Before the Flood: Is it too late to save our planet from the horrors of Global Warming?
Activist documentary exposé Before the Flood(BTF) seeks to educate audiences on US politics surrounding global warming. Beginning with observational footage of a diminishing global landscape, the documentary then develops to capture the devastating impact that burning fossil fuels has upon international civilisations. This is exemplified through shots of flooded crop plantations in India, and China’s chemically-saturated atmospheres. Striving not only to educate but mobilise its audience into action; the film presents habits of preservation to be adopted. The campaign, in affiliation with National Geographic is available on platforms such as Netflix, YouTube and Amazon in 171 countries and 45 different languages. Providing an easily accessible campaign is essential for seamless engagement with wider audiences, as convenience increases the likelihood of an active response.
The inclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio within the campaign allows for the exploitation of his social media following to attract audiences. Whilst celebrity guides can problematise the credibility of activist film, DiCaprio’s status as United Nations Messenger of Peace affirms his suitability for the role. Discouraging the circulation of negativity towards DiCaprio, the film actively deconstructs prejudices which assume the actor’s lack of expertise, displaying archived footage of his activist work. DiCaprio also situates himself in the position of desired viewer, openly presenting his position as an indirect consumer of fossil fuels and suggesting his carbon footprint is ‘greater than most’. Consequently, DiCaprio’s acquisition of knowledge within the film depicts the desired intellectual journey of the viewer, as he acknowledges his role in devastation caused by fossil fuels and seeks guidance to adapt his behaviour.
In a continued effort to attract attention, Martin Scorsese is also employed as Executive Director. Like DiCaprio, Scorsese’s reputation within Hollywood provides a valuable outlet for attracting viewers. Recognised primarily for his fictional films, the inclusion of Scorsese presented a risk: whilst his recognisably successful style would likely heighten the films allure, the potential for audiences to passively react as they would to fictional film could impede upon the mobilisation it strives to provoke. As an activist film BTFseeks to engage viewers, replacing passive catharsis with the desire to act against global warming. Whilst the dramatic musical score and sweeping shots of vivid landscapes create aesthetically pleasing cinematography, such techniques hold potential to dominate attention and distract from the primary message. Resultantly, a websitehas been devised to regulate the film’s reception and provide further information. Clicking the ‘take action’tab the recipient is directed to a series of links representing courses of action to be taken against the crises. One example: ‘tax yourself’ provides a link to a carbon tax registration, where individuals volunteer to pay more for personal carbon consumption. In this case the convenient provision of specific links allows individuals to instantly impact their community, simplifying the process of action and increasing the likelihood of its occurrence.
Innovatively, the ‘take action’ section of the website also provides a platform for other environmental activist groups to advertise their events whilst reaching like-minded individuals to support their campaigns. This initiative ensures recurring traffic on the website, as well as promotion of BTFfrom smaller groups on their own media platforms. Likewise, lesser known campaigns benefit from BTF’sextensive marketing operation and use of celebrity, reaching wider audiences than would be achievable on a lesser budget.
Whilst filmmakers cannot entirely govern the reception of their projects, BTF seeks to regulate audience responses through ‘discussion guides’located on the website. Within the guide, a comprehensive set of questions is provided to lead ‘powerful conversation[s]’ following the screening, encouraging viewers to voice their reactions to the film. Through such discussions a community sphere is established in which individuals assist each other in the implementation of habits to preserve the environment. To facilitate these modifications the guide also provides information regarding the main causes explored and a list of actions titled ‘a few things that viewers can do:’. Notably, a number of items on the list involve the publicization of BTFon social media; another means of advertisement which simultaneously provokes conversations about global warming.
Alongside the screening booklet, the website provides a ‘press kit’designed to accommodate media reportage. Within the guide is a series of production team biographies, a synopsis, list of press contacts, and detailed evaluations of the production process. Providing detailed information minimises research work necessary for journalists, making it seamless and convenient to report on the film and increase its visibility. Interestingly, the rhetoric employed within the ‘press kit’ differs substantially from that of the screening guide. Subtitles such as ‘a planet-sized problem’ embody the colloquial style of tabloid journalism to simplify the writing process of articles. Absent within the press kit is a lack of instruction, unlike the screening guide which advises future behaviours. I personally regard this as limiting, as failure to utilise the press’ platform to educate a mass readership on specific environmental issues and prevention methods hinders propagation of the campaign’s message. Resultantly, its effectiveness is problematised as viewing figures appear prioritised over combatting global warming.
In relation to criticism, BTFemploys ‘mobilisation of shame’[1](coined by Thomas Keenan) to expose those who inhibit action against global warming. This includes members of the US Senate and oil Typhoons, whose personal profits from fuels are thought to encourage their blatant denial of global warming’s existence. Presenting concrete visual evidence of environmental deterioration on a universal scale, accompanied by explanations from scientists, the film destabilises this oppositional line of argument. Presenting footage of societies struggling with poverty and health issues as a result of global warming, the film strives to mobilise the shaming of corporatefigureheads, presenting their greed as a direct contributor to these issues. Whilst mobilising shame is frequently employed within activist film it is not guaranteed to work. Whilst BTF intends to mobilise its opposition into accepting personal responsibility and investing in sustainability, it is plausible that the film may instead evoke a cathartic reaction, resulting in a lack of action. Additionally, the campaign is unable to ensure that such specific audiences will view the film, or view their actions as morally wrong, thus rendering the technique ineffective. Resultantly, the film prioritises the mobilisation of the US public. Revealing its corruption, BTF seeks to evoke anger against the State, encouraging protests through voting in favour of carbon taxes. As stated in the film: ‘the government follows the people’ – in light of this, the true audience is the general public, as they hold the power to instigate change through mass protest and collective behavioural changes.
Bibliography:
[1]Keenan, Thomas. (2004) ‘Mobilising Shame’ The South Atlantic Quarterly, no.2/3, vol.103 pp,435-449