Abstract

Climate change continues to be the source of inspiration for filmmakers. Ecocinema is a film art form that manifests in fiction and non-fiction to educate and disseminate environmentally conscious messages through film. The primary persuasive strategy adopted by ecocinema documentaries is the fear appeal; however, fear appeals require thoughtful attention to their conditional elements and challenge documentarians. This essay distinguishes between holistic and individualistic ethics, as well as the problems of anthropocentrism. In addition, understanding the tactics used by each ethic provides a framework for analyzing ecocinema. Using three ecological documentaries: 11th Hour (2007), The Age of Stupid (2009), and The Cove (2009), this essay describes the faults in fear appeals and an alternative strategy eco-documentaries can adopt to empower audiences to take proactive action to protect the climate. This essay argues that ecocinema, as an art form, needs to be understood firstly in context with its origins, ethos, and the execution of their messages using fear appeals to contextualize the evolution of the documentary form leading to the creation of an ecocinema documentary trend that reflects the growing environmental urgency. Ultimately, this essay seeks to establish a theoretical framework for deconstructing ecocinema.

Introduction

Climate change has reached an almost irreversible state, a consequence brought on by a myriad of issues: overconsumption, over-population, unsustainable lifestyles, deforestation, unprecedented land development, air and water pollution, market failure, irresponsible irrigation, toxic pollutants, global warming, the global economy, species extinction, and more (Donohoe, 2003). An external viewpoint would consider these issues beyond the scope of any solution; the tactile strategies, both pragmatic and theoretic, are beyond the scope of human ingenuity; however, environmentalists unanimously agree that the current problem could be resolved by recognizing the futility of the anthropocentric worldview. Anthropocentrism is a view that regards humanity as being the centre of all existence. Immanuel Kant, a highly regarded and prominent philosopher, stated, “Man … is the ultimate purpose of creation here on Earth” (Kant, 1914), a viewpoint that has permeated human consciousness in the form of man and his relationship with nature. Early rationalists like Pythagoras and Plato insisted that humanity and nature must be separated, stating that nature was not the source of empirical knowledge and that only abstract, inductive reasoning can establish reality (Cottingham, 1984). Descartes’s statement, “I think, therefore I am,” is a manifestation of the individual consciousness existing separately from outside influence and the fact that the outside environment was not necessary to confirm or validate man’s existence. Descartes suggested that a dichotomy between mind and matter exists, believing that the mind remains the central focus while externalities (i.e. nature) bore no viable intrinsic value (Gillespie, 2000). Rationalists like Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, and Descartes would lay the foundation for an atomistic view of the world, arguing that reality was composed of intrinsic logic. Nature was to be understood in mechanical terms, broken down to reveal its internal mechanisms in isolation. Throughout the Enlightenment and Reformation, eminent philosophers and scientists developed synchronous concepts and ideas that would become the basis for scientific research, objectivity and understanding of the natural world. Under the microscope, the natural world and its secrets would be revealed, analyzing its constituents in isolation for extraction, replication, and exploitation. Since nature had no intrinsic value and its existence was merely to serve the needs of humanity, man separated from nature. He began to see itself as a superior entity, leading to the development of anthropocentrism. When an individual examines the climate change crisis with an anthropocentric worldview, the problems mentioned earlier appear beyond the scope of the resolution, that humanity cannot avoid total environmental destruction—isolation problems will occur in isolation, never as a whole. In isolation, problems appear grand and impossible, but as a whole, examined concerning other problems, linkages are shown, and a plan can be devised. This perspective is an ecological paradigm called ecocentrism.

Rapid growth and heavy industrialization have transformed the planet at an unprecedented and alarming speed. At the same time, some environmental problems have isolated conditions and can be remedied immediately (i.e. garbage in a lake of a local municipality); other environmental problems, on a global scale caused by the activities of billions of people, are not so easily remedied—the greater the scale of the problem, the greater the chance of conflicting interests preventing action.

While this essay does not describe the basic tenets of the environmental movement and its details, a brief overview is necessary to situate documentaries and articulate their most fundamental purpose—to inspire, educate and kindle individual activism. Persistent environmental degradation has negatively impacted human health and well-being through direct and indirect means, as well as immediate and long-term consequences. Immediate and direct effects are visible and localized, meaning that a solution for only that single source of the problem may be resolved without the backdrop of other, more enormous problems. Individual health and well-being may be shown indirectly and immediately; for example, environmental degradation may affect crop yields, resulting in food scarcity and causing locals to relocate (a phenomenon recently described as environmental refugees). Famine, a by-product of natural and human-affected natural disasters (indirect), may result in local disputes, fighting, and even death (immediate). Environmental degradation may also manifest in direct but long-term (delayed) ways in which environmental consequences reveal themselves slowly throughout time; for example, inside and outside influences such as carcinogenic chemical substances and exposure to pesticides released into the air, contaminating water supplies and exposure to ionizing radiation (National Cancer Institute, 2003). Admittedly, outside influences are under great scrutiny because causes of cancer and environmental degradation may not be directly connected to causes of cancer; nevertheless, it is widely understood that environmental influences play a role in its onset. Environmentalists conclude that there is a direct correlation between the degradation of the environment and rising cancer rates—environmentalists argue that toxicity levels in air and water have direct ramifications for public health. A study by the National Cancer Institute (2003) revealed a linkage between increasing exposure to chemicals and their capacity to trigger cancer growth; naturally, such certainty provides no closure for sceptics, and cancer continues to manifest in delayed long-term ways. Lastly, environmental threats to human health can occur in indirect but long-term ways; for example, the indirect activities performed daily by millions of individuals indirectly cause ozone depletion and global warming, leading to droughts, food scarcity, and even rising temperatures. Environmentalists assert that understanding these four manifestations above is central to protecting the environment before the impending environmental apocalypse. This understanding is critical for ecological films because directors may argue any combination of these four direct vs. indirect scenarios.

Ecocinema is a film art form that manifests in fiction and non-fiction to educate and disseminate environmentally conscious messages through film, one of the most easily accessible media forms today. Unlike ecocriticism, an analysis of ecological messages embedded in literary texts, ecocinema has largely been ignored in academic research and presents a challenge for this undertaking. With certainty, there have been few publications that have investigated ecocinema. However, none have analyzed the evolution of the documentary form leading to the birth of a powerful, highly effective ecocinema experience that this essay argues is a direct manifestation of the urgency and desperation of documentarians to address climate change. The intent of describing those previous four direct vs. indirect arguments was to trace the foundations and urgency these documentarians wish to present.

Ecocinema documentaries attempt to cross a bridge intersecting traditional and often overtly counter-traditional methods to convey their message. This essay will examine the traditional documentary form, its purpose, and the messages typically contained. A motive drives all documentarians; some may be educational, political, or even spiritual and, as such, must be decoded and analyzed as argumentative texts. This essay does not seek to provide the most comprehensive information about the history and development of documentary tradition, except the vital aspects concerning documentary filmmaking, its ethos and its predominant argumentation concerning ecological cinema (“ecocinema”). This essay begins by charting these documentary traditions using three environmental documentaries: The 11th Hour (2007), The Age of Stupid (2009), and The Cove (2009). By comparing these films and how they apply documentary concepts, we will see the ever-evolving documentary genre in favour of more dramatic, thought-provoking representations.

