Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2007 Political Ecology in Large-Format Films: Analyzing Environmental Representation & Audience Reception of Imax Nature Documentaries Jason Kemmitt Smith

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION

POLITICAL ECOLOGY IN LARGE-FORMAT FILMS: ANALYZING

ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATION & AUDIENCE RECEPTION OF

IMAX NATURE DOCUMENTARIES

By

JASON KEMMITT SMITH

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2007 The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Jason Kemmitt Smith defended on November 13, 2006.

______Andy Opel Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

______Stephen McDowell Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

______Phil Steinberg Outside Committee Member

______Donna Nudd Committee Member

Approved:

______Stephen McDowell, Chair, Department of Communication

______John Mayo, Dean, College of Communications

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are so many people I need to thank because of their support throughout my graduate career. Without their love, understanding, guidance, financial assistance and advice, I would not have been able to complete this project and receive my doctorate. First and foremost, I must express my gratitude for my faith in God, recovery, and the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Then, I must thank my mother, Suzanne P. Smith. Your undying devotion to your children over the years, while experiencing the loss of your husband and debilitating health has been nothing less than awe-inspiring. I love and admire you more than you can possibly imagine. Also, without my two sisters Sarah A. Smith and Jessica L. Smith, I would not have the strength or confidence to keep going; I love you both immensely. To my father, James J. Smith, M.D., who died in 1996 and encouraged me to follow a career in communication, I will always love you. Beyond my immediate family, I am grateful for the love and kindness of the following: The Casarella Family, Dr. George and Eugenie Edmonds, George and Corrine Edmonds, Dr. Stephen and Penelope Leach, Dorothy Wright, The Murphys, The Brownings, The Stouts, Richard Delhaie, Chris Guiles, Tom Casarella, Firat Tuzunkan, Joseph Debellis, Lilly Byrd Messec-Anderson, Lucy Perrone, The Perrone Family, Johnny “Fire” Smith, Will Kinnally, Kimberly Leahy, Megan Fitzgerald, Kaysee Baker, Will Dulaney, Mark Hollingsworth, Bob Iglehardt, Brett Law, “Buddha” Jeff, Leslie Whatley, Jamie McLaughlin, Sharla June Benedict, Matty, Shaun “Tennessee Stix” MacMillan, Joel Barto and Jim Danitschek, M.D. I am indebted to a long list of people for their patient, nurturing guidance during my elementary, high school, collegiate and graduate careers that includes: my learning disability teachers and assistants from Ashford Elementary School and E. O. Smith High School, Frank Christianson-Lagay, Todd Bryda, Kevin McClure, Agnes Doody, Donald Ellis, Roger Desmond, Jack Banks, Katherine Black, Evelyn Chen, Bill Yousman, Gary Heald, John Mayo, Donnalyn Pompper, Art Raney, Laura Arpan, Donna Nudd, Davis Houck, Barry Sapolsky, Marilyn Young, Barney Warf, Phil Steinberg, Bill Law, Mary Ealey, Natasha Hinson-Turner and Hans Meyer. I greatly appreciate the help of the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater in St. Augustine, Florida, The Museum of Science and Industry in Tampa, Florida, and Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater in Tallahassee, Florida. I would like to thank Rick Fisher and Michelle Personette at the Challenger Learning Center.

iii Finally, I owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to Andy Opel and Steve McDowell. Steve not only helped me get my foot in the door at Florida State in the College of Communication, but maintained a steady connection with me throughout my trials of teaching, coursework and research. Without Andy, this project would not have gotten off the ground. Years of working with him generated great conversations, musicianship and multiple ideas (especially the one for this project). I am honored to have had the opportunity to work alongside, present research, and publish with such a genuine, talented person. I am also grateful for his continued dedication toward assisting me in advancing my career.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... VII 1. NATURE ON THE BIG SCREEN: ...... 1

“IMAX: THINK BIG!” ...... 1 SEEING IMAGES ON THE BIG SCREEN:THE IMAX EXPERIENCE ...... 4 “IMAGE MAXIMUM”NATURE:LOOKING AT THE BIG PICTURE...... 7 2. THE IMAX EXPERIENCE®...... 9

PROJECTING “LARGER-THAN-LIFE”IMAGES: IMAX PRODUCTION ...... 9 THE “REALLY BIG”MOVIE MAKING BUSINESS...... 11 IMAX NATURE AND WILDLIFE DOCUMENTARIES...... 14 IMAX, NATURE &REPRESENTATION ...... 17 NATURE AS COMMODITY IN SOCIETY...... 21 3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIETY & NATURE: FROM ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY TO POLITICAL ECOLOGY...... 22

HISTORICAL ROLE OF MATERIAL NATURE IN MARKET ECONOMIES ...... 25 HUMANS &NATURE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY...... 30 From Pastoral to Urban Life: The Reflection of Nature in Industrial Culture ...... 31 SUSTAINABILITY OF CAPITALISM &POLITICAL ECOLOGY ...... 33 PUBLIC &PRIVATE TENSIONS CREATING PERCEPTIONS ABOUT NATURE...... 35 INDIVIDUALISM &BIO-CENTRISM...... 37 MEDIA’S ROLE IN ALIENATING HUMANS FROM MATERIAL NATURE ...... 38 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATION IN MEDIA & POPULAR CULTURE: THE CASE FOR THE IMAX EXPERIENCE...... 39

CUTE &FUZZY NATURE...... 39 THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE MEDIA’S EYES ...... 41 NOT IN MY BACKYARD TO THE HEADWATERS FOREST:RESISTANT VOICES...... 44 ENVIRO-POP:GREENWASHING CULTURE ...... 48 NATURE’S NICKELODEON...... 50 Creating the Documentary...... 55 IMAGES OF SUBLIME NATURE,MYTH AND FILM ...... 55 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECTACLE...... 56 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXHIBITING CREATURES FOR AMUSEMENT:FROM THE COLISEUM TO SEA WORLD...... 58 IMAX: SPECTACULAR ENVIRONMENTS ...... 59 5. METHODOLOGY: GAZING AT MAXIMUM NATURE ...... 61

ORBITING THE PLANET &BEYOND:SEATED IN THE IMAX THEATER...... 61 AUDIENCES RECEPTION OF THE IMAX EXPERIENCE:DOES SIZE MATTER? ...... 62 ANALYZING THE IMAX EXPERIENCE ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATIVE TRADITION ...... 65 THE ETHNOGRAPHIC SHIFT IN AUDIENCE STUDIES ...... 67 DISCURSIVE SPACE,SOCIAL CONTEXT &INTERPRETATIVE COMMUNITIES...... 70 FOCUS GROUPS,IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS, OR ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS...... 73 SAMPLE ...... 76 PROCEDURE...... 80 6. EXHIBITS AT THE MUSEUM: MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS, JELLYFISH AND BEARS, OH MY! ...... 86

WATCHING EVEREST,BEARS &ALIENS OF THE DEEP:READING VISUAL TEXTS...... 86 IMAX TOURISM IN THE SUNSHINE STATE...... 86 CLIMBING MOUNT EVEREST...... 87 HEROIC DRAMA AND LESSONS OF HEROISM IN EVEREST ...... 93 CHASING BEARS ...... 96

v BEWARE OF THE BEARS...... 101 UNIDENTIFIED FLOATING OBJECTS...... 103 HOLLYWOOD MARINE EDUTAINMENT...... 110 ORGANIZING THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IMAX...... 112 7. ABSORBING IMAX: IMAGE VS. TEXT ...... 114

IMAGE VS.TEXT:AQUESTION OF FORMAT ...... 114 WHO &WHY DID PEOPLE VISIT THE IMAX THEATER?...... 117 JUST THE FACTS IMAX!...... 118 IMAGE KNOWLEDGE...... 123 PRE-EXISTING KNOWLEDGE ...... 126 IMAX FORMAT: “HOW ARE THEY GETTING THESE PICTURES?”—C.H...... 129 VICARIOUS EXPERIENCE AND PLEASURE OF THE IMAX EXPERIENCE:FEELING INVOLVED ...... 132 SHADOWS AND ECHOES OF SENSATION:IMAGE VS.TEXT ...... 135 8. CRITICISMS OF PRODUCTION & ENVIRONMENTALISM ...... 137

MISSING THE “BIG”PICTURE:THE AUDIENCE’S CRITICAL GAZE OF IMAX ...... 137 CRITICS OF THE BIG SCREEN ...... 140 CAMPY COMMENTARY:IS IMAX JUST FOR KIDS? ...... 144 JAMES CAMERON &PARTNERSHIPS IN IMAX PRODUCTION ...... 148 THE NON-ENVIRONMENTAL NATURE OF IMAX DOCUMENTARIES ...... 153 IMAX POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY...... 155 9. IMAGE MAXIMUM NATURE: AUDIENCE ATTITUDES & AGENCY ...... 157

AUDIENCE ATTITUDES &AGENCY ...... 157 PRE-EXISTING KNOWLEDGE IN IMAX ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATION...... 158 “SHOWING NEVER BEFORE SEEN IMAGES OF NATURE?” IMAX & ATTITUDES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 166 IMAX ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS ...... 171 INSPIRING ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY...... 173 THE IMAX SUGGESTION BOX ...... 177 AUDIENCE ANTHROPOCENTRISM...... 181 10. CONCLUDING REMARKS: ANTHROPOCENTRISM, MEDIA LITERACY & AGENCY IN IMAX VIEWER RESPONSES ...... 183

IMAGE VS.TEXT;CRITICISMS OF PRODUCTION &ENVIRONMENTALISM &IMAGE MAXIMUM NATURE:AUDIENCE ATTITUDES &AGENCY...... 186 IMAX DISCOURSES OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM &PRODUCTIVISM ...... 189 MEDIA LITERATE AUDIENCES: “WELL,JIM CAMERON SAID THAT ‘I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT IS.’”—C.L...... 190 POPCORN &PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SEATED IN FRONT OF THE BIG SCREEN...... 192 SIGNIFICANCE OF ANALYZING THE AUDIENCE KNOWLEDGE OF IMAX DOCUMENTARIES...... 193 LIMITATIONS:ISSUES OF “NATURAL” AND “CONTRIVED”DATA...... 196 “HOLDING BACK” IN THE GROUP &DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY...... 197 APPENDIX A ...... 199 ORAL CONSENT FORM...... 199 APPENDIX B...... 200 SCREENING QUESTIONS...... 200 APPENDIX C...... 202 PROPOSED QUESTIONS...... 202 REFERENCES ...... 203 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 207 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...... 217

vi ABSTRACT

People’s responses to environmental messages in IMAX nature documentaries Everest, Bears, and Aliens of the Deep were examined. Two processes were involved in their reactions that included media literacy and personal experience. Based upon respondents’ levels of media literacy and personal experience with nature and wildlife, I suggest that people can come away with a new understanding of the natural world from the IMAX screen. Also, watching the films reinforces the two-step flow model of communication. Discourses in the documentaries could potentially inspire viewers to have conversations with family and peers that stress broader problems that threaten the environment, such as the practices of pollution, waste treatment, energy consumption, over-development, and encroachment.

vii CHAPTER 1

NATURE ON THE BIG SCREEN:

“IMAX: Think Big!” —The IMAX Website (2005)

The slogan, “See More, Hear More, and Feel More at the Ultimate Movie Experience” reveals what audiences should expect viewing an IMAX film. Millions of tourists, theater-goers, and children all over the world gaze at IMAX’s giant screens each year hoping to get “more” out of their cinema “experience.” For three quarters of a century, going to the movies meant that a person could take a two hour hiatus from life. Whether trudging through the jungle, exploring an undiscovered Egyptian tomb, journeying on horseback, hurdling through space, laughing and crying during a romantic fling, or angered by political injustices, films briefly loosen reality’s grip on human consciousness. For the most part, mainstream cinema relies on fictional tales with mythic characters to extend the illusion of escape for audiences. IMAX not only enlarges these experiences, it promises to further scuff the boundaries between representation and materiality by incorporating hi-tech projection in their scientific nature documentaries. IMAX’s “infotainment” or “edutainment” oriented documentaries are a popular attraction among parents traveling with children and IMAX theaters are a common destination for school field trips with hopes from teachers that kids “Learn More.” Undoubtedly, IMAX makes great efforts to teach people about the natural world. In fact, 113 of the 240 IMAX Theaters are located in educational complexes such as museums or places, like the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater in Tallahassee, Florida. However, what do audiences really learn about the natural world in IMAX documentaries? In this dissertation, I hope to find out what people are learning about nature and wildlife in IMAX documentaries. What role does the big screen have on the learning process? What do the efforts of scientists and IMAX filmmakers achieve by taking audiences along on their exploration of the eco-system? Since IMAX is such a popular attraction worldwide, it is an expanding contributor to the formation of cultural attitudes about the environment. IMAX promotes itself as an educator and they claim that the documentaries are designed to enlighten audiences. Whether IMAX realizes it or not, it is a growing force in shaping individual

1 perceptions about the eco-system. Natural resources and global ecosystems are suffering depletion, degradation, and over-consumption at an alarming rate. Possible solutions to reversing these ominous trends and improving ecological awareness are rooted in encouraging proactive individual attitudes, perception and eschewing destructive behaviors. Due to exacerbating environment conditions, recent emphasis over the past thirty years by the environmental movement encouraging individual efforts in recycling, waste reduction, and energy conservation has helped to change many attitudes about the way humans should treat the earth. Influential works motivating the environment include Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Forty years later, these works have led up to inspirations such as the creation of Earth Day, the three “R’s” of recycling, and motivated legislation toward the reduction of PCB’s in manufacturing. Nevertheless, an ever-advancing media technology in a shrinking consolidated media industry reliant on news values and companies’ “green-friendly” advertising campaigns distorts the goals of environmental activists. Thus, limitations continue to constrict independent voices, ideas about the eco-system that provide alternative solutions to environmental problems. Since IMAX attracts millions of people to watch scientific documentaries, it has a special opportunity to offer entertaining alternative to the commercial agendas reflective in the content of dominant media outlets. I argue that IMAX documentaries’ representations of nature and wildlife do not contextualize the conditions of the eco-system. Often representations reinforce anthropocentric positions by using narratives that emphasize the way continued scientific exploration can benefit human vitality. Also, discourse in the films deflects concentration away from “bio-centric” consciousness, which advocates proactive attitudes toward matters such as the natural life cycle of animals, plants and natural resources (DeLuca, 1999, p. 57). “Bio-centric” discourses also stress the importance of humans forming symbiotic relationships with the eco-system. Instead, IMAX’s documentaries are couched in a discourse of productivism and anthropocentrism (Smith, 1998, p.76). “Productivism” refers to the way industrialization naturalizes production and consumption in a commodity-based system as the primary sources of human progress. Progress is defined by humans’ inherent drive for economic prosperity generated through the exploitation of labor and the ability to manage, manipulate, and control the environment through the mastery of technology.

2 The ability to create the illusion of control over the environment fosters “anthropocentric” attitudes that assume humans are the dominant species. According to Toby Smith’s (1998) The Myth of Green Marketing: Tending Our Goats at the Edge of Apocalypse, representations reflective of productivism appear in the form of advertising that implicitly promotes consumerism. The hyper-commercial media culture barrages people with messages that encourage spending. Paradoxically, the impetus of the environmental movement feels that many solutions to environmental quandaries depend on directing attitudes and behaviors toward less consumption. IMAX’s financial support from private and publicly funded institutions influences the production of content. The majority of IMAX theaters are located within educational complexes, and many of the documentaries are produced with financial assistance from public foundations, trusts, and institutions like NASA, The Smithsonian, The National Science Foundation, Ocean Futures Society, the United Nations Environment Programme and National Geographic. Private firms and investors such as Lockheed and Martin and Amica Insurance also introduce complexities to the production of IMAX documentaries. Many times, publicly funded organizations cannot pay for the all filmmaking costs, such as Digital Re-Mastering (DMR) conversion, distribution, or other budget costs. However, public and private entities are not the only constituents involved in the production and distribution matters. Some of the 137 visitors polled at IMAX Theaters in Southern U.S. states cried that the movie, Volcano, which “mentioned evolution, The Big Bang Theory, or the geology of the earth as blasphemous” (Dean, 2005, p. 11). In a March 21, 2005 New York Times article “Evolution on Film? Cut!; Some U.S. Theaters Bow to Creationists”, explained that IMAX Theaters such as the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History in Texas turned down showing Volcano due to the emphasis on evolution and fearing that the movie would offend visitors. Administrators of local IMAX properties exercise the right to refuse to show certain documentaries by gauging the cultural sensibilities of the community where the IMAX facility is situated. In light of the tensions that exist between producers and administrators, understanding people’s perceptions of IMAX documentaries is the thrust of this dissertation. Moreover, the influences of public and private partnerships in addition to local administrators involved in the production, distribution and exhibition of IMAX are considered in my analysis. First, I analyze the representations in IMAX documentaries by interviews,

3 conducting focus groups, or leading small group discussions to examine audiences’ interpretations of Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep.

Seeing Images on the Big Screen: The IMAX Experience

Just like any other night at the movies, walking into the dim vastness of a stadium-style auditorium incurs feelings of anticipation. Especially at modern multiplexes, audiences are accustomed to digitally enhanced images, soft reclining chairs, and sounds surging from all directions. Viewing a film in an IMAX Theater offers a similar experience, except for the enormous screen that may temporarily disorient the moviegoer. Before the movie begins, an IMAX employee greets the audience and informs them that they may experience motion sickness during the film. If this occurs, the audience is told to close their eyes for ten seconds then re- focus on the screen to re-establish their equilibrium. Charles Acland (1997) says that the, “power of the sensation of involvement cannot be easily dismissed, and indeed is a keystone in the IMAX industry” (p. 290). Furthermore, the IMAX website claims that “only IMAX lets you feel like you're really there” and promotes their films by frequently using words like “stunning, captivating, engrossing, engaging, and ride-like” to describe the effects on audiences produced by the screen (The IMAX Corporate, 2005). The differences between IMAX and conventional cinema drive much of the current arguments centered on the socio-cultural significance of IMAX. Scholarship focuses on IMAX’s format and how it positions the audience as “tourists” since many of its advertising campaigns use terms to accentuate the movies’ ability to take people on journeys to “larger-than-life” places (Acland, 1997, p.290). IMAX bills its films focusing on their ability to take theater-goers from the comfort of their stadium style seats to exotic, mysterious, and unusual lands without buying a plane ticket. Charles Acland (1998) explains that when IMAX claims visitors can experience “‘being there,’ it is most often thought of in terms of a sensation of movement; ironically, it is the induced sensation of travel, rather than arrival at a location, that prompts the claims of hyper- presence” (p. 435). Thus the IMAX screen manipulates audiences’ perception of films due to the illusions of movement produced by shifting camera angles and large clear images. “Hyper-presence” refers to the dissolution of the IMAX screen’s boundaries by creating an “illusion of materiality” where the line between the simulations of real places and images blur (Acland, p. 290).

4 IMAX puts you into the picture, which carries the connotation that the films are “so real you want to touch them” and that IMAX films’ “illusion of materiality” is actually more important than the films themselves; filmic representation is less central than the effort to create the sensation that the screen has disappeared, that it is truly a window and the spectator sits right in the image. (Acland, p. 290) Further, Acland (1997) articulates the distortion audiences experience between representation and material reality manifested in IMAX features. A vast majority of IMAX films depict nature and wildlife and introduce guests to a variety of animal species and foreign locations from varied perspectives. The promotion of IMAX’s nature and wildlife documentaries also emphasizes the vernacular that highlight the ability of these films to transform moviegoers into tourists or explorers. Cameras fitted to planes, submarines, and race cars try to produce the illusion that audiences feel as if they are moving at great speeds. Some films allow the audience to see the earth from a bird’s eye view. In 1990, Blue Planet, produced by Graeme Ferguson of IMAX Space Technology Incorporated for the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum with help from Lockheed and Martin provided a glimpse of the planet from space. The tone of the narrative highlights the natural or human induced changes in the earth’s eco-system. Narrator Toni Meyers explains that “every second one acre of land is burned” while a small bird is depicted trapped in a tree and forlorn primates are shown staring at the camera as flames lick the branches of their surroundings. Acland (1997) argues that, “IMAX sees itself as an educator with a prime interest in environmental issues, promoting understanding of the natural world and introducing ideas about ecological responsibility” (p. 294). Documentaries like Blue Planet (1990) invoke strong emotions regarding environmental consciousness in an unmistakably educational and entertaining context. Contributing to its reputation, IMAX received an award of excellence from Perrin Beatty, Canada’s Minister of Communication in 1991, an Environmental Achievement Award from Jean Charest, Canada’s Minister of the Environment in 1986, and the IMAX 3-D feature The Last Buffalo won best film in the Social, Environmental and Cultural Category at the 1991 Japan Industrial-Cultural Film and Video Festival (Acland, 1997). IMAX’s frequent portrayal of the environment presents a compelling area to investigate its role in portraying nature. Furthermore, Mary Nucci (2004) explains “that there is little research on how much learning is going on while

5 watching an educational IMAX film.”1 Because few qualitative audience reception studies are attempted in general, how perceptions are influenced by these images of nature suggests that a shift toward audience readings of these cinematic exhibits needs to continue.2 IMAX is part of a broader cultural industry that capitalizes on transforming nature into a site for amusement. Susan Davis (1997) in her book, Spectacular Nature, argued that “the problem of the representation of nature in commercial culture created by Sea World and places like it are the most ersatz cultural artifacts possible; they are carefully constructed, expensively maintained artificial worlds that most of the time fairly successfully conceal their own extreme artificiality” (p. 8). Guests of Sea World view wildlife in a quasi-natural habitat while shopping for T-shirts, Budweiser, and stuffed marine animals (Davis, 1997). Animals at the park are “spectacularized” because they are shown doing tricks, stunts, or happily frolicking with park staff at scheduled performances. Davis (1997) also argues that historically the nature of amusement theme parks have carefully allocated and appropriated space to serve economic ends. Moreover, she says that much of the scholarship concerning theme parks paid little attention to understanding “the political and economic workings of themed spaces or connect the park directly to their social history” (p. 3). However, Davis’s (1997) analysis of the park did not include an examination of guests’ interpretation of the experience. Although IMAX is not a theme park, the theaters are often showcased inside zoos, museums, theme parks and educational complexes throughout the world. Mary Nucci (2004) also says that since museums, theme parks and other educational institutions rely on public funds and donations they “bank on the wow factor of IMAX films,”3 especially at educational complexes, where attendance consists mostly of families or students on school field trips. In these instances the educational content of the documentaries is promoted as a way for parents and teachers to feel reassured that their children may learn while having fun. In addition to donations, only specific Hollywood productions are selected for IMAX exhibition based on their resonance to children and families, usually films with a PG-13 rating or lower. Many of the Hollywood features are typically chosen because they possess some highly digital elements that are intensified by the IMAX screen such as Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Harry Potter and Spiderman 2. Exceptions to this policy include The Matrix, which is R-rated. Perhaps the film series’ emphasis on computer graphic images and potential to attract more visitors

6 influenced IMAX’s decision to showcase them. For the most part, IMAX’s marketing prides itself on the family-safe, friendly and enlightening amusement it offers. Since IMAX’s advertising claims that visitor’s feel immersed in the worlds presented on the screen, it is similar to the way guests at Sea World are allowed to view marine animals as spectacular exhibitions. IMAX spectacularizes nature and wildlife by projecting them on an enormous screen, which may provide viewers with a visceral sense that they are visiting with animals. Just like when audiences see animals at Sea World and feel the rush of being splashed by Shamu, audiences watching an IMAX film are allowed to interface with animals in their faux natural habitats. Also, IMAX’s commoditization of nature and wildlife contributes to a broader understanding of how the entire IMAX Experience influences the social construction of the environment in the context of popular culture (Meister & Japp, 2002). This project hopes to explore visitors’ individual interpretation of the IMAX screen by testing the claims of its advertising that “you can experience being there where IMAX takes you” (The IMAX Corporate, 2005). Drawing from Acland’s (1997) and Davis’(1997) argument that IMAX imbues feelings of “hyper-presence” in illusions of material nature in a context of tourism, I hope to further explore the role of audiences’ involvement with IMAX screens in helping to form perceptions of the material world.

“Image Maximum” Nature: Looking at the Big Picture

The following chapter describes how the IMAX Experience works. It explains that IMAX is an emerging format in the broader box office market, which has included major Hollywood productions. The IMAX nature and scientific documentaries have definitely benefited from the profits generated from IMAX’s recent agenda to cater to a wider movie-going public. Because of allegiances with movie distributor chains such as National Amusements, IMAX format is emerging as an attractive amenity in multiplexes across the world. Yet this is symbolic of IMAX’s recent position as a contributor to the way millions view the world on the big screen making it part of the larger popular culture landscape, which helps to shape perceptions and attitudes concerning the physical and social reality. Chapter 3 specifically discusses the treatment of material nature in a capitalist social structure may have contributed to the formation of “productivist”, “anthropocentric” positions toward the eco-system in cultural artifacts such as IMAX documentaries (Giri, 2004, Escobar,

7 1999; DeLuca, 1999; Smith 1998, O’Connor, M., 1994, O’Connor, J., 1988, Deleage, 1994, Altvater, 1994, Beckenbach, 1994). Moreover, criticism derived from discourses in political ecology and Actor Network Theory drive much of the theoretical discussion. The fourth chapter discusses the current arguments and trends over the last twenty years in environmental communication concerning news media, film, and IMAX. Many scholars’ approaches to analyzing the portrayal of environmental issues, discourses, and ideologies circulating throughout the media culture are provided. Because the media “performs a key ideological role in reproducing the dominate values that underpin a capitalist system”, it is the central site influencing cultural perceptions of the natural world (Anderson, 1997, p. 46). However, IMAX nature and wildlife documentaries employ images, narratives and texts do not encourage themes of bio-centricism and the entire IMAX Experience® is couched in a discourse of productivism and anthropocentrism (Deluca, 1999; Smith, 1998). The methodology discusses which films are subject to my reading in addition to the films and locations where audiences’ responses are gathered. The dissertation is divided into two parts: (1) my analysis of those films and (2) reading audience reception of IMAX scientific nature documentaries. The first part uses focus groups, small groups, and interviews to answer the following questions: What do audiences learn about the ecosystem in IMAX’s scientific nature documentaries? Do audiences come away with a new understanding of the natural world? Are feelings of increased environmental awareness invoked by the films? The second half asks: How do IMAX’s documentaries construct representations of nature and wildlife? Finally, chapters six through nine address the above questions by collecting and analyzing responses to the documentaries and my reading of those films.

