Transcript: You know it’s important to be . . . And I’m quoting . . . I’m quoting somebody and I can’t remember his name. But it’s . . . It’s important not to be an alarmist, but it’s important to be alarmed. Whether or not we have passed the cryptical . . . the cryptic tipping point, that is, is impossible for me to tell you. It’s impossible for most scientists to tell you. What I can tell you is that things are progressing in a way that have defined a trend. And that trend has been, in my estimation, undeniably associated with the development of the . . . of industrial activities and manmade activities associated with our use of hydrocarbon energy and our demographic growth. What I can tell you is that that growth in the carbon output into the atmosphere is non-linear. And it is not as classically progressive as what we would love to be able to see because it sort of moves forward. But the trend is definitely growing upwards, and that is just undeniable. So where is the cryptic tipping point? Well you know there’s a general acceptance in the scientific community that 550 parts per million of carbon – that is per air . . . per . . . per air – yes oxygen – is the . . . is the cryptic tipping point, and that we are presently at 430, and that we’re growing at a rate of about two parts per million per year. So this would put us at about 250 . . . 2050 as a place where if we were to exceed 250 parts per million, we would not be able . . . The increase in changes would be of such consequences that we would be thrown into an irreversible and accelerated process of warming up. I don’t necessarily believe that it’s gonna take that long. I also . . . I’m not exactly sure that we can be 100 percent certain that 550 parts is already . . . is the cryptic tipping point, because we are seeing changes that are being accelerated today in the, you know . . . how our glaciers are receding; obviously the polar cap is melting; and how different environments around the world are being impacted by a change in seasons, and by an increase in strong storms – by hurricane strength storms; by areas that are seeing, you know, an increase in drought while other areas are seeing an increase in torrential rains and whatnot. And we also know that these processes are exponential; that they’re sort of . . . They’re like a self-fulfilling mechanism, and it is confounding experts. I mean the environmental science is relatively new. It’s essentially 40 to 50 years old, and models . . . computer models are obviously becoming more and more sophisticated as our interests are being developed in that area. And what I will say is scientists are being confounded by the rate of change. So as such I am conservatively siding on the fact that they are looking at this and going look, we can project. But every year, and sometimes every six months, we are reassessing our projections. And you know the IPCC, and the UN . . . the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made some projections which were revised within a period of six months and saw some dramatic revisions.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Well because there is a process of assimilation, and a process of individual accountability which admittedly has not taken place yet. I mean look. Again two years ago we were still as environmentalists more or less in the tree hugging business. Even though environmental has been a science where people have committed a tremendous amount of personal sacrifice, and research, and knowledge, and expertise in the subject; but that in the collective consciousness somehow it was a luxury and it was an ideal. It’s only been really two years since, you know, I can literally measure the difference in awareness between, you know, Katrina and “Inconvenient Truth”. And today it is a world apart just in the . . . in the simple area of fundraising for our different activities and programs. It’s a lot easier now to access people’s sensibility and awareness, you know, in a span of two years alone. So we have to be patient, and understanding that the paradigm is that we can’t have too much patience because time is running out. But we are . . . We have made incredible forays into the . . . into the awareness of our collective consciousness. And I think that this is a very positive thing, but it’s gonna be a process. And so we are . . . We have begun a process of intellectual assimilation as to the nature of our carbon footprint. But we haven’t translated that quite yet into a change into our individual actions. And this is the natural progression of where we are, and we need to basically put the foot on the pedal and accelerate that process.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: I mean the reality is this is not something that will happen overnight. That’s obvious. You know it’s taken us hundreds of years to be conditioned into the behavior that we’re displaying today. And it will take us some time to change that attitude. And you know the real question is how much time, of course. But my personal behavior on this is . . . or my attitude is when I self-reflect and I examine what my daily footprint is, I just try to examine every day what I do and try to analyze how much of it impacts the world; or how much of it impacts the environment, that is, of course. And things can be as simple as understanding that energy . . . electricity typically is being generated from oil, or natural gas, or coal. And that in one function or another it is burning carbon into the atmosphere. So the generation of energy, whether it be for hot water for showers and baths; or whether it be for lighting rooms with electricity or whatnot, this is all generating carbon electricity. Look. There was a point in our time before electricity and before gas when we lit our environments with candles. And we lit candles when we needed them, but we did not let them burn during the day because ultimately, regardless of our wealth, somebody still had to go and either make a candle or purchase a candle, and it was a headache. So . . . And there was especially no point in burning candles during the day, or burning candles in rooms that were not being used. So this concept is the same today. In other words, electricity is still a candle. It still burns energy. The difference is the convenience of flipping a switch is such that with paying a premium on electricity and actually not seeing that, we never have to go back and replenish the, you know . . . the grid; replenish the power station or whatnot. So we’re not actually seeing it, but it’s the same level of accountability and the same level of logic. For me to be living in a large environment where the heat is on everywhere at the same time; and the air conditions is on everywhere the same time; and the lights are on; and letting water run excessively; and taking excessively long showers and hot baths and whatnot, those are places that you can already start a process of self-reflection. And I’ll tell you something. You start with examining that. And if you start . . . if you decide to change one thing in your daily activity; if you start to be conscious of one activity that you have that may pertain to some of what I just said, you will invariably begin a process of examination on . . . as to how you can impact a second, and then a third, and then a fourth. And then before you know it you start to think literally okay. Every time I go to the store, why rely on plastic bags when plastic bags are completely disposable in our societies and it makes absolutely no sense? Because again if we had to, as was the case in prior times . . . If we had to make those bags, we wouldn’t be throwing them every time. So we’d have to make another one. It’s only because somebody else is making those bags that somehow we find them to be disposable, but they’re not. So if you start to think in terms of that again, and start to think in terms of using renewable, you know, containers for drinking and whatnot; and you start to apply that thinking to everything that you do, then before you know it you become an example to yourself, and to your family, and ultimately perhaps to you peers, and to your community. And ultimately you become an advocate of your own survival.