No Pressure (2010 film)

Last updated

No Pressure
Nopressurebanner.jpg
Promotional banner for No Pressure displayed on the 10:10 website prior to the film's release
Directed by Dougal Wilson
Written by Richard Curtis and Franny Armstrong
Produced by 10:10
Starring Lyndsey Marshal
Gillian Anderson
David Ginola
Peter Crouch
Paul Ritter
Music by Radiohead
Release date
  • 1 October 2010 (2010-10-01)
Running time
4 minutes
Country United Kingdom
Language English

No Pressure is a 2010 short film produced by the global warming mitigation campaign 10:10, written by Richard Curtis and Franny Armstrong, and directed by Dougal Wilson. Intended for cinema and television advertisements, [1] No Pressure is composed of scenes in which a variety of men, women and children in every-day situations are graphically blown to pieces for failing to be sufficiently enthusiastic about the 10:10 campaign to reduce CO2 emissions. The film's makers said that they viewed No Pressure as "a funny and satirical tongue-in-cheek little film in the over-the-top style of Monty Python or South Park ". [2] Before its release, The Guardian described it as "attention-grabbing" and "pretty edgy." [1]

Contents

The film was withdrawn from public circulation by 10:10, on the same day it was released, due to negative publicity. [3] Charities that had backed the film stated they were "absolutely appalled" upon seeing it, and several of 10:10's corporate and strategic partners withdrew from partnership. [2]

Background and production

The film was made in an attempt to challenge the "no pressure" attitude often displayed both by governments and individuals towards taking real action on climate change. 10:10 highlighted the urgency of action with claims that carbon dioxide emissions must be stabilised by 2014 (within four years) in order to avoid disaster, [4] and that "300,000 real people" are already killed by climate change annually. [1] Lizzie Gillet, 10:10 global campaign director, explained: "With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines while making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Richard Curtis agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign". [2]

Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?

Franny Armstrong, founder of 10:10 [1]

The film was shot on a location at Camden School for Girls, [5] in the London Borough of Camden in North London. According to 10:10, over 50 film professionals and more than 40 actors and extras provided their services at no cost. [6]

Synopsis

The four-minute film consists of a series of short scenes in which groups of people are asked if they are interested in participating in the 10:10 project to reduce carbon emissions. Those failing to show enthusiasm for the cause are gruesomely blown to pieces.

In the first scene, a bright and chirpy schoolteacher, played by Lyndsey Marshal, tells her class about the 10:10 campaign, and asks what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprint. She asks which students are planning to participate; most raise their hands, but two children shrug apathetically. The teacher reassures them that this is "fine, it's absolutely fine, it's your choice" [7] and there is "no pressure", but then shifts the papers on her desk to reveal a red-buttoned detonator, which she presses. The two children who did not want to participate explode, covering their screaming classmates with blood and body parts. The blood-spattered teacher then goes on casually to explain the night's homework to her horrified charges.

The second scene shows a group of white-collar workers in an office meeting. The office manager, played by Paul Ritter, similarly explains the purpose of the 10:10 campaign, and asks who will be participating. While most raise their hands, four raise their hands unconvinced. The manager reassures them that there is "no pressure" to participate, but he is then handed a detonator by an assistant, which he uses to blow up the four workers, splattering appalled co-workers with gore.

The third scene is set on a football pitch during team training. The coach, played by David Ginola, [8] asks the players to explain the 10:10 campaign that the team is participating in. They describe a range of energy-saving measures which have been implemented by the team and its fans. However, the coach remains unmoved, remarking the campaign would distract him from football. A player tells him that there's "no pressure", produces a detonator, and blows him up. Unlike the witnesses depicted in previous scenes, the team is not at all surprised, and casually jogs away to resume training.

A brief interlude with captions explains the campaign, accompanied by the song "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi" by Radiohead. In the final scene, the actress Gillian Anderson is finishing the voice-over for the interlude just seen. The sound engineer asks her what she is planning to do to cut her carbon footprint. Anderson irritably remarks that she thought providing the recording was a sufficient contribution. [7] The sound engineer repeats the film's catchphrase, "no pressure", and detonates Anderson before picking up to leave. The film ends with a shot of Anderson's gory remains sliding down the sound-booth window with the text "Cut your carbon by 10%. No pressure."

