 |
How do you tell a story about the destruction of the world?
Movie-
and TV-makers know how to do it with aliens, of course, or suggest it
with invented political intrigue and rogue leaders. But capturing the
real global threat of climate change is far harder than filming any
spaceship landing. Just ask Darren Aronofsky, whose recent thriller,
“Mother!,” buried his climate-change message in allegory.
“It’s
really tough,” said Fisher Stevens, the filmmaker and actor. “It’s not a
very sexy subject, and people just don’t want to deal with it and think
about it.”
Mr. Stevens, who won an Oscar in 2010 as a producer of “The Cove,” a documentary about dolphin-hunting, used the star power of Leonardo DiCaprio for his latest environmental film, “Before the Flood,”
which examined global warming in a way Mr. Stevens hoped would inspire
viewers to change their habits. A 2016 National Geographic documentary,
it found a sizable streaming and digital audience.
But
getting Hollywood movies about climate change made is not easy. And
when they do refer to it — as did the Roland Emmerich 2004 disaster
flick “The Day After Tomorrow”
— they rarely do much to galvanize the public to action. Even
well-intentioned filmmakers with carefully drafted cautionary tales
often miss the mark, climate scientists say.
Part of the problem is simply plot, said Per Espen Stoknes, the author of “What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming.”
“As
opposed to terrorism or drugs, there is no clear enemy with climate
change,” he said. “We’re all participating in the climate crisis — if
there is an enemy, it’s us. And it’s hard to go to war against
ourselves.”
And
when climate change is depicted on screen, it’s often in an onslaught
of fire and brimstone, an apocalyptic vision that hardly leaves room for
a hopeful human response.
That, climate researchers and social scientists say, is exactly the wrong message to give.
“Typically,
if you really want to mobilize people to act, you don’t scare the hell
out of them and convince them that the situation is hopeless,” said Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of Michigan who is the author of “How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate.”
But
that is just the kind of high-stakes film that Hollywood loves to
produce — like “The Day After Tomorrow,” which depicted New York City as
a frozen dystopian landscape. Or “Geostorm,” due Oct. 20, in which the climate goes apocalyptically haywire, thanks to satellites that malfunction.
Copious
research shows that this kind of dystopian framing backfires, driving
people further into denial and helplessness; instead of acting, they
freeze.
“You have to frame these things so people feel like they have an entry point,” said Max Boykoff, a professor and director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder.
 |
| A tsunami floods New York City and the Statue of Liberty in a scene from “The Day After Tomorrow.” Credit 20th Century Fox |
Mr.
Stevens, the filmmaker, agreed with this approach. “It’s going to turn
people off if it’s doom and gloom,” he said. “Although it’s not easy to
do, when you’re talking about climate change, as you can see with what’s
happening now,” with the recent hurricanes. “It’s becoming
apocalyptic.”
The
question becomes how best to motivate people. “It’s a difficult
balance,” said Mr. Hoffman. “You have to communicate the sense of
urgency, otherwise you won’t have a sense of commitment.”
Some high-profile examples, like the Oscar-winning 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” may go too far.
“The movie was 100 percent about fear,” said Ed Maibach, a professor and director of the Center for Climate Change Communication
at George Mason University. “And during the credits, literally the
credits, they made some recommendations about what we could do. That
should’ve been a prominent part of the narrative, in telling people the
highest value actions they could take.”
More recent documentaries and programs like “Years of Living Dangerously,”
a National Geographic series in which different celebrity hosts
investigate environmental issues around the world, hope to find the
sweet spot between jolting audiences and inspiring them. David Gelber, a
co-creator of the series, whose producers include the director James
Cameron, said its makers were familiar with climate messaging research.
“The goal is to ensure that our audience doesn’t feel like they’re being fed their vegetables,” said Tim Pastore,
president of original programming and production for the National
Geographic channel. “We try not to create programming that is a cause
for despair, but rather an opportunity.” Because, he added: “The
greatest goal of climate change programs is to first find a new audience
and stop preaching to the converted. At the end of the day, we’re
trying to find new converts.”
But as the well-reviewed and little-seen little-seen “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,”
demonstrates, the right messaging doesn’t help if nobody catches it.
“The term ‘climate change’ isn’t as sexy and ‘script friendly’ as most
plotlines,” said Debbie Levin, president of the Environmental Media Association.
The solution, some researchers said, was to employ a bit of
misdirection. “Agriculture, water issues, environmental justice,” Ms.
Levin said. “Those all are big issues that work really well dramatically
without saying the words ‘climate change.’”
One
bright spot in showing environmental alarm onscreen is children’s
programs, Ms. Levin said, which “work beautifully for everyday practices
and overall awareness. Parents often watch with them, and they learn
together.” And climate change is a frequent topic of visual artists and writers, where the genre known as cli-fi is growing.
One
thing too few people do, according to Mr. Boykoff, the University of
Colorado researcher, is laugh about climate change. Alexander Payne’s
forthcoming “Downsizing,”
in which people are shrunk to tiny versions of themselves — thereby
using less resources — takes a swing at that approach. Mr. Boykoff has
had his students perform a comedy show about environmental destruction; a
research paper on the outcome is being readied for publication. “If
just scientists talking about their research and findings were
successful” in motivating the public, “we’d be sorted by now,” Mr.
Boykoff said. “But that’s not true. A lot of people don’t engage with
these things through scientific ways of knowing. So the arts, the
cultural sphere, is a really important part of this that’s underexplored
so far.”
Mr.
Maibach, the George Mason professor and an expert in polling on climate
understanding, said the greatest problem facing climate communicators
is that Americans are not talking about climate change enough — in any
shape. “We call it the climate silence,” he said, “and it’s pretty profound.”
So, said Mr. Hoffman, the University of Michigan professor, we need “more movies, more TV, more music.”
“We have to touch people’s hearts on this,” he said. “It’s critical.”
Links
- Making ‘Mother!,’ the Year’s Most Divisive Film
- Before The Flood
- When Manhattan Freezes Over
- What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action
- How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate
- Trailer: ‘Geostorm’
- Center For Climate Change Communication
- Trailer | Years of Living Dangerously
- An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power (2017) - Official Trailer
- Environmental Media Association
- The Man Who Coined ‘Cli-Fi’ Has Some Reading Suggestions For You
No comments :
Post a Comment