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Oh absolutely. I mean if you are, as I am, a believer that . . . that climate change is . . . is at the very least partially the result of human activities, there is no question that technology can help solve this problem. And listen. I dream of a world where cars are silent and have zero emissions; where every packaging that we have is biodegradable; where our activities do not contribute to polluting our soil and do not contribute to polluting our air; and that we live in a fully holistic and carbon neutral fashion. So in order to get to this point, considering virtually everything that we do today is autonomous to what I’ve just said, technology has everything to do with reducing that footprint. I mean we need to develop a form of energy that relies on renewable sources – air, and geothermal, and wind, and hydro, and you know . . . and to create a system where vehicles are charged through those . . . that form of renewable energy, and thereby emit zero, and still get us to where we need to be on time – where we can exist in such a way where we can reduce technology to reduce our footprint; you know by promoting natural environments instead of destroying them as a result of our growth.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: I couldn’t agree with that exactly because the reality is the, you know . . . What’s exciting about today and the challenges that we’re facing is that we literally have to reinvent everything from the ground up. We . . . We came from being a sustainable and holistic society to being . . . at least humankind . . . to being one that is, you know, damaging everything in its path. And yet we have the creativity and the resources, and we’ve already demonstrated that we have the ability to live in a way that is, you know, certainly reducing tremendously our potential carbon footprint; and hopefully and ideally, ultimately to be carbon neutral and to have no carbon . . . no footprint anyhow. But the challenge is the . . . is the development of the technology which can, and in many cases will, be measured in its success – at least its financial success over the course of a pretty long period of time. And because the financial markets have been conditioned to gauge success on relatively short terms – you know short to medium terms – the fact of the matter is that the renewable industry, you know, opportunity for markets is something that will require a fairly long period of time to be . . . you know 15 to 20 years or so. And so as such, without the support of governments in the form of subsidies, and tax breaks, and incentives and whatnot, it’s very difficult to accomplish because if you go to . . . This is human nature – again human nature. But again if you go to an investor, and you ask them . . . okay here is your portfolio, and here’s your potential for you to make money – have a growth of, you know, eight to 10 to 15 percent in energy per year, you know or more. And on the other hand here is a, you know . . . a portfolio of renewable energies and promoting that market, that we’ll see growth in the . . . not even in the teens – in the single digit percentile. Over the course of 10, to 15, to 20 years, it’s evident that everyone, you know, with . . . who is looking to increase their personal wealth will look at this and say well, if I have a conscience, okay maybe I’ll look at this amount in this short term, you know, profit; and this amount for this long term period. And then if you’re like most other people, you may go you know what? I may just put everything into the short term – which may have a detrimental effect on our communities – at least on the environment. So without the engagement of the political end of the spectrum, it’s gonna be very difficult to rely solely on business leaders.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: At least the process of change requires three components. Obviously there needs to be leadership at the political level, and leadership at the business level as well. We need business leaders to invest in renewable energies and sustainable developments. We need elected officials to be supporting those programs by subsidizing them and by creating incentives for investors to capitalize on those investments. And ultimately it necessitates individuals through advocacy and through this sense that they are demanding both from the business leaders by creating a market and a demand for this type of industry; as well as that asking their elected officials to properly represent them and their concerns. Because ultimately this is . . . This is the future that we’re discussing here. We may be saving all our monies for our children’s education, and to ensure that they have a great quality of life. And all the while we’re sacrificing of all of this money and investing that into their future financially; by the same token literally sabotaging those chances by being inactive with a future that will require more and more of a financial input in order to backtrack from the detrimental effects that we’re having on our environment. So you know . . . But between those three components, the one common denominator are individuals, business because leaders and politicians are individuals. And so my personal approach to the environmental advocacy is really to engage individuals and say it’s not a matter of pointing the finger to one set of individual or the other. We can always say we need the politicians to (01:00:22) be proactive. Or we need the business leaders to have vision. But at the end of the day we need to take responsibility. We need to be accountable. We need to examine what our daily footprint is onto this planet, because we have been conditioned for the last multiples of generations into behaving in a way that is unaccounted . . . unaccountable. And it is not something that you can blame a society for, you know . . . for not being responsible for. It’s something that you can blame a society for not taking action today now that we understand what is going on and what the onus of responsibility is on . . . on the future of our generation . . . for the future of our planet and of our societies. So ultimately really what it comes down to is individuals. And the only way that you can demand something out of your business leaders and demand something out of your elected officials is by fully understanding and digesting what it is that you’re actually doing yourself. What is your contribution, and how do you want that contribution to be reduced, or changed, or affected; and thereby inciting and engaging those different entities and help you in facilitating this? But as long as we have the cars . . . the SUVs polluting unnecessarily by consuming too much; and as long as we’ve got governments subsidizing those programs, we don’t have a shot. So it really takes those three elements, but the ground zero of it all is individuals.