![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ciresblogs.colorado.edu\/prometheus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/36\/2017\/10\/mother.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
New York Times
\nOctober 2, 2017<\/p>\n
How do you tell a story about the destruction of the world?<\/p>\n
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, \u201cMother!,\u201d buried his climate-change message in allegory<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s really tough,\u201d said Fisher Stevens, the filmmaker and actor. \u201cIt\u2019s not a very sexy subject, and people just don\u2019t want to deal with it and think about it.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Stevens, who won an Oscar in 2010 as a producer of \u201cThe Cove<\/a>,\u201d a documentary about dolphin-hunting, used the star power of Leonardo DiCaprio for his latest environmental film, \u201cBefore the Flood<\/a>,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n But getting Hollywood movies about climate change made is not easy. And when they do refer to it \u2014 as did the Roland Emmerich 2004 disaster flick \u201cThe Day After Tomorrow<\/a>\u201d \u2014 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.<\/p>\n Part of the problem is simply plot, said Per Espen Stoknes<\/a>, the author<\/a> of \u201cWhat We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAs opposed to terrorism or drugs, there is no clear enemy with climate change,\u201d he said. \u201cWe\u2019re all participating in the climate crisis \u2014 if there is an enemy, it\u2019s us. And it\u2019s hard to go to war against ourselves.\u201d<\/p>\n And when climate change is depicted on screen, it\u2019s often in an onslaught of fire and brimstone, an apocalyptic vision that hardly leaves room for a hopeful human response.<\/p>\n That, climate researchers and social scientists say, is exactly the wrong message to give.<\/p>\n \u201cTypically, if you really want to mobilize people to act, you don\u2019t scare the hell out of them and convince them that the situation is hopeless,\u201d said Andrew Hoffman<\/a>, a professor at the University of Michigan who is the author<\/a> of \u201cHow Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n But that is just the kind of high-stakes film that Hollywood loves to produce \u2014 like \u201cThe Day After Tomorrow,\u201d which depicted New York City as a frozen dystopian landscape. Or \u201cGeostorm<\/a>,\u201d due Oct. 20, in which the climate goes apocalyptically haywire, thanks to satellites that malfunction.<\/p>\n Copious research shows that this kind of dystopian framing backfires, driving people further into denial and helplessness; instead of acting, they freeze.<\/p>\n \u201cYou have to frame these things so people feel like they have an entry point,\u201d said Max Boykoff<\/a>, a professor and director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder.<\/p>\n Mr. Stevens, the filmmaker, agreed with this approach. \u201cIt\u2019s going to turn people off if it\u2019s doom and gloom,\u201d he said. \u201cAlthough it\u2019s not easy to do, when you\u2019re talking about climate change, as you can see with what\u2019s happening now,\u201d with the recent hurricanes. \u201cIt\u2019s becoming apocalyptic.\u201d<\/p>\n The question becomes how best to motivate people. \u201cIt\u2019s a difficult balance,\u201d said Mr. Hoffman. \u201cYou have to communicate the sense of urgency, otherwise you won\u2019t have a sense of commitment.\u201d<\/p>\n Some high-profile examples, like the Oscar-winning 2006 documentary \u201cAn Inconvenient Truth,\u201d may go too far.<\/p>\n \u201cThe movie was 100 percent about fear,\u201d said Ed Maibach, a professor and director of the Center for Climate Change Communication<\/a> at George Mason University. \u201cAnd during the credits, literally the credits, they made some recommendations about what we could do. That should\u2019ve been a prominent part of the narrative, in telling people the highest value actions they could take.\u201d<\/p>\n One thing too few people do, according to Mr. Boykoff, the University of Colorado researcher, is laugh about climate change. Alexander Payne\u2019s forthcoming \u201cDownsizing<\/a>,\u201d in which people are shrunk to tiny versions of themselves \u2014 thereby using less resources \u2014 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. \u201cIf just scientists talking about their research and findings were successful\u201d in motivating the public, \u201cwe\u2019d be sorted by now,\u201d Mr. Boykoff said. \u201cBut that\u2019s not true. A lot of people don\u2019t engage with these things through scientific ways of knowing. So the arts, the cultural sphere, is a really important part of this that\u2019s underexplored so far.\u201d Read more …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" New York Times October 2, 2017 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. … Continue reading