Climate change has encountered a storm of controversy and evident dismissal by sceptics arguing against the core of environmental ethos. Environmental ethics is complex and intricate and cannot be the subject of thorough investigation here; however, a brief overview of its basic tenants will provide valuable insight into the challenges environmental documentarians face as they negotiate between documentary standards and a unifying environmental ethic. This essay will also explore fear appeals using Witte’s (1992) seminal analysis of fear, its messages and its constituents because environmental discourse is rife with fear and if its instrumentation is justifiable. Fear is a powerful emotion and has been the subject of several disciplines, particularly in the public health sector; however, the results of fear appeals have shown less than positive outcomes. Environmentalists express their driving purpose and motivation and the problems they have encountered—simply put, resistance merely compounds their initiative further. This essay argues that ecocinema, as an art form, needs to be understood firstly in context with its origins, ethos, and the execution of their messages using fear appeals to contextualize the evolution of the documentary form leading to the creation of an ecocinema documentary trend that reflects the growing environmental urgency.

Documentary Origins

The documentary is a highly reflective genre used to expose truths and describe the intricate world in a comprehensive, linear fashion for the audience. A documentary is a discursive text that engagingly provides first-hand experience despite the pressures confining its creation. Documentaries have always been a source of comfort for those seeking the truth for two reasons: the raw textures and sequences in documentaries give the illusion that they convey an unaltered world, and documentaries do not deploy fictionalized elements. Based on this dilemma and relative to debates about the “real,” core beliefs of documentaries are based on a “fraud,” a pretence and claim of the real as the ultimate truth despite the dilemmas and moral issues they represent.

In 1921, filmmakers began to record people in their daily routines and edited this footage coherently to produce a story or make an argument. A pioneer in the development of documentary theory, John Grierson (1930-1972) distinguished documentaries from existing separately from other factual cinematic forms like scientific/nature films, travelogues, and journalistic newsreels (see Citizen Kane [1941]). Grierson theorized that documentaries used a “creative treatment of actuality” (Morris, 1987), meaning that documentaries transcend mere arrangements and descriptions of actuality but express aesthetic treatment of their subjects—documentaries do not just mechanically and passively observe reality. With newer technologies, documentaries apply more inventive and aesthetically pleasing ways of dramatizing their argument, often resembling fictional elements in style and technique. Without an inventive storyline and actors, documentaries rely on technological resources to provide a convincing narrative and the ingenuity of editing and crosscutting to create elaborate juxtapositions and hyperboles.

Equipped with the newly invented 19mm portable, lightweight camera, filmmakers began to document their surroundings without predefined goals or preparation while adopting a journalistic principle of non-intervention and observation—this became known as the Direct Cinema (aka. “fly on the wall”) tradition (Chapman, 2009). In the 1970s, Direct Cinema was further compounded by the onset of newer technologies allowing more convenient recording, like camcorders and miniaturized equipment, enabling greater mobility and flexibility. As the documentary genre approached mass appeal in the late 1990s, television broadcast networks were putting increasing pressure on documentaries by applying stricter rating systems and a scheduling system to reinforce desirable subjects for this genre (Chapman, 2009). In the meantime, filmmakers began to see that an entirely impartial technique would not be sufficient and that additional production techniques would permit greater self-reflexivity in the genre—this movement became known as Cinema Verité. Proponents of Cinema Verité argued that the principles of Direct Cinema only made sense in parts of a documentary where it was necessary; additionally, the “fly on the wall” expression can easily be replicated and reproduced (i.e. with available light, shaky camera). With the ongoing boom of television documentaries, the genre began reinforcing journalistic practices using eyewitness footage captured by handheld cameras, interview styles—reconstructions and elaborate footage with superficial still photography were shunned (Chapman, 2009). Television had conquered documentary practice and confused filmmakers about which movement they should follow: Direct Cinema vs. Cinema Verité. With television defining what “documentary” should be, filmmakers sought to deviate from the Griersonian tradition towards a more reflective contemporary style. Increasing confusion and uncertainty in the definition of the documentary itself, its loose concept has inspired many to experiment with the treatment of so-called “reality”—its demand never wavered.

In many countries, public service broadcasting educates citizens on many subjects, and the chosen instrument became a documentary. Since their inception, documentaries have been an integral part of public service broadcasting, appearing in lecture halls, factories, community centres and other alternative venues (Chapman, 2009)—Documentation had a mission to encourage social cohesion and familiarity with the values of a social democratic society. In the view of public service broadcasts (PBS, CBC), documentaries were bounded by journalistic ethics and education as part of a hybridized institutional service called “reportage” (Chapman, 2009). Documentaries have since occupied valuable space in public discourse.

Documentaries have since manifested in many forms, often becoming indistinguishable whether or not these films are “documentaries.” For example, television and its constant demands for more attractive documentary formats have reshaped the genre into various subformats: docu-drama, surveillance and undercover shows (COPS), chat shows (Jerry Springer), fact-based drama (Madmen, Band of Brothers), Mockumentary (documentary satirization, e.g. The Office), Reality TV (Big Brother, The Bachelor). These formats have made it increasingly difficult for a documentary to allege their truths and to distinguish themselves from these formats (Chapman, 2009). Documentaries may deploy any number of these formats at any time, where convenient, to create a convincing argument. In the view of documentary theory, non-fiction and fiction are two rigid definitions that cannot be so readily applied. Defining a documentary is challenging; the most appealing solution is to define it against what it is not. Ellis (2002) described documentary concerning fiction: “The gamble is that documentary will appear more real because it is less fictional” (Chapman, 2009, p. 15). Both non-fiction and fiction films use creative elements, like music arrangements, expositional editing and crosscutting, close-ups for dramatic effect, and character development. The minor difference between documentary and fiction is the indicators of motivation: in fiction, one is exposed to a character’s various internal/external motivations, while in non-fiction, the viewer experiences only available information.

Environmental documentaries follow this tradition and development of documentary theory rather closely and, in some ways, call upon more inventive techniques to attract and engage the audience with environmental concerns. An aspect of the environmental documentary that separates itself from others is its application of fear. With the knowledge of documentary theory in hand, observing how these three documentaries apply fear is an excellent method of partially determining the effectiveness of environmentally conscious documentaries.

A purpose drives all documentaries and wishes to reveal something the viewer did not know or did not take enough time to acknowledge. Some environmental documentaries want to expose the intrinsic beauty of nature, applying elaborate slow-motion photography, scenic landscape establishing shots and theatrical action sequences to reveal nature’s profound intricacies. Other documentaries are driven by urgency and pressure to make the audience understand and act accordingly. The primary appeal these documentaries use is fear, which will be the focus of this section.

Fear has been the subject of over 50 years of research along the continuum of logical to emotional appeals because of its capacity to trigger relatively immediate and long-term attitudinal behavioural change. Furthermore, the application of fear is highly adaptable to many scenarios requiring appropriate behavioural change (i.e. HIV/AIDS campaigns to political fear-inducing campaigns of imminent threats); whether they work or not has been the fundamental concern of this research. With the approaching environmental apocalypse, according to many heavily active environmental agencies, documentaries cannot afford the luxury of any other form of appeal—fear is the most potent appeal, they believe, capable of significant change. This section analyses this appeal and provides a basis for deconstructing the three chosen documentaries. Without effective use of the fear appeal, environmentalists will only encourage maladaptive behaviours resulting in poor outcomes; instead, ecocinema directors must strategically apply fear for maximum results. Once this brief overview is complete, the following three documentaries will be assessed for the degree to which they use fear appeals.

It is the view of this essay that environmentalists use the fear appeal as a last and final attempt at kindling the fire of progress. Environmentalists have come under attack from all sides: ethics, even those who are a part of the environmental movement. To contextualize the reason why environmentalists use fear, it will be valuable to assess the core discipline of environmental ethics, ecoterrorism and environmental documentaries. The accumulating dissent and disregard for the environment may contribute to an ecocinema director’s decision to use a fear appeal.

Environmental Ethics

The following section attempts to draw parallels with the accumulating dissent described above concerning fear appeals and their usage by environmental documentarians.