Reception

Upon its release, No Pressure provoked an immediate negative reaction in the media, and the resulting controversy became widely referred to as "splattergate" by bloggers. [9] [10]

In The Daily Telegraph , James Delingpole wrote that the film was an "ugly, counterproductive eco-propaganda movie" [11] and that "with No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness". [12] The ConservativeHome website described it as "crass, tasteless and unfunny as it gets", [13] while Melanie Phillips in The Spectator commented on the intended humorous aspect of the film by writing that "The joke was only about blowing dissenters to bits and raining their flesh down on terrified people. Because exterminating human beings is acceptable to greens as a joke. From which we can only assume at best indifference towards and at worst a profound loathing of the human condition". [14]

American environmentalist and writer Bill McKibben lamented the film on the Climate Progress website, where he wrote "The climate skeptics can crow. It's the kind of stupidity that hurts our side, reinforcing in people's minds a series of preconceived notions, not the least of which is that we're out-of-control and out of touch—not to mention off the wall, and also with completely misplaced sense of humor". [15] McKibben added "There's no question that crap like this will cast a shadow, for a time, over our efforts and everyone else who's working on global warming. [15] McKibben subsequently withdrew as an organisational partner of 10:10. [16]

In The Independent , Dominic Lawson wrote "As often as 10:10 tried to pull the film off YouTube, their critics re-posted it. This, at least, proves what a cataclysmic misjudgement Curtis had made. When you try to satirise the critics of your campaign, and it turns out that those very critics embrace your film as demonstrating exactly what they find unbearable about the climate-obsessed eco-lobby, then you know that you have kicked the ball into your own net". [17]

The film generated a huge reaction in the blogosphere. [18] One comment to The Guardian read: "To suggest that people who disagree with you deserve to die is incredibly stupid. Imagine if some Christian group in the US did that to gays, Muslims or anyone else they disagree with. The outrage would be palpable. And deserved." [19]

The Guardian, which was a key collaborator with the 10:10 campaign since its launch and got exclusive rights to show the film première, responded to the criticism by stating that "the film may have been somewhat tasteless, but it was an imaginative attempt to challenge public apathy over climate change". [2] This statement originally ended "and, highly unusually for attempts to communicate about this subject, funny too", but this was later redacted. [20] A later report in the newspaper by Adam Vaughan said that the film, "intended as a tongue-in-cheek spoof of hectoring greens", had created a huge amount of global coverage for 10:10, in print and on the web. The report said that while many people had found the film hilarious, there was a "predictable slating from climate sceptics" as well as furious reactions from some environmentalists. The report also went on to describe other, more reflective responses, which had focused on effective communication, psychology, satire, and ways of engaging with various audiences over climate change. [21]

Withdrawal

Although originally planned to be shown in cinema and television advertisements, 10:10 removed the film from their website and YouTube later on 1 October 2010. [3] On Friday 2 October, 10:10 placed a notice on their website saying, "Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended. [...] At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn." [6] This was criticised as a non-apology apology by Michelle Malkin in the Litchfield County Register and Andrew Revkin in an opinion piece in The New York Times. [22] [23] A spokesman for 10:10 also denied that the withdrawal had been planned from the beginning in order to generate publicity. [3] After removing the video from YouTube, 10:10 issued a statement: "We won't be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet". [6] Then, on Monday 5 October 10:10 director Eugenie Harvey issued a second, more comprehensive apology, stating: "We are... sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film's production or release." [24]

ActionAid, a charity which co-ordinates a schools programme with 10:10, approved the decision to withdraw the film, and stated "Our job is to encourage proactive decisions at class level to reduce carbon emissions. We did it because evidence shows children are deeply concerned about climate change and because we see the impacts of it in the developing world where a lot of our work is. So we think the 10:10 campaign is very important, but the moment this film was seen it was clear it was inappropriate." [2]

