Frozen Planet 2 team recalls when they were almost trapped in Antarctic ice: ‘There wasn’t another human for 500 miles’

In line with its expansive shows like Blue Planet and Planet Earth, Sony BBC Earth have come out with the second edition of their mega-documentary show Frozen Planet.

The series takes a look at the animal species living in the most frigid ecosystems across the world and how climate change is affecting them. series producer Elizabeth White and executive producer Mark Brownlow spoke about their experience filming the grand series and incorporating climate change in the stories. Excerpts:

Whenever we attempt part 2 or season 2 of something, the idea is to get bigger, better, grander. How do you do that with something as grand and expansive as Frozen Planet, a show that took a decade to make?

Mark: We all loved the original series. But ten years on, we can all benefit from many things, including huge advancements in science and technology that enable us to go back to the poles. But this time, we tell a far bigger story of the entire frozen planet, way beyond just the poles. We can show you newer stories featuring newer species from the Earth’s mountains and other such places.

Not many people realize the logistical challenges that go in making a show like this. What were some of the biggest challenges in making this show?

Mark: We installed, in the most ambitious time lapse study ever undertaken, multiple time lapse cameras across the cryosphere. They click away for 2-3 years, and they had to be protected against polar bears. They were often in places that were inaccessible that they couldn’t be accessed for six months at a time. It would take 10 days of acclimatisation for a team to get to one camera in the Andes just to change the batteries and service them. But over those three years, what the study found was profound.

Elizabeth: We did more than a hundred shoots for the series. It was the diversity of the habitats that made it challenging. In some situations, it was the time and the logistics to get there was a challenge. In the Arctic Ocean film, we sent a team to Wrangle Island in northern Russia. The team had to wait 21 days for the right weather window to fly from where they were to the next depot. It’s a real waiting game to just to get to the location. And to add to that, we have Covid, which required quarantine protocols. There was a crew going to Antarctica that had to wait 42 days just in hotel rooms, while time was running out because the seasonal window of penguins’ migration was closing.

And did the teams face any life-threatening or dangerous situations while filming in these harsh locations?

Mark:I have only my personal experience to add. I was lucky enough to go directly and film the Killer Whale sequence in Antarctica. It involved sailing from the Falkland Islands (in South America) across the roughest stretch of ocean on Earth. We got there and for the first two and a half weeks, things were going well. Then, one of the team members had a medical condition and they had to be evacuated. Dropping them off took an eight-day round trip, by the end of which we had blown the engine (of their boat). We were trying to navigate the Antarctic ice without an engine with the threat of getting boxed in by the ice. And there wasn’t another human being for 500 miles. The skipper took the sensible decision to get out and guided by the drone, we navigated our way through the ice, and sailed back to the Falklands. That was my one experience from one trip, and I think everyone who has filmed for the show has one such story to tell.

How important was bringing climate change into the narrative of Frozen Planet 2?

Mark: When Frozen Planet (series one) was made, climate change was a debate on whether it was manmade or not. Of course, today that argument is over. We felt it was important that climate change took centre stage in the series and through character-driven stories. But we also wanted to tell the story of changing landscape. How couldn’t we? This is a contemporary series and climate change is the biggest story of our times.

Elizabeth: The series is, in part, a celebration of these places. But we would be remiss to not tell the climate change stories. We have treated them just like any of the other challenges these animals face. The climate change stories are woven in places where we felt they were relevant. You couldn’t really make a series like this without including that element.

Like you said, you tell character-driven stories, but often times, when you are telling a story about a predator and prey or the effect of climate change on an animal, the story becomes a tragedy. How do you make sure to depict it sensitively and yet, leave the desired impact on the viewers?

Elizabeth: Predator and prey stories are quite difficult. We try not to take sides. We very much try and tell it like a normal animal behavior. But inevitably you tell it from one side. But there’s a big sensitivity in not trying to glorify the predator over the prey and trying to give both sides equal importance. In animal against the environment stories, you don’t try very hard and just film what you see. In some cases, you almost don’t need to put a narration on it because actually what you watch is impactful enough.