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: There’s no question. There’s no question. I mean listen. Environmental awareness has been around since the ‘60s. It’s . . . There were problems in the ‘60s which we still face today in the same way that we did back then. And through the course of that . . . those last 40 years or so, there has been an increase in the intensity and the nature of those concerns. And yet we’ve still seen sway back and forth between a cultural awareness and a media awareness and not. The only thing that perhaps might separate us today than, you know . . . than those past trends that came and went is the increased number and the breadth of those . . . of those natural disasters and the occurrence . . . and those occurrences. And so I think that today it is very difficult to turn a blind eye to an event that may claim dozens if not hundreds of thousands of lives and create millions if not billions of dollars of damages; and thereby really crippling certain types of budgets, and at times certain economies. So I don’t think that the environmental platform, as well as that through the . . . you know the advent of communication, and the, you know . . . and by making good use of communication through, as you were mentioning earlier, those different mediums – whether they be films or books and whatnot – we are penetrating the collective consciousness in a way that is perhaps more proactive, and especially more effective than had been done in the past; as well as that through the exponential demographic growth . . . the explosive demographic growth that we’re experiencing, and with it the claim into the industrial market that . . . that those different . . . that that demographic is creating. We are faced with inescapable realities, and we live in a way that is simply not sustainable . . . not at . . . when you . . . When a population . . . our global population has more than doubled in 50 years, and has more than tripled in 100 years; and when we see that our reliance on, you know . . . on plastics, you know . . . In the U.S. we use 200,000 plastic bags every five seconds. We discard two million plastic bottles every five minutes. When you factor that about two percent of that is recycled, the rest of that is landfill. When you see that our oceans are being over fished, and that our lands are being polluted through heavy metal pollutants, and mercury, and PCBs, POPs – persistent organic pollutants – and what not, we are literally contaminating our waterways; that we are polluting our air, and it’s having an impact not just on the quality of living, but our health in the sense that we are seeing an increase in instances of asthma in children, and all the different activities that are directly being impacted by our . . . by our industrial economy and our consumerism. Then I think it’s very difficult to escape the platform of environmental awareness. And all the while there are no guarantees. I think that through the medium of communication it’s gonna be . . . become more and more apparent that we need to address this issue. And then we can go into debate whether we have a shot at doing it or not. But I don’t think the platform itself is gonna disappear.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Well I mean first of all we would have to both agree on the fact that that’s what it took. And I might at least qualify that in my opinion, all the while “Inconvenient Truth” was a tremendous vehicle in promoting a message of awareness, “Inconvenient Truth” would not have happened had it not been for Katrina, and for an increased occurrence of natural disasters which scientists, you know, allocated to a changing climate. So I wouldn’t say that the . . . I mean for me it’s not a sleek packaging because all the hurricanes that hit us in Florida and of course in Louisiana were not sleek packages at all. Those were tremendous natural disasters. And what it took was a natural disasters of . . . a natural disaster of such proportion as Katrina for us to take notice. And this is what paved the way to “Inconvenient Truth”. And “Inconvenient Truth” essentially said, well this happened. Let me take a moment and explain to you why this happened. And this became a message of, you know . . . This was a mode of communication. And then beyond that we all of a sudden came out of the tree hugging business, and people started accepting that environmental science is a science and not an ideal.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Well of course developing countries do not have any more right to pollute than we do. What is difficult is to promote a message of environmental responsibility when our own activities are not specifically promoting such a sense of responsibility. And that is ultimately the cross roads that we are now facing, because as China grows and develops . . . And of course China has a tremendous potential need for energy, and a great amount of resources, specifically in coal, by virtue are the example that we have set. And by that I mean we have become wealthy as a . . . as an economy relying on hydrocarbon fuels. And much of it was . . . was coal as well. It is difficult to have a dialogue of conservation, and protection, and environmental awareness, and a message of sustainability when the present state of technology is such that to use renewable technologies is still at its infancy in some respects. Don’t get me wrong. It’s been around for some time, but the . . . to allocate the R&D money . . . the research and development programs to maximize and optimize those technologies is a type of commitment that requires monies that are not as, you know, readily . . . you know used or applied as using known technologies that are accessible immediately. And of course with that I’m referring to hydrocarbon fuel technologies. So the Third World . . . I mean sorry. The developing world . . . and I’m sorry for this mishap. But the developing world is faced with that level of responsibility in the same way that we are, except that they’re looking at us and going well five percent of the world’s population, 25 percent of it is greenhouse gases and pollution. Who are you to give us directives? And that’s really . . . that’s a problematic, especially when a developing world is using every resource that they have in order to promote their growth and their economic growth.