In the wake of the film's withdrawal, Richard Curtis admitted that the attempt to draw attention to the cause of lowering CO
2 emissions may have backfired. Curtis said "When you try to be funny on a serious subject, it's obviously risky. I hope people who don't like the little film will still think about the big issue and try to do something about it." [25]

Withdrawal of sponsors

Several sponsors withdrew their support of 10:10 as a result of the No Pressure film. Nick Sharples, Sony Europe's Director of Communications, issued a statement saying, "we strongly condemn the No Pressure video which was conceived, produced and released by 10:10 entirely without the knowledge or involvement of Sony", and cutting ties with 10:10: "As a result we have taken the decision to disassociate ourselves from 10:10 at this time". [24] Kyocera [16] and Eaga were removed from the list of 10:10 sponsors, and National Magazine Company was removed from the list of 10:10 media partners. [26] At the same time, a spokesman for O2, a partner of 10:10, refused to disassociate itself from the group: "10:10 is an independent organisation and we don't ask for editorial control over the content of its campaigns." [27]

350.org, with whom 10:10 had been collaborating on the 10 October 2010 day of action, broke all current and future relations with 10:10. In a press release, they said: "We respect 10:10's previous work to encourage companies, schools, and churches to voluntarily cut their carbon emissions 10%. Upon seeing the video, however, we have informed 10:10 that we can no longer remain partners on 10 October 2010 or any other initiative. 350.org maintains an absolute commitment to nonviolence in word and deed". [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carbon tax</span> Tax on carbon emissions

A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon emissions from producing goods and services. Carbon taxes are intended to make visible the hidden social costs of carbon emissions. They are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by essentially increasing the price of fossil fuels. This both decreases demand for goods and services that produce high emissions and incentivizes making them less carbon-intensive. When a fossil fuel such as coal, petroleum, or natural gas is burned, most or all of its carbon is converted to CO2. Greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. This negative externality can be reduced by taxing carbon content at any point in the product cycle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Curtis</span> British filmmaker (born 1956)

Richard Whalley Anthony Curtis is a British screenwriter, producer and director. One of Britain's most successful comedy screenwriters, he is known primarily for romantic comedy films, among them Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), Notting Hill (1999), Bridget Jones's Diary (2001), Love Actually (2003), Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004), About Time (2013), and Yesterday (2019). He is also known for the drama War Horse (2011) and for having co-written the sitcoms Blackadder, Mr. Bean, and The Vicar of Dibley. His early career saw him write material for the BBC's Not the Nine O'Clock News and ITV's Spitting Image.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill McKibben</span> American environmentalist and writer

William Ernest McKibben is an American environmentalist, author, and journalist who has written extensively on the impact of global warming. He is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and leader of the climate campaign group 350.org. He has authored a dozen books about the environment, including his first, The End of Nature (1989), about climate change, and Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out? (2019), about the state of the environmental challenges facing humanity and future prospects.

Eco-capitalism, also known as environmental capitalism or (sometimes) green capitalism, is the view that capital exists in nature as "natural capital" on which all wealth depends. Therefore, governments should use market-based policy-instruments to resolve environmental problems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop Climate Chaos</span> UK climate change organisation

Stop Climate Chaos is a coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the United Kingdom that focuses on climate change. It was established in September 2005 and is known for running the "I Count" campaign from 2006 to 2007. In addition, the coalition organized 'The Wave" on 5 December 2009 as a lead-up to the UN talks in Copenhagen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Business action on climate change</span> Range of activities by businesses relating to climate change

Business action on climate change is a topic which since 2000 includes a range of activities relating to climate change, and to influencing political decisions on climate change-related regulation, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Major multinationals have played and to some extent continue to play a significant role in the politics of climate change, especially in the United States, through lobbying of government and funding of climate change deniers. Business also plays a key role in the mitigation of climate change, through decisions to invest in researching and implementing new energy technologies and energy efficiency measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joe Romm</span> American writer and editor (born 1960)

Joseph J. Romm is an American researcher, author, editor, physicist and climate expert, who advocates reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming and increasing energy security through energy efficiency and green energy technologies. Romm is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2009, Rolling Stone magazine named Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America", and Time magazine named him one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)", calling him "The Web's most influential climate-change blogger".