Eco-documentaries argue that protecting the environment is man’s moral responsibility, cherishing nature for its intrinsic value and beauty that remains inexplicable beyond man’s dominion. Environmental ethics provides an environmental discourse that is an excellent basis for understanding fear appeals. Environmental ethics has an old, timely history, but its prevalence accelerated in philosophy during the 1960s (McShane, 2009). Environmentalists argue that the traditional worldview is maladaptive and that a new consciousness and perspective are necessary to deter the total environmental apocalypse.

Environmentalists attacked the anthropocentric worldview immediately, a philosophical position arguing that human beings and their interests are absolute above all things. Anthropocentrism assumes that human beings and their interests are morally more significant than anything else and that all things matter (morally) only concerning how they affect human beings and their interests (McShane, 2009). As described earlier, the anthropocentric worldview has had a long history and hundreds of years of conditioning, reinforced in philosophy and the natural sciences. Anthropocentrism had the tutelage of social Darwinism, an imperialistic and colonialist mindset transferred onto nature—nature and the environment existed only to serve man’s needs. Anthropocentric thought is, environmentalists argue, engrained into the subconscious mind and needs to be remedied before it is too late. Environmentalists needed to prove that nature had an intrinsic value, that is, the natural world had value in its rights independent of human interests. This would become “the defining problem for environmental ethics” (Callicott, 2009, p. 214). Other proponents argued that it was possible to disavow anthropocentrism, but it was unnecessary to declare that nature had an intrinsic value. Philosophers argued that current theoretical approaches are human-centred, that a human nevertheless must provide value—even if it is implicit, a human was the source of value creation. Others have argued that such an ethical position, as described before, follows a natural reductionist position, assuming that intrinsic value may be applied to nature while ignoring the instrumental web of values that exist (things having value as a means to an end) vs. intrinsic value (that things have value as an end in itself) (McShane, 2009). Intrinsic value and moral value propositions go hand-in-hand with environmental ethics.

There is contention within the environmental community about the ethical path they should adopt. Some environmentalists follow an individualistic ethic, arguing that: “individual persons, animals, plants etc. are valuable in their own right, while the value of the larger wholes that these individuals comprise—species, ecosystems, the biosphere, etc.—is merely derivative of the value of the individual constituents” (McShane, 2009, p. 411)— considered biocentric, a view that all living things matter morally in its own right, often adopted by animal rights activists who insist that all animals have rights and seek self-preservation.

Those against individualistic ethics argued that the entire system becomes the epicentre of all value and that individual value would be assigned based on the contributions those individuals make to the system. This view became holism or ecocentric environmental ethic (McShane, 2009). Holists argued that individualism would not work because individualists would have to give equal rights to plants, wild animals, farms and domesticated animals without differentiation. This indifference would create a pacifying effect—no individual entity could be protected, and their differences. Individualists sought a counterargument: holists were “eco-fascists” because they would dare subject a hierarchical order of value judgments on nature and the environment—a human-centred paradigm (McShane, 2009).

Furthermore, individual entities give value to the ecosystem, not that the ecosystem gives value to itself. Tensions between individualists and holists are intense and persistent even to this day, and the differences are apparent, as well as the allegiances holists make versus those that individualists have. For example, holists are typically organizational and transnational structures that attempt to devise an ordering system of protection and measures for species, flora, and the general environment, whereas individualists typically belong to coalitions of self-operated and small underground sects. Figure 1 describes a brief overview of the two contested positions in environmental ethics:

 

 

When projected onto current institutions that operate at both biocentric (individualistic) and ecocentric (holistic) arenas, one notices a distinct pattern that separates the ideological positions occupied by both ethical positions. Figure 2, below, illustrates a table of institutions separated by their ideological positions:

 

Distinctions become clear when applying the concepts of holistic and biocentric ethical positions and charting them across environmental documentaries. The understanding is that holistic ethical positions use more grand and expansive claims, focus on the whole system and make causal connections on individual events to emphasize their connectedness to the system. In contrast, biocentric (individualistic) ethics suggests that the individual and single entities have their right and purpose, so these documentaries would apply an argument based on the privileges of a single entity and argue for the sake of that entity alone without regard to the system itself.

Holistic Films

• ‍Home (2009)
• ‍Samsara (2011)
• ‍Powaqqatsi (1988)
• ‍The Unforeseen (2007)
• ‍The City Dark (2011)
• ‍Symphony of the Soil (2012)
• ‍Great Aletsch (2009)
• ‍The 11th Hour (2007)
• ‍Age of Stupid (2009)

Biocentric Films

• ‍Atlantis (1991)
• ‍Whaledreamers (2006)
• ‍Arid Lands (2007)
• ‍Blackfish (2013)
• ‍Grizzly Man (2005)
• ‍The Cove (2009)
• ‍Green Tiger (2011)

Within these two ethical subdivisions arise several manifestations, ranging from a continuum of heavily active to highly passive, each deploying its level of “radical environmentalism.” The dissent within these opposite ethical positions has led to various radical environmentalist movements. The following three documentaries, The 11th Hour (2007), Age of Stupid (2009) and The Cove (2009), each have their particular ethical positions as well as aspects of radical environmentalism. Taylor (2005) describes environmental radicalism and its manifestations below:

…it is […] important to understand radical environmentalism as a cluster of environmental political philosophies, and corresponding social movements, which claim to understand the roots of the environmental crisis and offer effective solutions to it. In this sense radical environmentalism includes not only groups like EARTH FIRST! AND THE EARTH LIBERATION FRONT, but also bioregionalists and green anarchists, deep ecologists and ecopsychologists, ecofeminists and participants in the feminist spirituality movement, Pagans and Wiccans, antiglobalization protestors and some animal-liberation activists. (p. 1326)

These environmental philosophies and social movements are all reacting to an urgent situation, fuelled by philosophical and ethical dissent, to claim each of their positions as significant. Their corresponding persuasion tactic typically involves fear appeal, but not exclusively. The following section discusses eco-terrorism, a radical strategy adopted by individualists. The following section is crucial simply because it provides the basis for understanding the urgency and desperate measures radical environmentalists take to promote and ignite the environmental movement within a passive and typically uninterested public audience.

Ecoterrorism

Environmentalists have sought to inspire the public to take productive action for a long time; however, they have taken measures that may appear, to the outside world, quite detrimental to the environmental movement as a whole. As a matter of perspective, environmentalists consider massive pollution and large-scale genetically modified organisms, laboratory testing, and animal rights abuse as eco-terrorist acts perpetrated by transnational corporations and reinforced by complacent government agencies. On the other hand, these corporations and government agencies view the practices of these highly active environmental coalitions with great suspicion and dread.

‍
Ecological terrorists, or ecoterrorists, are individuals who engage in independent (or within a tiny cell unit) acts of violence and employ tactics that terrorists commonly use to secure a sociopolitical agenda in order to protect animal rights and, more generally, the environment (Department of Homeland Security, 2008). The eco-terrorist movement is mainly decentralized and transnational, driven by the motives of people worldwide who believe they have a moral obligation to protect the environment by whatever means necessary. They argue that current and traditional environmental conservation and protection methods have fallen victim to bureaucratic and inefficient means complicated by procedures and standards, which prevent them from becoming agents of change and employ traditional means of garnering environmental change typically follow the holistic ethic versus those who follow an individual ethic (see Figure 2). Militant ecological and animal rights activists see themselves as the only sources of change, and those who stand against them or are complicit in the destruction of Earth (actively or passively) are considered guilty. According to the United States Department of Homeland Security (2008):

‍
Ecoterrorists have perpetrated more illegal acts commonly associated with terrorism on U.S. soil than any known group, including al-Qaeda and radical Islamic militants. The economic cost of these acts currently exceeds $100 million and is likely to grow. (p. 1).

