Interview of the Day: Cristina Formenti

In her academic work Italian film scholar Cristina Formenti addresses the question of the environmental impact of animated film production. According to her, the film industry either does not address this issue at all or only addresses it marginally. Formenti believes it is time to change this approach. The idea that animation needs to be craft-oriented brings with it a certain degree of excess at the level of production. ‘However, I do not think that a work’s artistic value would be diminished by more sustainable production methods or by reducing the resources used,’ she says in an interview for Anifilm.

Two years ago you published an essay in which you examined the environmental impact of producing digital animated documentary films. You emphasized their high energy demands and large carbon footprint. Why did you choose this overlooked topic, and does it not concern animated films in general rather than documentaries specifically? How do other animation techniques (clay animation, etc.) compare in terms of ecological burden?

The environmental impact of animation is a broader issue; it is not something that concerns only animated documentaries. I focused on them in particular because my previous research dealt with animated documentaries, so it was a way of putting these questions into dialogue. However, the larger issue is that the environmental footprint of animation is often overlooked within the industry itself. So it is not only understudied in academia, but the industry has also only very recently begun developing guidelines on how to make animation production less carbon-intensive and more environmentally sustainable. It is also important to note that this issue is not limited to digital animation. Every technique has an environmental impact; what differs is the type of impact it has. For instance, in stop-motion animation, materials are often used that can be harmful both to the environment and to human beings, to the extent that people working with them need to wear gloves or masks. In hand-drawn animation, large numbers of trees are cut down to produce paper. Each technique therefore comes with a distinct environmental footprint. The problem with digital animation is that people tend to assume that because it is digital, it is immaterial and therefore more sustainable. However, this is simply not true – especially considering the high rendering times that these works require. Making them involves significant energy consumption, as well as substantial water usage. The problem therefore exists on multiple levels. In the case of animated documentaries, as well as other forms of animation, we also see so-called research trips being undertaken. This often happens, for example, in large-scale digital animated productions such as those by Disney, where a core part of the animation team travels to another country in order to capture its atmosphere or ‘vibe’. However, this travel has an environmental impact. Especially in the present era, where information is more accessible than ever, it may not always be necessary to be physically present in order to transform an idea into a fictional representation. Research can be conducted through books, archival materials, or online resources. Given how much material is already available, such trips may no longer always be essential.

Are your findings based just on academic grounds or did you confront the producers, directors, creators etc. with your findings? What was their reaction?

I have presented some of these findings at industry-related events. However, these were events organised specifically to introduce sustainability protocols for the film industry. In that sense, the reaction was probably more positive than what one might expect from the average animator. The issue is that animators – as well as filmmakers more generally – often feel that protocols or guidelines may restrict their creativity. However, they should instead see them as elements that can actually spark creativity. Rather than viewing them as constraints on their options, they could treat them as starting points for developing new, creative solutions and rethinking the animation pipeline in innovative ways.

3) How does the production of an animated film rank from the perspective of ecomaterialism in comparison with a conventional live-action film? Where is the environmental impact greater?

It is difficult to answer these questions because the answer varies significantly depending on the film itself – its type, the way it is produced, and the level of attention paid to environmental concerns. When we talk about animation or live-action film, we are referring to works created using a wide range of techniques and approaches. For that reason, it is hard to provide a general answer. What I can say, however, is that the rendering times required for digital animation can sometimes be far more significant than those of a live-action film. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the distinction between animation and live action is increasingly blurred. Contemporary live-action films are not simply shot with a digital camera; a substantial part of it them is often created or heavily modified in a computer. In that sense, it already incorporates elements of digital animation. This is another reason why the question is difficult to answer definitively. Ultimately, much depends on the individual production: the approach taken, whether sustainability protocols were considered, and the complexity of the project. For example, a live-action film involving a large cast and extensive travel may have a considerable environmental impact. By contrast, a film shot in a single location with two local actors, without building elaborate sets or producing costumes from environmentally harmful materials, could be relatively sustainable – potentially even more sustainable than an animated film. In the end, the environmental impact depends very much on the specifics of each production.

I see. Anyway, I think the impact of larger animation studios like Walt Disney is greater than just independent productions. What do you think?

Yes, this is absolutely the case. There is a significant amount of greenwashing taking place in major studios. If you visit their websites, they often present themselves as environmentally responsible. However, this is frequently based on relatively superficial measures – such as offering vegetarian options in their restaurants or producing merchandise made from environmentally friendly materials – rather than addressing the animation production pipeline itself. In many cases, they continue to produce and spend more and more, and this kind of excess is often framed as something positive. From an environmental perspective, however, it should be viewed critically rather than celebrated.

I will quote you: ‘The production of a traditional hand-drawn animated series of 26 episodes, each approximately 26 minutes long, required on average 640,000 sheets of paper – that is, roughly 50 tons of paper. In other words, this meant cutting down about 75 trees, meaning that the production of a single episode was responsible for felling nearly three trees.’ You also mentioned the president of the organisation Cartoon Italia, who claims that animation is probably the least sustainable sector of the film and media industry. Is the situation really that bad?