8 CHAPTER 2

THE IMAX EXPERIENCE®

“In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.” —Guy Debord, (1983)

“The current interest is not only in how public discourse puts in play the sublime, but also how the discourse of the sublime directs and constrains how nature is perceived, pictured, and discussed.” —Kevin DeLuca & Anne Demo, (2000)

“Only IMAX lets you feel like you're really there.” —The IMAX Experience, (2005)

Projecting “Larger-than-Life” Images: IMAX Production

With each pan of the camera, the U-shaped screen, which can measure eight stories high, creates “breathtaking images.”1 However, IMAX offers another screen format such as the Omnimax, which is a dome-shaped screen very similar to that of a planetarium. Whereas the U- shaped screen stands in front of the audience, the Omnimax screen’s bowl shape surrounds the audience. 3-D movies provide another element to the IMAX Experience. IMAX uses the same system of projecting 3-D introduced in the 1950’s, which refers to the way the screen “displays two images, while the glasses cause one of the images to enter one eye and the other to enter the other eye” (How IMAX, 2003). Whether projecting 3-D images on the U-shaped or Omnimax screen, IMAX possesses state of the art film amenities to enrich its claims of audience involvement. Producing big images is an expensive and arduous process. IMAX makes considerable augmentations to the standard 35 millimeter projection system. The IMAX film is spooled on extremely heavy five-foot (in diameter) discs, which are then laid flat on the brackets of the projection room. The film is then fed sideways through the projector as opposed to vertically (How IMAX, 2004). The IMAX film reel’s size is required to accommodate the “15/70 millimeter film stock, which is ten times the size of standard 35 millimeter film”(How IMAX,

9 2004). Contrary to the traditional 35 millimeter film projection process that top loads the exposure into the machine, the IMAX projector is horizontally loaded. Similar to the film loaded into a 35 millimeter projector that is guided through feed sprockets across the film trap illuminated by a xenon bulb and regulated by a shutter, ‘the IMAX projector requires a vacuum system illuminated by a much brighter 15,000 watt xenon bulb and sucks each frame onto the glass to ensure its steadiness’” (How IMAX, 2004). In addition to an advanced projection process, one of the most difficult aspects of showcasing IMAX films involves physically moving the five foot reels from place to place via tractor trailer. Getting the reels into the theater presents another significant challenge. Carl Fullerton, projectionist at the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater in Tallahassee, Florida, says that “six theater staff members assisted in physically moving the reels of Warner Brothers’ The Matrix Revolutions and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” from the delivery truck into the building.2 Finally, manipulating the giant reels inside the projection room sometimes requires two or more sets of hands to lift and place them onto the spools. IMAX produces documentaries and exhibits Hollywood films at its theaters and in multiplexes. Documentaries are usually shot using IMAX cameras and some Hollywood features are also shot with IMAX cameras. All films must be digitally converted through a process of Digital Re-Mastering (DMR). Some Hollywood films are converted from 35 millimeter format, but it is usually less expensive than documentary productions. Costs for “DMR or Digital Re- mastering, which converts almost any 35mm film into IMAX costs about US$ 2 million to repurpose a 35-millimetre film compared with a typical budget of US$ 9 million for an IMAX original documentary” (How IMAX, 2004). Until recently, IMAX features could only be shown on IMAX screens, but MPX technology has afforded IMAX the opportunity to show films in traditional theaters. The Multiplex Technology or MPX allows IMAX to format its films to the conventional multiplex theater screen. Diversity of formats IMAX uses to show its films has steadily proliferated the IMAX name throughout the world as synonymous with large-format- film.

10 The “Really Big” Movie Making Business

In 1967 at the World Expo in Montreal, Canada, spectators saw the first “Image Maximum” or IMAX movie (IMAX Corporate, 2005). “IMAX premiered at the Fuji Pavilion, EXPO ’70 in Osaka, Japan. The first permanent IMAX® projection system was installed at Ontario Place’s Cinesphere in Toronto in 1971. IMAX® Dome technology debuted at the Reuben H. Fleet Space Theatre in San Diego in 1973” (The museum of, 2005). The term “Image Maximum” refers to the immense images projected on the screen. Roman Kroitor, Graeme Ferguson, Robert Kerr and engineer William Shaw formed IMAX Corporation as the foremost exhibitor of large format cinema (The IMAX Corporate, 2005). IMAX films did not instantly gain notoriety due to the high cost to produce IMAX films and building availability required to house the screens. As of 2005, IMAX is featured at many museums, educational complexes and cinemas across the world. Hoover’s (2003) reported IMAX Corporation’s last quarter of 2003 generated $119 million in sales from its science nature documentaries and plans to have 20 more theaters in the next 5 years.3 A March 10, 2005 press release revealed that IMAX’s plans for expansion were probably successful because they reported a 14% quarterly revenue increase ($136 million) in 2004.4 As of October 25, 2006, Hoover’s (2006) reported, IMAX sales in 2005 of 144.9 million. Metropolitan cities in the United States such as New Orleans, New York City, Boston, and Los Angeles as well as international places like Toronto, Canada, Mumbai, India, and Shanghai, China, integrated IMAX theatres into arts districts, while even smaller markets such as Tallahassee, Florida in the U.S. incorporated the IMAX Theater into their Challenger Learning Space Museum and Planetarium. Moreover, IMAX’s partnerships with publicly and privately funded organizations suggest further considerations in developing an understanding of the processes involved in production. Rick Fisher, former Director of the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater in Tallahassee, Florida says IMAX says that over the last few years, attendance at IMAX theatres experienced a drastic dip. As a way to curb this decline, IMAX showcases Hollywood features to draw more visitors and increase sales. Marketing Manager, Cheri Rivers of the Mugar Omni Theater and Science Museum in Boston, MA highlights the findings of the 2004 Giant Screen Theater Association (GSTA) viewer study, which found that audiences “prefer that one good

11 film is shown rather than multiple lower-quality films” (p. 58).5 Recently, IMAX’s integration of summer and Holiday Hollywood blockbusters and partnerships with theater distributors has significantly increased revenues. IMAX exhibited Hollywood productions such as Spiderman 2 and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban on IMAX screens in the summer of 2004. Two years later the IMAX Corporation released V for Vendetta, Superman Returns and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Although the costs for digital conversion are not considerable compared to most budgets of movie production companies, the cost is much less than converting an IMAX documentary, which may hurt continued documentary production. Stephen Low, producer of Volcanoes of the Deep, expresses his concern for institutional cinemas such as those located in museums, educational complexes and tourist stops as privileging “bargain priced-alternatives presented by DMR conversions” (Seguin, 2005, p. 45). The sexiness and flashiness of high budget Hollywood Blockbusters has influenced production decisions in the direction of IMAX documentaries. In fact, Low remarks that attracting financiers of films like Volcanoes of the Deep, that detail “the behavior of six-foot long tubeworms at the bottom of the ocean” is a frustrating and “brutal” process (Seguin, p.45). He added that, “I can’t tell you how often I’m asked, ‘Can’t you put in some cute graduate student?’” (Seguin, p. 45). Although IMAX documentary directors’ partnerships with private financiers certainly alleviate production expenses, private financiers feel justified in deciding what appears in the films. Hollywood blockbusters provide a significant financial incentive for IMAX. Sales of local IMAX Theaters must make up the cost of exhibiting Hollywood films, but directors and marketing managers of smaller IMAX properties hope that the blockbusters will attract more visitors and boost attendance. IMAX’s desire to show Hollywood films is not restricted to their own theatres. “In the summer of 2004, IMAX signed an agreement with Cinemark USA Incorporated (the third largest North American commercial theater exhibitor) and National Amusements Incorporated, (the sixth largest North American commercial theater exhibitor)” (New National Amusements’, 2005). Also included in the terms was that “22 theaters will be installed with IMAX MPX theatre systems” (New National Amusements’, 2005). Waning attendance and the 2004 GSTA study shifted more consideration by IMAX to showcase DMR productions and form partnerships with Cinemark and National Amusements, but these decisions have cemented IMAX as the leading exhibitor of large format film. Not only

12 does IMAX dominate the large format film market, it currently reaches the mainstream film going audience. People wishing to see an IMAX movie no longer need to travel to a metropolitan city or museum; they only need to make a trip to a nearby multiplex. Also as a result, documentary productions do not share as much attention in IMAX’s advertising strategy and do not appear in IMAX MPX format. Chief Executive Officers Richard L. Gelfond and Bradley Weschler of IMAX Corporation said that these multiplex deals “reflect accelerating interest in IMAX from commercial exhibitors across the world” (New National Amusements, 2005). “The Polar Express” was released for the 2004 holiday season and was the first film distributed by IMAX in MPX format. “The Polar Express: An IMAX 3D Experience, grossed approximately $35 million domestically on only about 60 IMAX screens, and approximately $10 million internationally on just 20 IMAX screens, bringing the per-screen gross from this one film to over $500,000” (IMAX Corporation reports, 2005). In July of 2006, IMAX showcased Superman Returns, which generated 6.83 million dollars of the 108 million dollar nationwide gross. The same summer, V for Vendetta earned 5.6 million dollars and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire raked 20 million dollars for the company. However, IMAX was only running the picture on 11 screens with plans of exhibiting the film on 24 in the following months (Superman, 2006, July 7). Theatre operations revenues, which translate to sales at IMAX and multiplex theaters, was “$6.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2004, as compared to $3.0 million in the same period” last year, meaning that attendance increased along with the growth and expansion of the theaters (IMAX Corporation reports, 2005). Even though documentaries do not cost as much to produce or are promoted as heavily as Hollywood pictures, they are still the dominant genre IMAX features. In fact, during the summer months, Deep Sea 3-D, a scientific adventure of undersea adventure grossed 8.8 million dollars earning more than Superman Returns and V for Vendetta. It is possible the presence of a Hollywood movie may entice audience to see an IMAX documentary or vice versa. According to a 2004 exit poll survey taken in November 10, four new sites of National Amusement that feature IMAX MPX theater systems are located at multiplexes: in White Plains, New York; Buckland Hills, Manchester, Connecticut; Louisville, Kentucky; and Springdale, Ohio. Ninety-three percent were extremely or very satisfied with The IMAX 3D Experience, and 86% are more likely to visit the multiplex again in the near future because of the addition of an IMAX theatre (New National Amusements, 2005).

13 The Polar Express was the most successful for IMAX in 2004 mostly because it was the first film shown in MPX IMAX format. Film revenue for the year was $27.9 million versus $25.8 million last year, which was helped by the success of The Polar Express: An IMAX 3D Experience in the fourth quarter of the year (New National Amusements, 2005). Moreover, in 2006 the company reported that it plans for the second quarter of the year to earn approximately 40 million in film revenue. Undeniably, IMAX’s participation with the multiplex industry generated wider interest with the broader movie going public and could surpass 35 millimeter film as the dominant format in the future.

IMAX Nature and Wildlife Documentaries

Over the past thirty-four years, IMAX has produced and distributed many films with nature themes, such as North of Superior (1971), Nomads of the Deep (1971), Volcano (1973), Ontario/Summertide (1976), Silent Sky (1977), Ocean (1977), River Journey (1984), Skyward (1985), On the Wing (1986), Weaving Ants (1987), The Deepest Garden (1988), Blue Planet (1990), The Last Buffalo (3-D) (1990), Into the Deep (1991), Ozarks: Legacy & Legend (aka The Fiddle) (1995), Africa’s Elephant Kingdom (1998), and Island of the Sharks (1999) that include undiscovered glimpses at nature (Big Movie Zone, 2005). Among 85 independent distribution companies, MacGillivray Freeman, 3D Entertainment, and Destination Cinema contribute to IMAX films’ nature series (Big Movie Zone, 2005). Cinematographers working for MacGillivray Freeman such as Greg MacGillivray and Brad Ohlund travel the globe equipped with IMAX cameras and collaborate with leading scientists from a variety of fields. In many of these films, nature appears as an unbridled, untamed, unpredictable and sometimes violent force. Since 1976, MacGillivray Films, located in Laguna Beach, CA and Japan, produced thirty-three features for IMAX exhibition, in addition to nine more upcoming releases in production (Big Movie Zone, 2005). According to their website they claim that they “have taken IMAX camera’s to extraordinary places” (MacGillivray Freeman, 2005). Currently, MacGillivray dominates the distribution and production of IMAX nature and wildlife movies. In January 2004, Coral Reef Adventure was shown in fifty-five large format theatres and reportedly earned $21.1 million domestically and $24.6 million worldwide making it the “highest grossing documentary” that year (Big Movie Zone, 2005). The film follows Howard and Michelle Hall,

14 biologists who have charted the world’s largest coral reefs in the South Pacific. Arthur Salm of The San Antonio Union Tribune describes, “Coral Reef Adventure as both an ethereal manifestation of spectacular beauty and the sobering account of a slow motion catastrophe” (MacGillivray Freeman, 2005). Again, words like “spectacular” dominates popular discourse on the way IMAX documentaries frame the “catastrophic” conditions of environmental degradation. Other equally popular films produced by MacGillivray Freeman have generated massive profits throughout the past ten years: Journey into Amazing Caves (2001) $39 million, Dolphins (2000) $73.7 million, Everest (1998) $125.7 million, and The Living Sea (1995) $87.6 million (MacGillivray Freeman, 2005). 3D Entertainment’s Ocean Wonderland 3-D generated $17 million to date and hopes to reach similar goals with Sharks 3-D, which opened at places like Tampa, Florida’s Channelside Omnimax. 3D Entertainment recently formed a partnership with Jean-Michel Cousteau, the chairman of the Ocean Futures Society and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to produce Ocean Wonderland 3-D and Sharks 3-D (Big Movie Zone, 2005). In a recent press release, Francois Mantello, executive director of 3D Entertainment stated that, “We are thrilled to be working with such a world-renowned personality as Jean-Michel on this new ocean adventure and to have expanded our agreement with UNEP” (Big Movie Zone, 2005). Not only does IMAX form partnerships with publicly funded institutions whether in the phases of production or exhibition, its distributors closely work with accredited scientists, environmental advocates and philanthropists to produce documentaries that support environmental causes. Michael Kleinshrodt (2005), movie critic for The Times Picayune says that in Sharks 3D, “the conservation message is strong, but Mantello does not sacrifice entertainment value to make his point; perhaps, he wisely realizes that nothing makes a stronger case for conservation than the gorgeous images presented in his film” (p. 5). Clearly, IMAX’s intention to frame its documentaries as first and foremost produced in the interest of encouraging conservation and environmental protection are not concealed. Moreover, the enormous screen may intensify narratives on marine life. Another contributor to the IMAX documentary series is Destination Cinema, who has produced nineteen features including three upcoming releases. One of its most popular films Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets (1984) directed by Keith Merrill director of Yellowstone (1994), shows images of the giant cavern from the perspective of a hang glider. As one reviewer,

15 Dan Heaton, writes it “explores a famous natural monument by presenting mankind's relationship to it, instead of conveying the scientific aspects, he focuses on our attempts to discover its secrets” (Dan Heaton reviews, 2002). In an example of discourse surrounding Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets, the “man’s relationship to the canyon” is emphasized rather than “scientific aspects”, which seems to point out this reviewer’s lack of interest in the impact of humans have on nature and as if science is a mutually exclusive concept. Doug Pratt of DVDLaser.com writes, “The Grand Canyon and IMAX were made for each other and the only challenge is to keep such a program interesting for a full 40 minutes, something that is handled with aplomb” (Big Movie Zone, 2005). Pratt (2005) alludes to IMAX’s confidence in presenting such glimpses of the gigantic canyon in an “interesting” manner thus reinforcing the claims of IMAX’s advertising that any image projected by IMAX screen is automatically provoking regardless of what it is. In 2004, Destination Cinema’s Forces of Nature directed by Academy Award nominee George Casey, who produced other Destination Cinema productions like Alaska: Spirit of the Wild (1997) and The Eruption of Mount St. Helens (1980) won Best Film of Festival Award at the Large Format Cinema Conference and Film Festival. Narrated by actor Kevin Bacon, Forces of Nature was produced by National Geographic Television and Film division with help from Amica Insurance and The National Science Foundation and took ten years to capture the images of the national monument. Lisa Truitt, head of the National Geographic Television & Film Large-Format Film Unit explained that the images in Forces of Nature cover events that shape our world and when seen on the giant screen, this film will offer an unprecedented opportunity for audiences to both experience and learn about the frightening power of a tornado, the violence of an earthquake and the explosive might of a volcanic eruption (Big Movie Zone, 2005). The words used by Truitt (2005) to describe this documentary emphasize the “experience and learning” of audiences through “frightening, powerful, and mighty” imagery. Similar to Pratt’s comments, the IMAX screen is positioned in the discourse of reviewers and production executives as the optimal format to engage audiences on virtually any genre. The expertise from filmmakers and for gathering data and help from filmmakers for the orchestration and assembly of the films are necessary elements in production of an IMAX nature documentary.

16 IMAX, Nature & Representation

The enlarged portrayal of animals and landscapes help to create a visceral spectacle. Often large format filmic representations abstract the eco-system and convey the idea that nature is an entity separate from humans. Acland (1997) argued that IMAX’s illusions of materiality promoted by advertising claims that audiences feel they are “sitting in right in the image.” As I mentioned previously, feelings of “hyper-presence” obfuscate the differences between what is real and artificial in IMAX films. Further, the movies may either create a vast distance between the viewer and the screen or make audiences feel included in the frame. Regardless of IMAX claims of the involvement audiences experience while watching their films, representations of nature and wildlife do not challenge existing socio-economic power structures responsible for ecological destruction. Moreover, IMAX does not clearly define what audiences could do to stop further damage to the ecosystem. The persistent portrayal of the environment in this manner runs parallel to some scholars’ arguments criticizing capitalism’s management of natural resources and offers insight into the reasons behind consistent representations of nature in popular culture. For the most part, my analysis draws from theories in the environmental discourse of political ecology. Brulle (1996) explains that “this perspective sees the source of ecological problems in the structure of our society” the instability created by “industrialization’s excessive strain on the natural environment” (p. 17). Humankind’s development of industrial means of social organization has led to an over-consumption and exploitation of nature in conjunction with the gradual development of capital accumulation. Arturo Escobar (1999) says that, “with the development of science and machines, nature and society achieved a unity in the generalized production brought about by capitalism” (p. 4). Nevertheless, humans are reliant on nature in innumerable ways to satisfy the basic necessities required for survival. Other scholars like James O’Connor, (1988) Martin O’Connor, (1994) Jean Deleage, (1994) Elmar Altvater, (1994) and Frank Beckenbach (1994) explain that the inevitability of ecological denigration exists because embedded practices the forces of labor and production alienate people from economic participation and exacerbates their detachment them from a material existence. Prior to industrialization, humans tilled the earth, sowed crops, and hunted from the land. An immediate connection was visible between early humans and nature because an intimate

17 relationship with the earth was necessary to monitor consumption to sense scarcity of natural resources. Early civilizations were cognizant of how much they could consume and when to consume it and learned to conserve resources when supplies were waning by understanding natural flows in animal species birth and mortality rates, climatic changes, and plant gestation. However, the transition into converting natural resources into use-value through the mass production of manufactured goods displaced the human sensitivity to fluctuations in the ecosystem. Saroj Giri (2004) says that the result of a reliance on industrialized conversion of nature into its use-value “alienates [us] from nature and that this stems from our identity and difference with nature” (p.65). Giri (2004) also challenges Polanyi’s (1944) articulation of the relationship of man, labor, and nature by arguing that it is the degree of humans’ “capacity for labor and production” that works to separate humans from the “articulate whole” (p. 65). O’Connor (1988) supports Polanyi’s arguments but claims that the separation occurs mostly through two distinct crises that occur according to the Marxian paradigm. Since human capacity for labor and production relies on technology, it is the most influential intervening force in alienation (Marcuse, 1964; Kellner & Best, (2004), Luke, 1997) Similarly Smith (1998) echoes Williams (1980; 1973), Escobar (1999), Polanyi (1944), Giri (2004), Marcuse (1964) and Luke’s (1997) sentiments regarding the disarticulation of humans to nature brought about by industrialization and the naturalization of the market-based social system that links advancing technology to progress. Productivism is evidence of humans’ alienation to nature manifesting itself in depletion and wasteful patterns of behavior—to produce means to progress. Progressive emphasis on capital accumulation also fosters self-centeredness and “anthropocentric” attitudes toward the planet (DeLuca, 1999). As humans further separate from the natural world, increasingly attitudes, perception and beliefs about social reality turn intrapersonal. Immediate consequences of issues like personal pollution do not overtly materialize, hence people feel like, “Hey, it’s not my problem.” Drawing from Raymond Williams (1980; 1973) is helpful to understanding alienation and how attitudes like these are culturally reproduced by values associated with capitalism. Representations in popular culture of nature are reflective of the ever-increasing “human- nature-gap” between social process and material nature (Giri, 2004, p.68). Polarized depictions of nature and wildlife illustrate the confusion humans experience as to: What is the nature of their relationship to nature? Historically, nature is culturally dichotomized as spiritual or a

18 violent entity, which is cherished, its power attempted to harness and treated with extreme caution due to its unpredictable propensity. Photographs, films, and video games have continued to reinforce this trend with distinct messages about human nature relations. In addition, news media, a major source for information about the world around humans, present ephemeral, incomplete or de-contextualized stories of the environment while the environmental degradation caused by industry is concealed by public relations efforts and turned into advertising strategies. In June 2006, President Bush signed a bill to officially recognize the Northwest Hawaiian Island Marine reserve as a national monument (Eggerton, 2006). Bush intimated that seeing the episode “Voyage to Kure” of Jean-Michel Cousteau’s documentary Ocean Adventure series on PBS inspired him to proceed with the decision (Eggerton, 2006). In fact Bush remarked that, “I’d like to thank Jean-Michel Cousteau for making an important movie. I hope when folks see this movie they’ll understand the decision I made when they see it” (Eggerton, p. 1). This example reinforces the impact documentary film can have in influencing legislature and raise awareness of preservation. Films like the Cousteau series amplify the significance of further understanding what role artifacts like these have in teaching people about the environment as well as their efficacy at making changes in cultural perception by helping to enforce political directions toward conservation. This instance is not isolated but part of a historical development of events where artists, filmmakers, and scientists have combined efforts to reach the public and reiterate the value of protecting natural resources such as land, water, and wildlife. However, the efforts have yielded results sometimes counterintuitive to the initiatives of activist groups and conflicted with the agendas of the environmental movement as a whole. In 1864, Carleton Watkins’ photographs of Yosemite led to the, “construction of pristine wilderness as the sublime object of nascent environmentalism” (DeLuca & Demo, 2000, p. 242). DeLuca & Demo (2000), drawing from Roland Barthes’ (1977) argument that myths serve an important function in the creation of culture, argue that much of our senses of conservation are based primarily on myths in idealized representations. Images like Watkins’ photographs of Yosemite initiated, “rhetoric that utilized the discourse of sublime wilderness to promote designations of national parks in the interests of development and tourism” (p. 633). Thus early representations of nature initialized public and private institutions to allocate spaces for profit. Yet, simultaneously, nature is frequently depicted as a frightening or cunning enemy. Hollywood movies like Earthquake! (1974), Twister (1996), Volcano (1997), Dante’s Peak (1997), Stephen

19 King’s (1999) mini-series, Storm of the Century, and The Day after Tomorrow (2004) dramatize cataclysmic events poised as vengeances of Mother Nature. In another instance, Andy Opel’s & Jason Smith’s (2004) article, Zoo Tycoon™: Capitalism, Nature and the Pursuit of Happiness, claimed that nature’s role as commodity is even more transparent in the Microsoft CD-ROM game, Zoo Tycoon™.6 In the game, nature appears commoditized by allowing the player to buy and sell exotic animals, reconfigure park spaces to house the animals, and carefully insert concession stands to satisfy the hunger of computer-generated guests. The mainstream news media also generates very specific lessons about nature and wildlife. In 1988, on the Norfolk Coast of Britain, seals were dying of unexplained causes, which were considered a key news event by the Daily Mail (Anderson, 1997). Beside images of seals with “sweet friendly faces and doleful eyes”, the Daily Mail wanted to designate the event as a human interest story, so they relied on unconfirmed reports that the deaths were AIDS-related (Anderson, p.148). The true cause of the deaths remained obfuscated due to mixed reports from scientists that pollution was the possible culprit. Nevertheless, the AIDS virus angle was played up due its highly controversial and emotionally evoking quality. Photographs of loveable, cute, and furry seals dominated the text and images in the newspaper’s coverage of the event. News values such as satisfying the desire for ad revenue, beat reporting, timeliness, novelty, deviance, and sensationalism interfered with producing authentic and credible environmental information. Alternatively, environmental dilemmas are reframed as marketing opportunities in the practice of “greenwashing”, which is when ecological conditions are disguised by news values or corporate public relations campaigns (Karliner, 1997). In 1990, Shell Corporation’s oil spill in Nigeria was carefully augmented by the public relations efforts of Hill & Knowlton (Smith, 1998). The Shell Corporation’s negligence in poisoning the Nigerian people’s eco-system with crude oil was cleverly covered up in one follow-up print ad campaign that featured a photograph of local Nigerians in their village huts alongside captions that expressed their gratitude and reliance on Shell Chemicals (Smith; 1998; Karliner; 1997). More evidence of “greenwashing” also appears in popular culture in the form of artifacts, spaces, images and texts that converge to tell stories that imbue norms, values and beliefs about the environment.

20 Nature as Commodity in Society

Whether nature and wildlife is represented as sublime in photographs, personified as a dangerous force in mainstream cinema, displayed as bubbling sideshows at Sea World, virtually manipulated, managed, and commoditized in Zoo Tycoon or arranged by IMAX films to produce the effect of enormous elephants charging at audiences, distortions persistently complicate individuals’ perceptions about the relationship between humans and the eco-system. Constructions of nature and wildlife in IMAX’s scientific documentaries also contribute to the chaotic milieu of popular culture. The frequent presence of themes that do not challenge the overuse and depletion of natural resources by capitalism may discourage individual change. Arguments in chapter three describe the evolution of the relationships humans have had with the planet, while the political ecological paradigm discusses the way political, cultural, and media discourses shape beliefs about the environment. Economic anthropologists claim that the practice of barter in early economies caused disembedded market systems and increased emphasis on accumulation; as a result, conservation, community and spirituality steadily declined. The reason for staging a discussion about IMAX using economic anthropology and political ecology is to illuminate the underlying assumptions about nature in society. Ideas about the social and physical world come from a variety of apparatuses, one of which is the political economic system. The ritual behaviors of individuals and organizations are influenced by the motivation to make a profit, which is reflective in abundant representations of nature and wildlife in the media. Activities such as water consumption, waste removal, and energy usage run counter to the practice of accumulation, which is also probably why more progressive themes in the media are marginalized. Simply working from a model that encourages the reformation of only individual behaviors is not sufficient. Acknowledging that profit-seeking industries and government agencies have a greater impact on the global eco-system in one year than the waste and pollution habits of the average person suggests that there are relative relationships between material nature and the social system. Nevertheless, understanding the way the economic system continues to institutionalize the consumption of natural resources and the protection of individual profit provides the groundwork for looking at environmental discourse, especially in the area of IMAX films.

