Ideas from the speakers
The main goal of this session was to find a new narrative that moves people to take action. One way to accomplish this is to create a natural history show. However, the question arises: why make another one if there are already so many? The answer is that previous films often missed important details and issues. People talk about plastics in the ocean but forget about the destructive fishing, systemic damage, and policy and legal issues.
To address this problem, a full narrative arc needs to be presented, starting with knowledge about the ocean, continuing with the damage humans have caused, and ending with possible solutions. The next step would be to narrow the message down. If the message cannot be reduced to about 15 words, the general public will not take a lot in. It is also important to focus on open sourcing and connections with campaigns and educators. Unseen damage, such as bottom trawling, is known to the scientists and policymakers, but if the people do not see it, they do not care and have no motivation to act. However, even policymakers sometimes do not fully understand the problem, and eventually, harmful practices are allowed by law. This is why film is a good approach to show these issues visually. To communicate the right message, individual companies should not necessarily be named, but governments should still be held accountable. A different, interesting way of storytelling and narrative building was presented by another speaker. The idea is to use whale songs in the music. Combined with artistic environmental storytelling and immersive experiences, this allows people to build an emotional connection with the ocean. People tend to protect what they feel emotionally connected to. Lastly, to stop climate change, we need to change the deep structures of society. This includes changing our values, worldviews, economic systems, goals of society, and the way humans see themselves in relation to nature.
Insights from the audience
One of the most important insights from the audience is the way the film should be structured. It starts with the story about the ocean, followed by the current problems. Ending with the solution and examples of achievement gives people hope. For it is hope and not fear that motivates people to act. The discussion also explores the role of science, especially in relation to animal intelligence, whale communication, and conservation research. However, one problem that is mentioned is that science often works very slowly, while environmental problems require quick action. Because of this, storytelling, media, and documentaries are used to communicate scientific knowledge to the public more quickly and influence public opinion and policy. A key insight is that even highly successful documentaries, with millions of viewers and strong media coverage, often fail to create lasting political or systemic change. While such films can influence public awareness, shift narratives, and even change individual behaviour, they rarely lead to concrete policy transformations. This highlights a gap between knowledge and action. One major reason for this gap lies in political and economic structures. Corporations, governments, and powerful stakeholders often have financial interests that conflict with environmental protection. For example, media platforms or investors may be connected to industries that contribute to environmental damage, which can limit the distribution or impact of critical content. In some cases, environmental projects or messages are even suppressed or ignored due to these interests. This leads back to the concept of “deep change,” which emphasizes that real progress requires more than awareness or behavioural shifts. Instead, it calls for a transformation of underlying systems, including economic models, political priorities, and societal values. Without addressing these root structures, environmental efforts will remain limited in their effectiveness.