Yes, it is a problem – but not to the same extent in all countries. In some countries, such as France, greater attention is being paid to sustainability issues. There are studios that are actively working in this direction and experimenting with ways to make their production pipelines more environmentally friendly. However, if we look at the major studios that dominate the industry – particularly in the United States – there is still very limited attention given to this issue. There are no binding protocols in place. Even the guidelines that currently exist, which are largely European initiatives, remain voluntary rather than mandatory. As a result, some studios choose to adopt them, while others simply ignore them and continue their practices as if environmental impact were not a concern. Occasionally, studios may announce that they will donate money to plant trees somewhere else in the world, but such measures do not offset the environmental damage already caused by their productions. This is yet another form of greenwashing rather than a structural solution to the problem.

What can cause the change of attitude of the animation studios?

I believe that certain standards need to be made mandatory. Environmental sustainability should become a requirement for film production, because as long as it remains optional, meaningful change is unlikely to occur. Some progress is possible – and we can see examples of this in countries such as France – but France has historically been more attentive to sustainability issues than many other nations. In contrast, other countries are far less committed to these concerns. For this reason, in my opinion, sustainability needs to become a rule or a legal requirement rather than simply an option.

There also must be significant feedback from the audience...

Yes. There should be a stronger incentive structure – not only from audiences, but also from awarding bodies. If awards began to take into account the sustainability of a production, studios would be far more motivated to meet certain environmental standards. Animation is a craft-oriented medium, and there is a persistent belief that the more work, materials, energy, and overall resources invested in a project, the higher its quality. However, this excess often translates into a significant environmental impact. Some festivals already present ‘green’ awards, but major institutions should also begin to consider environmental criteria when granting prestigious prizes – such as the Oscars or other highly sought-after international awards. If sustainability became part of the evaluation process at that level, it could meaningfully influence industry practices.

I suggest, there must be some compromise between craft and...

…And sustainability, yes. Or rather, finding new ways of being craft-oriented while also being sustainable. The problem is that there is not enough broader or structural thinking about this within large companies. These discussions tend to happen mainly in the smaller studios – often out of necessity. Because they operate with limited budgets, they are required to find less expensive solutions, which can sometimes also be more sustainable. By contrast, large studios often have extensive financial resources and can afford almost any approach. As a result, they tend to choose what is easiest or most convenient – even when it is less sustainable.

According to you, the most problematic phase of digital animation is rendering, during which waste heat is generated and large amounts of electricity are consumed. What can be done about this? In your work you mentioned the French organisation Ecoprod, which published a handbook containing 60 practical recommendations that animation studios can use to reduce their environmental impact. Could you name at least the most important ones? For example, how can energy consumption during production be reduced?

There are experiments currently being conducted in this direction. For example, some French studios are reusing the energy generated during rendering to heat buildings or even swimming pools elsewhere. This is one way of ensuring that energy is not simply wasted. Other studios are exploring how gaming technologies can be integrated into the animation pipeline. Software originally developed for video game production can be repurposed for animated features or series, often helping to reduce the overall rendering times. It is also crucial to have a clear production plan from the outset. Rendering times frequently increase because animators begin working on a scene and, after it has been rendered, decide they want to approach it differently. This requires going back, making changes, and rendering everything again – significantly increasing the environmental cost. By contrast, if there is a well-defined plan and rendering is postponed until key decisions are finalised – allowing only minor adjustments afterward – energy use can be substantially reduced. As always, the effectiveness of these strategies depends on the specific type of production.

What else?

Another important issue is the persistent pursuit of realism. In many cases, realism translates into an excess of characters and visual detail. However, some of this complexity could be reduced, especially given the peculiar relationship between animation and realism. When an animated image becomes too close to reality, viewers may experience an uncanny effect rather than a sense of immersion. For this reason, what is often described as ’realism’ is more accurately a claim to believability. Yet this pursuit of hyper-detailed believability can become a justification for unnecessary excess – an excuse that is not always meaningful or productive.

As examples of animated film productions in which resources were heavily consumed, you mention films such as Waltz with Bashir and Loving Vincent. Yet these are artistically and critically acclaimed works. Is that not a paradox? Do you think their value would have been diminished if more environmentally sustainable methods had been used?

It is a paradox, and something we have already discussed. This idea that animation needs to be craft-oriented brings with it a certain degree of excess at the level of production. However, I don’t think that a work’s artistic value would be diminished by more sustainable production methods or by reducing the resources used. In fact, I believe that a work can be highly artistic even when it adopts more sustainable practices. This is evident, for example, in Waltz with Bashir and Loving Vincent. Some of the creative processes used in these films involved material that served no direct function in the final work, but was created purely as part of the craft process – for instance, shots that were used only as references rather than being incorporated into the film itself. There are other possible approaches to creation that can be equally artistic while also being more sustainable. This is particularly relevant in works that engage with reality – such as animated documentaries rather than purely fictional productions – where there is already a strong relationship to the real world and its representation.

Do you think that institutions providing financial grants for animated projects should also impose conditions that take environmental sustainability into account?

Yes, absolutely. Some institutions are already beginning to do this. For instance, if you apply for European funding to support a production, sustainability criteria are often included as part of the application process. However, the animation industry is still relatively behind when it comes to establishing clear rules and defining what animators or studios should do to make their production more sustainable. Yet, this kind of research and development needs to happen in parallel with institutional demands. Otherwise, institutions are left without practical tools for implementation. I believe two complementary actions are needed. On the one hand, funding bodies and institutions need to require sustainability as part of production processes. On the other hand, more detailed protocols and guidelines need to be developed, specifying what can be done for different types of animation production. Initiatives such as that of Ecoprod’s sustainability guide are a good starting point in this direction, but I believe much more can be done.