The film is the result of a three-year study of the state of the lighting market, the (political) decision processes that hold sway in Brussels, and the extent to which politicians trust the industry because they do not know any better.

It is interesting to read what the film-makers describe as their mission. I quote: “The film intends to inform consumers and equip them with knowledge on the topic, make them more aware, and encourage them to behave responsibly and resist being dictated to by others”. The film opened in Austria. This was not because Austria needed to see and understand it sooner than anyone else, but simply because it was produced by a team from Austria. It is a film designed to address the broader European public.

Between you and me: is there anyone in the lighting community still occupied with the problem of phasing out the incandescent lamp? Everyone seems pretty much focussed on the power of the LED, and even the film-makers chose the topic of ‘the incandescent lamp’ as an prime example of how political processes work and how intransparent they can be. What it really is about is “resisting being dictated to by others” and not about resistance against a particular type of lamp. Fans and friends of the incandescent lamp have to face the fact that there is not likely to be a turnaround with regard to the availability of the good old light bulb in the near future. But who knows? Perhaps there is a chance to move this forward in a different way. The TC-L is obviously no alternative to the incandescent lamp. And reviving the incandescent is not an alternative either. That may sound very harsh, but it is reality. And we all know what that means. And yet, if we did not get so blatantly irate about the topic every time it is mentioned and discuss the status quo solely on an emotional level, there may well be the odd niche or special application for the incandescent lamp that we have not yet seriously considered. For example in the field of health care and treatment.

After daylight, the light from an incandescent lamp is practically the healthiest you can get. In future, we may well be able to get incandescent lamps on prescription – the prices we paid for an incandescent in the past will never be the same again, that’s for sure. They may well cost ten, 20 or 30 euros a piece – or more! So the idea of having them prescribed by a doctor is not that illogical. Then people might start considering developing incandescent sources with a longer lamp life. Back in the nineties Dieter Binninger came up with a lamp that would burn for up to 150,000 hours, so it must be technically possible. Long-life incandescent lamps need not be produced in Europe; they could be made in China.

But if an incandescent lamp is (re-)introduced onto the market at a high price, I am pretty sure which lamps consumers would opt for. It’s comparable to hamburgers. Everyone knows that fast food is not healthy, and still it comprises a huge share of the market – because it is cheap. The fact that people could be doing serious harm to their bodies does not occur to them when they are ordering their ‘happy meals’. Why are we not phasing-out fast food in Europe?

And one word about the industry: in the debates about who benefited most from banning the bulb, it would appear that the lamp manufacturers are doing reasonably well, given that other lamps people are forced to buy are more expensive. But this effect will be relatively short-lived, as far as I can see. Competition will push down the prices for TC-Ls and LEDs. I have every confidence that the Asian lighting industry will accept the challenge to achieve this. I would also say that the lighting industry have not done themselves a favour by propagating apparently false information in order to enforce their short-term interests in the medium term. How are we supposed to trust the industry when it can be proven openly what methods are applied to ensure their interests and gain? Honesty, or at least closer examination of a few key details, would have done the entire industry more good in the long run.

But maybe there is something, or someone, that could be gained from all this. Every discussion held on the topic of light points to the fact that we need more qualified persons to design and plan lighting. The industry have disqualified themselves by being too biased and profit-oriented. If the lighting designers’ associations were clever, they would seize the opportunity and insist on supporting legislation that recognizes the role of the independent lighting designer. What the lighting designers have not managed to do, can be achieved with the aid of a filmed documentary.

Which means I can only endorse the film rating agency’s decision to label the movie: Highly recommended!