In
a May 2014 interview, deep-green activist Dan Bloom—arguably the first to use
the term cli-fi for climate fiction and film—asserts, “I believe that cli fi
novels and movies can serve to wake up readers and viewers to the reality of
the Climapocalypse that awaits humankind if we do nothing to stop it”
(Vemuri). Bloom’s claims echo those of
Rahman Badalov, who in 1997 declared “Blazing oil gushers make marvelous
cinematographic material…. Only cinema can capture the thick oil bursting forth
like a fiery monster.” But Badalov not only views these oil gushers as
monstrous nature. He also notes the dual message of monstrous nature cinema: to
both condemn environmental degradation and entertain with spectacle. According
to Badalov, cinema does not only highlight the fiery monster of the gusher. For
him, “Only cinema can [also] display such an awesome inferno in its terrifying
beauty and majesty.” Bloom’s admission that “the impact of cli fi novels and
films has been minor, very minor” may point to the same dual role of cli-fi and
other monstrous cinema. For Badalov and Bloom, cinema has the potential to
bring environmental issues such as climate change to the forefront. But the
cinematic mechanism also has the potential to obscure that message with
spectacular beauty.
Such
is the conundrum we face when writing about monstrous nature film, a puzzle
amplified in recent spectacular cli-fi films from The Day After Tomorrow (2004) to Elysium (2013), The Colony (2013),
Snowpiercer (2013) Noah (2014), and Into the Storm (2014). Monstrous cinema and its cli-fi offshoots
may present important environmental messages, but they also must entertain
viewers with spectacular effects to attract the audiences needed for big
profits. And these awesome cinematic presentations may actually obscure the
ecological points on display. Yet, they all include elements associated with
the cli-fi genre.
According
to Dan Bloom, “In order to be a cli-fi short story or novel, the book will have
a climate theme, of course. It can be set in the past, the present or the
future, and it can be dystopian or utopian.” The same definition applies to
filmic cli-fi, which, like short stories and novels, explores climate change
and global warming explicitly. Bloom also differentiates cli-fi from
environmental literature and film, declaring, “But if the book is just about
the environment, such as protecting rivers or stopping air pollution, then it
wouldn’t really be a cli-fi novel [or film]. There are other categories such as
eco-fiction or calling a book an eco-thriller if it is about the environment.” Earlier
cli-fi films that anthropomorphize monstrous nature explicitly fit Bloom’s
criteria. [i]
Considered
one of the earliest eco-horror films, Frogs
(1972) confronts environmental destruction with a vengeful bevvy of psychic
frogs. During an annual Jason Crockett (Ray Milland) birthday celebration on
the fourth of July, these frogs telepathically communicate with other animal
species, enticing them to attack Crockett’s family and guests one by one. The
film highlights how almost every family member despises nature so much they
spread harmful chemicals to eradicate all nonhuman animal life. The film
suggests the frogs recognize the source of these animal deaths—humans,
especially the spoiled rich Crockett patriarch and his family. On the night of
Jason Crockett’s birthday, frogs, snakes, alligators, lizards, birds, and
spiders begin to pay Crockett back, and in Frogs
nature wins. Like humans, frogs and other animals in the Florida swamp
surrounding Crocket’s mansion sense the source of their oppression and fight
back.
Despite
the deaths of family and houseguests, millionaire Crockett still maintains his
superiority to nonhuman nature, exclaiming, “I still believe man is master of
the world.” Nature photographer and environmentalist Pickett Smith (Sam Elliot)
offers an alternative view, asking, “Does that mean he can't live in harmony
with the rest of it?” Like humans, frogs and other animals in the Florida swamp
surrounding Crocket’s mansion sense the source of their oppression and fight
back. In Frogs, anthropomorphizing
these swamp creatures provides an environmental message, but it also humanizes
nature and provides a means to punish the real monster—Jason Crocket and the
human oppressors he represents. Frogs highlights how nature might fight back when humans attack their climate.
[i]
Bernice Murphy offers an
overview of these 1970s animal attack movies in her The Rural Gothic in American Popular Culture chapter “Why Wouldn’t
the Wilderness Fight Us?: American Eco-Horror and the Apocalypse.”
No comments:
Post a Comment