‍
The dispersed and ill-coordinated nature of eco-terrorist cells poses a challenge for law enforcement; they see themselves as martyrs for a more significant cause, and consequently, their rebellion and capture may often be seen as a reinforcement. With growing environmental disparity and dissent, ecoterrorist cells’ tactics can range from physical assault to cyber-terrorism. The Animal Liberation Front, formed in 1976, is deeply networked with official international and transregional agencies (Greenpeace) and other less diplomatic agencies (the Sea Shepherds Conservation Society)—they have an operation in more than twenty countries (Department of Homeland Security 2008). Figure 4 demonstrates the loose interconnectedness of eco-terrorist cells. They may not be in concert with each other; they may not even know what each cell is doing or if they exist, but they are driven by the information they acquire from a “trusted” source. The information source assumes no responsibility or connection to the periphery militia. Furthermore, there is greater decentralization and the overall abolishment of hierarchical structures—because the exact cause leads each, it does not matter who has a higher position. Figure 4 illustrates the type of structure and system employed by ecoterrorist militia versus Figure 5 from the Greenpeace Council (page 17).

 

 

 

A highly decentralized network will provide ecoterrorists with more mobility and flexibility to react quickly to environmental trespasses. Greenpeace is an example of an agency with little mobility and reduced reaction time; it also has stakeholders and other interested parties it must respect.

‍
Individualist behaviour is fundamentally different from holist behaviour. Holists seek to affect an international scale, provide more significant linkages between events, and show an interconnectedness between the environment and humans. They are more likely to use fear appeals and appeals to logic to convey the urgency of saving the world as a whole. They seek to affect attitudes and change perspectives.

‍
While these distinctions may seem crude, a distinct trend between general pro-environmental and activist-driven documentaries is evident. Activist documentaries employ a fluid and flexible technique that may or may not adhere to documentary conventions—they may even overtly or reflexively abolish these conventions in favour of more relevant strategies for effective persuasion. Holistic ethical perspectives work within an anthropocentric society, believing that changes can be effected from within and likewise adopt an organizational structure similar to local bureaucracies in order to appeal and solicit other agencies and corporations to adopt environmentally friendly policies; the holistic structure is thereby inflexible, a good example is Greenpeace. An environmental documentary sponsored by an organization with a holistic agenda is likely to follow the rigid structures of traditional documentary practices due to the expectations of stakeholders and the values they must uphold for the international community. The individualistic ethical perspective is the opposite, operated by grassroots agencies, supported and funded by other grassroots movements within their network. Ecoterrorists have no allegiances, and if they do, it is unclaimed. While it would be incorrect to suggest that individualistic ethics and eco-terrorist activities may be interlinked, the tendency is that eco-terrorists adhere to an individualistic ethical philosophy because they wish to protect a single entity among the constellation of species and flora. With only a single focus, an animal liberation grassroots cell can create a highly controversial and memorable impression in a different way, unlike conventional documentary practice.

Anatomy of Fear

While the fear appeal provides a more reactive effect, as filmmakers assume, there are other appeals filmmakers use. Fear is highly complex and slightly unpredictable; therefore, appeals to fear should be used cautiously. Since Witte’s (1992) seminal contribution to fear appeal research, a model was devised based on the collective findings of several studies to combine those findings into a coherent pragmatic system. Witte (1992) developed the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) to explain the variations and possibilities of responses people may have to a fear appeal message. The EPPM model categorized responses into three sections: non-response, danger control responses, and fear control responses (Maloney, Lapinski, Witte, 2011). The EPPM model attempted to predict which of these three responses individuals are more likely to adapt based on their interactions between threat perceptions and their perceptions of efficacy to avert that threat (Maloney, Lapinski, Witte, 2011). The EPPM framework predicts “people’s attitudinal, intentional, and behavioral responses to fear appeal messages based on their assessments of two central constructs: threat and efficacy” (Maloney, Lapinski, Witte, 2011: p. 207).

Environmental discourse is riddled with claims of threats, characterized by dangerous or harmful things in the environment whether we know it or not (Witte, Cameron, McKeon & Berkowitz, 1996). According to EPPM, it is not the actual threat, but people’s perception of it impels them to act (Witte, 1992). The threat is composed of two distinct components: perceived severity (one’s belief about the threat’s significance or enormity) and perceived susceptibility (one’s belief about the chance of experiencing the threat) (Witte et al., 1996). Based on the EPPM framework, a perceived threat can incite action insofar as the message can directly affect threat perceptions and be successful. A fear appeal needs to convince the recipient that the likelihood of severe consequences cannot be ignored if they can prevent that threat. Figure 6 presents a diagram that Witte (1992) developed to visualize potential response behaviour.

 

According to Figure 6, the fear appeal follows a relatively complex process involving various uncertainties. The EPPM framework describes response tendencies; it does not attribute categories of responses rigidly with an appropriate threat level coupled with sound secondary threat components. Appropriately constructed, fear-appeal messages and clear and precise statements are at the heart of a compelling message, much like a logical syllogism. This essay contends that satirical films (e.g. 2012 (2009)) that take fear appeals lightly may do more harm than presenting a sound argument for ecological preservation.

Perceived Efficacy and Perceived Threat

Based on public health research, Witte et al. (1996) maintained the effectiveness of a fear appeal message on the grounds of its efficacy. Efficacy means “…the effectiveness, feasibility and ease with which a recommended response impedes or averts a threat” (Witte et al., 1996, p. 320). Without a recommended action, the threat will have no bearing and effect. Additionally, the response recommendation needs to be within the realm of an individual’s capacity to follow through. According to the EPPM framework, an action-response reaction depends on the message’s ability to increase the perceptions of a threat, whereas the actionable response depends on the magnitude of perceived efficacy to deter a threat (Maloney, Lapinski, Witte, 2011). Consequently, the goal of any perceived threat is to encourage and instil a level of confidence that motivates people to engage in the recommended action and that the recommended behaviour is perceived as enough and effective to avoid the threat. Within perceived efficacy, there are three different response reactions: 1) non-response, 2) danger control, and 3) fear control.

When people are exposed to a message, they begin, almost immediately, to decide whether or not the perceived threat is sufficient or severe enough and if the likelihood of the threat is significant enough to engage in behavioural responses to avert the threat. A minimal/low perceived threat suggests that a person does not experience fear and will not act to prevent the threat, leading to a non-response reaction. On the other hand, a higher perceived threat will stimulate an adequate response. People with enough efficacies to prevent a threat will alleviate their fear by adopting danger control responses. Suppose people’s efficacy evaluations result in a reduced self-perception that they cannot avert the threat. In that case, they will engage in fear control responses: “coping responses that diminish fear, such as defensive avoidance, denial, and reactance (including issue/message derogation and perceived manipulative intent)” (Witte et al., 1996, p. 320).

Along the continuum of persuasion tactics, fear is an emotional appeal. Environmental documentaries may or may not use pathos; however, many documentaries use logical appeal to try and reason with the recipient. This essay argues that the dire environmental circumstances prevent a subtle persuasion appeal and demand immediate attitudinal changes instead. The following bar graph (Figure 7) reveals the results of keywords (“Environment,” “Climate Change,” “Ecology,” and “Environmental Issue”) taken from the International Movie Database (IMDB), which have provided a set of 630 films based on their year of release, duplicates removed, tallied accordingly and displayed visually. By no means is this an exhaustive representation of all the ecological documentaries in the IMDB, but it is a visual representation enough to provide a reasonable and accurate depiction of an eco-documentary practice mimicking the current climate change graph provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Figure 8). The diagrams below reveal a growing interest and urgency in the environmental movement to address more significant global uncertainties.

