Exciting story: New test measures Hollywood’s depiction of global warming. Will there be a difference?

Good feminists or movie buffs may be familiar with the Bechdel test, a scale for measuring the representation of women in film. Created by comedic author Alison Bechdel in the 1980s, the film must meet three criteria to be successful: it must feature at least two women, the women need to talk to each other, and they must discuss something other than a man.

The climate script consulting firm is so intent on raising awareness about climate change that it has created a new version of the Bechdel-Wallace test, as it’s also known, to hold Hollywood accountable for how it portrays one of the biggest existential crises of our time.

According to the Good Energy Group in partnership with Matthew Schneider Myerson of Colby College, the so-called climate reality check serves a similar function to raise awareness of global warming. For a film to succeed in a climate reality check, its world must include climate change and a character who knows about it. This only applies to films set in the present or near future, on Earth and in our shared universe. So don’t expect Darth Vader to suddenly start talking about global warming.

So, how well can Hollywood live up to this standard? Good Energy and Schneider-Meyerson analyzed thirteen of the thirty-four feature films nominated for Oscars in 2024 with a climate reality check.

Films included “American Fantasy”, “Anatomy of the Fall”, “Barbie”, “Past Lives”, “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1”, “The Creator”, and “Spider-Man: Through the Spider-Verse”. . “,” “Io Capitano”, “May (December)”, “Niad”, “Perfect Days”, “Teachers’ Lounge”, and “Godzilla Minus One”. Only three of those films passed the climate reality test: “Barbie,” “Niad” and “Mission: Impossible.”

“We hope to see 50% of Oscar-nominated films (set on Earth in the present or future) pass the climate reality check by 2027,” the authors of the climate reality check write. They later added on their website that their goal “was to ensure that the test was easy to use, measurable, and creatively inspiring.”

“I think this test is a good reminder that climate change is present in our daily lives in so many ways, whether we see it on screen or not,” Anna Jane Joyner, founder of Good Energy, told Salon via email. Joyner also said it was “incredible” that “three of the year’s most iconic films talked about climate change in very different, fact-based ways, intersecting with consumerism, national security, our species and our ecosystems. If you hold a mirror up to our everyday lives, the narrative opportunity is limitless.” she has.”

Not everyone thinks a climate reality check will do as much good as its authors think — including some respected scientists.

“My initial reaction is that this looks a little strange,” Walt Meyer, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at CIRES/University of Colorado, told Salon. “I support greater exposure to and understanding of the science of climate change, but I don’t think it makes sense to force him into a plot that doesn’t suit him.”

The original Bechdel test was created to illustrate how women are marginalized in films, and was “fundamentally different” from the climate change test because of the disparate contexts, Mayer said.

“Female characters are often marginalized in films and are not given deeply realistic roles. In almost any film, there is an opportunity to do this in a way that is natural and realistic for female characters,” Mayer noted. “I don’t think that’s necessarily the case for climate change. Of course, one can force it, but if we feel forced, I don’t think it will have a beneficial effect.”

Joshua Colwell, a physicist at the University of California – San Francisco, has first-hand experience ensuring scientific accuracy in films: he served as a “comet consultant” on the 1998 film “Deep Impact,” which scientists widely consider one of the best films of 1998. One of the most scientifically accurate films in the disaster genre – and that’s not exactly a high standard. According to Colwell, films in general have the power to raise public awareness about pressing issues such as climate change. His question about the new Bechdel test is whether it will be widely known enough to have a positive impact.

“As for the test itself, its impact will depend on how interested movie studios and audiences are in passing the test,” Colwell told Salon. “I applaud the efforts to try to raise awareness, and I’m excited to see the results of all major theatrical releases, not just Oscar-nominated films.”

---

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Sign up for the weekly Salon Lab Notes newsletter.

---

“I think the line in Mission Impossible that makes the movie pass the test is the right one,” Colwell continued. “It suggests that the combination of dwindling energy supplies and damage to food supply systems through environmental destruction poses a serious global geopolitical threat.”

Colwell also stressed that tackling climate change is not just about saving polar bears. “This is about avoiding mass starvation, large-scale migration and widespread armed conflict. There is a reason why the US Department of Defense considers climate change a serious threat to national security,” he said.

Famed screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin, who co-wrote “Deep Impact,” said it’s hard to say whether testing would help, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt because Hollywood “probably needs more problem-focused plots.” Rubin singled out The End We Start From, a lesser-known survival film starring Jodie Comer, as a quality 2023 film about climate change.

“Climate change is not an incidental plot point,” Rubin said. “It is central to human survival and will soon become the central story of our time, assuming we still have a civilization capable of dealing with the unfolding drama that surrounds us all.”

Mayer told Salon that he’s seen several of the films nominated for Best Picture for this year’s Oscars, and said looking at the list helps explain the test’s ineffectiveness. For example, “American Fiction” is a comedy set in our world, but its plot in no way intersects with climate change. “There’s a beach house in the movie, so sure they could have the characters say something about concerns about sea level rise. But that would be forced and detract from the main focus of the movie,” Meyer said.

On the other hand, Mayer points out that one of Oscar season’s biggest contenders, Oppenheimer, could be seen in a very interesting light when he was nominated during testing. It is, after all, the true story of a brilliant and perceptive scientist whose careful warnings were ignored by policymakers.

“The Oppenheimer film certainly has relevance to climate change in terms of the potentially negative impacts of human technology and our ability to make powerful changes to the environment,” Mayer said, adding later in his note that “I think there are connections to climate change.” “It’s interesting to discuss, but I don’t think climate change would be relevant to the film itself.”

Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason University and director of the organization’s Center for Climate Change Communication, offered his own possibility: “To pass the test, at least one sympathetic (i.e., not evil) main or supporting character must either directly express concern.” about climate change and/or supporting government or corporate action to address climate change; and/or take meaningful action to support government or corporate climate solutions (e.g., voting, contacting their elected representatives, choosing one brand over another because of their parent company’s climate commitments).”

By contrast, Kevin Trenberth – part of the Climate Analysis Division at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research’s National Center for Atmospheric Research – speculated that climate reality checks are “unlikely” to improve scientific knowledge In the general public. “Some movies that focused on weather or climate had things that were completely unrealistic,” Trenberth told Salon, listing “The Day After Tomorrow,” “Twister” and “Waterworld” as terrible examples. If Hollywood wants to accurately portray climate change, he said, droughts, wildfires, severe storms and floods must be shown on a large scale. These stories are “mostly reported as isolated events and not part of a larger picture that describes why they happened,” he said.

Finally, Anne Merchant, executive deputy director for communications at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — and director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, an organization that exists to promote scientific accuracy in mainstream Hollywood releases — pointed to recent Pew Center data that suggests a majority of Americans view changes in… Climate as a real threat to our future.

“Although when you separate that number from political affiliation, there is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans,” Merchant said. “This kind of unpacking is why there needs to be different messages for different audiences on this topic. A story that resonates with one viewer may be completely ineffective with another, which is why we need a variety of stories on this topic.”

Merchant added: “In general, we would like to see more films and TV shows in which climate change is presented in different ways, but with a continued focus on the positive outcomes derived from enacting evidence-based solutions. Which is a very wonky way of saying that nihilistic and apocalyptic stories Doesn’t really help much. We need more deeply personal stories of hope, change, and survival. “