21 CHAPTER 3

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIETY & NATURE: FROM ECONOMIC ANTHROPOLOGY TO POLITICAL ECOLOGY

“A peaceful place or so it looks from space, a closer look reveals the human race. Full of hope, full of grace is the human face, but afraid we may lay our home to waste” —Lyrics from the Grateful Dead song, “Throwing Stones” (1987) “My friend says we’re like the dinosaurs, I mean we are doing ourselves in much faster then they ever did” —Lyrics from the Porno for Pyros’ song, “Pets” (1993)

“Are you tired of namby-pamby environmental groups? Are you tired of overpaid corporate environmentalists who suck up to bureaucrats and industry? Have you become disempowered by the reductionist approach of environmental professionals and scientists? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then Earth First is for you.” —From the Earth First! Website (2005) The conclusion of the previous chapter provides arguments from several scholars describing the relationship between nature and society. The discussion is framed by considering the debates originating from theories in economic anthropology and political ecology. The purpose of this dialogue is to try to establish how discourses of consumerism, productivism, and anthropocentrism developed (Smith, 1998, p.76). My argument is that these discourses are attached to the treatment of material nature by the social system. More specifically, nature’s translation to a purely empirical and economic value has developed over a slow process evident in the expansion, growth, and prosperity of hundreds of civilizations throughout history. Thus, scholarship gleaned from the field of economic anthropology provides evidence that a direction toward progress through over-consumption for the purposes of accumulation contributed to cultural attitudes associated with consumerism, productivism, and anthropocentrism. Political ecology focuses on why discourses like these continue to circulate through culture since the emphasis on scientific and technological progress beginning during the Enlightenment. Also, it claims that the naturalization of capitalism as the most efficient system of social sustainability

22 has exacerbated conditions by inculcating harmful cultural practices and activities biased toward prioritized human vitality ahead of the protection of all other organic life. To fully comprehend IMAX’s role in shaping audience’s perception of the environment, examining the socio-economic cultural system in which it is situated helps to illuminate motivations behind the production of IMAX’s scientific nature documentaries. Issues such as global warming, energy management and resource depletion present compelling evidence that capitalism thrives on the over-consumption of the environment. Natural resources possess a use- value vital to the sustainability of the commodity based-system. Arguments gleaned from economic anthropology offer explanations for the gradual naturalization of market economies as a means of social organization, which has systematically disarticulated human beings from material nature causing alienation and anthropocentric attitudes. Discourses in political ecology, more specifically deep ecology, attempt to re-position cultural assumptions about nature with the hopes of changing perceptions. Also, this dialogue tries to derail ingrained ideas that run counter to sustaining a symbiotic relationship with the eco-system. IMAX depicts environmental issues such as the degradation of coral reefs, animal extinction, and water pollution, but the narratives seldom implicate existing political policy or wasteful social behaviors as culprits. Because these films are also positioned in a broader media industry; representations are partially influenced by a desire to make a profit. Alienation comes from the fact that humans are distanced from agrarian activities required to convert natural resources to commodities. The introduction of the Internet gradually transformed the industrial into an information-based economy. Moreover, the reduction of semi- and highly skilled trade-oriented labor was steadily replaced by post-Fordist, large scale manufacturing of appliances. Later technologies, such as cars, microwaves, cell phones and computers, were invented to make life easier. The Enlightenment is also partially responsible for the trajectory of technological progress through the slow indoctrination of the scientific paradigm, which resulted in privileging reason over intuition in modern society (Smith, 1998). This shift towards relying on technology for social progression induced apathetic cultural attitudes toward taking care of the environment. Other possible reasons include: the general perception that severe environmental problems do not immediately affect individuals; conservation efforts run counter to people’s goals of achieving happiness; distortion by the press of ecological damage created by corporations and the environmental movements’ goals; “neo-

23 corporatist decision-making” in scientific research, which retards the dissemination of information to the public of impending environmental crises and causes ambiguous timelines of projected ecological problems, and industry greenwashing, which is when companies carefully disguise the harm they have caused the eco-system with polished public relations and advertising campaigns (Karliner, 1997, Anderson, 1997; Brulle, 1996, p. 37 & DeLuca, 1999). In modern society, humans no longer need to know how food is cultivated to eat it, how to weave wool into textile for clothing to wear it, or understand just exactly how a computer sends an e-mail. Moreover, as industries seek globally outsourced labor for cheaper manufacturing and services, people in Western nations are alienated further from their own country’s economy. Drastic changes in the organization of labor and social life have not only permanently augmented lifestyles of modern humans, but made individuals in society less visibly dependent on the natural lifecycle of the eco-system. Thus, environmental problems are perceived as not directly causing people harm. Moreover, individual comfort and prosperity have superseded any necessity for social actors to maintain a mutually beneficial connection to nature in daily behaviors. Activities of waste reduction, energy conservation, and opting for public transportation run counter to activities of consumption and self-centered attitudes. Advertising’s ingenious attempts to barrage the public with messages emphasizing that happiness is derived from purchasing products is accomplished through the incessant emphasis on positive emotions associated with cars, jewelry and clothing. Endorsements are carefully engineered to show how products assuage feelings of discomfort, anxiety, and stress, and equate buying things to “feeling better” rather than to a means of satisfying basic needs. Arguably, the passions for spending are based on the principle that people seek “happiness” through the act of buying. Psychologist Daniel Gilbert (2004) has investigated human’s hedonistic propensity and found that people make “errors in estimating both the intensity and duration of our emotions and ‘bias’ our tendency to err” known as the “impact bias” (Gertner, 2003, p. 2). In Gilbert’s (2004) article The Peculiar Longevity of Things Not So Bad, he found that “intense hedonic states trigger psychological processes that are designed to attenuate them and because people are unaware of these processes, they mistakenly expect more intense states to last longer than less intense states” (p. 18). A paradox is experienced where smaller, less intense states have a “peculiar longevity” (p. 18). For example, people buy smaller amounts of “forbidden foods” to avoid over-eating and wind up consuming twice as much (p.

24 18). Gilbert argues that “we over-estimate the intensity and duration of our emotional reactions” such as intensive feelings of happiness or discomfort (Gertner, 2003, p. 1). For example, “we might believe that a new BMW will make life perfect; But it almost certainly be less exciting than we anticipated; nor will it excite us for as long as predicted” (Gertner, p. 1). As a result, people’s quest for happiness is a never-ending endeavor. In fact, Gilbert explains that, the “average person says ‘I know I’ll be happier with a Porsche than a Chevy’, but the problem is that not actually obtaining the actual ‘future’; the real problem occurs in figuring out which of those ‘futures’ will make you happy” (Gertner, p. 2). Regardless, of where the search for happiness ends, humans tirelessly search for what they think will bring them happiness, which generally means continually acquiring material goods. Buying products appears to be an enormous source for achieving contentment, coupled with a drive to keep up with the “Joneses”, which causes financial instability for millions of people. According to a March 8, 2005 Wall Street Journal article, the U.S. federal reserve reported that consumer credit outstanding rose to “a record $2.12 trillion” in January, which followed “an $8.7 billion increase in December to $2.11 trillion” (Dow Jones Newswire, 2005). Unfortunately, unless preservation, conservation, or waste management are culturally positioned as viable, cost-effective solutions or choices designed to make people “happy”, social actors will remain unlikely to engage in eco-conscious activities. Especially in the current media saturated culture, people are increasingly informed of technological wonders, which are presented as ways to alleviate every problem encountered in social life. This consumerism fosters “productivist” attitudes and discourses which refer to the specific direction of progress facilitated by technology and “the destruction of nature with instrumental reason” (Luke, 1997, p.151; DeLuca, 1999, p. 57). Since IMAX is a product of technological innovation and a publicly traded corporation, understanding how it operates to generate profit in a market economy helps to contextualize depictions of the environment in its scientific nature documentaries. Furthermore, IMAX is partially funded through partnerships with public and private groups, which adds tension to the motivation behind the messages it conveys.

Historical Role of Material Nature in Market Economies

Timothy Luke (2001) explains that nature does not “exist abstractly or independently of the organisms it envelops, and the life forms that larger environments circumscribe, surround or

25 encircle always transform those environments to sustain their existence”(p. 3). Apart from recognizing that nature is interwoven into the structure of market economies, “it is the realization that private property is a natural right of man to that he is mixed with his own labor” (Williams, 1980, p. 76). The ownership, appropriation, and redistribution of nature are inextricably tied to forces of labor and production. Moreover, continued wealth accumulation instigated by privatization, land ownership, and industrialization strengthened humans’ exploitative propensity resulting in ecological destruction. Anthropocentric attitudes are fostered in the development of the processing, manufacturing, and conversion of natural resources to use-value because humans have perceived control over nature. Karl Polanyi (1944) argues that, although economy has always existed in societies in some form, there has never been a society fully controlled by unregulated markets until the events leading up to the period of industrialization. He goes on to explain that, “in spite of a chorus of academic incantations so persistent in the nineteenth century, gain and profit made on exchange never before played an important part in human economy” (p. 43). Contrary to Adam Smith’s charges that the inherent competitive nature of man creates a “propensity to gain, barter, and truck,” Polanyi (1944) claims that the desire for ownership of land, property, and financial gain is the result of a socialized process created by the accumulation visible after the dissolution of feudal class relations and ever-shifting flows of labor and production. Further, the misconception that human’s have an intrinsic or natural desire to accumulate has tended to pervade contemporary economic theory. Nothing of economic importance in non-market economies—the production of staple foods, external trade, ceremonial exchange, bridewealth, bloodwealth, obligatory payments to and disbursements by political leaders—existed independently of the political and social institutions and relationships determining what we label “economic” things, activities, and transactions.1 (Polanyi, 1944). Polanyi argued that societies thrived for thousands of years where they were not dependent on one another because they were self-contained. Early market civilizations differed from industrial and post-Fordist industrial societies because economic forces did not necessarily determine social stratification and organization; rather, the economic system was merely a function of social organization (Polanyi, p. 49). This means that trade existed outside community practices because it was not seen as a necessary

26 aspect of groups feeling interconnected or cohesive. Creating a sense of place through the process of householding and cultivating practices of redistribution and reciprocation developed an understanding among early civilizations that continued social relations (which also included maintaining sustainable ecology) over individual prosperity (Polanyi, 1944). The primary purpose of barter meant that it was a social relation of transaction and not ascribed purely an economic value (Humphrey, 1985, p. 50). “The exchange of one commodity for another, the circulation materialized social labor—this result is attained, the process is at an end” (Marx & Engels, p. 119). According to Marx & Engels (1976) when commodities are exchanged proportionately and no profit from the exchange is generated through an equally proportionate transaction, it is expressed in the equation C-C. Generating profit where money is exchanged as a commodity (C-M-C) for the purposes of accumulation is a relatively new process, which was not always built into the cultural fabric as a necessity for a successful social system. In civilizations such as the Trobriand, Inca, and Nuer, the economy was regulated to ensure collective sustainability. In the Trobriand Islands, “trade exists as though no profit is involved, either in money or kind, no goods are hoarded or even possessed permanently instead the reciprocity in human social behavior dominates” (Polanyi, p. 50). Tribal leaders oversaw every transaction so that goods and services would be redistributed equally to the rest of the members of the society; any generation of profit would cause instability by creating an imbalance of wealth and cause great disparity distribution of power through the affirmation of strong class distinctions. Reciprocity in an embedded economy means optimizing the social well- being of the individual in every exchange. According to Polanyi (1944) reciprocity is what prevents the economy becoming embedded in society. If a transaction should create circumstances where an individual would compromise their own value systems or cast an unfavorable light on their reputation in society, the exchange would not have been viewed as a mutually beneficial transaction. In contemporary market systems where profit is made from exchange, disembedding occurs, which is where the economy is not embedded in social relations; instead, social relations are embedded in the economic system (Polanyi, 1944). Robert Merton’s (1949) theory of reformulation of functionalism that includes the concepts of manifest and latent activity help to shed light on Polanyi’s comments. “Manifest” refers to the intentional results of social processes, while “latent” functions are unintended or not obviously recognized results of those processes (Merton, 1949). The manifest

27 of the act of an exchange is that one thing is traded for another, and the latent function of the activity is to create community cohesiveness, solidarity, and ensure the “good” of the collective.2 Because modern market economies are almost purely oriented toward the individual’s prosperity, market forces may not always determine happiness and survival of the collective. Arguably, according to Polanyi (1944), because modern economies are based on the success or failure of the individual, it does not have a direct impact on the rest of society. Instead, the market allows for high levels of social sustainability of the collective regardless of the actions of one or a few individuals. Because individual prosperity is considered a natural right in modern economies, an individual’s identity is redefined as an integral element in the production of social relations to a measurement of economic worth. Pre-industrial societies were more connected to the modes of production because individuals tilled the soil, cultivated the land, avoided unnecessary waste by consuming and producing only what was needed, and developed frugal storage systems. These systems were in place in hopes of not upsetting social networks or destroying community solidarity. As we see at the beginning of industrialization, the introduction of factory owners (capitalists) in a liberal market economy causes disequilibria through the creation of class division as a result of the exploitation of surplus labor populations.3 Post-feudal agrarian capitalist societies, no longer ruled by the church or royalty that owned much of the wealth, thrived on the redistribution of land amongst more diverse classes of people. The results of the re-allocation and re-distribution of land amongst the agrarian classes began the common-law enforced practice of enclosing land not converted to pasture. The practice of enclosure during the Tudor period in England meant that land was demarcated for ownership of the lords and nobles as way to take back some of the property lost in the redistribution to the agrarian class (Polanyi, 1944). Harvey (1985) argued that this process of enclosure redefined notions of space and place because individual ownership became tied to the possession of specific physical geographic locality. For the first time, land obtained real economic use value where profit could gained either by its potential for the cultivation of “almost every other useful vegetable” or from rent (Smith, 1991, p. 170). Adam Smith argued that, “it is this manner that the rent of cultivated land, of which the produce is human food, regulates the rent of the greater part of other cultivated land” (p. 168). Moreover, “land in its original rude state can afford the materials of clothing and lodging to a much greater number of people than it can feed” (p. 172). Loose cultural, ethnic, or

28 regional senses of place were demarcated and managed by feudal lords, while physical topography was bound by private, state and federal common laws regarding ownership. Management and ownership was not limited to land. It traversed all aspects of cultural and social life. The oceans have provided a source for transportation and recreation and were the center of economic activity for centuries. Steinberg (1999) observed how the oceans have experienced similar constraints under market economies. He historically contextualized marine uses, regulations, and representations of marine life on the cover of National Geographic and in paintings of seafaring schooners. Human relationships with marine eco-systems are presented in images of the ocean as a means to an economic end and are portrayed in representations of the ocean where the concepts of harvest and stewardship of the sea are reinforced. Notably, by 1830 England’s self-regulating market system, driven by factory production, quickly experienced resistance. European industrialization signaled an end of a rural pastoral lifestyle and expansion of urbanization. Brand & Gorg (2001) argue that “Polanyi elaborated how emerging capitalism, destroyed existing feudal relations and the social and natural habitat of humanity, as well as how violent this process of ‘disembedding’ was” (p. 70). The development of the capitalist economy was not a natural, fluid, or facile transition. Rather, “its organizational principles were established by violence and enforced against a great deal of resistance,” which came in pockets of socialist uprising in 1875 with the emergence of the Labor Party in England and thirty years later in the American Labor Movement, which incurred monumental change in the form of state intervention through regulation (Brand & Gorg, p. 70; Schumpeter, 1942). The major problem with the transformation of commodity into capital is that the process cannot be sustained without the exploitation of natural resources. Furthermore, the relationship between technology and the forces of labor and production have continued to remove or dislocate individuals from the materiality of nature through exploitation. Marx argues that the expansion of early nineteenth-century England’s self-regulating market system can be attributed to the rapid decline of the feudal system and the Protestant Reformation that forced the Catholic Church and nobility to relinquish its land to a few owners. By the late nineteenth century, the result of redistribution of land to individual property owners led to the privatization of wealth through the introduction of factories during industrialization.

29 William Sunderlin (2003) argues that from a class paradigm standpoint, Marx believed history was shaped by a central societal process: property owners’ drive to accumulate capital. Marx demonstrated that there was a “growing difference in the amount of capital employed and capital consumed”, resulting in alienation from the increasing gap between those with excess wealth and the working class (Marx, p.656; Giri, 2004). The restructuring of capital and conditions created by large scale industrial nation-states signaled another great transformation, namely, behaviors of over-consumption and accumulation as purely devices of good economics. This resulted in a “‘double movement’ of industrialization where: on one hand, there was an expansion of market organizations with regard to real commodities; on the other, their limitation with regard to fictitious commodities” (Brand & Borg, 2001, p. 71). The free-market, liberal capitalism predicated on accumulation gained in unfettered exchange and created fictitious commodities in capital generated from land, labor, and money. O’Connor (1988) remarks that there is a contradiction between capitalist production relations (and forces) and production conditions [and] is also between the production and realization of value and surplus value” (p. 17).

Humans & Nature in Industrial Society

Arturo Escobar cites Neil Smith (1984) who explains that industrialization and accumulation permanently solidified humans being and the ecology as a financial partnership in the following passage: Once the relation with nature is determined by the logic of exchange value, and first nature is produced from within and as part of second nature, first and second nature are themselves redefined. With production for exchange, the difference between first and second nature is simply the difference between the non-human and humanly created worlds. This distinction ceases to have real meaning once the first nature is too produced. Rather, the distinction is now between a first nature that is concrete and material, the nature of use values, in general and a second nature which is abstract, and derivative of the abstraction from use-value that is inherent in exchange value. (Escobar, 1999, p.7) In the process of materialization, nature is interwoven in the disembedded market economy. Arturo Escobar (1999) draws from O’Connor’s (1988) thesis that

30 driven by competition and cost shifting among individual capitals, this restructuring signifies a deepening of capital’s encroachment on nature and labor, an aggravation of the ecological crisis, and a further impairment of capitalist conditions of production and the reproduction of these conditions (p. 7) to suggest that accumulation only further exacerbated nature’s exploitation. Escobar argues that the human being’s detachment was not simply an economic process, but a re-orienting of human perceptions regarding the environment over an interconnected socio-cultural historical chronology. Escobar (1999) says that, “the very distinction between first and second nature became obsolete once the production of nature had become the dominant reality” (p. 4). He suggests that the relationship had been “naturalized” over an interconnected anthropological-socio-economic evolution, culminating in “the capitalist hegemonic regime [where] nature [is] a universal means of production.”(p. 4). Rather, Escobar (1999) suggests that a more appropriate approach is to consider both the constructedness of nature in human contexts—the fact that much of what ecologists refer to as natural is indeed also a product of culture—and nature in the realist sense, that is, the existence of an independent order of nature, including a biological body, the representations of which constructivists can legitimately query in terms of their history or political implications. (p. 7) One result of the alienation of humans to nature is cultural artifacts reflective of nature as a separate entity. More importantly, nature’s portrayals as an idealized, spiritual, watchful mother reminding people of a nostalgic simplicity that positions the outdoors as a restful escape.

From Pastoral to Urban Life: The Reflection of Nature in Industrial Culture A result of industrialization was the emergence of cultural representations of idealized nature well before the nineteenth century. Raymond Williams (1973) uses Virgilian pastoral imagery to argue that there is an articulation of rural settlement and serenity, oneness with nature, godliness. As industrialization concretized its role in social organization, pastoral areas were viewed as an ‘older way’ of living that was somewhat detached from the modern world. “The life of country and city is moving and present; moving in time, through the history of a family and a people; moving in feeling, and ideas, through a network of relationships and decisions” (Williams, p. 70). Once cities emerge as central locations of most cultural and social

31 activity, attachment to physical environment is mediated. Williams further illustrates this idea through an excerpt from an anonymous poem titled Enamell’d Fields: How beautiful the World at first was made Ere Mankind by Ambition was betray’d The happy Swain in these enamell’d Fields Possess all the Good that Plenty yields Pure without mixture, as first did come From the great Treasury of Nature’s womb Free from Disturbance here lives at ease Contended with a little Flocks encrease And covered with the gentle wings of Peace No Fears, no Storms of War his Thoughts molest Ambition is a stranger to his Breast His Sheep, His Crook, and Pipe, are all his Store He needs not, neither does he covet more. (p.36-37) Clearly, there is a significant difference in the mindset, perception, and outlook on humans’ relationships with their surroundings from a pastoral to city existence. The poem identifies a shift in ontology and cultural sensibilities regarding nature where there is a feeling of the “loss of control over the direct and immediate satisfaction and felt the reality of an area of control of one’s own immediate labor” (Williams, 1980, p. 103). There is dark realization that progress predicated on wealth, greed, and pride is headed toward an unstable future. In Dostoevsky’s essay A Weak Heart, Berman (1988) observed the emerging mechanization of social processes through industrialization as a hindrance to humanity. Dostoevsky felt of the modern world that with all of its inhabitants, strong and weak, with all their domiciles, the shelters of the poor or gilded mansions resembled at this twilight hour a fantastic, magic vision, a dream, which would in its turn vanish immediately and rise up as steam toward the blue sky. The last line, ‘toward the blue sky’ alludes to the Marxian concept that fictitious commodities vaporize due to the disarticulation of individuals from the process of production, commodity exchange, and accumulation. The materiality of nature as a form of commodity in the market system was a result of the economy’s disembedding from the social processes. For the most part, exploitation, abolition, and over-consumption of natural resources led to cultural attitudes that viewed nature as merely a means to an economic end. Furthermore, representations of nature in the literary texts analyzed by Williams’ and Dostoevsky’s writings revealed

32 prophetic visions of society’s drive for accumulation that would present significant barriers in the way of reversing cultural attitudes toward nature. A fundamental tenet of deep ecology is that capitalism’s propensity to foster accumulation, science, and technology as central catalysts in driving progress based on environmental exploitation is rooted in the development of reason as the only “instrument of rationality”, and that intuition plays an ancillary purpose in the pursuit of knowledge (Smith, 1998). While Escobar (1999) alludes to the notion that cultural changes could divert the destructive direction into which the relationship between humans and nature is headed, Giri (2004) identifies that the exigent ecological crisis demands the powerful impetus of deep ecology. The only means of ceasing capital’s insatiable appetite for natural resources and deflecting its consumptive, exploitative, and wasteful onslaught is through radical reduction of wealth accumulation’s destructive role in society. Drawing from arguments rooted in deep ecology, Giri (2004) suggests that they run counter to reform environmentalism suggested by Escobar in two ways: (1) that “ecological politics is based on an understanding of labor that interconnects nature outside of us with nature inside us and seeks to not only seek to redress capital’s harmful effects on the environment but to strive for the suppression of capital and (2) “capital’s treatment of labor as self-sustaining and self-enclosed, torn from its natural preconditions and thereby completely alienated is often based on the portrayal of any human nature gap and human alienation as completely a creation of modern science and industry” (p. 68). The ecological paradigm, more specifically deep ecology, highlights how capitalism inherently reproduces anthropocentricism, consumerism, and productivism, which are reinforced through media discourses. Thus, reformation of the entire socio-political economic system provides the only viable solution for discontinuing progress bent on environmental destruction.

Sustainability of Capitalism & Political Ecology In response to Polanyi, James O’Connor (1988) remarks that Polanyi’s contribution to further understanding the “economic development and the social and natural environment [emerged from the articulation of] the subject of ecological limits to economic growth and the interrelationship between development and environment [and] was reintroduced into Western bourgeois” (p. 12). O’Connor describes the problems associated with market economies’

33 expansion and ecological stasis by identifying crises. These crises refer to the fact that, since capitalism must continuously grow, it is forced to restructure itself, and the tension created by political (both on the state and federal levels) power affects the ability of a capitalist economy to work smoothly. Here, O’Connor identifies that there are intervening factors between how things are made (produced) and what it takes to achieve that value, such as time to harvest, manufacture or refine it. One of the mitigating forces is the introduction of technology, which reduces the capacity of surplus value. “Realized value” and surplus-value, which is the amount of value obtained from the labor required in the phases of production, are no longer interdependent. Accordingly, scholars such as O’Connor, J. (1988); O’Connor, M. et al. (1994) & Giri (2004) solidified the argument that fictitious commodities contribute to the human-nature gap because factory owners rely on the conditions for production, which means turning toward more mechanized means based upon its use-value rather than sustainability of surplus value of labor. The result of this crisis is called capital restructuring where “changes in production relationships include computerized, flexible manufacturing systems and robotics with the development of “creative team play”. Technology essentially forces out the necessity to employ human beings to perform tasks. Jean-Paul Deleage offers this helpful illustration: For example, a half a century ago over ten times more oil was discovered per meter drilled than today; the costs for exploration of a well of 30,000 feet is one-hundred and twenty times higher than that of a well of 5,000 feet. (1994, p. 39) Capitalism’s ever-present need to expand and accumulate not only eliminates the need for humans, as Marx called labor power, it necessitates the adoption of innovative technology. Further making his point, Deleage (1994) reiterates the analogy that the “earth’s crystalline rock only holds an average 50 grams of copper, yet the exploitation of copper is profitable that demands concentrations of copper 100 times higher, which is rare” (p. 39). Moreover, in commodities such as natural resources, Martin O’Connor (1994) explains that economists view “air, sunshine, scenery” as “free gifts” that allow for “free disposal”, where “wastes from excess output” can be easily “assimilated without affecting the production process” (p. 64).