 

 

 

This essay has suggested a significant gap between conventional pro-environmental documentaries and non-conventional forms that lie within the holistic and individualistic ethical positions. Comparatively, documentaries such as Blackfish (2013), The Cove (2009), and Whaledreamers (2006) follow an individualistic ethic, versus The 11th Hour (2007), Age of Stupid (2009), and The Inconvenient Truth (2006) are holistic. Without the flexibility offered to individualists, documentaries following a holistic ethic seek greater objectivity and desire to conform to a conventional technique—because of their detachment, this essay argues that they use fear appeals coupled with logical arguments to strengthen their position. On the other hand, individualists use an informal, non-systematic approach, which may not likely have the same devotion to a convention, and they may or may not use fear appeals to convey their message; however, individualists may use a highly personal and reflective tone, an empathetic position in order to convince the audience. An analysis of the following three films, The 11th Hour (2007), Age of Stupid (2009), and The Cove (2009), will provide examples of these holistic and individualistic ethical positions and how they use fear appeals, and these positions manifest in different ways. The essential idea is to provide a way to categorically assess environmental documentaries.

Unravelling Ecocinema

Environmental discourse in cinema is rife with analysis of Al Gore’s seminal documentary An Inconvenient Truth (2006), and while Gore’s film is inspiring, it will only provide valuable analysis if it is saturated. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) is used to compare with other eco-documentaries in terms of style, narrative quality, and cinematography. However, it warrants little contributive value when used to compare with films made within unique circumstances and purposes and such crude comparisons may circumvent the analytical output of the three films analyzed below: The 11th Hour (2007), Age of Stupid (2009), and The Cove (2009) in this order. Each film, according to its ethical orientation, narrative and story quality, shows how they have used fear appeals to deliver their messages. Throughout, this analysis will provide a framework for determining an environmental documentary’s effectiveness and, hopefully, reveal its errors in persuasion.

The 11th Hour (2007)

The 11th Hour (“Hour”) (2007), released shortly after An Inconvenient Truth (2006), was directed by Nadia Conners and Leila Conners Petersen and co-produced by Leonardo DiCaprio. The Hour intends to encourage greater environmental awareness and convince the audience to relinquish their complacent attitudes to become active participants in environmental conservation. Some critics have argued that Hour is merely a reiteration of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006), except without a personal narrative and more scientific evidence. Al Gore undoubtedly influenced DiCaprio, who, together, were in cooperation fighting a united front demanding environmentally conscious behaviour. DiCaprio has always been a hardcore environmentalist and philanthropist and has amassed tremendous credibility and respect from other environmentalists. For example, DiCaprio donated one million dollars to the Wildlife Conservation Society; he lives environmentally friendly (solar panels, tesla-powered vehicle); he has donated one million to the Haiti relief fund; donated one million to the Elephant Crisis Fund; donated three million to Oceana to protect ocean wildlife (LeonardoDiCaprio.com, 2014). As the narrator of Hour, his credibility is not in question; however, to the average layman, his eco-activism may or may not be self-evident. Before the analytical framework is applied, a brief overview of The 11th Hour is necessary.

Several reviews have dubbed Hour a “talking heads” documentary, arguing that it consisted primarily of interviews, dialogue and discussions interspersed with scenic, environmental stock footage. Nearly fifty experts were brought together, including the infamous Mikhail Gorbachev (former leader of the Soviet Communist Party) and the world-renowned mycologist Paul Stamets. They revealed the intricacies of the ecological problems humans face. These scientists took advantage of the opportunity to discuss the significance of their scientific findings, amounting to a colossal 90-minute documentary consisting essentially of theory, trivia and contestable claims. The idea of ancient sunlight is one of the most intriguing observations representing a significant aspect of Hour. The theory of ancient sunlight argues that humans have always depended on sunlight as the guiding agent for yielding crops, finding adequate shelter, and overall survival. In addition, all plants store sunlight, and humans have always lived on Earth’s natural resources (the harvesters of energy)—sadly, humans have set ablaze millions of years of stored energy. Prominent physicist Stephen Hawking described the consequences of man’s uninterrupted ecological as an almost chilling prophecy:

One of the most severe consequences of our actions is global warming, brought about by rising carbon dioxide levels from burning fossil fuels. The danger is that the temperature increase might become self-sustaining if it has not done so already. Drought and deforestation are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide recycled into the atmosphere, and the warming of the seas may trigger the release of large quantities of CO2 trapped on the ocean floor. In addition, melting the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will reduce the amount of solar energy reflected into space and increase the temperature further. We do not know where global warming will stop, but the worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 centigrade and raining sulfuric acid. The human race could not survive in those conditions. (Stephen Hawking, The 11th Hour).

Statements like these, with a highly linear scientifically constructed logic, are at the heart of Hour. The film is constructed following one logical statement to the next, arguing rationally and systematically amplified by frightening stock footage. Seventy minutes of the 90-minute documentary was dedicated to establishing familiar ground and the importance of an eco-friendly world—only 20 minutes were spent discussing alternative solutions. Connors remarked that she wanted a more extensive environmental documentary covering various topics rather than just climate change. Hour is a thesis building upon Connor’s fear of human extinction. For Connor, time is running out, and humankind has a dire fate, “there are tipping points,” she says, “The scary thing for me was discovering how quickly something can collapse and finding out that we’ve come very close to that tipping point and what that means for humanity” (Grady, 2007). To Connor, humanity has already surpassed the tipping point and is confronted with the 11th Hour, suggesting that the time for speculation and doubt is over and a renewed invigoration and drive to save the Earth is the only solution. The documentary tirelessly describes such scenarios precisely, stating that much of what has happened now is irreparable (e.g., ozone depletion, animal and plant species extinction, etc.). The documentary aims to summarize many environmental problems such as climate change, deforestation, mass extinction, overconsumption, and total global disharmony; consequently, the target audience becomes those with an agency or individuals within political or international organizations capable of adopting more rigorous policies to protect the environment. The average layman is at a loss to prevent many of these highly interconnected global problems. Hour is a holistic, ethically grounded film exposing the broader consequences of humankind’s detrimental behaviour.

Hour provides shows a mere 20 minutes to explain why a change in perspective above all else. Humanity is essentially doomed, and the 11th Hour is before us. The ultimate solution is a dramatic change in lifestyle by reverting to eco-friendly living conditions to mimic nature’s perfect energy-storing, waste management creation: a tree. According to the 11th Hour, everyone needs to construct their home entirely eco-friendly: install solar panels on a house that recycles stored energy, is energy efficient and ecologically stable.

11th Hour and Fear

The 11th Hour is certainly thorough, but its informative value shows why it was made, not to inspire or encourage change. Fear was the primary instrument that Connor used to elucidate her argument. The idea was clear: to shock the viewer. With an already saturated level of eco-awareness, any more awareness to argue for proactive environmental change is counterproductive. Connor’s poor application of the fear appeal will likely avert spectators rather than encourage them. According to the EPPM model, a strategic fear appeal has a symmetric balance between threat and efficacy appraisals. This film primarily focuses on a threat appraisal, satisfying an inordinate concentration of perceived severity (beliefs concerning the magnitude of the threat) and perceived susceptibility (likelihood of experiencing the threat). Climate change concerns have heavily penetrated the public domain, and a heavy reiteration of a perceived threat may not have been necessary.