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Well I wouldn’t say that American culture is uniquely inherently wasteful. I would say that an industrial and a developing society is inherently wasteful. I think that the minute we depart from a sustainable and holistic culture or cultural attitude, we . . . and we progress towards an attitude of development, there has been, it would seem, a necessary stage of wastefulness – one which again defines an immaturity with respect to that particular stage. America has thrived through the age of industry, and through the industrial revolution better than most other societies; and has expended with a wealth of potential in a very vast land, and a very wealthy land, and a seeming sense that we are unaccountable to it. In other words it’s a lot easier to be conscious of your surroundings if you live in a limited space than if you do in an expensive space. Because if you live in an expensive environment, there’s always a sense that if you pollute it you can always move to another place and nobody will see it. So the pioneering spirit of . . . of America has not been so conducive to giving Americans a sense of responsibility. But America in many ways represents the best potential, and has represented a tremendous potential for growth, at least through this . . . up until this stage that we are now. Unfortunately I think as we see with any civilizations, any societies, and any cultures – given too much power, that power tends to corrupt and ultimately tends to make people complacent, because invariably wealth generates greed and complacence. And I think America has been tremendous in its creativity and its ability to advance all sorts of technologies and all modes of communication, and advancement in science and whatnot. But I also feel that in succeeding in, you know, the end of the Cold War; and in being sort of heralded economically; and as a power nation a position of supremacy, I think that America has become complacent.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: What is human nature? Well I think human nature, above and beyond anything else, is a perception. And that perception, to echo a little bit of what I just said, will either position itself in synergy with its surrounding, or position itself in a predatory or an antagonistic position; meaning by that that we will use other resources to our own . . . for the promotion of our own needs. And you know human nature is a philosophy ultimately – a philosophy that defines how we fit in the universe; how do we fit within the natural order, and how do we fit within the spiritual order? If the question is what is my personal philosophy on human nature, then I would have to say that . . . that human nature is a work in progress that has a tremendous potential, but also has a lot of shortcomings – the pitfalls of which have tremendous consequences on our own ability to survive in this environment.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: First of all I don’t mean to be neither a doomsday announcer, which sometimes it can be difficult not to be, but we’ll get to that in a minute. But I actually want to also communicate a message of, you know, faith in humanity. I mean we are an incredibly creative, and resourceful, and adventurous kind, but we’re very immature. I mean the . . . What I like to examine in our evolution is a process which, you know, being 150,00 years old or so – from essentially ______________ until today – we have spent so much of that time just existing and surviving in a very holistic and sustainable fashion. And it is only, you know, around 8,000 years or so when we started to implement technology and be able to advance as a culture as a result of that, that things have started shifting. And this has led us to a sense of more controlled cohabitation with the environment that we live in; and as well as that, an introspection relative to our spiritual roots; and thereby a more metaphysical examination. But the truth is, you know, between 8,000 years and up until a century the age of enlightenment, there has not really been an incredible amount of . . . of growth . . . of spiritual growth. We have seen some dominance take place historically in the . . . in the theologically . . . at least relative to religions if you will; and some dominant (40:18) religions sort of establishing themselves – sometimes forcefully, sometimes less so. But it was not until the age of enlightenment, and reason, and mathematics, and medicine, and philosophy that the . . . that humans have started to see and perceive themselves as being on top of the pecking order if you will, and the top of the food chain, and the most advanced of the species. And this is, of course, very arbitrary and very, you know . . . very subjected to our own interpretation. I’m sure if you could ask the dolphins if they thought that we were more advanced spiritually, they might possible have something else to say about it. I don’t know. We haven’t been able to communicate with them that way. And we certainly don’t have a way of gauging whether there are other entities and whatnot who perhaps co-exist with us. But humans through the age of enlightenment essentially started to position themselves at top of the pecking order. And with that came a certain arrogance separating themselves, you know, from the natural order; or separating ourselves, that is, from the natural order. So with the advent of the . . . of that, the age of enlightenment – and in some ways the fulfillment of our intellectual potential – this has led to a series of advancement in both, you know, culture and philosophy, and of course technology which brought us into the age of industry and the industrial revolution; and the discovery that . . . of hydrocarbon fuels for the creation of energy. And so this long expose that I’m giving essentially leads us to this point where we are relatively immature in my estimation in the relationship between our creativity, and our resourcefulness, and our spirituality. And you know I believe that we are entering the dawn of this new awareness – what I like to refer to as the age of the environment, because we are forced into recognizing the necessity for a harmonious co-existence with our habitat. Because at the rate we’re going, we’re exploiting the planet by over fishing its oceans; by polluting its earth; by polluting its air; by you know . . . by essentially overpopulating environments; and it is simply not sustainable. So we . . . Your question was how did we get to this point? And my sort of long expose that gives you at least a glimpse into my thinking, is that we have . . . we have evolved in some ways. And I still think that we are fairly immature; or fairly much like an adolescent that comes . . . comes to term with its power; its force; its ability to reason and has a certain arrogance as a result of it. We have to come out of this adolescence, and we need to approach a vision of co-existence that has more to do with an adult, and a reasoned, and a responsible approach to our relationship to this planet.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Question: What was the strongest impression of your trip to Antarctica?