34 Public & Private Tensions Creating Perceptions about Nature Essentially, the amount of political power concerning control over natural resources or nurturing legislation to continue to extract them exacerbates the separation between human and nature. For the most part, a regulation on limiting or continuing the exploitation of land removes the opportunity for individuals to choose how the environment is consumed or manipulated. O’Connor (1988) argued that “the state places itself between capital and nature, or mediates capital and nature, with the immediate result that the conditions of capitalist production are politicized” (p. 25). To better illustrate O’Connor’s sentiments, Sarah Whatmore (2001) relates that the conditions Aborigines have encountered with the Australian government have centered on the indigenous people’s inability to understand “civilized” mechanisms of property, deeds, and patents that denote ownership. She argues from analyzing the Mabo case, which is where Ed Mabo brought his grievance against the Australian Government (Queensland) demanding terra nullius (Latin for “land belonging to one”). The ruling enforced the taking over of Aborigine land for public and private use, yet there are many examples where state-induced capital restructuring is resisted. Political ecology is “concerned with the relationship between the oikos, the ecological household or community, and the polis human community organized (actually or potentially) to pursue the common good” (John Clark, 2001, p. 29). Since markets are not unregulated, considering the tensions that exist between public and private institutions is vital to understanding the creation of culture. Once working class rights were acknowledged in Western nations (courtesy of the labor movement in Europe by the late 1800’s and in U.S by the1920’s), the government played a much larger role as watchdog of industry. Hence, severe tensions between whichever political party is in office and industry continue to cause social and cultural consequences. For example, Robert Buttel (1992) argues that the very logic of social democratic industrial relations—the corporate/trade union bargain of wage increases in tandem with productivity increase, which along with low unemployment levels and the social wage guarantee in effect put a floor under wages— led to rapid automation and eventually to more active corporate efforts to resist unionization. (p. 7)

35 The regulated market has forced corporations into a position of spending infinite amounts of time and capital, either for lobbying Congress to pass favorable legislation or searching for alternative global locations for manufacturing. Industry leaders continually complain that legislation enforced by federal environmental organizations, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), designed to put a stop to ecological destruction have, instead, made the cost to distribute and manufacture products skyrocket. Consider, for example, the mandate by the EPA to have industry factories use carbon dioxide scrubbers, “to remove the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in an effort to reduce climate warming.”4 Nevertheless, regulation and policy directly enforce laws that demand accountability and have made contributions to reducing emissions. Even with legislation designed to cut down on industry pollution, companies have sought resources in peripheral countries and continue to exploit labor, deforest, and defame global eco-systems. Regardless of the steps made by either institution to reduce the impact on the environment, both government and industry are considered negligent co-conspirators by the deep green movement. Much of environmental scientific research is funded via private and public entities. The motivations of private interests tend to bleed into the goals set by the agendas of public institutions, which distorts the information presented by environmental scientists. For example, Robert Brulle (1996) claims that neocorporatist decision-making, which is a process where the state involves selected groups in negotiations to enhance its legitimacy and to mobilize populations to support certain lines of action. Included in this closed process are representatives of interest groups that have the potential to disrupt the functioning of social institutions. (p. 36) Brulle argues that because private industries help to fund federal and state agencies, only specific scientific research is privileged. The environmental research conducted by scientists hired by and reflective of the interests of private industry allows them to filter less flattering information or incorporate biased scientific findings as a method of greenwashing. Not only does IMAX depict the way environmental science competes with government and industry agendas in the depiction of research on the screen, IMAX is a company that relies on an assembly of public trusts, corporate investors, and shareholders to exhibit its films. Production companies MacGillivray Freeman, 3D Entertainment, and Destination Cinema film IMAX documentaries and receive funding from organizations including NASA, The

36 Smithsonian, the National Science Foundation, Ocean Futures Society, the United Nations Environment Programme and National Geographic, as well as larger corporations like Lockheed and Martin and Amica Insurance. The intricate financial web of IMAX’s means of producing its films presents further consideration in their depictions of nature.

Individualism & Bio-Centrism

Deep ecologists represent the most radical branch of the environmental movement and “maintain a change in the mindsets and worldviews will result in a change in the social order” (Brulle, p. 73). One of the major problems created by a capitalist system is abundance and indoctrinated values predicated on individual success. Wealth cannot presumably encourage a harmonious balance with nature because it does not include compromising for the greater good. Although discourses of harmony are criticized due to their idealistic and nearsighted goals, for thousands of years humans did just that. Furthermore, deep ecologists’ “foundational critique of consumerism, [sic] does not argue for an understanding of nature in its pristine condition” (Smith p. 82). Instead, a “biocentric” position is adopted that advocates social change toward encouraging symbiotic partnerships with the eco-system in every arena of cultural life, where the needs of both nature and humans are met (DeLuca, 1999). The criticisms are also based on problems with the system’s approval and dependency on the creation of imbalances of individual wealth, which thrive on the values of greed, envy, and selfishness. Solutions to the crisis of abundance of over-consumption have been suggested by an approach closely tied to deep ecology. Luke (1999) identifies discourses centered on “permaculture” as an answer to contemporary conditions where productivity involves the abolition of nature. Permaculture refers to situations in which “the rules of reproducing such a self-sustaining social-ecological order would differ, qualitatively and quantitatively, from those behind the current environmental practices of advanced corporate capitalism” (Luke, p. 61). But values associated with wealth may be contributing to the difficulty in returning to a relatively peaceful co-existence with nature because productivity and accumulation are not mutually exclusive phenomena.

37 Media’s Role in Alienating Humans from Material Nature

The media helps to support material nature’s identity as a commodity in society. Further, supported by many political economists such as Nicholas Garnham (1995), Peter Golding & Graham Murdock (2000), due to the reliance on the natural resources for fuel for the economy, any significant institutional or bureaucratic change—including in the media—to ensure the environment’s vitality will never run counter to the preservation of capital. Media, the majority of it consisting of six major conglomerates, are industries with a hierarchal structure designed to efficiently generate profit. The economic constraints placed on news organizations, music, art, and film distort their products through inordinate control of concentrated ownership over presentation, distribution, and access to the public. The current trends in environmental communication literature over the last twenty years have dealt with the current media culture depictions of issues and activists warring with the industry and government agencies. Anderson (1997), Shanahan & McComas (1996), and DeLuca (1999) present arguments describing the complexity in examining representations of environmental issues and activism in the news media. Moreover, popular culture constructs, reinforces, and presents specific messages by telling stories about nature in a variety of contexts such as greeting cards, board and video games, television shows and IMAX films. In addition, the issue of greenwashing is addressed to illustrate the way nature is co-opted and repackaged as an effective advertising hook generating millions of dollars in profit for industries. The relationship between society and nature, from economic anthropology to political ecology, was designed to specifically trace the historical development of society and nature. The purpose of such an exhaustive review of these paradigms was to lay a theoretical foundation for my analysis of the IMAX films and the viewer responses to them. Therefore, the arguments within the preceding pages are used to help structure the project by describing where the cultural attitudes and ideas about the environment derive. The interrelationship that humans and nature possess did not occur overnight. Instead centuries of systematic changes alongside cultivated beliefs and values must be recognized to completely understand the way modern representations of the environment like IMAX contribute to peoples’ perceptions and attitudes.

38 CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATION IN MEDIA & POPULAR CULTURE: THE CASE FOR THE IMAX EXPERIENCE

“Preservation must rest on the recognition that wilderness is not a divine text but a significant social achievement. The preservation and expansion of that achievement depends on making arguments about the worth of wilderness to the social and biological worlds and on forging uncommon alliances.” –Kevin Deluca, (2001)

Cute & Fuzzy Nature

Over the last few decades the trends of media depictions of the environment in the contexts of news media and popular culture, ranging from greeting cards to documentary films, have had consistent representations. I begin by highlighting a prolific news story, which appeared in the U.K. covering the mysterious illness of arctic seals along the British coast. The Norfolk Coast of Britain experienced massive seal deaths reported by the Daily Mail in 1988 (Anderson, 1997). Reportedly, scientists were quoted as saying that possible contributors were pollution that carried the AIDS virus and that it was a disease very similar to that of distemper common to canines. Due to the disparate reports, projections made by journalists, and a vast disbursement of inaccurate information, the “Seal Deaths Caused by AIDS” still lingers as unsolved in popular perception and myth. A November 30, 2004 online article taken from www.cnn.com’s Science & Space section reported “Whale Strandings in New Zealand, Australia” (Whale Strandings, 2004, p. 1). The inset photo shows a plethora of mammal bodies pathetically lying with their fins in the air, while in the distance a barely visible gathering of people attempt to rescue a struggling whale. The caption reads: “The carcasses of dead dolphins and pilot whales are strewn on a beach on Australia’s King Island on Sunday” (Whale Stranding, 2004, p. 1). The article’s text details the accounts of local bathers and wildlife officer Shane Hunniford who explained that, “43 whales had beached themselves on Maria Island but officials managed to save 24 that had been found alive” (p. 1). Sprinkled amidst statistics, figures, and details of the death toll, the first statements are reported by Hunniford, who said that, “there are a number of theories; we’re not pinning our

39 hat on any of them.” Bob Brown, leader of Australia’s Greens party claimed that, “‘sound bombing’ of ocean floors designed to test for oil and gas” is the most likely culprit (p. 1). Similar to Anderson’s example of the Daily Mail’s coverage of the seals in Britain, CNN co-opted the friendly, lovable images of whales (like pretty much every news organization covering beached whales) by presenting a photo of the dead and dying animals crested on the shoreline. Whales and seals are generally favored as endearing creatures by the public and provide much joy for people, whether they are visiting them at an aquarium or gazing in awe at them from a seafaring charter. Places and events focused on cute and fuzzy images of animals are not a far cry from IMAX’s popular documentaries Dolphins (2000), Africa’s Elephant Kingdom (1998) and Weaving Ants (1987). Yet the pictures, captions, and text of both news stories weave together to present a melodramatic portrayal of Mother Nature where the main characters endure death and heartache just like humans. Animals such as seals and whales are personified, symbolizing a playful side of wildlife, where troubles are few, and frolicking underneath the waves is de rigueur. Even Hunniford remarks, “If you look at spaceship Earth, Tasmania and New Zealand both stick out into the Southern Ocean and that’s a playground for whales and dolphins” (p. 1). Bob Brown’s remarks that, “sound bombing” for oil and gas, which hints at possible political economic implications for the whale deaths seems implicitly hidden. Immediately preceding the quote from Brown, a wildlife officer reports that the causes are unknown, thus priming the reader for causes most likely from unexplainable phenomena. The article makes a point to identify Brown as “leader of Australia’s Greens party,” yet the political affiliation of the state-paid Tasmanian wildlife officer remains ambiguous. Producers of mainstream environmental messages like IMAX use a unique film format that extends the boundaries of reality and materiality through its self-promoted declarations that it is the premiere cinema experience. However, IMAX chooses to produce, exhibit and distribute environmental propaganda through an ever-expanding catalogue of titles covering everything from the secrets beneath the earth to the capturing of up-close-and-personal experiences of migrating birds. I show how films have historically constructed specific views of nature and wildlife through help of government-funded documentaries and through the agendas of private establishments like Disney and Hollywood. Finally, documentary film’s presentation of real environments and the role it has had in constructing cultural values regarding nature is discussed.

40 Since IMAX’s scientific and nature documentaries are the subject of my analysis, explaining principles, theories, and concepts used in documentary production are pertinent. The tensions that exist within the construction of IMAX’s representations include understanding that IMAX is funded through many public and private organizations, each with their own agendas. Regardless of whether the appeal of IMAX comes from the journeys underneath the sea, traveling with scientists or “Extremophiles” (a term for intense non-scientific adventure seekers who plan trips to explore exotic locations), negotiating the black, rocky exterior of an erupting volcano, peculiar gnats resting on an elephant’s eye lash, or merely staring at the giant screen projecting these images, IMAX draws boatloads of armchair adventure seekers. The IMAX Experience® provides compelling reasons to further consider what people are learning about the environment.

The Environment through the Media’s Eyes

Our ideas regarding our social environment come from a variety of places including family, education, peer groups, religious organizations and the media. All of these contribute to the creation of our senses and perceptions of social and physical reality (Hall, 1997). Consolidation of the media industry has commoditized cultural activity and restricted democratic participation by placing economic constraints on the production and distribution of information. According to Stuart Hall, the media are sites of struggle where issues centering on the environment are debated and mediated is also where large audiences are exposed to any information regarding current environmental conditions. Furthermore, James Shanahan & Katherine McComas (1996), Anderson (1997) & DeLuca (1999) highlighted that representations of the environment have been shaped by organizational routines, news values, and framing. Representations contribute to the social understanding of “what is environmental and to the predominantly held conception of the natural world, including attitudes, beliefs about the environment” (Shanahan & McComas, 1999, p. 24). The previous chapter explained, although the media plays important roles in the formation of cultural attitudes toward nature, representations are not completely detached from the cultural, political and economic system in which they exist. For the most part, giant media organizations rely on systems of news values that guide and shape the presentation of news content (Gitlin, 1980; Anderson, 1997; Shanahan &

41 McComas, 1996). Values are considered the most appealing aspects of a news story or designed to grab the audience’s attention and keep reading, watching or listening. Shanahan & McComas (1996) explored how often television covered environmental issues using cultivation theory. They found that in a sample of television entertainment programs, over three randomly chosen week-long periods, “that the nature theme appears relatively infrequently” (p. 85). News stories provided very different results. For the most part, news stories “focused on business or the general public and few stories were focused on the government, science, or environmental activism” (p.105). Shanahan & McComas (1996) “recorded the ‘tone’ of the stories as ‘supportive,’ ‘neutral,’ or ‘critical’ of the entity on which the new story focused” (p. 105). However, “the majority of critical stories in the sample focused either on the government actions or environmental activists” (p. 105). One story considered “supportive,” focused “on a company developing natural products, implicitly supporting and promoting the idea that natural products are environmentally beneficial and that using them contributes to environmental health” (p. 105). Notably, Shanahan & McComas (1996) conducted their study prior to the massive consolidation of the media industry when video news releases in nightly news broadcasts of corporation’s greenwashing were not as common. After collecting data on the content of news depictions surrounding environmental issues from the early eighties to mid-nineties, a cultivation analysis was conducted of environmental coverage, and it was determined that a relationship was found between heavy viewers and the belief that the environment is secure. In addition, “heavy viewers were also less concerned about the specific issues that threaten the environment” (p.124). Although cultivation analyses benefit the broader understanding of cultural attitudes toward the environment, Shanahan & McComas (1996) argue that “to measure environmental behavior ‘absolutely’ is not possible” (p. 11). In addition, their “examination of people’s performance on this dimension considered how environmentally concerned one’s behavior is relative to basic social norms” (p. 11). Nevertheless, the media is a socializing apparatus and by identifying the pervasive trends in media representations of the environment. Moreover, they help shed light on where social norms, attitudes, and behaviors partially derived. Obfuscated, ephemeral, and politically economically motivated discourses surrounding the portrayals of nature, wildlife, and environmental issues are not restricted to the news media. Artifacts in popular culture are reflective of many companies’ attempts to market green ideologies to increase profit. Shanahan & McComas (1996) discovered that news content covers

42 environmental issues according to their potential risk to audiences, while Anderson (1997) argues that warm and fuzzy depictions of wildlife are selected on their marketable qualities, which bias issues advocating that aesthetically pleasing animals more worthy of the public’s attention. Films, theme parks, and products all exude the underlying motivation to capitalize on natural resources rather than preserve or establish renewed understanding of our relationship and responsibility to the eco-system (Smith, 1999; Meister & Japp, 2002). Representations of nature in news media and popular culture polarize environmental issues or depict nature as a misunderstood force through frequent presentations of Mother Nature as a ruthless, vengeful tyrant or as an idyllic retreat providing humans a serene escape from the routine drudgery of life. Anderson (1997), DeLuca (1999), Smith (1998), Luke (1997, 2001), and Karliner (1997) argue that the media reinforces the commoditization of nature by a process of greenwashing. This is where corporations disguise their less-than-admirable treatment of the eco-system of pollution, over-consumption, and other forms of degradation through carefully managed messages highlighting the green-friendly features of their products or profess alliances with altruistic, progressive, and non-profit institutions. Moreover, news organizations frequently cover environmental issues according to news values, which tend to favor timely, cheap, and less controversial content to ensure that it does not risk threatening their relationship with companies paying for advertising. Environmental problems may contain a moral structure similar to other frames, known as “law and order news,” which refers to the ways news media organizations highlight crimes or violent confrontation as a way to reinforce social order by emphasizing the consequences of deviant behavior (Anderson, 1997, p. 126). Stories about nature also appear in “media packages” that include “catchphrases, metaphors, exemplars, visual images, and depictions,” which are much less about the actual issues but mostly reported for their sensational qualities (p. 127). To understand the coverage of the environment is to acknowledge how stories frame discourse about issues.1 Contrary to many of Shanahan & McComas’s (1996) hypotheses that projected a more fearful public regarding the over-representation of scary or risky environmental circumstances, many heavy viewers of television respondents did not appear to be concerned with or afraid of potential environmental tragedy. Instead, respondents in the heavy viewer category appeared to be less concerned with the threat of environmental problems such as global warming, the fallout of the Exxon Oil Spill, and the Shell Corporation initiating the crisis in Nigeria. Why

43 respondents were not heavily concerned with the environment may be the result of media packaging persons, places, and events. News photographs, especially on television employ images of wildlife and landscapes as aesthetically pleasing news segments. For example, if a television newscast covering a pollution story on a lake they will cut to a shot of the lake that is serene, rather than bore the audience with pictures of invertebrates under the microscope or may highlight the excitement stirred by show noisy smoke spewing jet skis. Also, injecting quick shots panning dirty shorelines or out of context sound bytes from a biologist saying a body of water is polluted provide quick to the point illustrations of the story. Newscasts are able to show an image of a polluted lake or forest, when the damage is so overtly visible. Much of the damage caused by industry is invisible to the eye of the camera because it exists on a microscopic eco- biological level such as the life-cycles of invertebrates in sediment deposits to detect the extent of water pollution in coastal tributaries. The scientific retrieval of data that requires sifting through miles of underwater debris is not a sexy, exciting process, but is symptomatic of environmental research. Nevertheless, advertisers know segments like these do attract consumers. However, the battle for transparent information regarding the practices of industries is not always won by ingenious slogans and green friendly mottos. Local communities have found great success in illuminating industrial abuses through grassroots tactics. Andrew Szaz (1994) argues that the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) movement emerged from a neighborhood response to unmask the careful, expensive, and successful public relations efforts covering the practices of manufacturing disposal of toxic waste in places like Love Canal located in Western New York near Buffalo. Also, other groups such as Earth First have staged elaborate attempts to dislodge powerful industries’ illicit activities to destroy the environment while gaining national attention to bring awareness to public through media coverage.

Not in My Backyard to the Headwaters Forest: Resistant Voices

There are virtually hundreds, if not thousands, of potential struggles centering on the environment ranging from the use of the Appalachicola River system in Florida to the lumbering practices in Humboldt County, California to the dumping of toxic waste in Buffalo, New York. Andrew Szaz (1994) explored the discourse surrounding the toxic waste or NIMBY movement at various commissions and investigated their portrayal in the surrounding media culture in 1978.

44 He found that, due to the lack of mainstream media discourse calling out industry for the illicit dumping of toxic waste near public water supply, grassroots leaders developed clever strategies for creating what he called eco-populism. Due to the tenacity of localized grassroots groups enraged over the dumping of hazardous waste near their communities, sought to pursue the fight on the press’s mainstream stage. In 1991, James Cantrill had similar findings with his examination of the public hearing rhetoric at International Joint Commssion on Great Lakes Water Quality. He realized that the individual agency’s efficacy at according to Kenneth Burke that addressing in public fashion the abuse the Great Lakes had experienced by private industry had led to action taken by the commission to regulate continued usage of the Lake. Likewise, Marylin Cooper’s analysis of the Beartooth Alliance public refusal to accept mining in Yellowstone in 1991, also demonstrated the efficacy of public interest and individual agency. Groups such as Greenpeace, The Earth Liberation Front (ELF), Earth First, Beartooth Alliance and the Sierra Club are constantly engaged in the media sphere to turn mainstream consumers on to the damage done by alleviating environmental policy regulations on private industry. Greenpeace has coalescent forces to take on whaling vessels, and other private industry as rebellious tactics to entice media coverage. In the sensational behaviors of Greenpeace activists, they manage to get the media to raise awareness about many issues that would generally never be considered to fill the news hole. Other groups, like ELF inspire activism on a grassroots level that aims to send their message in more radical, unconventional and sometimes illicit means. With continued media conglomeration and concentrated ownership more digestible and amiable groups like Greenpeace can potentially be greenwashed. A company may claim their donation to their organization to win favor of the green consumer. Greenpeace’s frequent attempts to stop whaling have been parodied on Seinfeld, where Warren Littlefield, the president of NBC, tries to win Elaine’s heart by dying on a Greenpeace mission. If representations of popular environmental groups are adopted by mass audiences, homogenized, and even co-opted as potential advertising strategies encouraging real pro-active environmental awareness may be limited and discouraged public participation. Certainly, small influences are felt by some individuals who may not normally seek out information regarding current environmental conditions with the presence of groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club in the media culture, but only to the extent that the green consciousness is economically viable for them. Yet more

45 radical groups have proved successful in generating salient messages in the cluttered perspective of mainstream journalism (DeLuca, 1999). In Kevin DeLuca’s (1999) book Image Politics: The New Environmental Rhetoric of Environmental Activism, he specifically targets the media’s treatment of environmental advocacy. Groups like Earth First founded by David Foreman in 1980, developed monkey- wrenching strategies also known as “ecotage,” which included sabotaging equipment at construction sites and “symbolically cracking the Glen Canyon in 1981” (Brulle, p.73). At all costs, members of the deep ecology social movement try to foil the plans of industry to exploit natural resources, deforest land, or development in areas where eco-system is harmed. DeLuca (1999) applies concepts from deep ecology in his analysis of media coverage of environmental destruction and groups such as Earth First to provide cultural criticisms of nature’s current status in society. Because many groups such as Greenpeace and Earth First’s fight to gain public notoriety of the abusive practices of industry and the government concerning the eco-system through staged sit-in’s, protests or other acts of obstruction, news organizations provide coverage based on their deviant quality. Frequently, writers at news stations, magazines, and newspapers refer to protesters or “deep green” environmentalists as “environmental guerillas” for their indignant acts (DeLuca, p. 89). In one example, the Boston Globe framed a news story about Earth “Firsters” as Terrorists in a headline “Earth First Terrorist Blown Up by Own Bomb” where two members of the group were victims of an attempted car bomb (p. 89). However, subversive themes protesting anthropocentric ideology and technological progress appear to be subtly voiced in images of the groups. DeLuca (1999) calls this the second frame, which refers to the way “radical environmental have a fundamental challenge to the core principles of modern capitalism” (p. 89). Even if the media frames the actions of environmental groups in a negative or unflattering manner, groups like the Earth “Firsters” are able to implicitly convey messages criticizing the dominant social order. Organizations such as Greenpeace receive much less vitriolic commentary than their controversial counterparts. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Greenpeace does not intentionally encourage attempts to break the law to raise social awareness of environmental denigration. Nevertheless, in a photograph analyzed by DeLuca (1999) where Greenpeace workers were challenging a Russian whaling vessel in 1975, DeLuca presented the event in what he called a

46 “cold war frame” (p. 96). The video segment shows a large whaling vessel and two Greenpeace activists in small inflatable craft. DeLuca (1999) argues that coverage of the event (covered by just about every media outlet including ABC) can be attributed to the popular cultural sensibilities of the time. DeLuca (1999) writes that “we seldom see the Russian whalers and when we do they are shot only from a distance, which renders them tiny automatons, clad in somber, dark clothes, enslaved to the technology of the ships and finally the crucial act, the firing of the harpoon despite proximity of the Greenpeace activities, objectifies the Russians as inhuman” (p.99-100). Arguably, the event was specifically chosen not for the way Greenpeace was protesting the inhumane, destructive and gross practices of the whaling industry, it was selected because Greenpeace were symbolically demonstrating that U.S. citizens were challenging Russian nationalism. Another event covered by the news media that DeLuca (1999) analyzed was the ABC News with Peter Jennings coverage of the “War in the Woods” on August 10, 1987. DeLuca (1999) analyzed the images from the event to see how Earth Firsters were framed in a protest against logging at All Species Grove in the Headwaters Forest in Humbodlt County, California. According to www.HeadwatersForest.org, a website maintained by Earth First, Headwaters Forest was the last large unprotected ancient redwood ecosystem left in the U.S. when Texas corporate raider Charles Hurwitz took over Pacific Lumber Company, raiding the company’s pension plan, selling off its assets, and doubling the logging in the forest so he could pay back his junk bonds debt. (About Headwaters, 2005) Although the entire ABC segment was examined by DeLuca (1999), one image featured members of Earth First as dusty and disheveled with soot tarnished faces squatting by a bulldozer. He claims that “the shots implicitly contain EarthFirst!’s radical critique of industrialism by putting their bodies on the line in solidarity with trees and ecosystems and in opposition to the technological march to Progress” (p. 104). Further, he says that this “embodied and embedded defense of nature belies anthropocentrism’s abstraction of ‘man’ from the natural world and contests science’s contextless universalization of nature” (p. 105). News coverage like those of Earth First and their attempt to ecotage the U.S. Forest Service’s practices reinforce the notion that a certain level of biocentrism must be present in all branches of the environmental movement. Shanahan & McComas (1996) explain that “rejecting anthropocentrism seems a sufficient, if not necessary condition, to qualifying as a ‘true environmentalist’” (p. 9). Although

47 news media and popular culture tend to frame the environmental movement to fit agendas, discourses and representations of the protest efforts of deep greens does raise eye brows and resist hegemonic norms. Extreme pockets of resistance encouraging awareness about the insidious path forged by capitalism toward ecological annihilation emerge in the form groups such as The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Earth First. Other groups eliciting more benign reactions such as the Sierra Club or civil disobedient Greenpeace attempt less overt, illegal, or disruptive techniques, which are effective at instigating green consciousness. Also, participation in resistance appears in blogs on websites such as www.indymedia.org, which offers discussion on issues on transnational corporations’ exacerbation of problems in the global eco-system including the Thames Water Corporation’s intentions to privatize water (Water Privatization, 2005). Cities like Tallahassee, Florida have access to a local version of the indymedia site allowing people in the community voice their concerns on issues that directly pertain to them. Researchers have had some success understanding the role media has in the defining environmental issues, by demonstrating how the media: determines levels of risk, reinforces specific ideas regarding human, social and economic relationships with nature, greenwashes, and privileges some sources relating to serious environmental conditions while omitting, or overshadowing the marginalized voices of groups concerned with reform. Yet the playground of popular culture is scattered with billboards barraging the public with messages to consume and spend making the task of resistant groups challenging. Cultural artifacts are rich with threads of greenwashed images, sounds and texts juxtaposed to alluring stories and discourses found in advertising.

