OFF-CENTERPIECE : How Green Is Their Own Valley? : A peek behind the scenes of ecologically correct Hollywood is revealing

Though many rate “Cape Fear” only a B movie, its ecologically correct kitchen has earned an A from environmental advocates. Without even a zoom to close-up, members of the family are shown matter of factly separating their trash into garbage and recyclables.

Ever since the 20th anniversary of Earth Day in 1990 focused Hollywood’s--and the world’s--attention on the looming environmental catastrophes awaiting the planet, you couldn’t throw a rock in the rain forest without hitting some Patagonia-clad actor stomping around with a knitted brow. Industry-based advocacy and educational organizations sprang up left and right.

Of course, such Hollywood figures as Robert Redford had been sounding the alarm for two decades--Redford is active in a number of groups in addition to his own Institute for Resource Management, an organization that mediates environmental disputes. Andy Lipkis’ Tree People has long been popular in Hollywood for its simple and pure mission: to plant and care for trees. Ted Danson’s American Oceans Campaign has, among others successes, blocked offshore oil and gas leases in 12 states and gained adoption of a national oil-spill liability legislation. Disney President Frank Wells’ Environment Now is active in 20 long-term projects and Barbra Streisand’s Streisand Foundation provides nearly $1 million a year to various liberal and humanitarian causes, including the environment. Jane Fonda, Morgan Fairchild, Chevy Chase, John Denver, Dennis Weaver, Gregory Peck and Ed Begley Jr. have all had longstanding commitments to environmental issues.

Of course, not everyone is inclined toward creating a personal foundation. For them, writer-director-producer David Zucker has found a reasonable alternative: the personal environmental consultant. During the planning of “Naked Gun 2 1/2,” Zucker realized he had bitten off more environmental bark than he could chew. April Smith, an activist graduating from UCLA with a master’s degree in urban planning, stepped in to take charge of the filmmaker’s myriad projects. “I was originally hired to consult on ‘Naked Gun,’ ” she says, “but David has so many environmental projects that it has turned into a full-time job.”

According to Zucker, the decision to give “Naked Gun 2 1/2” a story about corporate toxic crime was a natural outgrowth of his work with such organizations as ECO and Tree People. “I really don’t see why other filmmakers bother trying to make villains out of terrorists anymore,” he says. “After all, the worst villains in the world are environmental criminals. They’re naturals.”

Yet, to many environmental activists, while education and propaganda are critical, it’s equally important to make sure your own back lot is clean.

“Far too many people consider the motion picture business a clean industry. This just isn’t so,” says Jonathan Katz, president of Cinnabar, a Hollywood scenery construction concern.

Katz believes Hollywood should clean up its own back yard before preaching to the rest of the country. “This industry uses an incredible amount of toxic substances such as solvents and paints. Also, this is a single-use business. You build a set, film, tear it down, throw it away. There is virtually no recycling. I had a visit from a Lithuanian, a carpenter, and he climbed up on one of those 40-foot long dumpsters where they were throwing the sets from ‘The Addams Family.’ He was looking at what he considered a fortune in building supplies. And we were taking it to the dump.”

Katz, a former member of Gov. Jerry Brown’s technology team, was able to persuade his landlords at Hollywood Center Studios to retain the services of environmental activist/consultant David Kupfer to correct the studio’s environmental misdeeds. “I drew up a 24-point plan that, among other things, recommended the use of non-toxic cleaning materials for janitorial services, reuse of wood and other materials in set construction and the reuse and recycling of office paper and other solid wastes.” In addition, at Kupfer’s urging, the studio no longer purchases any products with ozone-depleting chemicals, such as 111 tricholorethan.

Hollywood Center Studios is not alone in these cleanups. Every studio has implemented programs in recycling and energy conservation and not just because groups like EMA have made environmentalism the right thing to do--in the state of California, it is the law. The state requires businesses of more than 100 employees to reduce solid waste by 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Such studios as Paramount have already reached their goals and hope to surpass the state requirements within a couple years.

The key, according to Kym Murphy, vice president of corporate environmental policy at Disney, is “closing the loop.” This simply means that to fully recycle, one should also buy recycled goods. “A couple of years ago, we alerted our vendors to our interest in buying green, but when I went to make a purchase of 30 million pieces of paper, the vendor said the mills couldn’t provide it. So I looked around and found someone who could supply us with the paper we wanted. Eight months later, all those vendors who had said no were suddenly offering recycled paper at competitive prices. The lesson we learned was if companies such as Disney announced they are buying green, then vendors will supply those products.”