Transcript: Well Antarctica yields an extraordinarily magical and otherworldly landscape. It is . . . It is a dream for a photographer and an environmentalist because it is like traveling into a different world . . . another world; essentially what could be seen almost as another planet. There’s never been an indigenous human population in Antarctica, and yet it is teeming with animal life unperturbed and unchallenged by the human presence; and not conditioned to the predatory characteristics of the . . . of the human activities. ___________ that is. And so . . . So animals, they are simply not scared of humans is ultimately what I’m saying. So to . . . To travel through this type of otherworldly environment that has been particularly antagonistic to human life or its . . . its cold and its condition. But to be in a world of ice that is isolated from the rest of the world by a body of water that is particularly challenging where the conditions are cold. And yet to see this vibrant animal life forces you to ponder the relationship of humanity to the rest of the world. I mean we are one in 30 million species inhabiting this planet. We are, intellectually it would allegedly seem, superior; but ultimately we are only one in this order of this planet who is hosting us, and who has not been hosting us all that long incidentally. We are only 150,000 years old to the earth’s 4.5 billion years. And when you travel in Antarctica, you cannot help but somehow get connected to that principle, because the Antarctica the landscape has been in its present form more or less for a very long time. And . . . And as humans we are relatively new to this environment and very disposable ultimately. The animal world functions very well without us there, and we are literally tourists into this other aspect of what is incidentally our garden in our backyard as well as the rest of the planet. But one is stricken by the lack of human imprint, at least in a direct way; because although remotely, our activities are being felt in that environment – at the very least physically where we’re not there. So it’s pretty magical to be traveling into that environment as such.