Enviro-Pop: Greenwashing Culture

Amidst the greenwashing attempts made by public relations firms to hide and resistant groups battling for public awareness of industry’s blunders, movies, music, television, radio, and Internet advertising are locations where greenwashing is also rampant. David Harvey says that issues such as greenwashing create the concept of “mainstream environmentalism, which is in the process of incorporating more radical and oppositional environmental ideologies for its own benefit.” This idea is consonant with Herbert Marcuse’s notion of repressive tolerance (Ingram, 2000, p. 14; Harvey 1995; Marcuse, 1964). Similar to Hall’s (1997) concept of consensus,

48 Marcuse (1964) suggested that actors take part unconsciously, subconsciously or consciously in sustaining hegemonic regimes through the established paradigm of empiricism, positivism, and rationality. Radical discourses regarding the ecological effects of human agency on the planet become co-opted, transformed into slogans, pitches, and marketing jargon to sell green friendly products. Thus mainstream environmentalism visible in contemporary cinema perpetuates the capitalist social and power relations, and causes environmental restoration and social justice to be excluded from dominant popular discourse. Diane Rehling (2002) argued in her analysis of Hallmark’s greeting cards that green imagery is pervasively shown to convey feelings of peace and serenity. In this manner, the environment is decontextualized and abstracted; real circumstances where our influence, appropriation, co-option, and exploitation seem to be eschewed and replaced with nature providing humans a cathartic reprieve from the hum-drum toils of post-Fordist industrial modernity. Many of the representations of nature in popular culture in Rehling’s arguments coincide with broader issues regarding the socio-cultural-economic treatment of the environment as a commodity (Polyani, 1944; Escobar, 1994; Williams, 1973, 1980; Luke, 1997; Szaz, 1994; Brand & Gorg, 2001; T. Smith, 1998; Smith, 2001). Simon Cottle (2004) explains that natural portrayals of animals and wildlife in edutainment television programs also parallel the news portrayals of the environment. The Discovery Channel and Animal Planet frequently present nature as dangerous, or exciting such as featuring programs such as the BBC’s Killer Sharks, Living Earth, Blue Planet, David Attenborough’s Wild Kingdom, Discovery Channel’s Shark Week, and Animal Planet’s Crocodile Hunter, Fangs, and Most X-treme. In this sense, animals are given edgy threatening personas like the neighborhood serial killer, the drug pusher, or the carjacker. Anthropomorphic animals dominate popular representations on television; except in this capacity the animals are sensationally frightening. Stamou & Paraskevopoulos (2004) argue in their examination of eco-tourism where they looked at the way tourism books at the Dadia Forest in Greece portrayed the environment as a place to escape, explore, and venture through nature. Tourism “appears a clear concept as an ideal, but ‘ecotourism’ is vague and therefore nebulous as a reality” (p. 106). Commonly, scholars have considered “that the economic aspect of eco-tourism has overridden the environmentalist one by being usually implemented as a consumerist activity with green wrapping” (p. 106). Escaping to natural surroundings is or vicariously enjoying the Crocodile

49 Hunter’s escapades are relaxing experiences because they are secure places. Very similarly, IMAX positions itself as a way for people to travel to places but without actually needing reservations. The economic reasons suggested by Stamou & Paraskevopoulos (2004) are not dissimilar to Susan Davis’s (1997) investigation of Sea World that included the portrayal of marine life in the park. The real goal of the simulacra was to sell Anheuser-Busch products, and convey the green-friendly corporate ideology. Landscapes are “deterritorialized” in the construction of artificial biogenic habitats. Animals are positioned as exhibits and hyper-personalized for guests to become more acclimated to even the fiercest of marine life. Davis’ (1997) explains that the lovable killer whale Shamu engages in circus tricks just after a voiceover explains to the audience the whales struggles with disease, poaching, and conflict with other animals in the natural habitat. The issues are shielded from the audience once the spectacle begins, the whale hurls its body through plastic hoops, splashes the audience members and smooches staff much to the guffaw, squeal, and joy to the guests. Clearly, in the spectacular theme park, anthropocentrism reigns as animals’ and nature are positioned as subjectivities of human entertainment. However, well before theme parks, films were the premier media to draw large audiences seeking thrilling up close and personal vicarious adventures. Filming the natural world has always been an attractive venture for movie studios since the emergence of the nickelodeon in the early 1900’s. In fact, in some of the first candle lit theatres, audiences literally jumped out of their seats, ducked for cover, or quickly darted out of the room at the sight of a train speeding toward them. After the initial shock of the realism portrayed on the screen quelled, audiences were introduced to diverse and exotic species and landscapes from not only in the United States, but all over the world. What is also significant was the involvement of public and private agencies in the funding of early documentaries of National Parks and other public infrastructure borrowed Hollywood conventions to reach the masses.

Nature’s Nickelodeon

Gregg Mitman (1999) discovered that, since 1910, film has been the dominant venue to view the environment in all its grandeur. DeLuca and Demo’s (2000) examinations of Carleton Watkins Yosemite Photographs in 1861 also illuminated the importance of early print media in

50 the formation of ideas about nature. After these photographs the Nature Conservancy was founded in 1864. Obviously, other media were influential but as Mitman (1999) argues film truly established a primary means for the public to view the environment as well as recognize the importance of preserving the delicate eco-system. He says that since Roosevelt’s cinematic documentary of his trip to Africa, known as The Dark Continent (1910). As quickly as film developed as a means to vicariously experience the thrill of the hunt, the 1940’s Walt Disney started his crusade to present to the public by anthropomorphizing nature’s creatures by adding funny sound effects and fairy tale narratives in his Living Earth series. Nature’s central role at Disney’s theme parks in addition to the animated cartoon characters’ caricatures of wild animals solidified Disney as the most prolific purveyor cultural iconography. In 1937, Pare Lorentz’s film, The River, was produced for the U.S. Farm Security Administration, and was designed to drum up support for the Tennessee Valley Authority construction of a dam on the Tennessee River. The narrative stressed that the economic and social prosperity of the region depended on the “integrated and planned management of water, soil, and people” (Mitman, 1999, p.100). The TVA was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal implementation of the Public Work Administration’s that put people back to work by fulfilling improvements to public infrastructure in hopes of revitalizing the U.S. economy. By 1933, the land in the Tennessee Valley had been steadily eroding due to over farming. The result was that growth of crops had decreased in addition to farm incomes (Mitman, 1999). “TVA developed fertilizers, taught farmers how to improve crop yields, and helped replant forests, control forest fires, and improve habitat for wildlife and fish” (The history of the TVA, 2004). Today, the TVA is a major electric utility derived from hydro-power (The history of the TVA, 2004). Lorentz’s feature was commercially distributed by Paramount to help reinvigorate public interest in conservation and served as massive public relations campaign for the TVA (Mitman, 1999). By the late 1940’s the New York Zoological Society, whose trustee board ironically consisted of Laurence Rockefeller, developed his films to promote conservation with a production called The Jackson Hole Wildlife Park. The production featured a panoramic view of the Wyoming park, which displayed a “holistic picture of the geographic, climatic, and biological features of the region that provide favorable habitats of wildlife characteristic of the West” (Mitman, 1999, p.100). Later the New York Zoological Society created the Conservation

51 Foundation from the profits of a highly successful book titled, Our Plundered Planet in 1948 (Mitman, 1999). The two philanthropic non-profits concerned with preserving, conserving, and maintaining the planet’s eco-system funded the The Living Earth film series that included “This Vital Earth”, which conveyed the theme of interdependence between humans and the environment. In addition, the notion that nature thrived on a delicate life cycle, which a balance must be achieved, preserved, and managed (Mitman, 1999). However, the content of the educational films, humans were not excluded either as a destructive or constructive force, from images of nature re-created on screen (Mitman, 1999). Fairfield Osborn of the New York Zoological Society “looked upon humans as important biological agents in changing the face of the earth” (Mitman, 1999, p.105). Mittman (1999) expresses that the depiction in government or foundation funded films of the environment tended to decontextualize its cyclical processes. Perhaps, this was due to the fact that humans were not shown and excluded as forces as influencing or detracting from the natural life cycle of plants, animals, and climatic variations.2 Further, it fails to even remotely suggest that as a result of persistent and increasing concentration of ownership and emphasis on capital accumulation of major industries may have deleterious or irreversible consequences on the eco-system. At the same time films were being produced in the interest of conservation, Walt Disney had begun his motion picture, merchandising and theme park empire. When Steamboat Willie surged into theatres in 1928, a cartoon mouse had permanently changed the film industry. However, animated features were not the only source of income for the Disney Company. Walt Disney was an eco-conscious Imagineer who was passionately drawn to preserving wildlife and natural settings. Yet this concern was conveniently eschewed as plans began to build a theme park in Anaheim, California and eventually the re-allocation, restructuring, and development of virtually one fourth of Florida for his vision of a world of Disney. But during his brief stint as an eco-preservationist, Disney had produced a variety of educational and nature films before and after Snow White, Bambi, Pinocchio and Fantasia. By the 1940’s, the “True Life Adventures Series” was introduced to audiences that included Seal Island, Jungle Cat and the The Living Desert. Disney claimed that “nature wrote the screenplay” for these productions and the narratives stressed the need for “public appreciation for wilderness” (Mitman, 1999, p.111). The series “purified nature through

52 anthropomorphic conventions that introduced familiar portraits of animal life” (Mitman, p.110). Since Disney was mostly oriented to full-length animated features, the nature series borrowed many of the conventions used in the fairytale genre to the extent they appeared campy, but contained some conviviality. Soundtracks were added to the narrative which personalized the wildlife, such as when “female seals arrive on shore in Seal Island, they are accompanied by variations on the composition ‘Here Comes the Bride’” (p.111). Just like when the seal deaths are covered in the Daily Mail, Whale beaching occurs off the coast of Australia, or when Shamu performs an amazing marine parlor trick, contemporary news coverage and popular culture tend to construct nature and wildlife as playful “Disney-esque” animated creations with jovial, sensitive, and emotive personalities. Eventually, Roy Disney and Howard Hughes, who was owner of Disney’s distributor RKO at the time, felt that nature oriented films were not generating anywhere near enough profit compared to their animated fairytales. Walt Disney encouraged that placing the True Life Adventure Series alongside live-action or animated features would appeal to theatres with double bill showings (Mitman, 1999). When The Olympic Elk and a re-release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs were shown together a reviewer for Natural History remarked that to “find fantasy so real that it seems like fact, or fact so charming that it seems like fantasy is an unusual experience; but to have both of these combined in one motion picture program is very rare indeed” (Mitman, 1999, p.113). Nevertheless, distribution was a problem that persisted for the nature-oriented Disney films. RKO raised concerns that nature oriented pictures were not as profitable as full-length animated features and promoting them was arduous. Promoting the films was difficult due to the lack of star power, and marketing merchandise was especially challenging due to the fact that the animals were unrecognizable brand names. In 1953, driven by Walt Disney’s passion for wildlife and the environment, Disney severed its attachment to RKO distribution and created its own in-house distribution company, Buena Vista. Once Disney had the power to distribute what it wanted it and where it wanted, it aggressively pushed The Living Desert and the Vanishing Prairie (Mitman, 1999, p. 114). Due to the low price of production costs of filming a nature oriented feature, surpassed gross revenues of any other animated feature” (p. 114). And “the initial returns on Disney’s animated classics did not come close to the profit margins the studio realized in mining the frontier of nature on the screen” (p. 114). There were other animated features such as Bambi, which was heavily wildlife-

53 and nature-oriented. In fact, most Disney pictures contained a plethora of forest creatures, vivid landscapes, and underwater scenes and animals. In the 1980’s, when two environmental advocacy organizations were formed in Hollywood known as the Earth Communications Office and the Environmental Media Association (EMA) Disney jumped on the opportunity to be perceived by the public as a caring, ecologically aware company. The EMA was founded by group of Hollywood producers including Norman Lear and Disney chief executive Michael Eisner. Recently, the contradiction between the environmental rhetoric and its actual performance suggests that the company is greenwashing. Not only did placing concerted effort on being environmentally conscious proved to be too costly, it was not “consonant with their labor abuses in its licensed garment manufacturing factories in Haiti,” claim environmental and labor activists (Ingram, 2000, p. 21). Moreover, considering “Eisner’s $97,600 an hour salary, which is 365,000 times greater than the Haitian factory workers,” Disney could hardly uphold the ecologically sensitive promises it made fifty years ago (Ingram, 2000, p. 21). Hollywood productions captured the fascination and imagination of millions, luring them from their homes to escape from reality for a couple of hours. Pat Brereton argues that “film plays an important role in promoting ecological awareness through the visualization of nature and its therapeutic use within popular film” (Brereton, p. 3). He couches his argument in the depiction of nature in Hollywood film during the 1950’s. He says that the “ecological awareness that pervades Hollywood is illustrated in a range of genres including westerns, road movies, nature/disaster and science fiction fantasies” (Brereton, p. 3). Films present a variety of themes regarding our role with nature. In some circumstances, nature is seen as vast frontier of possibilities for development, a raging uncontrollable force, and sometimes how our actions influence its denigration. Hollywood borrowed the familiar technique used by Disney in the 1940’s to “construct natural landscapes as pristine, which omit from landscapes all signs of human intervention” (Ingram, 2000, p. 26). Nature in such circumstances may only be portrayed as idyllic, flawless, beautiful, and pure, while the ugliness or imperfections, which are abundant in any landscape seems to be excluded. Thus greenwashing the real ecological harm capitalism causes. Big budget Hollywood movies also have the tendency to depoliticize environmental issues through presenting them as a form of entertainment. But not all depictions of the environment rely on

54 melodrama with elements of realism, educational features or documentaries rely heavily on realism with only some elements of melodrama. Many of these genres incorporate more elements of film realism, which could potentially raise awareness of human beings’ impact on the environment. Realism attempts to portray reality on the screen in purist sense, relying as little as possible on technological tricks or strategies.

Creating the Documentary Bill Nichols contends that there are four dominant modes involved in documentary filmmaking: the expository, interactive, reflexive and reflective. The expository text “addresses the viewer directly, with titles or voices that advance an argument about the historical world” (p. 34). The interactive mode refers to what extent the filmmaker intervenes in the form of a voiceover, briefly appearing a shot or in a face-to-face interaction (Nichols, 1991). Finally, “if the historical world is a meeting place for the processes of social exchange and representation in the interactive mode, the representation of the historical world becomes, itself, the topic of cinematic meditation in the reflexive mode” (p. 56). This is where the filmmaker may make commentary about how the feature was made: “a self-conscious process where form, style, structure, strategy, conventions, and effects are discussed” (p. 57). The frames of nature captured by the moving picture or still camera were perhaps responsible for raising awareness of the eco- system to the public.

Images of Sublime Nature, Myth and Film

Carleton Watkins’ photographs of Yosemite were sent to California Senator John Conness to “prevent occupation and especially to preserve the trees in the valley from destruction,” which later helped pass legislation known as the Wilderness Act (DeLuca & Demo, 2000). In this simple correspondence, the first attempts to allocate land for public use, resort and recreation were created (p. 241). Images of natural landscapes were sublime, romantic, and artistic but also commercial, industrial and technological. Sublime representations of nature were effective at instilling notions of a pure utopian environment. DeLuca & Demo (2000) say that before John Muir had ever set foot in Yosemite, it had been preserved as the first wilderness park. In 1851, Captain James Savage and the Mariposa Battalion stumbled on Yosemite Valley in pursuit of their genocidal goal of cleansing the region of Native Americans. (p. 638)

55 DeLuca’s argument that much of our senses of conservation are based primarily myths in the idealized representations of nature in writings of Thoreau, Leopold, and Muir. Much of these myths do not consider that conservation has had strong corporate roots generated by “rhetoric that utilized the discourse of sublime wilderness to promote designations of national parks in the interests of development and tourism” (p.633). Nevertheless, the photography of Watkins’ Yosemite possess a quality of realism can have a sublime impact on the viewer. Moreover, Watkins’ images were the first real exposure of the aesthetic appeal of landscapes to the masses. Nathan Stormer (2004) further discusses the impact of the sublime on audiences, in that, …the mass representation of the sublime such as in natural landscapes, fetal images, war photography, scientific photogeny of the microscope and so forth, can complicate explanations of the functions and affect of the sublime. Here, sublimity is not apprehended in a solidarity or idiosyncratic manner nor is it rare in the sense of being extremely infrequent. Rather, the sublime is ubiquitously displayed and anonymously addressed to a public “you.” (p. 216) Sublimity in film takes in the entire audience, including them in the gigantic or mesmerizing spectacle. Stormer (2004) is referring to the idea that even though the sublime affects every audience member uniquely, simultaneously there is an awe inspiring affect on the collective. A film like Blue Planet is educationally oriented but seems to be mediated by the hi-tech properties used in the production process. The technologies used in the production of IMAX films provide such a crystal clear, sharp, and realistic looking image where minute details appear enlarged. While watching IMAX’s production of Africa’s Elephant Kingdom the audience can see creases in the elephant’s skin, how many eyelashes it has, and even the tiny gnats that circle their flesh in the savannah. In many regards, this image of the natural world may cause it to be abstracted. The minute or microscopic elements of the images of nature and wildlife that the audience is shown becomes more captivating than the larger than life screen, digital soundtrack, and disorientation audiences experience of moving at great speeds.

The Environmental Spectacle

Postmodernist scholars explain that the media are a complex web of swirling signs, images, and texts designed to sell products. For the most part, representations are seldom created

56 for the purposes of advancing knowledge, enforcing the public good, or merely for aesthetic pleasure, instead these are considered afterthoughts once cultural artifacts are carefully positioned to sell products. Moreover, the concentrated media industry possess managerial control over the technological wizardry, which further complicates perceptions of what is real and fake.3 Frederic Jameson (1991) says that, “postmodernism has ‘eclipsed nature’ from the object world and the social relations of a society whose tendential domination over its Other (the nonhuman or the formerly natural) is more complete than at any other moment in human history” (p. 170). The idea that material nature is repositioned or distorted by the simulacra created in contemporary media culture is present in Baudrillard (1988) and Harvey’s (1990) statements that nature has reached “a state of such near perfect replication that the difference between the original and the copy becomes almost impossible to spot” (Harvey, 1990, p. 28). Similarly, IMAX’s claims that it enables audiences to feel immersed in the images projected on the screen follows many arguments in postmodern scholarship. More importantly, the blurred line between what it is real and what is not eases advertising agencies challenges of selling a product based on its brand equity rather than the actual benefits to consumers the products promises. With so much parity in the market, reliance on the refining of an image of a product by clever advertising campaigns helps to place one brand over another in the minds of the consumer based on the actor, sports figure, or politician featured in the television spot or the shiny color of the box. Furthermore, the increased confusion humans experience between what are genuine and simulated artifacts positions the physical world as foreign, separate, or an irrelevant consideration in social life. Charles Acland (1997) argues that examples in the media culture such as IMAX are so effective at blurring the line between materiality and representation that it causes a “geographic collapse that provides a sense of proximity to the globe, but that there is a relation of access to it, either through image or actual visitation” (p. 439). Another example where hyper-reality of nature appears is in theme parks featuring wild animals in natural habitats or co-opting serene environmental settings such as any major zoo, or institutions like Disneyworld, Disneyland, Six Flags, Universal, Busch-Gardens Wild Adventures and Sea World. Basically, the theme park evolved from post-industrial societies as a place where the expanding bourgeoisie could spend excess leisure time. In the case of theme parks, material nature is specifically juxtaposed to a swirling simulacrum of commodity sign

57 systems altering people’s perceptions of how important wildlife is to the eco-system and ultimately to human being’s vitality. Places like theme parks, IMAX and other popular culture artifacts consistently scuff the line between where real begins and the fake stops.

The Development of Exhibiting Creatures for Amusement: From the Coliseum to Sea World

Not only has nature been the product of managerialism, but wildlife has experienced similar practices of enclosure for the purposes of entertainment. Sarah Whatmore (2001) and Susan Davis (1997) concede that containment, domestication, and exhibiting animals are activities unique to the human condition. Control over wildlife embodies a powerful campaign amplifying man’s propensity to rule the animal kingdom. When Cicero appointed Marcus Caelus Rufus the governor of Cilica in Southern Asia Minor in 51 B.C., he requested that he have leopards as pets. This was a result of the wildlife networks that were available after the military supply lines and commercial trading routes developing throughout the Roman Empire. By A.D. 80 the Roman Coliseum had 9,000 animals killed in its inaugural ceremonies. These venations or wildlife performances including domestic and ferae (wild animals) were familiar showcases at the Coliseum. Moreover, the animals were harvested from numerous sites along the network that usually involved a grueling capture and exposed them to abominable conditions in transit that usually left them extremely frightened, afraid and liable to fight at the drop of a hat. Whatmore contends that the wildlife networks beginning during this period laid the foundation for “territorial governance” of Western Nations. In modern examples, Davis (1997) concludes that theme parks carry on very similar traditions described by Whatmore over centuries by a variety of civilizations. For example, she says that “park’s designers and manager’s have used architecture, plantings, visual techniques, customer-staff interaction, and music to give the encounter between animal and human a distinctive quality.” Moreover, IMAX casts the idea that it is more of a museum than a movie theater. A museum functions to position subjects and objects or in other words providing a space where the two interact and where distinct subject positions and heterogeneity mix (Hetherington, 1999). For example, when a person goes to a museum they expect that there will be pieces of art, displays or exhibits that capture a fixed moment in time. This adds additional complexity for analyzing the IMAX phenomena; what about the fact that what IMAX produces is immaterial?

58 The exhibits appear real but are not confined by time or space thus the conventions of the traditional heterogeneous application cannot fit. For example, when someone looks at fresco or a stuffed lioness in the Natural History Museum, it stands as a material object frozen in that time period. However, IMAX shows lifecycles of organisms, oceans, and other representations that are not static instead they are ephemeral. So to what extent the interaction between the viewer and the constituted space exists is part of a spectacle.

IMAX: Spectacular Environments

Transitioning to the IMAX context, Whatmore (2001), Davis (1997) and Hetherington, (1999) remark that large format screens act as a venue for the exhibition of nature and wildlife as attractions. In this way, IMAX acts very much like a virtual museum, because exotic creatures are exhibited like a zoo or natural history museum due to the intimate atmosphere that is created with the up-close camera work. Although emotional connections are probably not as exciting as watching a lion attack a gladiator or being splashed by Shamu, IMAX attempts to use more subtle forms of inducing these feelings by duping the audience through conventions that toy with their brains ability to distinguish the real from the fake. In the current media saturated society, humans are increasingly becoming more technologically dependent technological innovations have afforded us great many opportunities. Douglas Kellner (2004) draws from Debord’s Society of the Spectacle explaining that the spectacle is when “individuals become transfixed by the packaging, display, and consumption of commodities and the play of media events” (p. 14). Innovative media technology has also improved means of selling us products. Thus increasing the simulacrum created by the immersion of social actors in hyper-real environments such as visceral theme parks, Internet websites, video games, and possibly, IMAX. These new sites have presented new opportunities to understand the way media shapes our perception, constructs our social identity, and obfuscates the appearance of natural environments. Kellner (2004) also writes that increasing technology brings new opportunities, creating a form of “technocapitalism” that has reinforced the culture of the “technospectacle” content highly technical mediated texts in their daily lives.4 Kellner (2004) elaborates on the concept of the technospectacle by saying, “it escalates information and multimedia extravaganzas into the home and workplace through the Internet, competing with television as the dominant museum of our time” (p.14-15). Every aspect of the IMAX experience fits into this

59 category of the technospectacle. Its distended screen depicts almost magical feats of flying, skydiving, cave diving, and repelling into glacial fissures. IMAX promises to present a bridge that exists between a visceral and physical media experience and positions nature as a spectacle commodity in dominant popular culture. Acland (1997; 1998) regards the experience of large format cinema as something that is not easily classified with traditional media effects research. The IMAX Experience® proclaims that it delivers a ride-like experience to audiences because visitors are frequently told of the adventure they will experience during every breathless moment while the camera zooms through virtual terrains. Acland (1997) explains that the differences in large format to conventional cinema are rooted in the vastness of screen and that “IMAX is multiply positioned in discourses of tourism” (p. 437). For example, in the IMAX feature Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets the audience can almost experience what it is really like standing at the lookout deck viewing miles of naturally carved glacier canyon. Moreover, large format cinema according to Ingram (2000) & Mittman (1999) offer that a utopian portrayal of humans and the relationship with wildlife are persistent themes in filmmaking. Because the cornucopia of scientific nature documentaries billed as educational and entertaining movies suggests that some learning must be going on at the IMAX Experience®. How are IMAX films constructing nature and wildlife? Also, considering audiences interpretations of these films should shed light on what exactly is IMAX teaching about the eco- system? Are feelings of increased environmental awareness invoked by the films? Do the tensions that exist between public and private institutions and IMAX affect these representations? Providing the literature of environmental communication literature helps the project by demonstrating where the study of IMAX representations fits into the contemporary scholarship. Concepts and ideas that have flourished over the past twenty years in the area of news, documentary film and the broader popular culture contextualize IMAX as a site worth investigating. Since IMAX possesses a unique format to show the viewer images of nature that are much larger that conventional media technology, the examination of peoples’ responses to it adds new dimensions for environmental advocacy and agency.

60 CHAPTER 5

METHODOLOGY: GAZING AT MAXIMUM NATURE

“One of the first things you notice at the start of an IMAX film, after the suspenseful atmosphere created by the muffled acoustics of the theater, and after you sink into one of the steeply sloped seats and become aware of the immense screen so close to you, is the clarity of the image.” –Charles Acland, (1998)

“The meaning of the text must be thought of in terms of which set of discourses it encounters in any particular set of circumstances—and how this encounter may re-structure both the meaning of the text and the discourses which it meets” –David Morley, (1992)

Orbiting the Planet & Beyond: Seated in the IMAX Theater

Included in the following pages is an explanation of exactly how the project was completed. This dissertation consisted of an examination of audience responses to the films compared to my reading. The analysis of both feedback and content of the documentaries uses traditions in semiotics (Hall, 1997 & Barthes, 1977). The preceding chapters underscore the IMAX Experience® promotions of the large screen’s ability to mesmerize audiences. In fact, the IMAX website claims that, “more than 700 million people around the world have been spellbound by the force and beauty of The IMAX Experience®; technically advanced and visually stunning, The IMAX Experience® is the worlds most powerful and immersive movie experience” (The IMAX corp, 2005). The “enchanting” images of nature IMAX features in its theatres have received awards praising it for its dedication to the environment. Awards in 1986 and 1991 from the Canadian government in addition to the allegiance with institutions and foundations such as the Ocean Futures Society, NASA, National Geographic, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and The Smithsonian suggest that IMAX makes a concerted effort to teach visitors about science, technology and the eco-system (Acland, 1997). According to chapter four, environmental issues that are profiled by news organizations receive the most attention. However, gate-keeping, news values, and economic constraints interfere with straightforward reporting (Gitlin, 1980, Anderson, 1997, Deluca, 2000; 1999 & Shanahan & McComas, 1999). In addition to sporadic and obfuscated ecological bulletins, IMAX attempts to educate the public are ridden with adversity. Competing with advertising

61 messages, Christian coalitions championing creationism and editorial input driven by the mindset of profit-seeking constituencies; IMAX representations are the product of multiple intervening variables. Furthermore, IMAX is a corporation and as such its ultimate priority is to make money where documentary content is carefully manicured in order to satisfy that need. Messages centered on environmental dilemmas in the films also compete with thousands of fuzzy vantage points in political, cultural, and social discourses and green-friendly jingles tweaked to arouse shoppers in popular culture. Large format film is gradually swelling with popularity. A growing presence in the multiplex market showing Hollywood movies confirms that there is potential for increasing public interest in big movies. However, 50% of the 250 IMAX theatres are located in parks, zoos, museums, or other educational institutions, which are entertaining as well as informative destinations (The IMAX corp., 2005). Notably, current environmental communication research does not address the effect of scientists and filmmakers’ efforts to take audiences along on their IMAX expeditions or question in what manner are nature and wildlife portrayed. Why do audiences choose to see IMAX movies in the first place? What are they learning? Does the screen affect what viewers see? Are there differences between environmentally conscious audiences versus those who are not? Are feelings of increased environmental awareness invoked? Do people read the films encouraging ‘bio-centric’ discourse or supporting productivism? I answered the questions listed above by analyzing feedback retrieved from focus and small group discussions and one-on-one interviews at three Florida IMAX locations.

