Permacinema

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• This paper discusses similarities between an artisanal kind of filmmaking and permaculture, exploring how both practices carefully use earth materials and renewable energy, and ‘grow’ in non-polluting and non-extractivist ways. The novelty lies in its conclusion (see my final point, below).
• The subject is relevant to this special edition as well as the journal’s overall scope. Moreover, the article’s broader topics of decolonising (and ‘rewilding’) film studies with a vegetal turn and a better understanding of indigenous knowledge is relevant to wider debates concerning climate justice.
• The article offers a sensitive outline of the risks of permacultural theory in erasing indigenous permacultural systems existing avant la lettre – a sensitivity that helps situate the article in the wider project of decolonizing.
• The article offers a wealth of carefully chosen citations from filmmakers, indigenous permaculturalists, and philosophical contexts, which pollinate its development.
• The article’s inclusion of references to films and filmmakers is neither overwhelming nor too narrow, and examples are introduced with clarity and precision. I wondered, however, if a short explanation of how and why the case studies were chosen could be added early on.
• References are appropriate and up to date. I did feel, however, that the article could engage more with ‘cinema’s industrial context’ (line 625) earlier and throughout, citing scholars such as Nadia Bozak or Sean Cubitt who have analysed celluloid and digital film’s links to petrochemical and military industrialism, and rare earth mineral extraction. An engagement with film’s more-than-human entanglements needs also to consider its gelatin constituents, for example, or - in the case of the online digital circulation of digital or celluloid film - the environmental footprint of streaming and storage.
• The end notes are compelling and informative, engaging in a broad variety of discussions including current de/growth debates.
• The article is well written, its language flows, and the concluding sentences are particularly evocative in their poetic voice. Might the author(s) add a slight foreshadowing for the conclusion, however? It came as a slight surprise to read the suggestion of a post-cinema cinema of natural phenomena (or a cinema as always and already existing in nature). This idea is fascinating and potentially very impactful. 

Author Response

We are grateful for the detailed review and the helpful suggestions, all of which we will take into account when making our corrections: 

1. We will add a brief explanation in the introduction to the paper about our choice of filmic case studies.
2. We will add more material on cinema’s industrial context. In addition to Nadia Bozak and Sean Cubitt, we can add references to work on the presence of gelatine in the film strip (Nicole Shukin on animal “rendering”), and on the materiality of (the supposedly) immaterial digital culture (e.g. Laura U. Marks on streaming's carbon footprint; Kate Crawford on mining and AI).
3. We will strengthen the segue into the conclusion and preempt it at the start of the article to avoid the surprise reveal at the end. We are particularly grateful for this latter point as the conclusion is the most speculative and suggestive part of the piece--we want to get it right! 

Reviewer 2 Report

This article, which appears to be co-written, sets out a framework for thinking about cinema as an ecological practice, concentrating particularly on the resonances between filmmaking and permaculture in a number of case studies. Its central argument rests on the philosophy of what the authors call 'permacinema' - a kind of non-objectifying, non-extractive approach to visual representation, which emphasises restraint and thoughtful observation. This is both highly original and deeply convincing as a potential future avenue for cinematic evolution. It is also very timely, given, as the authors point out, the recent wave of interest in ecocinema, the 'animal turn', the 'vegetal turn', as well as alternative farming techniques, degrowth economics and rewilding. In this sense, the authors tap into and weave together emerging scholarly fields, mobilising key arguments and theories to further a more ethical approach to film aesthetics. Furthermore, the attention to Indigenous culture and the use of film examples by Indigenous artists demonstrates an extension of the canon beyond the usual white Western focus. 

The authors seem to bring together their individual research specialisms in a highly effective way, producing a piece of writing that is impeccably researched and fluidly written. The background discussions on permaculture, degrowth, gleaning as a form of looking and Indigenous culture map out the theoretical foundations for the case studies, which are well described and analysed. I assume that film stills will be included in the piece, which will help to illustrate some of the key points (particularly in the discussion of Alisi Telengut's work). I particularly enjoyed the postscript, which acknowledges that the future of cinema is tied to the environmental future, something that film scholars tend to overlook. Perhaps missing here is a discussion – or acknowledgment – of how cinema is itself inextricably bound up in the extractive culture critiqued in the article. Yes, there are ways to develop a more ecologically conscious form of image-making, but how do we navigate the fact that the technologies of film are deeply harmful? In asking the question what does a non-extractive film practice look like we should perhaps be asking is a non-extractive film practice even possible within its technological limits? Although the emphasis on photochemical film and eco-processing methods approaches this question, we cannot get away from the fact that film is still a toxic material. I raise this only because it has emerged frequently during my own presentations and discussions, and it seems to be a sticking point for many audiences and readers.

Apart from this, I have no other criticisms of the piece. It is an excellent article with a clear and original argument that demonstrates a significant contribution to knowledge. 

There is one sentence that probably needs to be rewritten: 193-196. I read it several times and it doesn't feel grammatically correct. 'who' and 'whom' in the same sentence doesn't work. 

Author Response

We are very grateful for the attentive comments and helpful suggestions for caveats and clarifications. 

1. We will add a qualifying comment on cinema's implication in the harmful cultures it is attempting to critique. In a sense, the conclusion of the article speculates about a post-cinematic cinema of nature and implicitly acknowledges that cinema-as-we-know-it is beyond repair. But we can make these points more explicit. 
2. We will rewrite the grammatically awkward sentence.