Do films on Climate Change actually make a difference?
There are a quite a lot of films from documentaries to science fiction films that involves the events of and the consequences of climate change.
This article considers the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" which is a dramatization of what may happen if the gulfstream stopped causing a series of severe weather events in North America and Europe. Does this movie change peoples perceptions of climate change?
The paper considers the likelihood of such events (perhaps believability?), the concern, the motivation to change, and the responsibility for the problem.
Introduction
Since climate change has become a relevant topic for the public there has been a lot of controversy and confusion with mixed scientific reports, and especially divided politicians. Early during the realization of climate change it was assumed that people just needed the information to correctly understand the problem we are creating (my add in - Al Gore assumed this and spent many years do conferences and eventually making "An Inconvenient Truth"), but it soon became apparent that even when people had all the correct information that they still fail to understand the possible consequences.
Media is how many people get informed but most media tends to amplify what the public already think about climate change; skeptical and giving equal weighting to both for against climate change when in reality the evidence for is much much greater than against. So this leads on to The Day After Tomorrow, the question is does the film approach the subject of climate change in such an aggressive way that it would just make people ignore it or make them more skeptical, or does it approach it in a way that puts people into action.
What do people think?
Although it was found that many people thought the climate change is a real problem facing humanity and should be given attention, other issues people faced were more important such as income, or safety. And even though politicians may want to implement legislature to reduce climate change most of the time this will effect peoples lifestyles so people will not tolerate it. People who won't tolerate change to there lives but will accept climate change is a problem is called a passive by-stander and tend to complain rather than adjusting their own behavior. So there is overall a lack of perspective.
Science has the potential to be given perspective in films, some people are skeptical of the legitimacy of scenarios regarding in climate in films, but others such as Al Gore believe they have the potential to communicate consequences more clearly. But it was agreed that films have the ability to capture the public on a certain issues whether "The Day After Tomorrow" did or not. Visual communication is extremely important, if you think of advertising and propaganda, these types of visual communication can be incredibly persuasive if done correctly.
Alternatively some view science in films to be wrong and misinforming as the public will often believe inaccuracies within films that weakens critical and true scientific thinking (Weingart and Pansengrau 2003)
It is believed that the scientific events in The Day After Tomorrow are clearly exaggerated to instill excitement or astonishment into the audience, this makes for a more captivating experience but could it corrode the audiences scientific knowledge to create a "quasi science" understanding?
There is a link between exaggerated events and disbelief, some people may respond well to these over dramatized events but for many it will just make them switch off as it seems too much like a "fairytale".
Although science may have been the the basis for the events in the film people are a far less likely to trust a Hollywood film than a reputable documentary on the same topic. People expect a level of inaccuracy within Hollywood films which could be used to lose trust in the events in the film.
Summary
The Day After Tomorrow does raise awareness to the effects of climate change for many viewers but not all viewers. Many viewers were concerned over the amount of fiction in a film that was supposed to portray something the could happen in the near future. Overall the film indirectly has a positive or sensitizing effect for many viewers, although it is not going to completely drive the message home it does start thinking and ideas for people.
Suggestions
Localizing an event in a film will help people really understand how something will effect them. See something so typically Hollywood (New York, please) starts to show the typical blockbuster skin.
There are many different views existing in each society on climate change. Some people are already aware and some are in denial, and the study here shows that it is very difficult to hit all of those at once, picking a certain audience will help to focus the film in.
This article considers the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" which is a dramatization of what may happen if the gulfstream stopped causing a series of severe weather events in North America and Europe. Does this movie change peoples perceptions of climate change?
The paper considers the likelihood of such events (perhaps believability?), the concern, the motivation to change, and the responsibility for the problem.
Introduction
Since climate change has become a relevant topic for the public there has been a lot of controversy and confusion with mixed scientific reports, and especially divided politicians. Early during the realization of climate change it was assumed that people just needed the information to correctly understand the problem we are creating (my add in - Al Gore assumed this and spent many years do conferences and eventually making "An Inconvenient Truth"), but it soon became apparent that even when people had all the correct information that they still fail to understand the possible consequences.
Media is how many people get informed but most media tends to amplify what the public already think about climate change; skeptical and giving equal weighting to both for against climate change when in reality the evidence for is much much greater than against. So this leads on to The Day After Tomorrow, the question is does the film approach the subject of climate change in such an aggressive way that it would just make people ignore it or make them more skeptical, or does it approach it in a way that puts people into action.
What do people think?
Although it was found that many people thought the climate change is a real problem facing humanity and should be given attention, other issues people faced were more important such as income, or safety. And even though politicians may want to implement legislature to reduce climate change most of the time this will effect peoples lifestyles so people will not tolerate it. People who won't tolerate change to there lives but will accept climate change is a problem is called a passive by-stander and tend to complain rather than adjusting their own behavior. So there is overall a lack of perspective.
Science has the potential to be given perspective in films, some people are skeptical of the legitimacy of scenarios regarding in climate in films, but others such as Al Gore believe they have the potential to communicate consequences more clearly. But it was agreed that films have the ability to capture the public on a certain issues whether "The Day After Tomorrow" did or not. Visual communication is extremely important, if you think of advertising and propaganda, these types of visual communication can be incredibly persuasive if done correctly.
Alternatively some view science in films to be wrong and misinforming as the public will often believe inaccuracies within films that weakens critical and true scientific thinking (Weingart and Pansengrau 2003)
It is believed that the scientific events in The Day After Tomorrow are clearly exaggerated to instill excitement or astonishment into the audience, this makes for a more captivating experience but could it corrode the audiences scientific knowledge to create a "quasi science" understanding?
There is a link between exaggerated events and disbelief, some people may respond well to these over dramatized events but for many it will just make them switch off as it seems too much like a "fairytale".
Although science may have been the the basis for the events in the film people are a far less likely to trust a Hollywood film than a reputable documentary on the same topic. People expect a level of inaccuracy within Hollywood films which could be used to lose trust in the events in the film.
Summary
The Day After Tomorrow does raise awareness to the effects of climate change for many viewers but not all viewers. Many viewers were concerned over the amount of fiction in a film that was supposed to portray something the could happen in the near future. Overall the film indirectly has a positive or sensitizing effect for many viewers, although it is not going to completely drive the message home it does start thinking and ideas for people.
Suggestions
Localizing an event in a film will help people really understand how something will effect them. See something so typically Hollywood (New York, please) starts to show the typical blockbuster skin.
There are many different views existing in each society on climate change. Some people are already aware and some are in denial, and the study here shows that it is very difficult to hit all of those at once, picking a certain audience will help to focus the film in.
Comments
Post a Comment