Efficacy appraisals are a significant component of a successful fear appeal, and explaining how the recipient can act is one of the most challenging aspects of a fear appeal. Most importantly, can the recipient make those necessary changes possible? Are those changes realistic? With its holistic ethic, Hour has yet to provide an effective means for a recipient to become encouraged to reinforce change and adopt an ecologically friendly worldview. The 11th Hour is led by a strong sense of idealism, believing in a theoretical utopia of a world untainted by mass consumerism and ecological destruction:

Instead of being powered by fossil fuels, renewable energy has powered it. Instead of an automobile-centred transportation system, it will have a much more diversified one. Instead of a throwaway economy, it will be a reused economy, where everything is reused. (The 11th Hour, 01:08:26,224 – 01:08:41,057).

Using references to ancient sunlight, biomimicry (constructing a house like a tree, sustainable living), alternative fuel sources (biofuel, hybrid vehicles), and reverting to more natural means of consumption concerning the ecosystem, humankind may stand a chance of surviving the 11th Hour. An eco-friendly living would require the recipient of this message to relinquish many dependencies in favour of feeling less guilty about their complicity in environmental destruction. Furthermore, Hour suggests that individuals can “vote” daily to choose alternative environmental products and services; however, Hour spends only a brief moment describing these alternatives. In a sense, Hour has an ideological position referred to as deep ecology, arguing that humans are merely infectious agents damaging the biosphere, environment, and all forms of life. At this critical stage, humans need to understand their role in the environment and experience themselves as a part of the larger whole. In terms of efficacy, a perspective change is one of the most important aspects leading to longer-lasting change; however, it is difficult to ascertain the effect idealisms and ideological positions will have on recipients; in addition, this does not comply with tactical, physical alternatives and changes needed for a practical efficacy appeal. It is not feasible for recipients to buy biofuel and hybrid vehicles, create a fully sustainable living and use sunlight for all their needs; such a drastic change would require tremendous financial expenditure and ongoing maintenance. As stated earlier, Hour communicated with environmental agencies and governments to enact pro-environmental policies and to consider a sustainable future.

Age of Stupid (2009) – A Docudrama

Age of Stupid (2009) (“Age”), directed by Franny Armstrong, is an expression of highly active groups demanding ecological change. Age is an atypical form of the documentary genre, and unlike Hour, it is not a “talking heads” documentary. Age is considered a docudrama along the continuum of documentary genres, employing a combination of fictional and traditional documentary narratives (see page 6 for details). Set after the 11th Hour, which has ended for the last time and has become impossible to affect environmental change, in a way, Age depicts an Earth Stephen Hawking prophesized in Hour. Taking advantage of docudrama, Age experiments with futuristic scenes of an apocalyptic doomed Earth, and it appears only one man is left to preserve the legacy of humans, the archivist. Using a digital monitor, the archivist touches the screen and reminisces about the Age of Stupid, man’s pinnacle opportunity for lasting environmental change hindered only by self-interested stupidity.

Age begins with a montage of sequences depicting total environmental destruction:

• London is flooded.
• Las Vegas is consumed and covered by the desert.
• The Amazon rainforest is set ablaze.
• The glaciers have all melted in the Alps.
• India has been ravaged by nuclear fallout.

The narrator (Pete Postlethwaite), an archivist, enters a facility with records of all of man’s achievements and individual stories. The archivist touches a screen to activate the monitor while taking a seat at a console. His touch is also an attempt to activate a passive audience, speaking directly to the audience beginning with a central rhetorical question: “why didn’t we save ourselves when we had the chance?” The answer remains ambiguous throughout the docudrama. Unlike Hour, Age attempts to bind theory, science, and story using six narratives worldwide. The interconnectedness of each story is Armstrong’s most major implication: “An oil geologist could save one hundred people from Hurricane Katrina without acknowledging that his own work produced carbon emissions that caused the extreme weather” (Sluis, 2009). Instead of isolating the source of the problem, Age insists that searching for a definitive cause is futile and narrow-minded—the answer lies in the interconnectedness of seemingly unrelated stories that result in a chain reaction. The scale of this interconnectedness is the challenge for man, the source of man’s stupidity. Age is bleak and dark on purpose, and recognizing these grave circumstances can be alleviated if a man realizes that climate change is a global initiative.

At the heart of these six stories lies a central theme of contradiction: Piers Guy, a windfarm developer, is prevented by the community from installing windmills for alternative energy because it ruins the landscape; Jeh Wadia, the Indian entrepreneur without regard to the environmental consequences of his business, proceeds his dream of developing the cheapest airline in India to get millions of Indians flying; Alvin Du Verney is helping the Shell oil corporation find sources of oil in New Orleans, even though their activities may have had something to do with Hurricane Katrina (as Age implies); Layefia Malemi, a Nigerian native who must fix the oil-drenched waters for four years before she can raise enough funds to fulfill her dreams of becoming a doctor (the Shell corporation is extracting oil and nothing can be done to prevent water contamination in Nigeria); Jamila Bayyoud, an Iraqi refugee displaced permanently during the 2003 US-led invasion for the pursuit of new sources of oil; Fernand Pareau, a French mountain guide witnesses the receding glaciers. Age focuses on those affected by the aggressive abuse of the environment, from the most tragic story (Bayyoud) to the blatant stupidity of a community in England (Guy). Age transitions from story to story with a brief interjection from the archivist to contextualize the global pandemic. By drawing the spectator closer to the tragedy, Armstrong seeks an appeal beyond fear and to extract compassion from the audience to Bayyoub and Malema, those innocents being punished daily and forced to survive in inhumane conditions.

Age of Stupid (2009) and Fear

Armstrong uses fear in a more controlled way, but ineffectively. Although fear was not the primary appeal, Armstrong used every transition to the archivist as an intentional strategy designed to invoke a future that is impossible to change. Every story has an underlying trace that invokes fear; for example, the fear that if the Indian entrepreneur Wadia succeeds, it will mean more significant atmospheric and ozone layer depletion. Furthermore, if an invasion could be led so quickly to find a new source of oil, how many Bayyouds would exist? In an attempt to draw the spectator closer, the lingering fear of Malema (a sympathetic, ambitious individual) dying from the oil-infested waters of Nigeria is chilling—how many Nigerians died because of water contamination and did the Shell corporation have something to do with it? Whether this lingering dread may or may not be effective remains uncertain, but it is not a clear statement of fear designed to elicit an efficacy response.

Armstrong stated, “only people obsessed with climate change could understand all our subtle links” (Sluis, 2009). Upon closer inspection, all of these subtle links lead to fossil fuel dependency and the impact the oil industry has had around the world. These subtle links are non-descriptive and too indirect. While much of the messages in Age may appear implicit, Age attempts to invoke attitudinal/behavioural responses using fear combined with a more compassionate approach. According to the EPPM model, two distinct components of threat must be fulfilled: perceived severity and perceived susceptibility (see page 19). Due to the extreme subtleties, whether any messages fulfil basic parameters for establishing fear appeals is still being determined. Concerning images at the beginning of the docudrama (the destroyed Earth), perceived severity—when recipients see apocalyptic images, they may believe in the severity of the emerging threat; however, the stories of distant people may not increase perceived susceptibility: what are the odds that a north American citizen would experience similar conditions as Malema? The message must be explicitly targeted at the recipient for perceived susceptibility to influence recipients effectively. In other words, fear needs to be personalized (Geller, 2007). Unfortunately, the fear appeals used in Age are secondary, meaning that Armstrong sought to build an understanding for those being affected by environmental degradation.

