Hi everybody, hope you are doing well in recess week.
Last week I touched upon the psychology of social media with regards to the environment. Similarly, we do not usually consider film’s psychological effects if we treat it as just entertainment. Hence, today’s post will be a prelude to next week’s exploration of environmental psychology and film.
A few weeks ago, everybody was hyped for the release of the live action movie of Mulan(2020) and how its supposed to be the epitome of female empowerment. After witnessing this hype, I came to the realisation that environmental films rarely ever get close to this kind of attention when they get announced.
The original Mulan animation in 1998 presented itself as female empowerment, gender equality and challenging traditional biased norms which helped it gain so much admiration as a film. As far as I know, the only film with an explicit environmental message rivalling the popularity of Mulan(1998) would be James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) but that film’s hype was mainly due to its breakthrough of 3D technology and not its message.
How successful are environmental films in general? I am by no means a film connoisseur, so I surveyed my peers (both BES and non-BES) to better understand how films are perceived.
Films advocating for human rights seem to be more well known. Out of 23 respondents, 65.2% could name a popular film promoting human rights while only 39.1% could name one promoting environmentalism.
For further comparison to see how well environmental films do against those promoting human rights, I looked up the box office sales of three films on Box Office Mojo: The Cove(environmental), Hidden Figures(human rights) and Just Mercy(human rights). I chose these three as comparison as they are biographies and did not feature superstar-status actors that attract an audience just by their presence (You know, like Chris Hemsworth and such)
When we look at the graphs, the worldwide box office earnings from The Cove is dwarfed by the other two films. Many factors account for how successful a film relays its message to the audience, but box office earnings do help illustrate the reach that film had.
So why is it that environmental films do not do as well? Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that human rights issues feel closer to the heart. People feel more passionate about their rights as they face the stereotypical and unfair treatment on a daily basis, since many centuries ago. Comparatively, most of the world has yet to truly feel the impacts of our crumbling environment.
What influence can film have? Even back in the 1900s, there were educational films made with the intention of influencing an individual’s attitude towards a certain issue. (Fearing, F. 1947) Today, the power of films influencing communities to act can be widely observed throughout the world, and Index on Censorship names a few.
With 90.3% of respondents agreeing that films have some form of power to influence an individual’s psychology, we should really consider how films can better promote environmentalism.
Stick around next week as I explore how we may use psychology in film to change people’s perceptions of the environment through the “overview effect”.
Heya Jia Wei!
It sure was interesting to learn about how environmental films perform compared to other types of films. Like you, I also think that films have the potential to change the mindsets of their viewers, perhaps the most important element being the story told through the movie. For myself, the most memorable environmental films include Free Willy and Avatar, the latter of which I still remember the line “They killed their Mother.” by the main character, as a mention to how mankind has decimated their home planet (Earth).
Yet, I think films can face some challenges in delivering a message. I’m no professional myself, so these are just my random thoughts, but I feel that sometimes the animations, the character interactions, the cast etc may distract viewers from the main message, yet are important to the story. Even for myself, the message was not the most memorable aspect of Avatar, but rather the unique flora and fauna showed in the film, and the final showdown. Though the final showdown was supposed to be a call for humanity to protect the environment (that’s how I perceive it), the thing that stood out the most was probably the fight scenes.
Perhaps it all boils down to the individual: what do they look out for when they watch a movie? Is it the plot and the message behind it? Or are they just there for entertainment? Also, I noticed that what was discussed was largely movies. What are your thoughts on other kinds of films (e.g. TV series, documentaries)? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
Hey Jeng Wei,
Definitely agree that movies can struggle to push their message because there are other things that distract the viewer. Besides the “plot” and “message”, films tend to use other gimmicks to capture an audience’s interest and this often dilutes the effect of whatever purpose the film was meant to serve.
And like you said, even when we just analyse the Avatar with today’s standard (where 3D effects are less novel) the action and fight scenes overshadow the environmental message. The main discussion point I wanted to illustrate was how a movies trying to push for environmentalism require other factors to gain similar levels of attention to movies advertised as ‘women empowerment’, ‘black justice’ etc. And then ironically, these films end up being remembered for something else besides the environmental message it wanted to push for.
We, as the audience, are more passionate about social injustice rather than environmental injustice and hence hearing that there is a new movie that challenges social norms is enough to draw our attention. TV series and documentaries about our environment would struggle more to keep audience “entertained” since there is a lack of special effects and action to awe them. I do find it puzzling, however, that The Cove even won an Oscar award but its success as a film still pales in comparison to Just Mercy and Hidden Figures. Perhaps this just illustrates that even though this environmental documentary was recognised by critics as a great film, in the eyes of the public (who are not already environmentalists) it is not that appealing.
In any case, environmental films need to find better ways to appeal to the audience so that their message can be heard by more people, and next week I shall discuss some ways that they can do so.
Hi Jia Wei! I have been following your blog for quite a while and I really enjoy the content you have been posting. Movies are something that I feel have great influence. Especially in this day and age when platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO are so popular, films, TV series and documentaries are also have more influence on our lifestyles and perspectives. I personally got influenced to go vegan after watching documentaries like Cowspiracy. OkJa is also an internationally acclaimed piece that tugs at many heartstrings do check it out!