Carbon rationing, as a means of reducing CO2 emissions to contain climate change, could take any of several forms. One of them, personal carbon trading, is the generic term for a number of proposed carbon emissions trading schemes under which emissions credits would be allocated to adult individuals on a (broadly) equal per capita basis, within national carbon budgets. Individuals then surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing to emit at a level above that permitted by their initial allocation would be able to purchase additional credits in the personal carbon market from those using less, creating a profit for those individuals who emit at a level below that permitted by their initial allocation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate Change Committee</span> UK Climate Change public body

The Climate Change Committee (CCC), originally named the Committee on Climate Change, is an independent non-departmental public body, formed under the Climate Change Act (2008) to advise the United Kingdom and devolved Governments and Parliaments on tackling and preparing for climate change. The Committee provides advice on setting carbon budgets, and reports regularly to the Parliaments and Assemblies on the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, in 2019 the CCC recommended the adoption of a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom by 2050. On 27 June 2019 the British Parliament amended the Climate Change Act (2008) to include a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. The CCC also advises and comments on the UK's progress on climate change adaptation through updates to Parliament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Delingpole</span> English writer (born 1965)

James Mark Court Delingpole is an English writer, journalist, and columnist who has written for a number of publications, including the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator. He is a former executive editor for Breitbart London, and has published several novels and four political books. He describes himself as a libertarian conservative. He has frequently published articles promoting climate change denial and expressing opposition to wind power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Franny Armstrong</span> British documentary film director

Franny Armstrong is a British documentary film director working for her own company, Spanner Films, and a former drummer with indie pop group The Band of Holy Joy. She is best known for three films: The Age of Stupid, a reflection from 2055 about climate change, McLibel, about the McDonald's court case and Drowned Out, following the fight against the Narmada Dam Project.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copenhagen climate summit</span> International climate change conference in 2009

The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, was held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between 7 and 18 December. The conference included the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 5th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. According to the Bali Road Map, a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 was to be agreed there.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zero-carbon city</span> City that has no carbon footprint

A zero-carbon city is a goal of city planners that can be variously defined. In a narrower sense of energy production and use, a zero-carbon city is one that generates as much or more carbon-free sustainable energy as it uses. In a broader sense of managing greenhouse gas emissions, a zero-carbon city is one that reduces its carbon footprint to a minimum by using renewable energy sources; reducing all types of carbon emissions through efficient urban design, technology use and lifestyle changes; and balancing any remaining emissions through carbon sequestration. Since the supply chains of a city stretch far beyond its borders, Princeton University's High Meadows Environmental Institute suggests using a transboundary definition of a net-zero carbon city as "one that has net-zero carbon infrastructure and food provisioning systems".

Dougal Stewart Wilson is an English director of commercials, music videos and films. His work includes directing several John Lewis Christmas adverts and the Grammy-nominated music video for "Life in Technicolor II" (2009) by Coldplay. He made his feature film debut with Paddington in Peru (2024), the third instalment in the Paddington franchise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">350.org</span> International environmental NGO

350.org is an international environmental organization addressing the climate crisis. Its stated goal is to end the use of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy by building a global, grassroots movement.

Post Carbon Institute (PCI) is a think tank which provides information and analysis on climate change, energy scarcity, and other issues related to sustainability and long term community resilience. Its Fellows specialize in various fields related to the organization's mission, such as fossil fuels, renewable energy, food, water, and population. Post Carbon is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is based in Corvallis, Oregon, United States.

Possible is a charity that enables people to take practical action on climate change, and combines these local actions to inspire a more ambitious approach to the issue at every level of society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Individual action on climate change</span> What everyone can do to limit climate change

Individual action on climate change describes the personal choices that everyone can make to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their lifestyles and catalyze climate action. These actions can focus directly on how choices create emissions, such as reducing consumption of meat or flying, or can be more focus on inviting political action on climate or creating greater awareness how society can become more green.

George Marshall is a British environmental campaigner, communications specialist and writer. He is the founder of Climate Outreach and is a specialist in climate communication. He is the author of Carbon Detox (2007) and Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change (2014). He lives in mid-Wales.