Garrett De Bell, an ecologist and consultant to MCA/Universal, says his consulting work has run a wide gamut ranging from corrections in the physical plant to working on-site with various productions. “I am a resource the studio makes available to managers and creative people alike. A lot of my work is fairly unglamorous, like finding another correcting fluid that didn’t contain chemicals harmful to the ozone. On another occasion, I was asked to analyze the production of ‘Back to the Future III’ to find ways to reduce its environmental impact . . . such as suggesting the caterer offer reusable flatware.”

Katz, while acknowledging a general movement among studios and production companies to clean up their acts, believes a certain inertia and miserliness is keeping them from taking the giant steps. “I feel the two big, unaddressed issues that face this industry are the disposal of toxics and pollutants and the use of tropical hardwoods in set construction,” he says.

“If you walk onto the set of most productions in this town, I guarantee you they will be illegally dumping toxic waste. The main reason is hidden costs. If some environmentally concerned production manager walks into the producer’s office and says, ‘Look, I need another $900 to dispose of our paints,’ he’s going to get thrown the hell out of that office.”

According to Robin Hart, an environmental consultant who has worked with scenery construction concerns such as Lexington Scenery, the entertainment industry (including companies that produce commercials) uses the tropical hardwood lauan for 99% of its sets. “Lauan used to be known as Philippine mahogany until the forests in the Philippines were overharvested,” she says. “Now this wood is being cut from virgin rain forests in Borneo and Sarawak at an incredible rate. For every tree harvested in the rain forest, 10 are destroyed. Pretty soon, those forests will disappear.”

Though lauan is used by a number of industries to manufacture subfloors, cheap cabinets and paneling, the use of the tropical hardwood in Hollywood is prodigious. On a recent Warner Bros. mega-production, more than 12,000 sheets were required for set construction . . . a pretty good chunk of rain forest.

There are a number of reasons Hollywood has found itself dependent upon lauan. In its 4x10-foot, quarter-inch-thick delivered form, lauan is incredibly light and elastic. One side is often papered to save productions from applying a paint primer. The other side of exposed wood is soft and extremely easy to sand. However, lauan’s primary allure is its price tag: $14 as opposed to $21 for the same sheet of domestically produced birch plywood, currently the only competitive material on the market. And even if birch were cheaper, says Katz, its weight and inflexibility do not make it desirable.

There are potential alternatives. According to Robin Hart-Smith, the Weyerhauser corporation has developed a domestic product made from the intertwined strands of young aspens known as Sturdiwood. “While I was at Lexington, we had Weyerhauser run a few test sheets complete with paper coating,” says Hart-Smith. “It was a bit heavier, but very workable. Unfortunately, Weyerhauser is estimating its cost at $15.50 a sheet.”

At this price, the average film would spend $12,000 to $15,000 more to substitute the ecologically sound domestic product, an amount that seems relatively minor for a $20-million production. “All it would take is just one studio head with moral courage to call up Weyerhauser and tell them that he is no longer allowing the use of lauan on his sets,” says Katz. “He is going to provide them with a market for their product and all they have to do is make the price a little more competitive.”

Recently, David Zucker, Robin Hart Smith, Tom Hayden and a number of other activists have circulated a questionnaire to studios and production offices to find out how much lauan they are currently using and their methods of disposal. The mailing is also designed to fully detail to production executives the environmental impact in using this tropical hardwood. Says Smith: “I think there are a lot of executives in this town who are conscientious, but simply don’t realize there’s a problem in using lauan.”

In the meantime, De Bell believes the single-use practices of production require much more stringent controls. “On the set of ‘Havana,’ a company called Rapid Scaffolding employed a system where the scenery was fastened to a network of pipe scaffolding. This (fastening system) meant scenery could be reused because very little was destroyed when the sets were taken down. This could be a system of the future.”

Until a year ago, there were no companies in town that recycled sets. “Television tends to reuse sets, but film and commercials are the main culprits,” says Tanya Edmonds of the nonprofit Safe Sets, which utilizes a variety of outlets for set waste. “We try to store as little as possible. For instance, we usually arrange with a specific group like Habitat for Humanity to deliver construction-grade wood to build shelters for the homeless.”

Edmonds admits, however, that despite the good works of Safe Sets, most productions do not want to spend the extra time for a recycling service. To compete with the more established tear-down crews would require a good bit of underwriting, and none of the studios have been forthcoming.

While many activists are pleased that Hollywood has taken a strong leadership role in advocating and educating the American public in environmental imperatives, still others believe the unique position held by the entertainment industry places on it a responsibility to be exemplary, even flawless, in its own practices. As Pamela Wellner of the Rainforest Action Network points out, “Part of the problem has been innocent ignorance. But now there’s too much information available to use that excuse. It’s time Hollywood stopped making gestures and started leading.” “