Question: What scenes most disturbed you?

Transcript: Well that’s a good question. You know one thing that comes to mind is we traveled into an environment in a place called Port __________ in Antarctica. I went there twice on two different trips. And ___________ . . . Antarctica at the turn of the last century or the century before that – that is late 1800s and early 1900s – was a vibrant whaling environment. The Norwegians and __________ in particular who was an inventor and invented, amongst other things the exploding harpoon, contributed to the dissemination of the whale population of the Northern Hemisphere. So the Scandinavians set their sites to Antarctica and set up what turned out to be a very productive for them whaling environment. So true to tradition for the human lack of accountability, when you travel in some of these areas, they are . . . there’s a lot of human waste that has been there for over a century in the form of barrels – whale oil barrels that have been left over; or __________ that have been driven into the rocks and whatnot. And so there are environments like this that are just littered with a lot of those barrels, and it’s been left behind. And it’s a little shocking. In modern day it would be like finding, you know, steel barrels left over and just polluting the land . . . as of course we do a lot as a society and as a humankind . . . as a human race . . . or plastic or whatnot. So that’s one of the aspects that was sort of shocking, is to see all of this pollution – even though it’s in the form of wood and steel, but nevertheless.

Question: Did the experience leave you with any hope?

Transcript: We’d have to analyze what type of hope we’re discussing here. If the hope is that the planet will be okay, I’m not concerned about the planet at all. The planet’s gonna be just fine. The planet is doing what it’s doing. And if you . . . You know if you believe Lovelock . . . James Lovelock who is a philosopher . . . an environmentalist ____________ philosopher who is responsible for ___________ which is a widely accepted theory – today anyhow – that he introduced in the ’60s and ‘70s that the earth is a self-regulating organism . . . If you go by Lovelock’s theory, you know the earth is doing what it’s doing. And in its . . . You know in its reaction to manmade activities, that if a climate and whatnot may well be shaking off what could be seen as a virus. Humans could be seen as a virus because they destroy for the sake of destroying. And they expand for . . . you know by virtue of its advances in technology and medicine and whatnot, and has exponential demographic growth and what not. So hope . . . My considerations have to do more with humanity than with the planet. This may look like a dichotomy or a paradox in some respects, but it really isn’t. I’m just hoping that as humans we get into the next phase of spiritual awakening; and understanding that we are one with the environment that is hosting us; and ultimately that energy is the paramount component for our survival.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Question: How do you gauge what to shoot?

Transcript: It really varies. It really varies. It’s not uncommon for me to shoot the same environment time and again until I get it right, because you’re never sure if the moment that you have is gonna yield a better result than if you wait. So ultimately film is cheap. And now that we’re in the digital world and digital era, it’s even cheaper. So it doesn’t hurt to capture something just so that you have it, and in that process also get to understand more the subject that you’re in. But this of course has, you know, to do with the type of environment that you’re shooting. If you’re shooting wildlife, which is not my specialty but I’ve done some of it, you’re gonna catch as catch can. If the wildlife presents itself in a moment that it presents itself, you can’t exactly guide it. There are some masters of it incidentally – which I certainly do not qualify myself as one of them – who are incredible at orchestrating certain types of environments to capture wildlife. Again that isn’t at all my specialty. But my relationship with nature photography has really to do with an instinctive and spiritual approach to it. How am I connected to that landscape? And how do I respond emotionally to what it’s showing me?

Question: What camera do you use?

