PRINTRecycling can’t save you now
Eco-horror films show nature’s dark side
Jenny McDermott
April 10, 2008 | 12:00 a.m. CST
Blood-sucking insects. Flesh-eating monsters. Old milk cartons. For generations of horror flicks, the subcategory of eco-horror has used scare tactics to spread awareness about the environment. And when it comes to motivating change, these films might be on to something. “Fear is an effective motivator,” says Columbia psychologist Jacqueline Ellis.
The type of fear induced by eco-horror is different than that found in a slasher movie. “The eco-horror idea is really closer to science fiction in that it involves fear of a global threat whereas the slasher films are about threats to individuals,” says Rick Worland, professor at Southern Methodist University and author of the The Horror Film: An Introduction. So although documentaries such as An Inconvenient Truth have dominated the mainstream imagination and thrillers such as The Day After Tomorrow have promoted an eco-friendly agenda in recent times, there is also a message beneath the gore of eco-horror.
The Frightening ’50s
Tuning in to environmental anxieties dates back to the original Godzilla, the legendary 1954 film in which a giant reptile terrorizes Tokyo. The film’s real monster, however, is nuclear testing. “If you look at the ’50s, the Cold War is really an important factor,” says Timothy White, associate professor of film studies at Missouri State University. “You see that people were really worried about nuclear warfare and the atomic bomb.”
Other flicks such as 1954’s Them!, a Godzilla-like movie with ants replacing the giant lizard, exhibit the same fears of nuclear war and radiation. There were fears of other scientific endeavors at play in the ’50s as well. In 1959’s The Killer Shrews, a researcher attempts to miniaturize humans to solve overpopulation. Genius! Only, his experiment goes awry and, oops, he creates some monstrously ravenous rodents.
The Scary ’70s
Twenty years later, eco-paranoia cinema was resurrected by such movies as 1971’s Willard, in which a loner releases killer rats on his enemies, and 1972’s Frogs, which similarly features killer critters — just curiously few killer frogs. “The ’70s saw more films of nature taking its revenge on mankind because we’ve screwed the planet up so badly,” White says.
Frogs, for example, has the not-so-subtle tagline “It’s the day that Nature strikes back!” “Frogs came out around the time when Nixon actually created the EPA,” Worland says, “which is a pretty clear indication that there was public concern for the environment.” Although Willard is more of a classic horror film, a deeper message lies within. “The idea, ultimately, is that nature can’t be controlled,” Worland says.
The terror of Today
Today, eco-horror has come back to haunt us. It’s unsurprising that movies such as The Last Winter have appeared within the past two years to tackle topics including oil drilling and global warming.
Bill McKibben, an environmentalist and author of the book Fight Global Warming Now, says that global warming is a legitimate fear today. “We’ve gone from worrying about things we can see and relatively easily take care of — smog — to things that are less clearly dirty but in the end far more dangerous — climate change,” McKibben writes in an e-mail interview. The Last Winter reflects these woes as an abused Mother Nature, outraged at oil-mongers’ environmental recklessness, wreaks havoc on researchers at an Alaskan oil-scouting center.
However, White warns not to overanalyze the good intentions of the movies. “It’s probably a combination of spreading a message, a desire to be taken seriously and trying to make money,” he says.
Plus, documentaries shouldn’t be disregarded. “There is something that comes before action, and that is making people think,” Ellis says. “Documentaries make you think.” According to McKibben, who is featured in the global warming doc Everything’s Cool, fear probably isn’t the answer. “People need a vision of what the world could look like if we did things the right way,” McKibben says, “not just a vision of what it will look like if we get them wrong.”
But who doesn’t love a good scare? Maybe the 1970s’ It’s Alive series best embodies the message of eco-horror. Unlike The Day After Tomorrow, which depicts the estimated effects of eco-ambivalence, It’s Alive, like its ilk, uses symbolism — its monster is a murderous infant spawned from an otherwise normal woman; it represents an aberration from the natural course. “These films have to do with the idea that we are spawning some kind of force,” White says, “and we can’t destroy it because we are responsible for it.” And how much do you want to bet the hole in the ozone is a lot bigger than Godzilla?