Audiences Reception of the IMAX Experience: Does Size Matter?

So why do we need research on how people are influenced by IMAX documentaries? The question is certainly warranted considering the highly interpretative nature of qualitative reception research and the controversial findings of media effects. I am frequently asked by colleagues, friends, and family: “Why does it matter?”, “Does the size of the film make any difference?”, “Does IMAX really have that much of an impact on people’s perceptions about the environment?” Or I receive comments like “People’s lives are not changed by movies—we all know the difference between real and fake,” “IMAX is just a fun way to spend an afternoon, while learning a little bit about sharks, elephants, and crocodiles,” and “It’s not IMAX’s job to encourage people to fix huge ecological problems by increasing their recycling habits or joining

62 a mobile environmental task force.” The questions and comments I have heard surrounding my project perplex me, while at the same time only further entrench my desire to pursue such an endeavor. I feel that investigating what people are learning from representations of the environment explain why pessimistic or apathetic attitudes persist toward enforcing individual and corporate responsibility for the eco-system. Further, studying the origins of perceptions generated from green media texts also strengthens the argument that there is a linear relationship between socio-economic mechanisms and natural resources, which is useful for building theories in environmental communication research. People gain so much insight and understanding from the media that it literally shapes how we see the world, how we see others, and ultimately, how we see ourselves. Although media is an instrument for instilling cultural codes, little is known about the part technology plays in the reception process. Closest scholarship to answering such questions come from Marshall McLuhan (1969) in his text The Gutenberg Galaxy, which argues that communication technology is liable for the growth and global expansion of modern Western civilization. McLuhan’s famous statement, “the medium is the message,” continues to befuddle scholars and inspire debates on the notion that the relevance of a message’s content is inferior to its means of transmission. Arguing that the size of the IMAX screen is more influential than the content of the films is not the thrust of this project. However, the enormous display of creatures, mountains, and raging rivers might have something to do with how viewers read the films. Technological considerations aside, humans learn by modeling their behavior from the social environment, which includes the media. Zillman & Bryant (2002) referred to the process as “‘vicarious verification’ where people observe other people’s transactions with the environment, which serves as check for whether our not our thinking and actions are correct” (p. 125). Human beings practice behavior repeatedly in efforts to conform to established norms. The significance of humans’ modeling their behavior from the social environment was also studied by Erving Goffman when he summoned the metaphor that people are actually “social actors.”1 Moreover, Clifford Geertz (1973) described human behavior as a series of “rehearsals” such as when people buy trendy clothes and reiterate phrases they hear from television sit-coms (p. 7). Moreover, modeling rehearsed behaviors is a reflexive process, so that people learn from others on how to “get along in life.”2 Ad agencies depend on modeling to create brands that fit the lifestyles of consumers and encourage a vicarious experience by stirring emotions using actors in

63 commercials, models in glossy prints, or famous athletes benefiting from an energy drink or hi- tech sneaker. The “Three R’s of Recycling” campaign in the 1980’s co-opted such a strategy in the hopes that people would model conservation. Inspiring consumers to think where their trash ends up before they discard a piece of plastic, paper, or bottle helped to curb wasteful habits across the world. Chapter three stressed the articulation of the economy to natural resources and clearly identified that there is a strong relationship between production and over-consumption. Moreover, prevalent practices of consumerism have led to increased productivist ideology in political policy, discourse, morality, and social behavior as the only apparatus driving progress (Smith, 1998). As we enter a new century, environmental dilemmas will only be exacerbated if new attitudes leaning toward eco-conscious behaviors are not promulgated. The battle for proof of humans’ harmful impact on the global eco-system continues to remain an incendiary political theme. Conservatives, neo-conservatives, and libertarians question whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon, while liberals, progressives, and radicals fight for legislation curtailing energy consumption and seeking more efficient forms of burning fuel. However, most of the confusion generated by issues such as global warming results from how scientific research is funded through “neo-corporatist decision-making,” distortion in news media reporting, and the agendas of green marketing advertising campaigns, which I discussed in the previous chapter (Brulle, 1996. p. 37; Anderson, 1997, Smith, 1998). Regardless of the distorted presentation of ecological problems or heated debates between pundits of adversarial political parties, natural resources are converted, re-distributed, re-appropriated and consumed carelessly. Modern economies are structured to adopt only profitable solutions. Moreover, the implementations of safer regulations by the EPA are frequently lamented by industry leaders by their claims that such restrictions have forced companies to raise consumer prices. Amidst a volatile political furor concerning the ecosystem, IMAX continues to expand its presence in minds of the recreational public with its promises of providing excitement and intrigue in virtual planetary escapades. IMAX most popular films, its documentaries, offer schools all over the world the opportunity to make field trips to visit museum and park locations that host an “Image Maximum” experience (The IMAX corp., 2005). In fact, IMAX provides

 I conceded one afternoon the fact that regulations ‘force’ industries to raise costs during a conversation with Bob Iglehart, a libertarian, long time environmentalist, and retired local union teamster in Tallahassee, Florida. However, a majority of price gouging also comes from desire for profit.

64 teachers with promotional packages to incorporate into their daily lessons in order to help prepare or prime the children for a visit to the theater. A large part of its advertising encourages teachers to call about the “ultimate field trip” where “exclusive memberships for educators only are offered that features advance invitations on upcoming films, personal invitations for educators-only film screenings, and involvement in education program focus groups,” and each year millions of school age children gaze at the giant screen (The IMAX corp, 2005). Not only children learn from IMAX, a 2003 study by R. Lance Holbert et al. who expanded on Shanahan & McComas (1999) cultivation analysis of television news coverage of the environment and drawing from a sample of “approximately 5,000” (1999, N=3,1221, response rate = 67.8 % and 2000 N = 3122, response rate = 62.4%) found that, “there was a clear differentiation between the direct effects of factual- versus fictional based television use on pro- environmental behaviors,” where public affairs and nature-based programming were particularly more influential (Holbert et al., p. 191). Moreover, the use of television news, even with its episodic and overly dramatic coverage of the environment, has a positive influence in creating a greater desire within individuals to recycle, purchase products that are environmentally friendly, and being more energy efficient in their daily routines. (p. 191) Apparently, environmental information has some resonance with the public. However, the Holbert et al. (2003) study did not take into account what context the facts are positioned or whether or not respondents were exposed to corporate green-washing. Similar to newscasts, IMAX documentaries inundate audiences with facts, albeit also out of context, on the dwindling wildlife populations, water pollution, greenhouse gases, or the amount of monthly melt water caused by a glacier the size of Texas. The films are uninterrupted by commercials and much longer than news segments because audience is captive for 35 minutes to an hour (though they may not be paying attention the entire time), which could possibly strengthen Holbert et al. (2003) findings.

Analyzing the IMAX Experience According to the Interpretative Tradition

Dissimilar to quantitative methods, qualitative research tries to “use multiple methods, or triangulation, [that] reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question” (Denzin & Lincoln, p. 5). Increasingly, some scholars are leaning toward an

65 interpretative model for understanding audience reception. The interpretative tradition is supported by the assumption that the picture of a given phenomena is the “product of a complex quiltlike bricolage, a reflexive collage or montage—set of fluid interconnected images and representations” (Denzin & Lincoln, p. 6). Bricolage is like a “quilt, a performance text, a sequence of representations connecting the parts to the whole” (Denzin & Lincoln, p. 6). Because film, especially an IMAX film, has multifarious properties such as a stretched frame that intensify camera angles, shots and other creative techniques, narrated by famous people supported by statements of scientists, and exclusive emphasis on eco-systems, subjective approaches could provide a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of the IMAX bricolage compared to experimentation. Moreover, “researchers increasingly prefer insightful findings and ecologically valid, interpretative techniques to the more experimental, quantitative or supposedly scientific methods and their perceived limitations” (Lunt, 1996, p. 79). Since there are so many contingencies to track like thoughts, feelings, and other reactions from persons watching a media text, much of the qualitative audience reception research literature opts for ethnographic tools. David Morley (1992) offers advice with regard to building a methodology in the interpretative paradigm, which should “be determined according to resources available and the particular type of data needed to answer specific questions and that all methodological choices (ethnography included) incur what an economist would call an ‘opportunity cost’” (p. 13). So this chapter not only outlines the theoretical basis for conducting a qualitative project, but discusses many of the challenges associated with ethnographic research. Logistical and procedural issues abound, which deal with where and how audience feedback is collected and the difficulty in synthesizing responses into systematic meaningful compartments. However, interpretation does not occur in a vacuum, there are peripheral variables to consider such as who the people are and where they are when viewing the film. Part of the IMAX Experience is actually visiting the park, museum, or stand alone complex where it is located. In some instances, IMAX theaters are situated amidst a highly stimulating theme park setting or between interactive museum displays where people are inundated with visually stunning animals and listening to white noise generated by crowds or voiceovers. At the same time, guests leisurely peruse the facts on plaques describing the content of exhibits. Attendees may be in the mindset of learning, while those in a theme park desire to be entertained or engaging in both activities simultaneously at each place.

66 The Ethnographic Shift in Audience Studies

Since culture is an interactive experience where meaning is created through a complex subjective intrapersonal, discursive and contextually fluent process, cultural anthropologists recognize the difficulty in studying it using positivist methods. Largely, ethnographic approaches lend enriched insight into how cultural practices such as traditions, ceremonies, and customs are formed through entrenched social belief systems, which intervene in cognitive process. Barbara Tedlock (1994) argues that ethnography studies experience, which “is meaningful, and human behavior is generated from and informed by this meaningfulness” (p. 455). Furthermore, “because ethnographers traverse both territorial and semantic boundaries, fashioning cultures and cultural understandings through an intertwining of voices, they appear heroic to some and ludicrous to others” (p. 455). Sometimes ethnographic research is censured for what Tedlock (1994) describes as being bizarre or extraordinary for its abnormal observations. Yet the value of such insight regardless of how it may be perceived according to someone’s moral code generates new understanding of how people really behave. When looking at the context in which audiences view a media text, ethnographic methodologies are helpful in looking at as many variables as possible without experiencing limitations common to probability. Often traditional social scientific endeavors scrutinize participant responses by testing specific hypotheses using selected variables followed by measuring audiences with some instrument usually a survey or questionnaire. However, sociologist Anthony Giddens (1985) in his book, The Nation-State and Violence says that “‘objectivism’ fails to appreciate the complexity of social action produced by actors operating with knowledge and understanding as part of their consciousness” (Sociology at Hewett, 2005). Cultural scholarship shifts the emphasis from statistical extrapolation to organic comprehension of mental activity. Objective measurements of the mind are necessary exercises, but they do not adequately clarify the roles of the emotions of “desire, zest, truth, love, knowledge, and values” in attitude formation (Geertz, 1973, p. 7). Accounting for the priorities of intuition, imagination, and spirituality in decision-making, judgment, interpretation or simply explaining why something is interesting to someone are equally as challenging for Post-Enlightenment epistemology. Peter Lunt (1996) says that ethnography cannot be understood as analogy to the survey, as a convenient aggregate of individual opinion, but as a simulation of these routine but relatively inaccessible communicative contexts that can

67 help us discover the processes by which meaning is socially constructed thorough everyday talk. (p. 85) Ethnographic approaches are undeservedly criticized for their controversial interpretations and unconventional interdisciplinary, non-inferential or sometimes inconsistent data collection procedures. Culture is not static; it is constantly evolving and a variety of methods for data collection, adapt to unfolding phenomena. Deep linguistic, spiritual, emotional or behavioral threads connect social processes and simply cannot be identified using a statistical analysis. Thus cultural anthropologists make tangential strides by identifying cultural trends through qualitative mapping. Clifford Geertz’s (1973) work on studying behavior and cognition privileges “subjectivism,” but does not necessarily preclude scientific rigor (p. 56). He explains the impetus behind, steering social scientific scholarship toward viewing the human mind as a product of cultural practice as much as physiological or biological function. Ethnography similar to the psychoanalytic technique of phenomenology observes, classifies, and interprets verbal and nonverbal behavior. However, acquiring data causes interference. Susan Speer (2002) explains that the researcher can be a “contaminant” where the researcher’s presence inhibits people’s natural inclinations to behave naturally (p. 513). However, Speer (2002) says that in CA (conversation analysis), interview talk and focus groups, the research is not “thought of as potential contaminant but as much as a ‘member’ as other participants, and of equal status for the purposes of analysis” (p. 513). The interpretative tradition embraces a researcher’s biases, morals, and values so the limitations concerning reliability and validity are not the foremost concern. Nevertheless, the comparisons of methodical techniques in learning about audience reception justify an alternative choice to positivist claims of ordering, explaining, and predicting human propensity. Because human beings actively construct meaning through variations in rehearsed behavior, Geertz (1973) presents the findings of Gilbert Ryle who explored the function of blinking. The stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures in terms of which twitches, winks, fake- winks, parodies, rehearsals of parodies are produced, perceived and interpreted and without which they would not (even in the zero-form twitches, which, as a cultural

68 category, are as much non-winks as winks are non-twitches) in fact exist, no matter what anyone did or didn’t do with his eyelids. (p. 7) Clearly, a qualitative typology like the one Ryle uses provides a helpful tool for organizing the various responses and could potentially build theoretical models for predicting behavior. However, it does not account for motivation, free will, and only circumvents the authority of cultural constraints. Culture operates on a platonic or metaphysical level where inferences, suggestions, and other subtle details are found in paralanguage. Symbols possess innumerous signals, which are carried in the activity of rapidly firing messages back and forth to one another. Thus all manifestations of behavior described by Ryle assume an implicit function, which is to symbolize or unintentionally embody broader ideological structures that bind cultural activity. Geertz’s (1973) research in Java of the Balinese people determined that religion was the catalyst of social organization. His segmentation in the ethnography used three “cultural categories” the loose architectural design and location of temples, social class stratification from priests down to lower order followers, and finally the enactment of the battle between two gods “Rangda and Barong” to celebrate death illustrate the way ideology manifests itself as either an instigator or result of social structure (p. 7; p.182). The spiritual belief system of the Balinese people also addresses the threshold between ideological thought and individual personality. Geertz (1973) identifies essentialist explanations such as the influence of social “strains”, which refer “to both a state of personal tension and to a condition of societal dislocation” (p. 203). He stipulated that the argument from strain theory suggests ideological thoughts are essentially symbolic outlets for emotional disturbances, a similarity only reinforced by the presumed commonalities in ‘basic personality structure’ among members of a particular culture, class, or occupational category; ideology is a malady such as nail chewing, alcoholism, psychosomatic disorders. (p. 204) Geertz (1973) specifically uses the medical analogy to describe that ideological thought is caused by some affliction or pathogen endemic to a particular demographic with distinct psychographic qualities. Although the above model sounds insular, it raises significant questions about the origin of cultural meaning. Stereotypes, racial slurs, and assumptions about groups of people, issues and events are made based on such diagnoses everyday. Human beings use schemas to

69 distinguish and characterize stimuli as mechanisms for constructing meaning. Further, media representations frequently project exemplars for the purposes of advertising efficacy; by honing in on preferences of specified market segments. Yet several scholars recognize the weaknesses of strain theory by stressing that ideology operates differently based on the context of where meaning production and identity negotiation occur.

Discursive Space, Social Context & Interpretative Communities

IMAX films are showcased in a large building, the room that the screen sits is fitted with state of the art digital sound system and stadium style seats are designed to position everyone in the theater in close proximity to the images on the screen. Since IMAX advertising suggests that people may feel apart of the movie, the boundaries between the room and the places projected on the screen momentarily evaporate (Acland 1997; 1998). Discursive spaces are the places or situations occupied, created and negotiated by groups of people at a given time. Foucault (1995) said that discursive space is the result of an inseparable genealogical (or interconnected) development where meaning is created by social actors participating in the creation of an event. Moreover, an event consists of three mechanisms: (1) history (2) a person’s experience, ethnicity, class power, sexuality, or other criteria of social orientation (or subject position) and (3) the knowledge or resources that coordinate to produce meaning. IMAX is fertile ground to see how the interaction between discursive space and social context creates an “interpretative community” with audiences (Schroeder, 1994, p. 339). Schroeder (1994) refers to the way a “media text is a meaning potential which triggers the recipient’s meaning potential, which is in turn a product of his or her own cumulative social and cultural experience” (p. 339). Yet “experiences are unique to each individual, his or her meaning resources are ultimately unique, but since people belong to social groupings they inevitably share a large proportion of their communicative resources with other people” (p. 339). David Morley (1992) says that the focus in audience reception research is placed on understanding the dynamic between “constituted subjects and the specific discursive positions”(p. 60). Additional complexity is abundant, especially when polysemic texts and readings (which are when multiple meanings are triggered in a person’s mind either by an individual or shared process) obscure the intended meaning behind the production of a given discourse; whatever that ‘actually’ is (Hall, 1997 & DuGay, 1997).

70 Kim Schroeder (1994) adds that the “media material, in this view, is read in multiple ways because each reader/viewer’s individual and social meaning potential leads to differentiated perceptions of the media text, as well as to shared ones” (p. 339). So meanings are not exclusively the result of a person’s isolated interpretation. Similar to Foucault (1995), Schroeder (1994) explains that “specific readings then, originate both in macro-social factors (class, ethnicity, gender, age, and so on) and in the micro-social functions in addition to serving as mediating and inflecting filters of the macro-social relations” (p. 339). Meaning is the product of colliding intertextual texts, images, and ideas permanently adjacent to individual emotion; people’s emotions are unique responses to the external world (Jameson, 1991). Although words are able to express feelings, humans are sometimes unable to harness the spirit of phenomena such as the experience of speechlessness. Morley (1992), Schroeder (1994), Foucault (1995), and Jameson (1991) scholarship coalesces to conclude that an audience’s reading is the result of what they bring to an encounter with a media text and the perceptions that emerge beyond the confines of their social orientation. However, Jocelyn Hollander (2004) argued that when people are assembled together in certain social contexts, the possibility of groupthink may inhibit audiences’ disclosure. The notion that individual choice is compromised in the group context is certainly not a new development considering Foucault’s (1995) arguments on the influence of power in discourse and the plethora of social psychological literature on conformity conducted by Solomon Asch during the 1950’s. Ultimately, there is the potential for “a ‘bandwagon effect’ where people endorse more extreme ideas in a group than they would express individually” (p. 610). Not only does Hollander’s (2004) contention illustrate the power of shared meaning in the formation of individual attitudes, opinion, and perception, it addresses some of the weaknesses of ethnography. Discursive spaces or social contexts are two concepts that stress the importance of considering where a media text is viewed. Individual meaning that evolves from the conflict or coordination with the interpretative community. Moreover, the audience consists of a group of people assembled in close proximity to one another where they are not merely responding to what’s on the screen but reacting to who is around them as well. For example, places like a movie theater, a television room in a home, a playhouse, or a reading a newspaper on the street corner position the subject in very specific ways, which contribute to their reading of any text. Anna McCarthy (2001) wrestled with the idea of contextual or community meaning as

71 contributing to television’s capacity for instilling cultural codes. Television carves out its own space by compelling people to stop and watch wherever a screen is illuminated. The congregation around the television creates a unique location where rehearsed behaviors emerge. However, a person may not anticipate some reactions thus generating the need to regulate their behavior in order to conform to social norms or expectations. At times, an individual may experience discomfort in attempting to restrain unanticipated reactions. Jenny Nelson (1989) used a semiotic phenomenological participant observation approach to look at the way people’s non-verbal reactions were self-monitored in the company of others. She found that people actually attempt to see themselves while they are reacting to television show, identifying the tension existing between the Self and the other. She observed that people experience feeling of “coming out of themselves,” where on viewer commented that I catch myself, literally looking at myself and thinking, “But you’re smiling at something you think is absolute crap,” a part of me wants to watch but the other part of me wants to watch the other part of me that’s generally stronger, feels a little embarrassed. (p. 393) Moreover, the person continued to say that “If other people are there and I get involved [in the program], I think ‘Oh, I must look silly’” (p. 393). IMAX promotions of a thrilling, unexpected, jolt into virtual reality suggest that people must see and feel a movie firsthand to fully appreciate the immersive quality of the 70mm frame. Moreover, reactions the IMAX experience might add new insights to Nelson’s (1989), Morley’s (1992), McCarthy’s (2001), Hollander’s (2004), and Schroeder’s (1994) descriptions of discursive space, social context and the role of the interpretative community in meaning production due to possibility that the screen can catch the viewer off guard. Considering the preceding arguments, analyzing how people respond to an IMAX documentary using ethnography seems most appropriate. However, fully appreciating what something means to someone else is also challenge, especially when the concept of meaning or the effect of vividness is so nebulous. Thus some system of classification that deals with what types of meaning exist should enable me to organize types of meaning. Morley (1992) defines two distinct types of constraints on the production of meaning, that include, the preferred, negotiated, and oppositional, which is a encoding/decoding process that considers the positions in which they can stand with or respond to the encoded text. (p. 66) The first,

72 preferred reading, is when the reading is aligned with the dominant code or the intended meaning produced by the encoder, the second, negotiated meaning, means that the subject may relate the text to some specific context that reflects his/her interests, and then modify it to partially inflect the preferred meaning. (p. 89) Finally, “the oppositional reading is when the decoder recognizes how the message was decoded but ‘may bring to bear an alternative frame of reference which sets to one sides, the encoded framework’ and interpret it an oppositional way” (p. 89). The preferred, negotiated, and oppositional reading involved in the process of encoding/decoding are the building blocks of audience semiotics (Shroeder, 2004; Morley, 1992; du Gay, 1997; Hall 1982, 1997). Below, I describe types of situations where ethnographic techniques are suggested to gather feedback.

Focus Groups, In-Depth Discussions, or One-On-One Interviews

I have discussed the literature on the advantages and difficulties of qualitative research using ethnography in addition to distinguishing its advantages compared to positivist methods. Now, I specifically explain the nature of focus groups, in-depth discussions, and interviews and why they are best suited to collect rich and spontaneous responses. Moreover, “the ongoing nature of fieldwork connects important personal experiences with an area of knowledge; as a result, it is located between the interiority of autobiography and the exteriority of cultural analysis” (Tedlock, 1994, p. 455). Lunt (1996) explains that researchers must overcome various technical problems in conducting focus groups; those using the methods over the past 40 years or so have evolved ad hoc rules of thumb that have been passed down and then formalized in the how-to-books as good practice. (p. 82) Focus groups are unpredictable. Aside from a few guidelines, much of the research on focus groups explains that there is really no sure fire procedure or universal system of organization. Yet some guidelines are available to guarantee obtaining ecologically valid data, mostly focused on how skillful the moderator is in coaxing participants to open up. Bertrand et al. (1992) suggests that focus groups supply “the members of a target population to express their ideas in a spontaneous manner that is not structured according to the researcher’s prejudices” (p. 199). Moreover, Melanie Lowe (2003), in her study of teenage girls’ perceptions of Britney Spears, provided a natural, and casual atmosphere that provided an insight into “teen-pop in action” (p. 125). Small group discussions and interviews also have similar

73 goals. For example, Leila Green (1999) suggests that, “the term focus group (as with the term ‘interview’) is used in a loose sense to apply to a large number of situations” (p. 37). Moreover, Green (1999) argues that the benefits focus group, small group discussion, and interview criteria are essentially the same. Each tactic possesses the intrinsic benefits associated with in-depth interviewing, which involves the probing of an individual’s behavior, attitudes, or needs, possibly highly confidential or emotionally charged subject matter, need to conform to a group; “highly detailed step-by-step understanding of complicated behavior or decision-making patterns,” or are conducted by professionals in the context of employment (Green, p. 4). The advantages of focus groups are sensible when “remarks made by one participant trigger others to make new observations and comments made by participants about each others remarks to provide the researcher with better insight into the importance of individual contributions” (De Jong & Schellens, 1998, p. 3). The amount of people required in a focus group tends to vary according to the “industry-cum- objectivity scale, the term ‘focus group’ can also be applied (apparently) to any group of people compromising of three or more members, interviewed by anyone, anywhere”(Green, p. 39). Notably, “considerable diversity exists in the conduct and analysis of focus groups, [which is] a diversity that increases as the use of the method increases” (Lunt, 1996, p.80). However, Krueger & Casey (2000) claim that a focus group should consist of no less than 6-8 people. Clearly, the criteria on leading focus groups or attendance quotas are not fixed. Small group interviews were used by Burgess, Harrison & Maitney (1993) to examine how pro-environmental versus non-environmental members reacted to news stories in the U.K. The groups were exposed to the London Weekend Television Programme (LWT) featuring the Maritime Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) plans to conserve and prevent further damage to the marshlands in Rainham. Each group met for an hour and a half for six weeks and “shared their experiences and feelings about nature, the local environment, MCA plans for the marshes, and media coverage of environmental issues” (p. 504). Burgess, Harrison & Maitney’s (1993) reasons for choosing small group interviews was because they are less costly and time consuming than one-to-one interviews, circumvent the problems of gaining an entrée to households or other social groups, and they generate a large volume of linguistic data, which can then be interrogated in a variety of ways. (p. 502)

74 Generally, the consensus amongst scholars on using focus group or interviewing style approaches is that a great deal depends on how well they are moderated (Hollander, 2004; Speer, 2002; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Green, 1999; De Jong & Schellens, 1998; Lunt, 1996; Bertrand et al., 1992). It seems that interview skills are a fundamental backbone to effectively connect with participants. In the field of technical communication, interviews can serve as complements to current user testing approaches—providing additional data about user satisfaction with or the practicability of instructions—or as a substitute for user testing—in case of instructions that cannot be tested with user protocols or performance tests. (De Jong & Schellens, 1998, p. 2) In this context, the interview can be used as supplementary information to fill-in the gaps left by the responses of large groups. However, Corrine Glesne (1999) makes a point to say that, interviewing’s “variability derives from who is conducting the interview with whom, on what topic, and at what time and place” (p. 80). Other considerations are concerned with how to structure questions include asking demographic questions to acquire a general composite of the group, presupposition vs. leading questions, asking questions too vague to elicit a specific response, “asking respondents to imagine conversations with hypothetical person such as ‘What advice would you give a niece considering nursing as a career?’” (p. 73). Clearly, the participant cannot answer a question if they have little or no expertise in the area, which is why when addressing my research questions, especially concerning bio-centricism and productivism, interview questions will not come right out and ask participants opinions on the specific concepts. Presupposition questions are where the moderator supposes a participant has something to say, while leading questions are loaded with hints to get the interviewee to disclose what the interviewer expects. For example Glesne (1994) offers this scenario: “It often seems that much of our population is focused on themselves, never thinking about environmental problems, homelessness or poverty except as them individually or possibly a family, are affected...What does volunteer work mean to you?”(p. 72). Glesne (1999) says that, an interviewer must patiently probe interviewees, which is a way to inspire responses or “getting to the bottom of things” (p. 87). Short interviews consisting of “‘short-shrift’ replies, are the sign of “an inexperienced or poor interviewer” (p.87). Interjections such as “Tell me more” allow

75 interviewees the room to embellish and lengthen the duration of the interaction thus producing more data. For the most part, much is riding on the researcher’s ability to make people feel comfortable to talk about their experiences. I integrated the insightful tips listed above to optimize the conditions for a thorough analysis.