Although Age was thoughtful, its message is far too grim to instil any form of efficacy in spectators. This docudrama is incomplete, leaving little room for commentary concerning a critical component of a fear appeal – efficacy (see pages 20-21). Age is not intended to be motivational, and establishing efficacy was not Armstrong’s primary objective. All six stories create a world of powerless individuals who cannot overcome their struggles, most notably Piers Guy, who is no longer permitted to install windmills on his property—his fight appears impossible to win. The archivist fails to narrate the story with a positive reflection. The spectator merely sits back and remains passive as he struggles with the rhetorical question posited by the archivist in the beginning: “Why didn’t we save ourselves when we had the chance?” As the story ends, the audience answers: “We never had a chance to save the Earth.” Armstrong establishes no lasting efficacy or feasible means of averting the climate change threat. Without an adequately established perceived self-efficacy and perceived response efficacy, Age will likely elicit maladaptive coping responses such as denial and avoidance, and viewers may even dismiss the message and consider it invalid.

Age is a good docudrama with the potential to intrigue spectators, but its use of the fear appeal and its passive position may elicit maladaptive responses. This documentary must perform more effectively against critics or those it would like to persuade. Instead, the target audience is likely those already heavily convinced about climate change since Age does not attempt to create an efficacy component—those who are already aware of the significance and danger of climate change do not require any motivation to act.

The Cove (2009) – An Activist Documentary

The Cove (“Cove”) (2009), directed by former National Geographic photographer and the founder of the Oceanic Preservation Society Louis Psihoyos, is a powerful and highly effective documentary synthesizing elements more than fear. This documentary was chosen for analysis to juxtapose the complications of the fear appeal in the previous documentaries mentioned above and to provide an alternative persuasion strategy needed to influence the audience. Unlike the holistic perspectives in Age and Hour, Cove is a biocentric film. In addition, Age and Hour are human-centred, meaning that the primary concerns lie within a human understanding of climate change and its consequences. Page 14 describes the complex radical environmentalism, particularly the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and, in some ways, the Oceanic Preservation Society has many characteristics that resemble the ELF. The Cove is an activist documentary that applies investigative journalism techniques, appearing in direct contention with established documentary practice. Activists are guided by a powerful, compelling urge to fulfil their overall mission, and while DiCaprio and Armstrong are considered activists, Psihoyos and O’Barry fall within an atypical designation: extreme activism bordering on eco-terrorism. Cove and other activist documentaries like Whaledreamers (2006) and Arid Lands (2007) use other means of persuasion and attempt to draw compassion from the audience in a nonhuman-centred way—through a projection and personification of animals. Cove wants viewers to experience the perspective of a caged, intelligent, and sentient being as a reminder of captivity and its unjust consequences. The Cove is a profoundly motivational documentary with an urgent expression linking the suffering of both man (O’Barry) and animal (dolphin).

 

One of the most disturbing secrets lies in a virtually unknown lagoon in Japan. Ric O’Barry, known for having captured and trained five dolphins for the hit television series Flipper (1964-1967), embarks on a mission of redemption to ensure the safety of every captive dolphin he could find. With the help of Psihoyos, highly advanced cameras, and two world-class freedivers, O’Barry journeys to the heart of the “kill zone.” Cove reminds the audience about the significance of their mission and binds them with O’Barry to disclose the unjust slaughter of dolphins. O’Barry must maintain a low profile, although his presence alerts Taiji authorities. Throughout the documentary, Psihoyos is aware that the consequences of their mission, if apprehended by Taiji authorities, will mean a year in prison. To ensure the success of their mission, Psihoyos enlists Industrial Light and Magic to create camouflaged foliage to protect their cameras from being detected; this way, Psihoyos’s team can strategically place their cameras in areas surrounding the “kill zone.” Psihoyos is seen as an ecowarrior, intent on uncovering the truth without any regard for the consequences; however, the team is cautious of all the cameras surrounding the kill zone, waiting to capture any actionable offence. In a sense, this is an undercover operation planned with the help of a former Canadian Air Force avionics engineer.

A parallel story of locals taking the initiative shows teachers refusing to feed children mislabelled dolphin meat. When the most “beautiful” dolphins are captured in the lagoon, they are shipped to recreational parks (i.e. SeaWorld), and those which cannot be shipped away are brutally slaughtered (young or aged dolphins are indiscriminately slaughtered), and their meat is sold as mislabelled whale meat (because it is more profitable). Most disturbing, Psihoyos stated, is that the dolphin meat contains lethal mercury concentrations; the Japanese people are being subjected to uncontrolled doses enough to cause mercury poisoning and death, as well as generational genetic deformities. Cove seeks to appeal to both residents in Japan, arguing the senselessness of these brutal killings when it does not serve Japanese interests anyway—random people are asked on the street if they even know about the slaughter in Taiji, and most respond in shock if not denial. The Cove attempts to influence public policy and attract international recognition and attention to these inhumane practices.

Cove uses swift transitions to capture an action-packed spy thriller, deploying various imaging and filming techniques designed for suspense. Psihoyos uses a combination of personal narratives (the divers, O’Barry, and himself) to encourage familiarity and understanding. The Cove is a documentary that captures the process by which the team acquired shocking footage and then played it in public viewing. The Cove is not a “fly-on-the-wall” documentary; biases from the director’s perspective are self-evident, unmasked, and plain sight. Psihoyos does not distinguish between the camera and himself, reflecting on the viability of the camera’s ability to capture unquestionable truth. The audience is, in effect, watching a camera documenting the evidence under the guiding principle that “seeing is believing.” Psihoyos is convinced that capturing the massacre will be a significant step towards ratifying a strong delegation against Japan’s shameless slaughter. Instead of using stock footage, Psihoyos uses his own captured content interspersed with newly captured footage during the filming—in a sense, Psihoyos remains deliberately disconnected from traditional techniques of adopting voice-over narratives and stock footage (hallmark characteristics of traditional documentaries). Psihoyos is willing to sacrifice every fundamental characteristic that defines a documentary to express his message’s urgency. When the stakes are high, formalities need to be undercut; otherwise, it downplays the significance of the message. While fear is not how Cove shaped its messages, the ideas behind Cove follow closely with an eco-terrorist perspective and the hope of “leading by example”—The Cove is the example to mimic behaviours and to aspire towards it, not through fear, as a guiding persuasive strategy.

The Cove (2009) and Ecoterrorism

It is not in the intent of this essay to declare that Psihoyos is an eco-terrorist; instead, it explains the tendencies mimicking the characteristics of an eco-terrorist cell. Applying the definition and analysis outlined on pages 15 to 18, Psihoyos and his team can describe within the limits of a cell unit deploying questionable tactics to acquire information that would jeopardize daily operations in the kill zone. Each cell has its leader, but its leadership is not based on a hierarchical structure: each member contributes the talents and skills necessary to fulfil their mission. Their decentralized nature permits the team to move quickly and swiftly through the kill zone terrain; furthermore, they can improvise through the thicket of uncertainty. The first statement in the documentary mimics the attempt of every eco-terrorist cell: “I do want to say that we try to do the story legally” (The Cove, 2009: 00:57 – 01:01). Immediately, Cove transitions to Ric O’Barry as he makes his “getaway,” hiding behind a mask to prevent identification by Taiji authorities. O’Barry says, “I have got to hunch over and change my shape, so they think I am just an old Japanese guy” (The Cove, 2009: 03:22 – 03:27). O’Barry describes the intense paranoia as the shaky camera and swift transitions between scenes already establish the mood: the fear that O’Barry would be caught and prosecuted.

