Lipsy of Barbizon cites one example. “Public access television is a perfect market for this. Many of the ones I deal with are set up with a fixed budget every year. You have ‘X’ number of dollars you can spend every year to spend on the upkeep of your studio, salaries and so forth.

“What I try to tell people is that (they’re) spending so much money every year on lamp replacement costs, energy costs, air conditioning costs…anything that works with the functioning of your studio. I have a standard studio that is using, say, 12,000 watts of power in their studio, producing so many BTU’s of heat, creating so many needs for energy, (including) air conditioning. I can take the 12,000 watts and turn it into 3,000 watts. The whole studio can be almost on one 20 amp circuit. Everything’s lowered, all the uses are lowered. Lamp replacements become once every five years, instead of once every three months. So, you start sav-ing money from the point of installation, to every day’s usage of the studio. People enjoy the comfort of that, also.”

To say nothing of the peace of mind that helping the environment can bring.

Hartley Pleshaw has worked in Boston-area

and video production for the past three decades. He has written for IMAGINE since September, 2006.

His email address is hartleypleshaw@gmail.com.

a film, the ICA has, and I agree with Branka, “the most beautiful theater in town, but it is yet to be discovered by some Boston-based citizens.” Now you know! The theatre holds 325 people. For more information on the film program check out the ICA members’ maga-zine, website and e-News, www.icaboston.org . On a much smaller scale but well worth men-tioning to view film on occasion, is the nation’s first private library, the Boston Athenaeum, at 10-1/2 Beacon Street. Members are invited to special screenings of old films, like FLYING DOWN TO RIO, starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, in a wonderful, stately room, that will transport you on its own. They offer the occasional Children’s “Matinee” on Sat-urday mornings at 10:00 AM for such classics as THE LITTLE PRINCESS starring Shirley Temple. If the screenings are too far and in between you say, write your next film upstairs in the library, if you can keep your mind off the wonder of the room itself. When you have made your film and want an elegant high ceiling room for a private screening for your friends and family of 40-80 sitting in ballroom chairs, that downstairs room where you saw the Fred Astaire film is an option. I am kind of in love with this place, can you tell?

For more information visit www.bostonathenaeum.org.

Sally Fay Cottingham is a writer, producer, director, and actor. She began her career as part of the original production

team that launched A&E. Sally wrote, produced and

-ING COURAGE, is about the Max Warburg Courage Curriculum that is in the Boston Public Schools where 6th

graders write essays about having courage, see it on www.maxcourage.com . Sally is currently working on a pilot for a

narrative TV series.

but there was a synergy between the people that were involved in the project.”

Documentary filmmaking by its nature is unpredictable. Unlike feature films, where one has a template – a script – to work from, in a documentary a storyline may only evolve over the course of shooting the film. Documentary filmmakers have to keep the camera rolling never knowing when a salient moment may occur that could be pivotal to the telling of the story. I was curious about her editing process. How did she decide what to leave in and what to leave out? And were there any boundaries set to preserve Dr. Steingraber’s privacy?

“We shot 80 hours of footage for this project. The film is about 85 minutes so that means there is about an hour of footage for every minute that we get. Sandra was very open about letting us film whatever we wanted...I didn’t feel like I had to hide anything. I made our choices based on what we had to tell the story the best. Sandra is such a good storyteller. She could tell these elaborate stories. It was a challenge to get down to the nugget of what she was saying. Keep them eloquent, keep them flowing but we can’t have huge five minute clips. That is one reason a director works closely with an editor and my editor is my husband and co-producing partner…You need someone who has some distance from the project to help you put it together otherwise you can fall in love with certain things that aren’t serving the story. There is an expression in writing. You could have a scene or a sentence that you think captures something but it is just not working in the context of the piece. So you have to “kill your darlings”. That is something we did a lot of in this film. I had a teacher in school who said, your film is not done until you’ve taken out your most favorite shot.”

One of the greatest challenges to any inde-pendent filmmaker today is getting their work seen by a wider public. This is something that both Dr. Steingraber and Ms. Chevannes have given a great deal of thought to. Their hope is get the film as widely distributed as possible by building an audience for it. Besides working on a limited theatrical release they are also in talks with broadcasters and cable operators. Also in the works is the creation of an educational DVD and supporting lesson guides that educa-tors, community organizations, churches, and medical professionals can use in their work. Dr. Steingraber sees the documentary as a powerful extension of her work. She is hoping that the film can penetrate into communities where her book may not.

LIVING DOWNSTREAM ends on an emotional highpoint. Speaking before an audience of several thousand Dr. Steingraber says, “I have never had to fear as did Rachel Carson, that my status as a cancer survivor will be somehow used to impeach my science…I believe that one day our grandchildren will marvel that our economy was once dependent upon chemicals that were killing the planet and killing ourselves and they will think of it as unthinkable.” The power of LIVING DOWNSTREAM is in its accumulated details; in interviews with scientists and in Dr. Steingra-ber’s own personal testimony. After viewing this documentary, you’ll never look at our man made environment again in the same way.

For more information on LIVING DOWNSTREAM visit: http://www.livingdowstream.com.

For more information on The People’s Picture Company, visit: http://www.theppcinc.com.

Bruce Dillenbeck currently resides in Boston and holds a MA in Urban Planning. Mr. Dillenbeck has worked for

of the Harvard Square Screenwriters Group.