Transcript: Well for landscape photography one wants to tend to have the most information on film. And because you’re not . . . you generally are not beholden to a timeframe that is rigid and dictated by the . . . by the celebrity or by the job, you have more time to set up. And so I tend to prefer shooting larger formats. And so primarily I’ll shoot 4 x 5 or medium format; or large format panoramic which would be 6 x 17; or in medium format 6 x 7. And that’s what I tend to shoot landscape with. And typically exclusively with those mediums, however, having traveled to the arctic and Antarctica, I was met with the limitations of utilizing this type of format in environments that are antagonist or hostile to the use of large format. And with that I mean that environments that are particularly cold, and sometimes particularly wet, and sometimes physically straining, those conditions dictate a certain approach. And listen, you have Frank Hurley ____________ carried around an 8 x 10 camera and came back with extraordinary results – an incredible hero for his commitment to . . . I mean him and ___________ incidentally and the whole team – for understanding the value of reporting what they were capturing. But it’s not easy. I mean I was in the arctic and I was gung ho about utilizing large formats, and was wholly unprepared primarily out of inexperience. But my equipment . . . Some of my equipment froze. My hands were very cold. The conditions were particularly challenging. And as a result I just came to realize that extreme environments just do not lend themselves well to that type of format. And so when I traveled to Antarctica, I understood that the digital medium was . . . was particularly well suited to those challenging environments. So in Antarctica I shot large format and medium formats; but primarily my motive of capture was 35 mm digital, which incidentally with the new cameras is quite extraordinary and yields amazing results. So I did 90 percent of the work in Antarctica with 35mm digital – Canon specifically.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: The first process is process of discovery.  You shoot you know . . . To photograph is both an intuitive and a technical exercise.  Ideally you line up all of the technicals so that you have to think the least of it in the moment at which you depress the shutter.  And then you are thrown into, you know, a world of discovery and surprises – surprises in the way that the talent is reacting to your direction; surprises in the way that you find yourself reacting to their reactions.  And sometimes it can develop and grow to be a dance.  And in the best of cases that’s exactly what happens.  There is a process of exchanges which, you know, no two stories will be the same.  And when you deal with talent, you go in knowing that technically you’ll be hitting your targets, but that doesn’t make for good pictures.  Sometimes a great picture has very little to do with technique and very to do with a moment.  And sometimes a moment can be enhanced through the use of technique.  All of those are . . . There are no formulas, at least not in my protocol of working.  And so from dealing with . . . In portraiture there’s – other than selecting a location, and deciding what kind of lighting, and generally the equipment tends to be about the same because your    . . . Although I have a lot of different cameras that I tend to have . . . some of my favorites; and then . . . And then as far as the, you know, the landscape aspect, landscape by definition is a meditative experience with nature and the environment.  It has to begin with a communion with the environment in a way that, incidentally, is not all that different from shooting portraiture.  You have to find a way of having this communion with that individual.  Sometimes it can be difficult.  With celebrities sometimes it can be very difficult how to break that wall, because for one celebrities get shot a lot.  They are reticent to being seen in ways that make them feel unattractive, or that . . . And of course all that is very subjective.  A picture that you may find to be incredible, they may hate.  You know with that comes to mind a portrait that Truman Capote . . . that ___________ did with Truman Capote which has become a seminal portrait.  And Truman Capote hated that portrait, and that was one of __________ favorites.  And the world has since given its stamp of approval and found that that’s a great portrait of Truman Capote.  But the celebrities – especially now because there are so many magazine, and they have so many movies, and there are so many outlets for them to be photographed worldwide; we’re no longer dealing with a singular market but a worldwide market – they are particularly . . . They can be very fragile and very self-conscious, and so they might be very reticent to give you what you want out of them.  So that can be . . . That necessitates a certain type of communion and engagement in really trying to find the humanity in them – again different types of emotions. With nature it’s . . . it’s really . . . it’s really about engaging in the natural environment and having this . . . having this communion and this meditation with the natural world and being patient.  I personally find that landscape photography is one of the most challenging, because all the while you’re not beholden to other people.  And you can pretty much set your own time and set your targets, and your standards are your own.  You’re still beholden to the weather conditions, and the lights.  And you don’t have all the time in the world.  If you did then it might be easier.  You might find a great location and come back time and time again until the light is right.  But typically it’s not how life operates.  You try to make the most out of what you have.  And sometimes it’s for happy, and other times it’s not so happy results.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: You know to mention again the obvious, but beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. As the beholder of the camera, I’m always trying to extract that form of . . . some form of beauty regardless of how it’s manifested itself. And the beauty I think would, in this case, perhaps be expressed in the immediacy of the expression or the humanity captured in the eyes . . . The parallel between portraiture and nature is one that’s difficult to draw exactly because they’re such different mediums. I’ll make the same analogy with photography as I do with music, which is to me there are only two types of photography – good and bad. And so whatever stimulates or inspires me; and when I see an environment, whether human or natural, it’s drawn from the same desire to capture my own interpretation of that particular environment. So I always try and extract the beauty that I see, and hopefully other people might share that sensibility; or at least appreciate whatever sensibility I bring forth in that respect. But they’re just very different. I mean when you shoot people you’re dealing with one face and one body. And then you have an infinite number of capturing how that person expresses themselves. And then when you deal with nature, I guess it’s the same sort of thing. You have to take . . . Instead of taking the position or your location or the position you shoot the individual, you’re shooting what frame you’re gonna capture as a landscape; what time of the day; whether it’s going to be a color ___________ or black and white __________; and ultimately try to process that visual through your own sensibility and your emotional response to that environment. So ultimately it’s always an emotional response. As a photographer you’re trying to . . . trying to report in some respects. I think a photographer in many ways is also a historian by virtue of necessity, freezing a moment in time.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Well certainly other than the obvious, which is sex always gets people’s attention, it connects them with their own sexuality and it makes them wonder. I think it’s also . . . There’s an aspect . . . To be calling my work sexual, perhaps if you feel that it is then that’s terrific, and I’m pleased to find that it is. I’d rather think of it as perhaps seductive. And the aspect of seduction – and particularly as I suspect you might be referring more to the female subjects than to the male subjects, but perhaps not . . . But the aspect of seduction has to do with finding an area of breaking the wall of, you know, the separation between the camera and the subject; and trying to find a place of expression that may be touching on vulnerability, which is a subject that I’m always intent in capturing when I shoot the celebrities in portraiture. And the seduction is a game that talent plays with the camera, and ultimately with the viewing audience, which gets the attention. And it connects with our own . . . you know the ____________ of our own emotions perhaps, and it engages people. So you know the big, broad strokes . . . Anger engages people, but it’s not exactly appealing in camera. Seduction is a mode that is perfectly suited for the relationship between talent and camera.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Question: How do you explain Americans’ fascination with celebrity?

Transcript: That’s a great question. Obviously it’s an aspect which defines our times. We are in desperate need of role models, and I think that we appropriate celebrities as role models sometimes in spite of themselves. There is a hunger for escapism and . . . Well listen. First of all the technology has driven us into an environment where film . . . the film medium generally has become the dominant mode of artistic expression for our times. And with that comes an affluence of talent, and they have a medium on which to display their skills and express themselves as actors. But I think there is a more fundamental desire from our collective consciousness to escape through those stories. There’s a positive aspect and a negative aspect to this of course. The positive aspect is that it’s a cultural phenomenon, and culture is always important. The negative aspect of it is I think people tend to read a lot less, and to be a lot more likely to want to simply say it in front of a screen where the story and the universe is being digested for them visually. Actors are the vehicles to that form of escapism. And with that comes a desire from people to associate themselves with that world of fantasy and associate themselves with those heroes they see on the screen. And so, you know, as it were, whether they like it or not, celebrities become in some form a portal and a role model to the community.