Hi Yan Na,
I think its great that you were influenced by documentaries to go vegan! It really does showcase the possibilities with film when it comes to changing someone’s lifestyle. I personally believe films have a very strong psychological impact in our lives, especially when young as it can reshape the impressionable mind and form our core values.
With platforms such as Netflix, it is no longer necessary to travel to a cinema to watch a film and hence we are constantly indulging in film one way or another. With films being so accessible today, it is really a wasted opportunity if we do not have more films advocating for the environment! Hopefully, environmentalism will gain more attention in the near future, and filmmakers will be more inspired to create a story revolving around it.
I’ve heard about Okja! Unfortunately my Netflix subscription already ran out some time ago so I haven’t watched it, but I’ll definitely have it on my to-watch-list. Thanks for the recommendation!
Hi Jia Wei, Wen Han here! Your blog enlightened me as to how films have a psychological effect on their audiences and tend to change or perhaps influence our way of thinking. What are your opinions on integrating both environmentalism and human rights advocation into films? Do you think this will have an equal effect of increased awareness of both issues or will the human rights be prioritized over environmentalism?
Hi Wen Han,
Personally, I haven’t come across a film that pushed for both environmentalism and human rights concurrently. Though definitely possible, having two strong messages in the plot of the film could cause incoherency and also difficulty in writing the narrative to make sure both messages are clearly put forward.
If there was a film that did do that, I would think that the humans rights message would downplay the environmental message. Why do I say so? I believe that at this moment, we as a species value our individualism and rights more than our earth. This is illustrated by how social movements typically gain more attention and spread wider than environmental ones (for example, consider the current #BlackLivesMatter movement).
There is, however, debate on how our environment should be considered as part of our human rights too. Perhaps in the future, there will no longer be this distinction between protecting our environment and protecting our human rights. Hopefully this will also mean that environmentalism in films get similar levels of attention as films highlighting racism, gender inequality, etc.
Hi Jia Wei,
What an interesting post ! Love the approach you took here.
I have a question about the survey. Your 1st two pie charts are yes / no – how did you ask the Q ? Exactly as stated (as in, respondents could answer yes or no) or was it open-ended and then you scored their responses ?
Next, I invite you to reflect on the effect of your other question, i.e., “do you believe…” ? In particular, can you identify any aspect of the question that could be influential on the responses you got ? If you were going to do this over, would you change anything ?
Finally, I will be curious to know how your mindset and that of Weng Han might change following our week 9 class. Because at the moment, you both tend to dichotomise human and environmental rights.
Thanks for delivering a unique and thoughtful approach to blogging each week that’s managing to engage many different peers.
jc
Hi Dr. Coleman,
For the two pie charts, the survey questions only had “Yes” or “No” options.
Since I wanted to compare the level of attention given to racism, gender equality etc. as compared to environmental concerns in relation to films, I realise I had subconsciously made the distinction between human rights and environmental rights. I am guessing you are hinting that in week 9 we will be discussing how the environment can be considered a part of our human rights as well? In hindsight, the question frame may be flawed if respondents categorise environmental concerns as human rights. Nevertheless, I think it is interesting to note how some view human and environmental rights separately (consciously and subconsciously) while others treat it as the same category and might explore more of that in the future.
Perhaps my choice of words “do you believe” could have influenced the responses? I suppose there is a possibility that the phrasing could lead respondents to give a “hopeful answer” rather than an accurate depiction of reality. Perhaps a truer-to-life representation can be obtained if the question was phrased as such: “Have you experienced a change in lifestyle or mindset due to a movie? (could also be someone you know)”?
Thank you for the feedback!
Your reply is quite thoughtful and really helps me see how you were thinking.
I’m not going to give away next week’s class – we’ll have to see how you do (or don’t) relate the topics to your blog.
OK… so about your “do you believe”… Not that what you replied is invalid, but here’s what I was thinking. If I say to you “do you believe that movies have the power to…” one potential impact on the recipient of the question is that implicitly, I am saying that I believe that to be the case, meaning, I am, potentially legitimising that stance. And the person’s response can be influenced by a phenomenon called positionality. Basically, this refers to our inherent biases, as social-science researchers – if we aren’t aware of them and don’t mitigate them adequately, we can inadvertently influence our respondents in ways that mess up our research. For instance, if respondents perceive researchers to be in a “desirable” position or at a higher status, they may deliver the response they think we want to hear.
There are alternate ways to ask such questions. Like, you could say “In your opinion, what, if any, effect do movies have on people’s mindsets and lifestyles ?”
To me, open-ended questions are often preferable, even though they’re more complex to analyse, though there are ways to make that easier too.
Hope this makes sense to you.
Hi Dr. Coleman,
Very interesting to learn about this positionality phenomenon! I was aware that the way we asked a question could influence the response and I thought the way I phrased was already quite objective and unbiased. However, I stand corrected!
Thank you very much for introducing this new concept and providing the clear explanation to help me understand it, I will be more aware of this in the future with my surveys and try to use the open-ended alternatives.