The individual in a cell feels a profound isolation, separating their involvement with others in distinct ways. O’Barry has been arrested countless times, struggling with authorities in his pursuit to save every dolphin he could find: “If there is a dolphin in trouble, anywhere in the world, my phone will ring” (O’Barry, The Cove (2009): 07:17 – 07:23). O’Barry is not concerned about climate change as a whole but with a single entity in the biosphere. Over time, as his relationship with the dolphins grew, O’Barry recognized an intrinsic significance in dolphin intelligence: “When you become conscious of this nonhuman intelligence, you realize after a while they do not really belong in captivity,” says O’Barry (The Cove, 2009: 11:30 – 11:37). Eco-terrorists have a strong unbridled bond with animals and the general biosphere; however, those engaged in the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front have personal attachments that are deeply rooted often as a consequence of personal tragedies experience with the animal. For example, O’Barry reminisces a profound tragedy he experienced when training the dolphins for Flipper:

What turned me around was the death of Flipper, of Cathy. She was depressed. I could feel it. I could see it. Moreover, she committed suicide. That is a powerful word: suicide. However, you have to understand that dolphins and other whales are not automatic air breathers like us. Every breath they take is a conscious effort, so they can end their life whenever life becomes unbearable by not taking the next breath.

Moreover, it is in that context that I use the word suicide. She did that. She swam into my arms, looked me right in the eye…took a breath, and did not take another one. I let her go, and she sank straight down on her belly to the bottom of the tank. The next day, I was in the Bimini jail for trying to free a dolphin at the Lerner Marine Laboratory. (The Cove, 2009: 16:50 – 17:59)

O’Barry’s painful guilt transcends beyond the screen as he attempts to connect with the audience personally to help the audience visualize the torture of Taiji. When O’Barry describes the deception of the dolphin smile, he begins to personify their torture, a means of connecting with the audience at an average level. The individualistic unit is motivated by individuals but merging goals, and a single unit’s methods are unpredictable—an eco-terrorist uses every available option. After witnessing the unjust slaughter before their eyes, the divers moved swiftly to coordinate their efforts with Psihoyos to place cameras underwater. Psihoyos’s team was not cooperating with any other agency or cell to complete their mission.

Ecoterrorists, like O’Barry, find the holistic approach and the implicit trust placed in institutions and organizations detrimental. Paul Watson, the co-founder of Greenpeace, explains that the “International Whaling Commission is the only international body dealing with whales that the United Nations officially recognize. It’s basically a toothless organization, but it is the only organization that does exist” (The Cove, 2009: 22:05 – 22:16). Eco-terrorists struggle to find meaning and purpose in organizations like the International Whaling Commission (IWC) when they have little to no influence to show. In essence, O’Barry and Psihoyos run their mission contrary to the observations of the IWC. O’Barry is apprehended by security guards when he attaches a mobile monitor to present Japan’s heinous crimes in front of the IWC. In the following sequence, O’Barry, with his mobile monitor, stands in the centre of a busy intersection and begins to broadcast to the Japanese people the bloody scenes Psihoyos and his team recorded in the kill zone. With the time-lapse sequence, O’Barry is isolated despite the countless individuals surrounding him—a feeling reminiscent of members of eco-terrorist cells.

Activist documentaries use a personal approach, more engaged in the conflict, and the hopeless plight of their situation becomes clear. The goal is to inspire and motivate others to take action against what appears to be a blatant crime against the ecology. In this way, Cove seeks to draw the audience’s sympathy and align their intrigue to dolphins with O’Barry. When the audience thinks about dolphins, they will remember O’Barry and The Cove forever. The film has a disturbing conclusion, a tragedy designed to elicit a strong repulsion and anger needed to put pressure on Japan and the IWC to prevent ongoing atrocities.

Although Cove does not use fear appeals like 11th Hour and Age of Stupid, the direction of persuasion is similar: a pathos, emotionally-driven persuasion strategy. With growing complications and the uncertainty of a fear appeal, Cove is an alternative expression designed to provoke solid emotional reactions not necessarily bound to fear.

Conclusion

This essay was an attempt to describe the complications of the documentary genre by expounding on the principles of documentary theory in the broader sense and delimiting it within three subcategories: traditional documentaries (The 11th Hour), docudramas (Age of Stupid) and activist documentaries (The Cove). Each documentary genre has its motivations, but the likelihood of traditional documentaries, as well as docudramas, to use fear appeals is much greater than activist documentaries. Fear appeals are an emotionally driven persuasion strategy designed to provoke action by synthesizing threat and efficacy appraisals. To properly analyze the typology of an environmental film, it is necessary to begin decoding the ethical positions, whether holistic or individualistic, providing a distinct possibility of analyzing the director’s motivations. Additionally, environmental documentaries may or may not use fear appeals, especially those which do not subscribe to a holistic ethic (The Cove). The Cove is the evolution of ecocinema, using a robust persuasive strategy designed to influence the individual to take action and to situate a bond between the individual and the entity in question. This essay attempted to chart a framework for understanding and analyzing environmental films to effectively understand a pro-environmental message’s origins, motivations, and results.

Bibliography

Armstrong, F. (Director). (2010). The Age of Stupid [Motion Picture]. Toronto: Mongrel Media.

Bron, T. (2005). Radical environmentalism. In T. Bron, Encyclopedia of religion and nature (pp. 1326-1333). London: Continuum International.

Callicott, B. J. (1999). Intrinsic value in nature: A metaethical analysis. In B. J. Callicott, Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 239-261). Albany: University of New York Press.

Chapman, J. L. (2009). Issues in contemporary documentary. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Conners, N., & Petersen, L. C. (Directors). (2008). The 11th Hour [Motion Picture]. Warner Home Video.

Cottingham, J. (1984). Rationalism. London: Paladin.

Donohoe, M. (2003). Causes and health consequences of environmental degradation and social injustice. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 573-587.

Geller, S. (2007, June 18). Designing an effective fear appeal. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from Safetyperformance.com: http://www.safetyperformance.com/DesigninganEffectiveFearAppeal.pdf

Gillespie, A. (2000). Anthropocentricism. In A. Gillespie, International Environmental Law, Policy, and Ethics (p. Chapter 1). London: Oxford University Press.

Grady, P. (2007, August 20). ‘The 11th Hour’ focuses on possible solutions to environmental issues. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from Sfgate.com: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/The-11th-Hour-focuses-on-possible-solutions-to-2525323.php

Greenpeace. (1996). Greenpeace: annual report of 1996. Netherlands: Greenpeace.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007, January 1). Projections of Future Changes in Climate. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from Ipcc.ch: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

Kant, I. (1914). Kant’s critique of judgement. (J. H. Bernhard, Trans.) London: Macmillan.

Maloney, E. K., Lapinski, M. K., & Witte, K. (2011). Fear appeals and persuasion: A review and update of the extended parallel process model. Social and Personality Psychology, 5 (4), 206-219.

McShane, K. (2009). Environmental ethics: An overview. Philosophy Compass, 4, 407-420.

Morris, P. (1987). Re-thinking Grierson: The ideology of John Grierson’. In T. O’Regan, & B. Shoesmith, History on/and/in Film (pp. 20-30). Perth: History & Film Association of Australia.

National Cancer Institute. (2010). Reducing environmental cancer risk: What we can do now. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington: United States Government.

Paulding, M. (2013, January 20). The roots of the leaderless resistance concept. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from PublicEye.org: http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/terrorism/insurgency/cells.html

Psihoyos, L. (Director). (2009). The Cove [Motion Picture]. Toronto: Maple Pictures.

Sluis, S. (2009, September 21). Film review: The age of stupid. Retrieved July 1, 2014 from Filmjournal.com: http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/esearch/e3i2a62ee6983153e30f7500ed86e73911c

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Universal adversary dynamic threat assessment: ecoterrorism – environmental and animal-rights militants in the United States. Washington: United States.

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: Reconciling the literature. Communication Monographs , 59, 329-349.

Witte, K., Cameron, K. A., McKeon, J., & Berkowitz, J. (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication , 1, 317-341.

0