Home Page: www.eco-justice.org * E-mail: ministry@eco-justice.org
There's a considerable amount of hype showing up for the Earth Day release of a new film from Disney, simply titled, "earth." That advanced marketing provided an opportunity for me to attend a preview showing of the film. From my perspective as an impassioned advocate for environmental action, I have some serious reservations about the film. It takes us in entirely the wrong direction for Earth Day – or any day.
It is, as one would expect in a collaboration between Disney and the BBC, a gorgeous production. With stunning photography, a strong score, and the familiarly resonant voice of James Earl Jones, it is easy to be carried along by the production. For many people, that will be the extent of their experience – they will see breathtaking images, be moved by some touching scenes, and leave with a sense that they are now "in touch" with the beauty and tragedy of nature. If that is what happens, though, then neither the espoused educational goals of Disney, nor my hopes for people being moved to action, will have been achieved.
The flyers for earth say that the film "tells the remarkable story of three animal families – Polar bears, elephants, and whales – as they make their amazing journeys across the planet we all call home." The flyers also point to background materials for educators on five scientific topics. Fitting in the science content often pulls the film far away from the three families. The editorial tension between entertainment and education is one flaw of the production, but that is not my deepest concern. I'm much more worried about what I see as an inappropriate philosophical grounding at the core of the movie.
As is common in this genre of films and photography, we see 90 minutes of "nature" without a trace of humans – until the closing credits where we finally get to see the film makers. I worry about the philosophical perspective that "real nature" does not include humans, because the flip side of that statement is that humans are not part of real nature. In my work with churches and communities, I am constantly trying to break down the flawed worldview that humanity is outside of or disconnected from "nature." I use the theme of "the creation" as an alternative worldview, one which affirms that humans are intertwined with the web of life. That essential message of humans as part of the biosphere – having an impact, and being impacted by it – is not present in the film, except in a few passing references about climate change.
As is also common in nature documentaries, graphic "predator and prey" lessons make it clear that, in nature, critters die. The cheetah kills an antelope, and a shark eats a seal. A baby elephant gets lost in the desert, and a polar bear dies of starvation. Those are valid ecological lessons, and ones that are probably familiar to anyone who watches the Nature Channel. But the movie's narration lets us know that the polar bear is starving because global warming is melting arctic sea ice. The polar bear's death is not from the benign cycles of nature, but is tied to a human-caused disruption. In the context of the film, though, the death and disruption from climate change comes across as just another case where the harsh realities of nature seem sort of sad. The realities of human impacts are further diffused through the individualistic frame of the storytelling (we look at unique animals, instead of populations; one bear starves, not thousands every year).
Because humans are invisible, there is no place for the viewer to develop a sense of agency or responsibility. The world through which these animals journey has nothing to do with us. Furthermore, the film shows us "what is" without any moral judgement about whether it is right or wrong, healthy or distorted. The impact of global warming is described with the same moral neutrality as the planet's rotation around the Sun. The film give us no indication that any changes are needed from people. There are no "what you can do" suggestions at the end, and the film does not give any links to helpful websites. (The Disney website does have links to many educational and advocacy groups under the heading of "for educators: additional resources" – which is not a heading that will entice most lay people to go exploring.)
In that website section for educators, five scientific topics are highlighted: The Great Migrations, The Earth and the Sun, Adaptations and Habitat, Predators and Prey, and Lifecycles. These are all worthy and appropriate subjects, and the film does provide some excellent background for studying those themes. I can see how a classroom teacher could use the film to do some worthwhile scientific education. It is telling, though, that the teachers' resource discusses adaptation and habitat for Polar bears by saying that they "are perfectly adapted to the frozen Arctic world they inhabit" – without ever mentioning the impossibility of adaptation when that frozen world rapidly disappears.
The movie is being released on Earth Day, with the implication that watching it will do something to inspire us in the traditions of that day of action. Instead, I found that the film did nothing to inform or inspire any kind of action. Rather than giving us a basis for engagement and action, it propagated a worldview of nature as separate from humans, with no moral or ethical perspectives, and with significant realities concealed or denied. This "Earth Day" film is likely to lead us deeper into ecological crisis.
Millions of people will see the film, be impressed with great scenic beauty and the wonders of nature, and think that they have done their part on Earth Day. They will go home without any understanding of their ties to the world they have seen, and without any inkling that they can or should take action. That will be a waste and a tragedy.
Peter Sawtell