Sample

What cities and IMAX locations will be chosen for my data collection? A “purposive sampling strategy” will be used to determine the texts that will be the subject of this study (Mason, 1996, p. 94). A purposive sampling strategy is defined by Mason, (1996); Tedlock, (1994); Potter, (1996); and Smith, (2002) as the categories, which are selected based upon the relevance to the research questions. Sampling procedures in the qualitative interpretative tradition there are two considerations: (1) the researcher tries to get some evidence that is easily available so as to provide some substance to his or her arguments, and (2) the researcher might be guided predominately by some formal purpose, such as representatives, finding a critical case, finding a typical, or looking for a set of cases that maximizes variation. (Potter, p. 105, 1996) The strategies drawn from the interpretative practice of reading texts is used to contextualize the findings in both parts of the study featured in chapters six through nine. I gathered a sample of films based on the audience responses collected. Whatever movies those interviewed in the one-on-one, small groups, or focus groups saw will be the target of my reading. The films selected for the analysis were: Everest, Bears, and Aliens of the Deep, based on their availability at the time my project began according to the intercept data collection procedure. The World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater in St. Augustine, Florida, The Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater, Tallahassee, Florida, and The MOSI Science Center, Tampa, Florida were chosen based upon their availability, economic viability, and proximity to this researcher. The three cities are representative of three distinct types of places featuring a small, medium and large market respectively. In addition, each city IMAX location features a specific type of IMAX theatre: (1) private partnership in a smaller city with a tourist population, (2) a public and private partnership in a metropolitan city, which consists of a deep demographic and psychographic pool of potential visitors and (3) a public and private partnership in a relatively large university community.

76 The city of St. Augustine is a part of St. John’s County just south of the Jacksonville metropolitan area. Rather than describe the demographics of St. John’s County, which includes the entire Jacksonville area and surrounding boroughs, because St. Augustine only consists of about 11, 592 people, I want to emphasize its most appealing characteristic of it being an immensely popular tourist destination (St. Augustine: St. John’s, 2005). Amidst a rich history and considered one of the oldest cities in North America, it was first visited by Ponce De Leon in 1513 and today millions from around the country and globe meander down the cobblestone streets (Old city, 2005). Known as the “Old City,” it was settled 42 years before the Jamestown settlement and by 1845, “St. Augustine became part of the state capital in the new town of Tallahassee” (Old city, 2005). St. Augustine’s World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater is a popular tourist destination. The website claims that the World Golf Hall of Fame is a World Golf Foundation initiative whose mission is to broaden interest in the game of golf by recognizing the achievements of its greatest individuals (both players and contributors to the game) and providing an entertaining, interactive and educational experience. (World Golf, 2005) In addition to the participation of and collaboration of literally every professional golf association, the World Golf Hall of Fame’s “sole funding partner” is Shell Chemicals (World Golf, 2005). The IMAX theatre with an 80 foot wide by six stories high screen, is positioned in literally a “golf theme park and resort” between the Hall of Fame and the World Golf Village that features “two 18 hole championship golf courses” called “the King & Bear and the Slammer & Squire” and facilities are promoted to keep golfer enthusiasts and families captivated (World Golf, 2005). World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater is also a resort destination offering hotel accommodation and vacation packages suggesting that a mixture of people visit the complex. The second proposed location for the project is the MOSI Museum of Science and Industry/IMAX Theater, Tampa, Florida. Tampa, which consists of roughly a little under twice the population of Tallahassee reporting that the greater metropolitan area held 303,447 citizens, is considered a major metropolitan city (Tampa, 2005). In addition, the reported $40,663 median household income is slightly higher than Florida’s $38,819 level and higher than Tallahassee (Tampa, 2005). The advantage to the study is that it could potentially yield a diverse response

77 pool. In addition, Hillsborough County has reportedly 1,073,407 residents not including tourists each year to visit area beaches, which are potential visitors to Tampa’s MOSI/IMAX location (Tampa: Hillsborough, 2005). The MOSI/IMAX is a joint partnership that emerged between the Museum of Science and Industry. Beginning in 1962, the name of the youth museum was changed to MOSI then changed to Hillsborough County Museum in 1967, the same year IMAX was introduced to the world at the World Expo in Montreal (The museum of, 2005). By 1976, it had named its first director and was renamed once again to what it is today, MOSI (The museum of, 2005). A 17 year long plan was initiated and begun in 1988, when the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners set aside 38 acres valued at $6.6 million adjacent to the existing MOSI facility to ensure that the goals of the master plan could be accomplished. An additional 23.5 acres valued at $2.2 million were acquired for the Museum by the county. (The museum of, 2005) In 1996, the “Southwest Florida Water Management District/NationsBank BioWorks Butterfly Garden, an innovative water treatment facility/exhibit “was constructed, which resulted in the “MOSI science center complex becoming the largest one in the southeast” (The museum of, 2005). In 1999, the 10,500 square foot IMAX Theater was installed with an eighty foot in diameter dome screen. That same year hosted the American Association of Museums and by the Association of Science-Technology Center’s international conference (The museum of, 2005). Then, in 2003 the museum raised “$30 million for the completion of Phase 2 of the Master Plan, which includes the following activities: (1) introducing a Children's Science Center to be created in the 75,000 square foot East Wing; (2) designing and enhancing exhibits in the East and West Wings; (3) refining the master plan for the 70-acre MOSI campus through 2015” (The museum of, 2005). The final location, Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater, Tallahassee, Florida is the city in which I live, the capital of Florida, and has an educational complex combined with an IMAX facility. An educational complex might include special classrooms, special interactive models and exhibits. The Tallahassee location contains a space command center that allows children to partake in mock missions fitted with radar like devices, buttons, headsets, and intercoms relaying data from the shuttle trip. According to 2000 Census figures, Tallahassee has 150,624 residents and is a college city where three large post-secondary institutions call home

78 (Tallahassee, 2005). Forty-five percent of the city residents reported to have a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to the overall state of Florida at 22.3% and the United States with 24.4% (Tallahassee, 2005). The median household income is $30,571, which is indicative of a working- middle class community (Tallahassee, 2005). Tallahassee is not only an ideal site because it is so easily accessible, but it is graced with a highly educated population (Tallahassee, 2005). Tallahassee is also in Leon County, which had 242,577 people reported residence means that there are approximately an additional 90,000 potential visitors to the complex from surrounding smaller towns (Tallahassee: Leon, 2005). This of course does not rule out other counties, bordering to Leon County that may be potential visitors as well. Florida State University and Florida A&M University’s department of engineering funded the construction of the Challenger Learning Center, which is a space program intensive educational facility. The Learning Center features a state of the art planetarium and educational classrooms where kids can learn about space exploration by taking part in scenarios created in a mock shuttle control room known as “mission control” in addition to revolving exhibits, which are donated by NASA (Challenger Learning, 2005). Moreover, “the 32,000 square-foot facility located on Kleman Plaza in downtown Tallahassee” hosts a 30 foot high by 28 foot wide satellite photo of Florida, South Georgia, and Alabama taken by the “Landsat 7 ETM (Enhanced Thematic Mapper) satellite” in the lobby (Challenger Learning, 2005). The IMAX screen at this location, is five stories high and a “proprietary six-channel, Proportional Point Source™ Loudspeaker system delivers exacting volume and quality at every seat throughout the theatre” (Challenger Learning, 2005). I want to emphasize that the IMAX theatres in these locations are jointly owned by a public institutions and a private foundation. The Tallahassee & Tampa IMAX locations are unique because there are owners, board members, and trustees involved in deciding what films should be shown based on educational criteria. The St. Augustine property is especially pertinent to the study of environmental communication because of its primary benefactor, Shell, who is an enormous energy corporation. Moreover, having access to all three locations carries with it the potential to acquire participants from different backgrounds, ethnicities, races, classes, and genders (Morley, 1992; Schroeder, 1994; Grossberg, 1995; Hall, 1997; and Hollander, 2004).

79 Procedure

Below, I precisely describe how I answered the research questions through my readings of the audience responses followed by my reading of the same films that the participants viewed. As I explained previously, multiple techniques were chosen to collect data including: focus groups, small groups, or interviewing. After the criteria are provided for each method, I discuss the logistics involved in collecting and mapping out the responses. Secondly, I conclude with how I framed the data by organizing the following chapters designed to synthesize and interpret of the responses. Finally, the debate between natural vs. contrived data and other limitations of ethnographic research completes the methodology. My goals for attendance of the focus groups is roughly six to eight people, 2 to 5 people for small group interviews, however focus groups may sometimes reach as many as 12 or more participants (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The reason for choosing three disparate methods is to increase my likelihood of acquiring as much audience feedback as possible, but I must obtain at least three focus groups at each location. However, depending on the situation I may be able to organize some small group discussions or interviews in addition to an assembly of focus groups. Moreover, using multiple methods are convenient in case there are unforeseen circumstances that made data collection impossible on the time of my arrival such as show cancellations, weather, or just low attendance. At each location described above, I moderated the sessions, took notes, and transcribed all the responses of eighty-five people at the three locations using audio and visual equipment with a tape recorder and video camera (Bertrand et al., 1992). The first challenge is dealing with logistical issues concerning the collection of audience responses. First, I traveled to the MOSI Center in Tampa during Thanksgiving week in November and followed up with three visits. Then I went to the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater immediately after for three weeks into middle of December and finally the Tallahassee Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater I visited in the last week in January 2006 to the second week in February. At the Tallahassee location, since I lived in such close proximity to it, I was able to visit it on numerous occasions. The other two cities listed involve traveling (roughly a five hour driving distance). The ranges of dates or windows aforementioned were essentially set after preliminary phone calls to the directors of those locations for the most

80 appropriate time to visit if such a project were approved. The Tampa location, MOSI, explained that it was literally shut down beginning in September 6th to October 20th due to renovations and did not reopen until the beginning to mid-November. The dates were rough estimates made by the directors and administrators on the phone. Each period however, involved multiple visits to ensure that I obtained enough data. The process of obtaining participants was performed by an intercept process, which is basically asking whoever happens to show up for a feature at a given time. Trying to obtain participants in advance proved to be too difficult, considering I would have entice people to spend money to buy a ticket for a screening and ask them to show up at the right time in months in advance. Glesne (1999) offers advice to interviewers and “turn your topic and ask in effect: If this is what I intend to understand, what questions must I direct to which respondents?” (p. 69). After being read an oral consent form, the participants were asked questions such as: “what prompted you to see the film” and to determine what they learned, “what are some of the impressions you had of the film,” “what did you like or dislike,” and “what facts do you remember” (See Appendix C). Two more questions: “Did [Everest/Bears/Aliens of the Deep] change any previous attitudes you had toward the environment?” and “Did [Everest/Bears/Aliens of the Deep]’s coverage of any environmental issue(s) inspire you to make changes in your daily routines?” was used to see if “feelings of increased environmental awareness” existed with participants. Twelve screening questions were asked to acquire some information regarding the make-up of participants in each group to find out who watches IMAX films. Also, the preliminary probe discerned environmentally conscious members of the group from the non-environmental participants (See Appendix B). Questions asking the participants their level of environmentalism were derived from the Holbert, et al. (2003) article. For the most part, Holbert et al. (2003) project was an extension of the Shanahan & McComas (1999) cultivation analysis. Shanahan & McComas (1999) based their questions “loosely on Wiegal & Wiegal (1978) environmental inventory” (p. 121). Scales of six items such as “we shouldn’t be too concerned about things like acid rain and the ozone layer, because they will take care of themselves in time” and then, “four items addressing the relative importance of environmental issues compared to economic and technological progress, ‘the good things that we get from modern technology are more important than the bad things lie pollution that result’” (p. 121). The last two scales from Shanahan &

81 McComas (1999) consisted of four and three questions respectively measured the level of attitudes toward specific issues (“companies should stop using plastic for food packaging even if it costs, even if it costs consumers more at the grocery store”) and “perceived potential personal impact” like “It doesn’t matter what I do, the environmental problem is too big for any one person to have any impact” (p. 121-122). The latter two measures used by Shanahan & McComas (1999) were similar to the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) created by Dunlap & Van Liere (1978) were 12 items ask people questions such as “The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset,” “To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a ‘steady state’ economy” where industrial growth is controlled,” “there are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand” and “mankind is severely abusing the environment” (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978). I excised items from the scales used by Shanahan & McComas (1999) & Dunlap & Van Liere’s (1978) NEP model to group responses as supporting either biocentric positions or reinforcing discourses of productivism. I used Holbert et al (2003) scale for measuring both pro-environmental behavior and concern to qualify respondents as either environmentally conscious or not. Whereas Shanahan & McComas (1999) use multiple categories measuring ecological awareness, Holbert et al. (2003) narrowed the assessment by gauging environmental pro-environmental behavior using three items: “I make a special effort to look for products that are energy efficient,” “I try to buy new products that used recycled packaging,” and “I make a strong effort to recycle everything I can,” and included an environmental concern item: “I worry a lot about the effects of environmental pollution on my family’s health” (p. 184). For my purposes, these items were sufficient to get a handle on the audience’s dispositions because Holbert et al (2003) scales are a simplified version of the Shanahan & McComas, (1999); Wiegel & Wiegel (1978) and Dunlap & Van Liere (1978) survey questions and seek similar information. Two additional screening questions are used such as: “Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?” and if respondents say “yes,” there is an open ended question, asking “Are there any other activities you engage in that you consider make you an environmentalist?” That said, I am not conducting a quantitative study, but I feel that drawing from the literature to get some idea of what questions are commonly used to determine a person’s perceived level of environmentalism will help structure my investigation. Additional screening and interview questions will be asked regarding their

82 opinions of the local IMAX Theater, which are intended to provide the administration feedback regarding visitors’ thoughts of their experience at that particular property (See Appendix B & C). Burgess, Harrison & Maiteny (1991) suggest that handling the data may be structured in a variety of ways: “fine grain of discourse analysis and social semiotics, to descriptive interpretations of social attitudes and values” (p. 502). Further, Geertz (1973) explains that the researcher must identify “cultural categories” through the process of establishing rapport, selecting informants, transcribing texts, taking genealogies, mapping fields, keeping a diary, and so on allow for the collection of data providing a “thick description” (p. 6). Following Geertz (1973); Burgess, Harrison & Maiteny (1991); Bertrand et al. (1992); Morley, (1992); Tedlock (1994); Schroeder, (1994) Potter (1996); Lunt (1996); De Jong & Schellens, (1998); Green, (1999); Glesne, (1999); Hollander (2004); Krueger & Casey (2000); Speer (2002) suggestions to efficiently conduct focus groups, lead small group discussions or engage in one-on-one interviews, the responses of the participants will be clustered or grouped; a systematic organization using segments that emerge from responses of participants in the sessions. In order to match the person speaking to his/her response, I will assign each person a pseudonym. The project’s next challenge was coordination of the data collected at each IMAX Theater. Tamara Liebes (1988) offered her strategy by saying “to mine the wealth of data generated by such focus-group discussions in a systemic way, it is necessary to return again and again to the transcripts using different analytic schemes and different units of analysis” (p. 279). Moreover, how I compartmentalized the findings determined the following three chapter’s contents. The overall organization of the project consisted of an analysis of audience responses to a sample of IMAX films, then supported, compared, or contrasted with my reading of those films. Specifically dealing with how to arrange the feedback from transcribed conversations was another significant obstacle. However, Bertrand et al. (1992) lend a practical approach to synthesizing material when the “moderator recalls the points covered followed by confirmation from notes” (p. 204). This is when “the moderator sits down with the discussion guide and based on the recollection of the session outlines the main ideas that emerged on each subject” (p. 204). My first thoughts were recorded by taking notes, then both transcripts and notes from each session were reread and then followed by “(a) correction of any impressions that I may have recollected inaccurately, and (b) add points that were overlooked” (p. 204). Furthermore,

83 compartmentalizing the data into specific themes afforded me the ability to analyze the responses more efficiently. For example, Anandam Kavoori’s (1999) study of news texts and focus groups from four countries and drawing from Morley (1991) & Berger (1973) attempted to “see how foreign news performs the perpetuation of certain ‘ways of seeing’” (p. 387). Kavoori analyzed the “extent to which the audience reiterated the discursive features of the text and transcripts were divided into segments” (p. 388). This type of structure working within the classification of audience reactions “through specific and narrative frames” may be applicable to my study of IMAX documentaries due to the variety of topics the films cover. Kavoori (1999) developed six total categories: Audience Mediations (how do audiences respond to these stories), Criticism of Textual Strategy (in addition to of a news story content, respondents across the four countries focused on specific textual features in the news stories), Framing (respondent discussion of verbal elements focused on lexical and syntactic features within different stories), Perspective (discussing how television news is a construction of events rather than a report of these, respondents focused on specific issues of coverage) and Criticism of Institutional Principles (respondents used stories to raise questions about the rules governing journalism as a profession). (p. 394-395) For the Audience Mediation category, subcategories were considered: emotional (audiences felt that news stories played on emotion), voyeuristic (viewing a news text as violence as entertainment rather than shocking), affirmation (respondents discussed how such a story would have been covered in their own country) and political (respondents said the political impact of such stories was that it framed the actors within each story positively or negatively). Also, Burgess et al.’s (1991) study of group responses to the MCA suggests an additional category, which handled the factual information news programs provide in “two distinctive ways: they can select information to help structure accounts of economic and political life, second they can use information as resource through which to intervene more actively in political life” (p. 504-505) Although categories were developed in the context of global trends in television news texts and a LWT documentary program, I feel they are beneficial sketch to guide my analysis of IMAX. I have also chosen to divide up the content of the discussion into “segments” similar to Kavoori (1999) criteria and Burgess et al. (1992) findings where broader

84 themes or main ideas that emerge from the sessions will then grouped according to corresponding research questions. I will read DVD copies of the films to facilitate my analysis, which is a grounded discussion of IMAX construction of representations depicting nature and wildlife. From this examination I developed my insights from audiences reactions intertwined with arguments from the theoretical paradigms described in chapters three and four. To read the texts and analyze images I decoded meanings using semiotics guided by a reflective approach (Hall, 1997; du Gay, 1997). For the most part, organizing the data of an ethnographic study varies dependent on how the participants respond to the questions. Barbara Tedlock (1994) says that as each chapter unfolds spatially and logically, treating a standard topic—environment, social relations, identity or worldview—constructed by means of a repetitive accumulation of equivalent episodes and data” (p. 459). Beginning the analysis is a description of how the dialogue from tapes and transcripts of interviews were assembled into seven categories and then grouped by four major themes. Each chapter is titled according to a major theme: chapter seven is called “Absorbing IMAX: Image vs. Text”; chapter eight is named “Criticisms of Production & Environmentalism”; chapter nine is titled “Image Maximum Nature: Audience Attitudes & Agency.” My hope is that this chapter cogently introduces and directs the reader toward my broader conclusions.

85 CHAPTER 6

EXHIBITS AT THE MUSEUM: MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS, JELLYFISH AND BEARS, OH MY!

“Their adventure to unlock the secrets of life in the universe will stun you to your core.” --From the IMAX poster and cover of the DVD copy of Aliens of the Deep

Watching Everest, Bears & Aliens of the Deep: Reading Visual Texts

Here, I set the stage for my analysis of audience reception of Everest, Bears & Aliens of the Deep that appears in subsequent chapters. First, some descriptive information is presented that explains where the data was collected from and how many people participated. Included in the following are my own close readings of the DVD copies of the IMAX documentaries featured in my sample. This is designed to provide the reader background and help contextualize the comments made by respondents and supply continuity to the project. Also, this analysis is a means to compare my own reading to the themes found in participants’ conversations. One observation that was pervasive was that the more the participants were allowed to respond to me when I repeatedly asked, what facts or images they remembered, it afforded them the chance to embellish in greater detail. I appreciated the value of using the strategy to “get at the bottom of things” in order to “make words fly” (Glesne, 1994, p. 72). By ensuring that everyone had a chance to respond to the questions thoroughly, it compelled them to disclose more information. Often people would amend, contradict or rescind statements. People’s diverse individual subject positions were a catalyst for unique insights and generated new ideas into the collective feedback. Conversely, many were less likely to confess their honest opinions due to the fact that another outspoken individual in the group had expressed they had different hobbies, tendencies, personalities or opposing political beliefs from their own.

IMAX Tourism in the Sunshine State

Three Florida locations were featured in my project: Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI) and IMAX Theater in Tampa, World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater in St. Augustine, and The Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater in Tallahassee. At these

86 places, a sample of three IMAX films were shown: Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep. A total of eighty-five people participated in eleven focus groups, one one-on-one interview from MOSI, and four small groups at The Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater. In addition, five focus groups from MOSI, three from The World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater and three from The Challenger Learning Center were obtained. All respondents were queried immediately following a viewing of the films. As predicted, a variety of people participated and brought multiple subject positions to the readings (Foucault, 1995, Morley 1992, Schroeder, 2004 & Bertrand et al., 1992). The pool of respondents featured both males and females ranging from ages 18 to 82 primarily of Caucasian, African American and Asian backgrounds. Participants’ polysemic meanings emerge from each individual’s construction of events, persons, or objects and compared to their own attitudes, beliefs or values. Moreover, David Morley (1992) intimated that preferred, negotiated or oppositional readings derive from the necessity for audiences to position themselves in relation to media texts. Determining what they learned was based on a criterion that is rooted in the interpretative tradition. Moreover, themes were gleaned from the implementation of ethnographic methods, which considered individuals’ varied perceptions. People’s thoughts are generally guided by intuition, personal experience, emotion, and senses. The life experience each person brings to their comprehension of IMAX further explores distinctions between the individual meaning-making process and the collective consciousness that develops after a group watches a media text. One of the mitigating factors in the respondents’ readings was the type of film they watched. Since my project dealt with three disparate films that focused on a range of eco- systems, respondents’ comments were not limited to one specific topic. Instead, a variety of answers to my questions were reflective of the particular landscapes featured in the films such as the Himalayans or presence of shrimp-like animals residing on cavern walls and structures of the deepest parts of the ocean. For this reason, I have supplied a summary and analysis of the films to acclimatize the reader for the remaining discourse supplied by audience members. Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep are a sweeping collage of landscapes of mountains, plains, rivers and marine netherworlds projected on an enormous palate; the IMAX screen. Alongside gentle voiceovers delivering subtle vignettes, IMAX attempts to intrigue visitors.