That level of fascination goes back to the beginning of entertainment, as it were; and starting with theater of course and creating theater stars I mean all the way back to, you know, 200, 300 years. But especially in the medium of film and in the 20th century, there’s been a tradition of adulation with . . . with celebrity status. That said, our current mode of consuming news which has become more and more ___________ in some ways is . . . has to do with the number of outlets and the disposable income. And there’s just the desire from society to just ingest more and more information that becomes more and more private. Because, you know, the modes of expression – whether they be televised, or photographed, or through magazines – is just ever expanding. So I think it’s absolutely correct that celebrities in the film mediums have been around since the advent of the film medium. But I think that today . . . I don’t know when the saturation point will eventually get us to a realization that this is going nowhere. I mean we are truly living in a society of paparazzi and gossip information that is so disposable. And . . . But somehow ____________ it affords a form of escapism. And I think that, you know, may be an argument that some people like it because it takes the real issues out of the forefront. And in some ways it tranquilizing the collective consciousness into looking at __________ type of information instead of focusing on the real issues.

Question: What role does gossip play in all of this?

Transcript: Well you know I don’t dwell personally, neither professionally, nor in my own interest in that world. So I can only gauge it from the onslaught of paparazzi and some of the detrimental costs that we have witnessed in the past as a result of that. But I . . . It’s a sad state of affair for, I think, everyone. I think the celebrity suffers as a result of it because they’re individuals with lives and privacy issues. And a wealth of information which I’m sure they would be much, much more enthusiastic about sharing rather than what kind of coffee they’re drinking and what fight they’re having with their loved ones. But . . . But again I think we live in an environment where people want to escape from their own daily activities. And I think when they’re ____________ to somebody’s unfortunate or fortunate existences, they project onto their own and like to feel like stars are just like the rest of them I guess. To be honest with you it always keeps my very puzzled. I just don’t get it. I mean I just don’t get it.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Question: Is photographing celebrities different than photographing models?

Transcript: Very different. Very different. You know I mean when you shoot with models they’re professionals and they’re paid to be there. And so they typically are trained to take the direction and they’re natural extroverts. When you deal with celebrities you tend to deal a lot more with a tendency to be introverts, at least in front of the still camera. Typically celebrities are not all that comfortable being photographed because in reality they’re out of control. They’re . . . The level of their performance is very, very different from that which they express onto the motion picture experience. So they, you know . . . They don’t control when the shutter is being depressed, and what . . . what image comes out of it. So they tend to be a little self-conscious of that experience. And the role of a portrait photography is too able to either exploit that vulnerability or to release it somehow. And to get something out of them, it certainly a tricky experience and it’s always an adventure – very, very unique to each experience.

Question: What was the most memorable experience?

Transcript: Well memorable of the experiences . . . You know I mean there are subjects, people whom I’ve photographed multiple times and had a great experience shooting. So with that comes to mind Sandra Bullock who I’ve shot multiple times, and Kate Bosworth, and Orlando Bloom of course. And . . . But then you know I’ve had single experiences with Philip Seymour Hoffman which sort of stands as one of my favorite portraits. It’s a very stoic and very sober portrait. But it somehow feels like with some people you really get a photograph and feel like, you know, perhaps with some, people might look at it 20, 30, 50 years from now and still find some relevance in it.

Recorded on: 12/3/07

Transcript: Photography picked me more than I picked it. I was conditioned at an early age to appreciate nature photography through my grandfather who’s . . . who was Irish. And he left Ireland in the 1920s and moved to India. He was a doctor. And in the early part of his life he was engaged in safaris and whatnot, which is not that glorious looking back in retrospect because he shot tigers and whatnot. But in the ‘20s and ‘30s I suppose it had a different type of social imprint as we might examine today. But in his midlife he traded his gun for a camera, and so continued doing his safaris and expeditions both in India and later on in Africa, and Botswana, and Tanzania, and Namibia, and settled . . . He lived in Swaziland just north of South Africa. So his body of photography work was impressed upon me at an early age through slide shows. And I sat through many slide shows of watching elephants and giraffes and whatnot. So that was my sort of early affinity to landscape photography, and I started taking pictures in South Africa myself when I was about 12 on, you know . . . on safaris and whatnot. And then that just progressed and I was . . . I somehow was picked to shoot, and I translated that into a career in advertising where I did a lot of directing, actually, of commercials and music videos. And then I decided to focus more specifically on photography and get out of advertising. I wasn’t entirely comfortable – eventually as I developed as an advocate – with promoting messages of consumerism. So I . . . I settled on portrait photography for a career earning potential. And then of course I followed with my advocacy work and landscape photography.

Recorded on: 12/3/07