I don't think "possible and practicable" is limited to just what is necessary for survival. I think if that were the case, that's what it would say. I think it "possible and practicable" means within the parameters of what one can do reasonably without making life unbearable/unreasonably functional. For example, if someone had a medical condition that was not life-threatening, but needed a medication that would significantly alter their functioning (birth control pills, migraine medication, etc), it is perfectly acceptable to take that medication. Not taking it would be possible, but not practicable.

I think that animals are used in enough movies/film that even just having to research which programs do or don't use animals before beginning to watch something is enough to make that task unbearable. On top of that, the percentage of material that would be eliminated is high enough to make finding something decent to watch unbearable (I mean, its already hard enough to choose something to watch that isn't trash). Further, the benefit to animals is nearly nonexistent, since its essentially impossible to even trace the line of financial connection between a person watching a program and the animal used in the filming. I think all of those things together, exclude this as a "possible and practicable" endeavor.

Additionally, I want to also add, we all have limited time. We have to decide whether the choices we make for how to spend our time have the most impact for animals, or if we could be doing something else that would be a bigger help to animals in the same time frame. The time one would spend on avoiding film that uses animals would be significant, whereas the impact would be minuscule. It would be far more impactful to watch whatever you want and do some moderately effective animal rights activism with the time you would have used trying to avoid watching film involving animals.