The figure of an all-knowing, all-powerful scientist, whether as a villain or a hero, emphasizes individual and human-dominant solutions in the Anthropocene.
Drawing on our class discussions about masculinity and the danger of the hero trope in the Anthropocene.
create human clones to rip out their organs for money and power
Like the genetically modified pigs in Atwood's "Year of the Flood"!
Because they are all-powerful, they become capable of destroying the planet or humanity.
yes-- this trope marks an interesting shift from religious martyrs/saviors to scientific geniuses who serve similar purposes.
While it is, of course, necessary to rely on scientists to understand, survive and find ecological solutions in our geological epoch, it is also important to avoid mystification that feeds on the presupposed inadequacy of the people
This is why the environmental humanities are so important! They help prevent this mystification and knowledge gap.
A dominant narrative of the Anthropocene casts scientists as hero-like figures
highlighting the Geopower building block.
Amazed by the mountain’s beauty, the viewer wanted to access it, and it is these very movies that made that possible by showing them how to.
Yes this make me think about how we can approach environmental tourism from an ethical perspective...what regulations are necessary? Who has the "right" to visit vs. who does not? Does anyone deserve to more than others?
Therefore, does this director actually propose alternative narratives and new ways to film the Anthropocene, or is it only an attempt at it that remains enclosed in mainstream, Western cinematic workings?
Perhaps he is negotiating a compromise between the two...so that he can still have the funds to make inroads in slow cinema.
As spectators, we are constrained to contemplate the "action-deficient scene as a form of violence" (McMenanim 94) against the tree.
I wonder about how effective 'slow cinema' is across age groups...I feel like many Gen Z viewers would get bored, look at their phone, and the technique and consequent message would go over their head...perhaps older generations would engage with it more?
it rejects the idea of one global and blameful humanity by filming local destruction.
Challenging Global Humanity building block through portrayal of an individual's narrative/daily life.
‘Back then, man and beast lived in harmony, but as time went by, most of the great forests were destroyed. Those that remained were guarded by gigantic beasts who owed their allegiance to the great forest spirit. For those were the days of gods, and of demons.’
Wow-- super interesting how the subtitles reframe a message through a more anthropocentric/hierarchical lens.
offer the perspectives of non-human entities.
offering views from below-- through non-human perspectives and imaginative kid perspectives! I also love Ghibli :)
Just like these movies, the planet’s story does not have a main plot happening at one precise moment in time, but is constituted of a multitude of times, people and narratives.
Great articulation of how you are disrupting the Global Humanity and History as Stages building blocks through film.
They indeed create an active audience, one that has to think about the story being told. It teaches us to go from being a passive spectator to an intellectually active agent: the films do not resolve themselves without their audience.
Similar to Staurt Hall's theory of active spectatorship!
shake his audience, surprise them, and lead them in the wrong direction. This goal of his has mostly been understood through his shocking display of violence, but here it is also clear in the unusual narrative structure
Great parallel to B + F's Shock of the Anthropocene. It reminds me of our class discussion on the power of the "shock factor" within Anthropocene discourse.