The history of climate change policy and politics refers to the continuing history of political actions, policies, trends, controversies and activist efforts as they pertain to the issue of climate change. Climate change emerged as a political issue in the 1970s, when activist and formal efforts sought to address environmental crises on a global scale. International policy regarding climate change has focused on cooperation and the establishment of international guidelines to address global warming. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a largely accepted international agreement that has continuously developed to meet new challenges. Domestic policy on climate change has focused on both establishing internal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and incorporating international guidelines into domestic law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Carrington, Damian (30 September 2010). "There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign's 'No Pressure' film". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 1 October 2010.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 McVeigh, Tracy (2 October 2010). "Backlash over Richard Curtis's 10:10 climate film". The Observer. UK. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
  3. 1 2 3 Singh, Anita (2 October 2010). "Richard Curtis and an explosion of publicity". The Daily Telegraph. UK. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  4. ↑ Mears, Olwen (1 October 2010). "Controversial climate change campaign film disgusts to make a point". EITB. Archived from the original on 3 October 2010. Retrieved 1 October 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  5. ↑ Welham, Jamie (7 October 2010). "It's just too explosive! School eco film is scrapped". Camden New Journal . Retrieved 27 March 2011.
  6. 1 2 3 "Sorry". 1010global.org. 1 October 2010. Retrieved 7 October 2010.
  7. 1 2 "Environmental campaigners axe gory film". BBC. 2 October 2010. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  8. ↑ Fahrenthold, David (5 October 2010). "Reduce your carbon footprint or get ready to explode". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 21 October 2010. Retrieved 8 October 2010.
  9. ↑ Delingpole, James (3 October 2010). "Splattergate: 'Oh well, we live and learn…'". The Daily Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 4 October 2010. Retrieved 23 October 2010.
  10. ↑ Kaufman, Leslie (4 October 2010). "Climate Video Gets a Thumbs Down From Critics". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  11. ↑ Delingpole, James (1 October 2010). "'Go green or we'll kill your kids' says Richard Curtis eco-propaganda shocker". The Daily Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 3 October 2010. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  12. ↑ Delingpole, James (1 October 2010). "Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail!". The Daily Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 2 October 2010. Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  13. ↑ Robin Simcox (1 October 2010). "No pressure...but cut your carbon emissions or I'm going to blow you up". ConservativeHome . Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  14. ↑ Phillips, Melanie (4 October 2010). "Hate, actually". The Spectator. UK. Archived from the original on 21 November 2010. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  15. 1 2 Bill McKibben (1 October 2010). "Days that Suck: A response to the "No Pressure" Video". Climate Progress . Retrieved 2 October 2010.
  16. 1 2 3 Chesser, Paul (4 October 2010). "Corporate Partners Out As 10:10.org Cosponsors". The American Spectator . Archived from the original on 31 December 2010. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  17. ↑ Lawson, Dominic (5 October 2010). "Kill a schoolchild. How hilarious". The Independent. UK. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  18. ↑ Vaughan, Adam (4 October 2010). "No Pressure: the fall-out from Richard Curtis's explosive climate film". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  19. ↑ "Climate change promo bombs". The Australian. 4 October 2010. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  20. ↑ "Backlash over Richard Curtis's 10:10 climate film". Resources for a sustainable future. 3 October 2010. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  21. ↑ Vaughan, Adam (4 October 2010). "No Pressure: the fall-out from Richard Curtis's explosive climate film". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  22. ↑ Malkin, Michelle (9 October 2010). "The Green war on America's children". The Register Citizen.
  23. ↑ Revkin, Andrew (4 October 2010). "A pretty edgy climate campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 October 2010.
  24. 1 2 Revkin, Andrew (4 October 2010). "Climate Group Regrets Shock Film Tactic (so does Sony)". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  25. ↑ Milmo, Cahal (4 October 2010). "Climate change film blows up in Richard Curtis's face". The Independent. UK. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  26. ↑ "Partners The organisations supporting 10:10". 10:10website . 4 October 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2010.
  27. ↑ Marketing Week Reporters (1 October 2010). "10:10 video removed after sparking controversy". Marketing Week . Retrieved 14 October 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.