As Covid 19 sweeps the globe and halts the world's economy, now is probably not the best time to watch films where the villain is an environmentalist. As devastating as this virus is, I am still of the mindset that it was needed. We have always seen the biggest threat to the human race being other humans but nature has stepped in to prove that we are not as invincible as we thought, and the rampant interconnectedness between countries has only shown our vulnerable we are. The excessive consumption of resources and heavy pollution is depleting our planet and radicalising our climate. And so comes along the coronavirus; a respiratory pandemic that has halted Earth. The lack of flights and travel has lowered carbon dioxide emissions drastically whilst animals are returning to habitats that previously were off-limits due to the heavy sound and land / water pollution (dolphins in Italy etc.) There is no denying that, in the grand scheme of things, the virus has lessened the human impact of climate change for the better. And yet this mindset, combined with the belief that there are simply too many people inhabiting this planet and are consuming too much, leads to the labeling of one as a super villain. But why? And why is Hollywood, home of the super villain, so bad at misrepresenting extreme environmentalists?
The need to preserve a natural order has been illustrated in numerous films from Princess Mononoke to Avatar. But they are also relatively people-centric. In the last five or so years the aim to restore a natural order to things are predominantly found in antagonists.
In 2015's Kingsman: The Secret Service, spies Taron Egerton and Colin Firth are tasked with stopping Samuel L Jackson's Richmond Valentine, who uses SIM cards to kill millions of people with the dream of ridding the planet of as much of the human race as possible. "Mankind ith a viruth. And I'm the cure," he states. Climate change is addressed in the film, with Firth's Harry saying that it is past remedy. But surely Valentine gets points for trying, even if it is grossly immoral? In spy movie fashion, our heroes win and the human race is saved. Except the planet is not.
In 2018 we had perhaps the most popular example of it yet in the almighty Thanos, the antagonist (or protoganist if you look at the film's structure) of Avengers Infinity War. Thanos' backstory is this: his homeworld Titan was once plentiful, but his people overconsumed and it led to famine and chaos. Thanos proposed killing half the inhabitants so that there were more resources and space to go around, thereby preserving the planet and his people. He was ignored, and his people died. Not wanting this to be the future of the universe, the Mad Titan seeks the Infinity Stones so he can eliminate half of all life forms on every planet ever. The genius of Infinity War is that he succeeds. In the final few minutes we see 50% of people dissolving into nothing painlessly before Thanos sits alone at peace. Not only is he correct in the problems of consuming too much and growing too quickly, but his execution is pretty spot on too: it is random and fair. But the problem comes with Avengers Endgame in 2019 which inevitably retcons all the death, bringing everyone back. The problem? They are brought back to a universe five years on. If you imagine a husband dissolving and leaving his wife alone, and then in that five year gap the wife finds a new man and has children with him, when the original husband and maybe a child or two are brought back, you suddenly have more people than when you started. So the irony in this film is that whilst the heroes succeeded, they actually contributed to the resources and population problem that started Thanos' journey.
And finally, 2018's ridiculous Aquaman also alerts its audiences to the mass pollution of the oceans by humans; namely the fuel and plastic that are mercilessly dumped into the waters. The villain wants to rise up from the sea and take out humanity because of this whilst our half human, half Atlantean titular hero comes along as a representation of the bridge that can be made between the two sides. Aquaman becomes King of Atlantis at the end and we are supposed to be happy. Is there an environmental message to the film beyond pointing things out? No. And it isn't hard either.
Take Black Panther for instance. The antagonist, Kilmonger, is outraged that black people are repressed around the world whilst Wakanda's technological and financial power remains hidden from the world; assets that could change African American fortunes. But Kilmonger wants to use that power to conquer, meaning he has to be stopped. However, T'Challa the Black Panther takes this on board at the film's conclusion: he does open up to the world and offers his resources because he has learnt a lesson from his antagonist and by ignoring that plight, it opens the doorway for more Kilmongers to come. All it took was a little scene.
Now I wouldn't overwhelmingly change any of those films' plot points, but they all required just one scene at the end to show that the heroes did listen and are aware of some of these environmental concerns. Blockbusters, especially superhero films, have huge family audiences that are ripe to be educated and informed. Our heroes need to be as associated with environmentalism as the bad guys, and then some. Maybe it is because those in Hollywood don't see their own wealth and consumption as bad and are therefore ignorant to such plights or maybe it is because the writers are too scared to propose softer solutions to the aforementioned issues, but either way if you are going to raise topics and problems that affect the modern world, you need to have an answer for them. And extreme environmentalism should not be always linked to megalomaniacs.
No comments:
Post a Comment