Comic Eco-Disaster Films

Films dealing with eco-disasters in the 1950s through the 1970s and early 1980s were a serious affair: See in addition to Them! (1954), Silent Running (1971), Omega Man (1971), Soylent Green (1973), The China Syndrome (1979), and Silkwood (1983), and even Frogs (1972) and Humanoids from the Deep (1980). But later films highlighting similar eco-disasters—beginning with the late 1980s Toxic Avenger series (1985 and 1989) and Class of Nuke ‘Em High and its sequels (1986-1989)—look at toxic waste dumping, energy over-consumption, and radiation poisoning from a more comic perspective. Eco-comedies like these broach a variety of  questions: How can the same environmental message be presented at least as effectively in a comedy in 1985 or today, rather than a serious science fiction film in 1950? What are the consequences of such a genre change? And, more importantly, what made such a dramatic genre shift possible?

Comic eco-disaster films illustrate the seriousness of current environmental problems by making us laugh within different contexts and with different intentions and results. For example, the Class of Nuke ‘em High films (1986-1990s) rely on the dangers of nuclear power waste production for their humor, with students mutating because of uncontrolled radiation leaking. Biodome (1996) and Blast from the Past (1999) include environmental concerns only as a backdrop for comedy. The Freshman (1990), Crocodile Hunter (2003), and Rugrats Go Wild (2003) look at abuse of endangered animal species from a comic angle, and Naked Gun 2 ½ examines out-of control nonrenewable energy companies through a parody highlighting Frank Drebin’s (Leslie Nielsen) slapstick. WALL-E (2009) examines humans' over-consumption and its destruction of Earth and offers a comic solution to a post-apocalyptic problem.

The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke ‘Em High, and Men at Work take a hyperbolic approach to comedy and the environment, concentrating on thwarting real and possible environmental disasters caused by dumped or leaked toxic waste of various kinds. And Naked Gun 2 ½ and 8 Legged Freaks spoof more “serious” film genres—crime dramas and science fiction films, respectively. But mainstream “straight” comedies like The Freshman, Arachnophobia (1990), and WALL-E may also carry environmental messages hailing “mature” ecosystems where the community is valued over individual exploitative pioneers. 

But, again, why did filmmakers highlighting eco-disasters shift genres from serious science fiction and other genres before 1980 to comedies—spoofs, parodies, and playful crime, slapstick, and anarchic film comedies—after 1984? The environmental problems seem the same—but the cultural context and audience responses have changed. Like Arachnophobia, Rugrats Go Wild ((2003) argues against human exploitation of the natural world, and like The Freshman, the film opposes poaching, in this case of elephants’ tusks. In this animated comedy, however, human and animal characters work together, and environmental messages are far from subtle. Crocodile Hunter (2003), too, makes a blatant cry to preserve the natural world and its animals—even crocodiles—through the voice of the Crocodile Hunter stating his message directly to the audience. But Crocodile Hunter also mixes genres, this time nature documentaries and comic feature films. Other film comedies integrate environmental messages merely as plot devices—see Biodome (1996) and Blast From the Past (1999). Early eco-comedies like Godzilla, on the other hand, speak directly to the Cold War paranoia and fear of environmental catastrophe presented in films like Them! just like 8 Legged Freaks.  

So do these eco-comedies present more mature environmental messages in spite of their clearly immature comic bent? One thing seems sure—they show us compromises, with the human community prospering (not just its pioneers) and the natural world surviving (or at least saved from certain death from toxic chemicals). In 8 Legged Freaks, for example, the town of Prosperity regains economic strength because gold is found in a mine. And mining clearly exploits the natural (if not living) world. But mining disrupts the natural world much less than does toxic waste dumping—a plan sure to kill human and nonhuman nature.

Eco-comedy films of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s also grew out of the environmental movements that came before them. The year 1970 served as a turning point for environmental programs, services and agencies like the EPA. In the 1970s, however, filmic representations of environmental problems were much more earnest and intense, since the environment and its exploitation were taken seriously at local, state, and federal levels of government. Even science fiction films of the period like Silent Running and Soylent Green were serious fare.

By the late 1980s, problems associated with environmental disasters seemed old hat because EPA controls seemed firmly in place: Gas was unleaded, catalytic converters were mandatory, and recycling was on the rise around the country. Film audiences no longer needed to be warned about environmental problems, it seemed, since the United States already had institutions in place that tackled the issue. After the fall of the USSR in 1989, Americans also felt no threat of a nuclear holocaust. It may be that American film audiences grew complacent about eco-disasters and bored with serious discussions about environmental issues.  Media representations of environmentalists as “granola eaters” and “Birkenstock Bourgouisee” perhaps made it easier to laugh at environmental problems—the context for environmentally conscious films changed in the 1980s, and so did audience reactions to environmental issues.

Environmentalism seemed more like an “ivory tower” issue, taken seriously only by politically correct actors like Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood, who had no financial or survival concerns to challenge their belief in environmental protections. Environmentalists seemed laughable to people in the mainstream who could not afford to luxuriate in the ideals of the Sierra Club. Working class people of the 1980s were more concerned with loss of jobs and lack of support themselves and their families than with protecting and/or nurturing nature.

The cultural and historical context of the period seems to have made it possible to laugh at the environment—to find a way to represent environmental concerns in comic ways. But the translation of that comedy into a different view of the hero—a more communal and interdependent one—may be how these eco-comedies actually communicate important messages about the environment. Environmental exploitation now serves as fodder for comedy because audiences know enough about it to find it funny. Comic films make fun of issues audiences understand, and those issues change as times and audiences change. So now—with the first Earth Day far behind us, and eco-solutions under debate—the environment offers us room for laughs.