Climbing Mount Everest

87 The drama of any expedition begins with the people embarking on a test of survival, endurance, and hope. The IMAX film, Everest presents the journey of a team of climbers that are headed up the face of the largest mountain in the world. The poster and front of the DVD cover for Everest has printed on it just below the credits “A MacGillivray Freeman Film”, “Filmed during the Infamous 1996 Climbing Disaster Documented In Into Thin Air.” The first image on the video is the logo of the DVD distributor, the Disney owned, Miramax Company. Following this is a brief statement saying, “This film is dedicated to heroes everywhere” while a shot of another production company Malden Media and the Polartec Company (Climate Control Fabric) are flashed on the screen. The bold presentation of the name of The National Science Foundation is next while underneath the foundation’s slogan appears: “America’s investment in the Future.” In addition a statement that funding was provided by the Everest Film Network, a bevy of other partners are listed: Boston Museum of Science, Denver Museum of Natural History, Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Houston Museum of Natural Science, National Museum of Science, Taiwan, and The Science World, British Columbia, Vancouver. Finally, MacGillivray Freeman’s title finishes the initial credits. Notably, most of all the credits were listed at the 70 mm showing, except information regarding the DVD distributor (this is true for all three films). The first image on the screen is what appears to be a Nepalese Buddhist Temple when Liam Neeson’s voiceover solemnly utters: There is a place above all others; a place where dreams are chased; a place where only the strong and lucky survive. On top of the world where the wind is fiercest there is a desolate and deathly place; where humans cannot live; every breath burns the lungs like cold fire; many have died there in the mountain known as… Everest. Just as the last syllable passes through Neeson’s lips, a white deluge of snow chunks rushes toward the camera and the ominous low tones of an orchestrated soundtrack hums. Sweeping shots of mountainous topography race around the screen with sporadic misty vapors over the horizon. Another narration commences, which is the voice of Jamling Norgay, the son of Sir Edmund Hillary’s Sherpa and guide, Tenzing. He starts by saying that “when he was a boy” he was captivated by his father and Hillary’s heroics to surmount Everest’s summit forty three years earlier. Jamling admits that he is anxious to live up to his “legendary” father. After some shots of a small boy lighting butter candles in a Buddhist temple, Neeson’s voice picks up as the camera

88 focuses on the Utah desert with perforated clay colored rock formations in the background and introduces Ed Viesturs. Seattle native, Viesturs is the team leader, along with Jamling, and a Spanish woman from Barcelona, Araceli Segarra. The panning Western United States scenery shows shots of Viesturs and his fiancée, Paula cycling across the red terrain purportedly training for the climb. The next few scenes cut to Segarra, a rock climbing enthusiast, is portrayed off an unknown coast where she narrates her anticipation for attempting to trek up the largest peak in world. Simultaneously, a helicopter supposedly holding the three climbers speeds closely along a canyon floor where the narration explains that “the helicopter cannot fly as high as base camp,” which is 9,000 ft high. Instead the chopper drops the crew off roughly 30 miles from the base of Mount Everest. Lastly, as the camera zooms through a crevasse billowing over with steam, Neeson introduces with Roger Billum, a British geologist. Segarra is heard saying, “I would love to climb the highest mountain in the world.” Although the three stars of the adventure are interviewed, Neeson alludes to the fact that the trip is not solely for the purposes of recreation but has a scientific agenda. Neeson exclaims in response to Segarra’s comments that, “Roger Billum’s mission is to understand earthquakes” and that the team will be carrying GPS (Geological Position System) equipment with them so that Roger will be able to obtain new data for the purposes of better understanding of seismic activity and determine how the Himalayan mountain range was formed.” Then, Billum interjects with “Continents actually move and when the two land masses collide the rock has go somewhere and so it goes up and that collision is what pushed up the Himalayan mountains.” The statements of Billum are highlighted followed by an animated graphic of the earth that points to the gradual movement of the country of India moving toward the larger land mass of Asia. Billum adds: About 100 million years ago, the country we call India began moving north to Asia as the continent slowly collided, India slid underneath Asia and the rock in between squeezed and formed part of the Himalayas. India is still pushing further underneath Asia every year about ¼ higher at 29,028 feet above sea level. Everest soars 5 ½ miles above sea level making it the tallest mountain on earth. Billum expresses his desire to chart the tiny movements using GPS devices when the camera sails over a small village. He describes that the village is not “built to withstand such tremors”

89 and is susceptible to the dangerous earthquake potential of the Himalayans. Billum admits that although they cannot “forecast” when an earthquake will hit, “if the team succeeds in getting the GPS data that will make our measurements more accurate.” After the brief scientific explanation is completed, the camera returns to a Buddhist monastery featured in the opening sequence. Jamling’s voice chimes in with the advice provided by the monks: “Sherpas believe that mountain Gods protect those that honor them, but pride and arrogance can anger the Gods and cause great suffering even death.” Neeson digresses from the spiritual forewarnings that Jamling presents and states that the team will take 60 yaks to hike up 5,000 feet form the base. Moreover, altitude sickness is mentioned as a formidable concern and that the team must ascend slowly to acclimatize to double the number of red blood cells needed to carry oxygen throughout the body. Neeson goes on to say that, “if a person was to directly travel from sea level to the top of Mount Everest they would be unconscious in a few minutes and dead soon there after.” On April 2nd, Neeson proclaims that a dozen other expeditions are to embark on the same itinerary as the team featured in the documentary. Ed Viesturs has assembled a team that consists of 30 people including Sherpas. Also, Viesturs describes that his fiancée and he are on their honeymoon together and that she will remain at base camp while he heads upward. The next shot is another rattling avalanche charging at the camera alongside numerous other explosions of icy dust when Neeson says that “several times a day” avalanches occur. Also, he adds that, of the 150 people that have died in the area, one-third of them have succumbed to avalanches. Following another grave statistic, Jamling explains a new graphic that appears on the stretched screen that illuminates the map of the hike consisting of three stops 1) Base camp 2) Middle camp and 3) the summit. Between these stops are three danger zones known as “ice falls” where the team could potentially face adversity. Amidst holding frames of jagged valleys, Jamling says that, ice falls are frozen rivers that run downhill and are over 500 feet deep. In addition, the broken ice chunks that riddle the gap, can weigh up to 40 tons and he warns that, “If they suddenly break they can crush you in a heart beat.” The shots after a series of steady sound bytes loaded with tidbits of facts about the wintry terrain, the camera begins following the hikers initial ascent to base camp. There, a giant crevasse or ice fall is depicted where the shiny orange jacket clad climbers must lay long aluminum ladders across it and attempt to walk on the rungs safely to the other side. The Spanish

90 woman, Segarra, offers a humorous adage as she negotiates the metal ladder, “the sherpas say that if you fall into the crevasse, you fall all the way to America” and chuckles. During these shots, Viesturs describes that as people ascend upward that a very dangerous sickness occurs called edema, where the lungs fill up with fluid due to a lack of proper oxygen and causes frequent coughing. In fact, there is so much pressure in the lungs from the increase of fluid in the lungs can crack the ribs. One of the photographers along for the journey, Sumiyo Tsuzuki, a photographer for the National Geographic experienced this and was unable to continue and had to remain at base camp. On May 7th, Neeson announces, the team begins its trek up to middle camp that is 22,000 feet up the side of Everest. May is chosen because it has lowest potential for high winds and storms. Twelve other teams make the ascent ahead of Viesturs and his companions. One of the members of another team, Rob Hall, from New Zealand set off for the summit two days later. During that team’s hike a vicious storm hit and Rob Hall along with his seventeen fellows were caught running low on oxygen and facing 100 degree below zero temperatures. Neeson explains that Viesturs and his wife Paula begin to express their concern for Hall by saying that the two were close friends with him and his wife, who was 7 months pregnant at the time. Overnight many of the team died, but Hall managed to survive the night by miraculously enduring the bitter cold. Two days away from middle camp he manages to get on the walkie-talkie and begins gruffly speaking to Viesturs. Hall weak from exhaustion and late stage hypothermia, Viesturs attempts to talk to him and trying to coach him down to middle camp. The camera intimately captures Viesturs laying in his tent and his cries for his friend to hold on for a little while. Hall’s last moments with his wife are not audible, but apparently he was able to communicate with her via satellite phone. By the next day Hall dies, but before he does he is able to name his unborn son. The drama of the passing of a fellow climber is reported to have devastated Viesturs and his crew by Neeson. Viesturs admits he realized that “my good friend wouldn’t be there to see his firstborn child.” However, Beck Weathers, also a member of Hall’s team, is discovered to have somehow survived the extreme conditions and was still showing signs of life. The next frames follow a harrowing rescue where a Nepalese helicopter pilot must climb to a dangerous height of 22,000 feet. Grainy stock footage and pictures from news footage are inserted of Weathers nearly blind with a black frozen face and hands as he is extracted from the blanketed slope. Interviews are

91 featured of Weathers depicted missing a nose and forehead. Neeson adds that the deaths on Everest that day were the worst in history that took the lives of eight people. After the climatic series of interviews and footage, the focus returns to Viesturs and his crew where they confess that although the death of Rob Hall was heartbreaking, the rescue of Weathers provides much needed hope. Segarra’s reality television style on-camera confessional (where the camera is positioned so that it appears she is addressing the audience) tearfully laments that, “I don’t like to see people die” and stops in mid-sentence to cry. Seven days pass and the team resumes the climb, even though conditions are not quite ideal. Jamling interjects that when other Sherpas said that they were scared, he tells them something his father, Tenzing told him, which was that, “A climber must always treat the mountain with respect and use caution in the face of danger.” Aside from the treacherous conditions the team makes the last push for the summit where they face the remaining 3,000 foot danger zone at 26,000 feet. Briefly, the frames shift to a scene where the team members set up the GPS device while a transmission to the scientist helps to appropriately situate it on the mountainside. Approaching 26,000 feet, Jamling expresses that he, “was feeling tense” about the 12 hours of hiking, half of which is in complete darkness that remained to the top. Neeson informs the audience that Viesturs leaves an hour earlier without the other two team members Segarra and Tenzing and inserts this: “High on Everest there is nothing to breathe and there is 1/3 as much oxygen in each breath as there is at sea level; most climbers need bottled oxygen, but not Ed”. Viesturs attempts the most difficult portion of the climb without bottled oxygen and says that “this is what it must feel like to drown.” Also, he states that “I climb without oxygen because I like the challenge”; “it’s me against the mountain,” and “the human body is not meant to survive up here; it screams at you to turn around and go back.” On the way up, Viesturs explains that stopped next to Rob Hall’s frozen body in the snow and cries, yet after speaking to his wife who says climb the mountain “like you have never climbed it before,” which is enough inspiration for him to continue. Ed reaches the summit and the camera features a polaroid that he takes of himself and calls his wife Paula. The rest of the crew is shown arduously staggering up toward the summit in a similar fashion as Viesturs. On Viesturs way down he hugs Tenzing and Segarra while telling them they do not have that far to go, which is not on camera. Segarra confesses that “I’ve never been so tired in my life” and Jamling says, “I that I am closer to death

92 than I have ever been before without passing to other side.” Finally, Segarra reaches the top and Neeson triumphantly proclaims that “after nine weeks” she is the first Spanish woman to surmount Everest when she pauses to reflect, “I wonder if my friends are talking about me”…“look, I am here.” Then, Jamling arrives, recalls the spirituality imparted to him by the Buddhist monks, leaves a prayer flag amidst flowing others along with a picture of his father, mother, and toy from his daughter. At the conclusion of the accounts of each climber’s achievement, Neeson describes that they embarked on a two day descent. Amidst a ceremonial version of George Harrison’s “Here Comes the Sun”, he implies that, Viesturs, Segarra, and Tenzing, “would have time to reflect on the disaster that would touch the whole world” and that “Roger’s GPS” station would now be “putting out data that would give more insights about earthquakes.” The film concludes with Jamling arranging for thousands of butter lights around a local Nepalese Buddhist temple in honor of the expedition and to “honor his father.” Finally, Jamling says, if my father was here today he would say, “Jamling you didn’t have to come all this way to see me,” and I paraphrase: he knew he [Jamling] was worthy to climb Everest the whole time. Right before the credits appear on the screen, a statement reads: “The producers would like to thank the ten climbers who carried the IMAX camera to the top of the World.” Following that is the exact same credits as the ones in the beginning except for listing of names of Sherpas, producers, camera people, assistants, and photographers. Then the last series explains that additional footage was shot in Utah, New Hampshire, Colorado and Baja California and underneath it a caption explains: “Some climbing scenes were re-created and filmed in the USA.”

Heroic Drama and Lessons of Heroism in Everest

The overriding tone of Everest is postured as man versus nature. The documentary frames the climbers as facing impossible challenges to surmount the brooding force of the mountain. Moreover, Everest’s major theme is that it is dominantly anthropocentric and anthropomorphizes the mountain as a creature torturing the climbers. The movie portrays an inanimate topographical monument as an icy villain that is determined to vanquish the weary journeyers; personified as a tyrant quietly peering down atop its castle. The comments of the crew continually refer to their willingness to not anger or upset the mountain as if it had a conscious. The film would have been a fantastic promotion for a sports/energy drink or new Nike hiking boot. Perhaps, digital effects

93 could be employed to depict Everest with a gaping snarling mouth loaded with fangs brushing off the ant-size humans who appear as specks entrenched in the snow. Various traps and obstacles it possesses are frequently highlighted as formidable deterrents in hopes of preventing mortals from venturing up its face. In addition to the producers’ knack for depicting the structure as a malevolent beast, they provide the intimate reactions of the event by each of the adventurers. Capturing the experiences of Viesturs, Segarra, and Jamling compels audiences to ache with every arduous step through unyielding snow. Everest’s implicit message is that anyone attempting to succeed at reaching the top of peak are heroes, nowhere in the narrative does Neeson seem to suggest that the feats performed by the climbers was purely elective. Instead, heroic imagery is employed that points to the fact that three persons in the film warrant a national award ceremony for bravery. The tendency for the film to focus on Viesturs keen insight, guidance, bravery and larger-than-life ability (like climbing the last 3,000 feet without oxygen) to transcend adversity seems to propel itself using a powerfully anthropocentric theme. Perhaps the film should have been named “Viesturs!” However, the film does make an effort to include the work of geologist, Roger Billum, whose primary objective was to obtain earthquake data. Of course only two brief segments were added into the final cut. Yet most of the information about the mountain was presented in the context of how it could be potentially deadly to humans. Even Billum’s participation seems slanted toward gaining insights to thwart nature’s propensity to cause catastrophe. Phrases from Neeson like 150 people that have died in the area, one-third of them have succumbed to avalanches and other statements including: “a desolate and deathly place; where humans cannot live; every breath burns the lungs like cold fire; many have died there in the mountain,” and “if a person was to directly travel from sea level to the top of Mount Everest they would be unconscious in a few minutes and dead soon there after” portray Everest as a monster. Jamling also follows that up with sentiments about the ice falls that reinforce the dangerous aspects of climbing up Everest and that 40 ton chunks “can crush you in a heart beat.” The narrative and testimonies from Viesturs, Segarra, and Jamling are also wrought with cautionary statements. Mostly, the thoughts tend to reify the death-defying feat and incredible endurance that pads their egos and is not reflective of any reverence for the mountain. The frames that allude to the catastrophe of Roger Hall and his team that the book and documentary Into Thin Air was based on, further strengthened the man versus nature theme. At

94 this point in the picture and the team facing extreme weather conditions, learning of the deaths of fellow climbers intensified Everest’s emotional charged storyline. One of the most upsetting moments and staggeringly ego-centric appears during the last shots of the film when Viestur’s takes time to cry next to his late friend lying solid in the snow. Moreover, as if there was no impression felt by Viesturs from the loss of his friend, he chooses to make his jaunt up the last 3,000 without oxygen “because [he liked] the challenge.” A brief amount of film was dedicated to the staging of the GPS equipment by the team. However, there was no mention how it worked, what specifically it was measured, how Roger was able to use the data or retrieve it. Instead a few frames feature members of the group awkwardly positioning the device and radioing to Roger. There are some themes of spirituality reinforced by references to the Buddhist monks that reside in the vicinity of Everest. For example, Jamling supplies much of their teachings and frames frequently flash of butter lights and temples. However, much of what is gleaned from the Buddhist teachings are warnings such as the statement, “pride and arrogance can anger the Gods and cause great suffering even death.” Instead, the advice seems to have been lost on the climbers in the documentary because they were preoccupied with being triumphant and could not care less about the integrity of their surroundings. Rather than being a documentary of the eco- system or informing the audience on the impact of humans constantly traversing the slopes leaving dead bodies and an inordinate amount of trash, the filmmakers choose to show yet another team’s decision to attempt a maniacal physical challenge. According to a CNN report, an “Everest Environmental Expedition removed more than 2,200 pounds of trash” with contents “that included more than 140 oxygen bottles, 200 batteries and 100 fuel canisters” in 1998 (Everest expedition, 2000). In fact today, Nepal's government now requires each expedition team to deposit $4,000 before it sets out for Everest (Everest expedition, 2000). Chris Naumann, a member of the Environmental Expedition named, Sagarmatha which took place in 1994, argued that real problem exists when independent hikers trek up the façade. Only commercial expeditions who can afford the $4,000 price tag actually clean up. Moreover, the commercial teams clean up because they know they will be back in some cases annually. So most of the climbers tend to neglect the regulations just because they are unable to afford clean up costs, which why Naumann explains that “Part of bringing yourself down is bringing down everything you take with you” (Everest expedition, 2000).

95 Obviously these issues were not being addressed at the time of filming IMAX Everest. However, there was significant trash on the mountain even though it did not garner any media attention or public concern at the time. So why would IMAX, since it was a company awarded for its environmental advocacy (1991 IMAX received an Environmental Achievement Award from the Canadian government) neglect to broach such a serious environmental problem? I am not sure, except that Everest was clearly not a story of the mountain it was a story about the heroics of wealthy humans on vacation getting some exercise. The second documentary in my project deals much less with people and more with wildlife as opposed to topographical wonders.

Chasing Bears

The second location I visited was at the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater in St. Augustine, Florida. The film that the audiences saw was Bears, which begins much more modestly than Everest and Aliens of the Deep and only features the narrator’s voice, Tyrone Benskin and that of Chris Day a guide at the Mount Katmai National Park. Two shots of the National Wildlife Federation one of its insignia and then its partnership with Science North/Science World in association with Lowell Blake and associates that present a Primesco Production. After a period of black screen, a quote appears from Chief Dan George that reads: If you talk to animals, they will talk to you, and you will know each other, if you do not talk to them, you will not know them and what you do not know, you will fear. What one fears, one destroys. The nighttime sky appears filled with stars, when the voiceover begins to narrate that: For thousands of years people around the world looked and saw the same thing dancing overhead, Ursa Major, the Great Bear. Some believed the bear had special powers; that it could move magically between the sky and earth As Benskin reads this, a star composite bear animatedly races across space. Then, the focus shifts to the earth when Benskin says, “Today that magic is in danger of disappearing.” As the narrator ends that sentence, different areas of the earth become illuminated. The first graphic is that of the Andes Mountains and a picture of the spectacled bear that was “once revered by the Incans [and] is now considered a pest and persecuted.” The black and brown spotted appears to be gnawing on some foliage. The second bear, the sloth bear is shown after the country of India and Sri Lanka is highlighted. Then, the voiceover announces “no one knows how many still survive.” In

96 the picture of the sloth bear, also a darkly colored species, the animal’s face is shown as staring into the camera. Thirdly, the Asiatic bear is then featured with similar characteristics as the previous two but is hunted for its organs and magical healing powers, and finally, the sun bear, the tiniest of all species of bears is portrayed playfully playing with some objects. Benskin explains that “its fate is tied to the vanishing jungle forests of southeast Asia.” Following the brief vignettes of bears around the world and shots of the locations where these animals reside, the voiceover says, “Despite the efforts of organizations like the San Diego Zoo and the Smithsonian Institute, the Giant Panda hovers on the brink of distinction; of the eight species of bears in the world, three are found in North America.” As the last breaths of the narrator dissipate, huge yellow letters appear on the screen that reads: “Bears.” The camera then shifts to show the great wilds of the one of the northern most point of North America, Alaska. Benskin informs the audience that Alaska has over 30,000 bears, which is the highest population in the world. While the voiceover expounds on these facts, the camera zooms through valleys between majestic mountain ranges both snow covered and green. Finally, the shots settle on a quite harbor with a seaplane docked on one the pilings. Just then Benskin explains that “That is exactly why Chris Day has made it her home” and continues to say that “Chris is a naturalist and wilderness guide and has lived among bears for 15 years.” At this time we hear the only other voice audible in the documentary, which is Chris Day who expresses her reasons for devoting her life as a steward of the bears in Alaska. She states, “I worry about bears all year long; in spring I can’t wait to see them.” Just as the camera shifts toward the areas where the audience will be introduced to the bears in addition to a brief shot of the sea plane taking off a folk/country ditty begins with lyrics like: “Some folks drive the bears out of the wilderness.” The song is the soundtrack for images of playful bears frolicking along river banks, in the water, and grasslands. More mountainous terrain is shown as the IMAX frames scan the countryside. Day is shown peering down at some paw prints when Benskin points out that the North American Brown bear is commonly called the Grizzly. Day laments the facts that when she returns to the locations where the bears are found each spring, she reflects that some do not show up from the previous year. Day has named one particular bear, Solstice, who is quickly introduced to the audience alongside her comments that she has watched Solstice grow up and witness her having cubs of her own. The documentary orients its attention toward the mother (Solstice) bear and her two cubs. Day states that she has observed one of the cubs as timid while

97 the other is adventurous while as the cubs wrestle in a field. During these scenes Day solemnly utters: “I have felt afraid, but I have never felt threatened by a bear”, to which Benskin responds by saying, “understanding the personalities of bears is crucial to Chris’s success as a guide.” After these sequences, the voiceover, draws the audiences attention to imagery of a Native American pottery piece depicting a human and a bear when he professes, “North America’s native peoples had close relationships with bears, that bears had the power to heal, protect [bring seasons and bring spring and new life].” Upon finishing that sentence, a black bear is shown on a dusty hillside near a hollowed out cave with cubs. Benskin reveals that black bears in the Bittertooth Mountains of Montana go for sixth months without food or water and gives birth in the spring. As cuddly cubs frolic in the snow, the narrator explains that the mother helps them find food and hardly ever leaves their side. Then more information follows: “the Black Bear is the smallest of North America and are not just vegetarian, but are omnivores and eat just about everything.” The scene changes to focus on the mother fishing out ants from a mound while the two cubs play in grassland amidst yellow flowers. In a somber tone, Benskin says that the cubs’ survival rate is about 50-50 as one cub is shown plunging into a river and shortly the other follows. Once again, the scene moves toward Native American imagery, and the narrator says that the Inuit people believed that the bear and human spirit’s were interchangeable. A native man clad in animal fur pounds an animal skin drum throughout Benskin’s reading. The documentary moves to another topographical feature of North America, the frozen tundra and ice caps of the arctic. The polar bear is introduced and is depicted walking across a barren snow plain. Benskin explains that …further south as ice disappears along Hudson Bay, Canada, the bears are forced ashore, this year the melt has come early during the seal hunt. The polar bear is the largest land predator in the world; the true giants weigh nearly a ton. Two polar bears are portrayed rolling in the snow while engaging some mock fisticuffs when Benskin chimes in: “with time on their hands, cubs find ways of amusing themselves [with] a rolling ballet of tooth and claw.” For approximately three minutes of the documentary, the attention centers on the two beasts battling one another, pawing, locking jaws and wrestling. Then more early-civilization relationships with the bears are described: “The Blackfoot Indians called the black bear ‘Kyaio’, meaning bear; they called the Grizzly bear ‘Nita Kyaio’, which meant real bear, the scientific name for the polar bear is Ursus Arctos Horribillis”

98 Returning to Chris Day and the Katmai National Park, the frames settle in on three tourists, one male and three females. Day argues that the “best way to change how we look at these animals” is to show them up-close in their natural habitat. One of the women, a teenage girl whispers, “Can we get close?” when Day turns toward her tentatively and says, “No.” Benskin claims that “Grizzly bears are portrayed only as fierce predators and hunters but the truth is much less exciting, they feed mostly on ‘sedge’ (a type of grass) and are more cow-like than killers.” Immediately after shots of the grazing giants, a male Grizzly is featured with a prospective mate, a female. The scene depicts the two engaged in mating ritual when the voiceover alludes to the fact that “the male is two times the size of the female and females try to avoid their potential mates, but as summer approaches, attraction becomes irresistible.” After the male dismounts the female, Benskin charges that “it’s the only friendly contact they’ll have; after fertilization the male plays no role in parenting.” As the focus draws near the bears mosey through the shallow water pawing at the wet basin seeking food when Benskin talks about their feeding habits: All grizzlies are opportunistic feeder. Clams my not provide much in the way of nourishment, but they are delicacy. A welcome break from a diet of sedge salad- Little bears six inch claws combine the brute force of a shovel and fine precision of a scalpel. An American bald eagle soars in the next scene the bears are shown wading in a frothing river while their fur is pummeled by the brilliant white rapids. During these frames, Day and her group are off to the side of the river bank observing the bears track down salmon through the tumultuous stream. One bear that Day has named Scrappy is a teenager attempting to compete with his elders for fish. As the slightly smaller young cub impatiently seeks out dinner, a statistic is heard that explains that “the Grizzly has had a rough ride in many parts of North America. They have been eliminated from over 98% of their former range.” Day responds to the lopsided allocation of bear habitat by reinforcing her desires for educating the public or those that take part in her guided tour of the Alaskan state park system by inserting, that she [hopes that]“everyone leaves as an ambassador for the Bears.” As Day hearkens to the audience her mission to inform people about bears, a large Grizzly staggers up a slope with a salmon resting in its jaws. The next series of frames begin to illustrate the “misconceptions” society has created and propagated about bear’s violent nature over the centuries. Benskin says that “…bear attacks

99 occur through carelessness or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any creature that intrudes on a Grizzly feast puts itself in peril. This applies to both man and beast.” During the monologue a bear is seen gorging itself on the stomach of a deer carcass. Then a rogue wolf appears in between the distant trees, and attempts to challenge the mammoth Grizzly for dibs on the kill. A painting appears on the screen, which depicts a solitary bear approaching a person amidst a snowstorm. When Benskin utters that, “though bears have stayed true to their nature we have painted them in all sorts of different lights.” Another fresco is flashed on the screen of a giant Grizzly on two legs staring down at an unconscious frontiersman lying face down, while his trusty dog barks at the snarling predator. Immediately following this sequence of frames, a picture of American President, Theodore Roosevelt is depicted clad in his famous safari garb in the foreground with white tents behind him. Benskin tells of Roosevelt’s compassion for the bear after an encounter with a cub that he was going to shoot. Struck by the little cubs endearing nature, Roosevelt decides not to kill it. The “story spread and led to the creation of a new toy in his honor, the Teddy Bear; it was a spark of hope for bears everywhere.” Moreover, Benskin speaks of the NWF (National Wildlife Foundation) intentions to reintegrate the Grizzly into the Bittertooth Mountains in Montana, “now the exclusive domain of the black bear.” In the last series of footage, the attention shifts back to the polar bear. The narration starts to allude to the problems facing the arctic dweller. Polar Bears are shown alongside an aperture in the ice while one takes a dive in as Benskin embellishes. Although “most dangers are easily outrun” (according the voiceover), global warming is taking its toll on arctic ice conditions.” Furthermore, Benskin goes on to say that the conditions are reducing …the amount of time the bears are able to hunt on the frozen ocean over the past decade; their seal hunting seasons have been getting shorter and shorter and the average weight and rate of reproduction have begun to drop. The Inuit believe that Polar Bears have the power to see the future, if so what future do the bears see for themselves. The final installment returns to Chris Day and her opinions on the fate of the bear and exclaims: “As long as the salmon return, these bears will continue to return” [paraphrasing] it is my hope that a thousand years from now people can see what I have seen and felt what I have felt and that we will live in harmony. The place Day is hoping the bears return to is the McNeil River Sanctuary where for forty years bears (100 each

100 year) have been able to seek refuge. The voiceover concludes with a statement from the Blackfeet tribe that since the bears “are the spirit of the wilderness” and were placed on the earth to here to heal and protect humans, Benskin offers that “perhaps it’s our turn to be the guardian spirit of the bear.” The documentary fades to black where prior to listing any credits flashes www.nwf.org for more information. Credits dimly lit mostly feature the camera, production, and direction staff.

Beware of the Bears

Of all three documentaries, Bears was the least polished in terms of using high-tech production tricks. The 70 mm cameras were used, but there was no comparable death defying risks made by filmmakers to Everest and Aliens of the Deep. Yes, there was the possibility of being mauled by a giant carnivore however it was not equal to the scale that other camera people probably endured such as extreme temperatures or suffocation. I am certainly not making light of the potential for a cameraman to lose his or her life from a bear attack. But after the film’s narrative claiming that bear attacks are so infrequent the likelihood of that event was marginal. However, Bears is riddled with mixed messages. On one hand, the narration points the bear’s docile nature by presenting a female with its cubs. On the other, the message is clear that bears are dangerous and really offer no alternative to people encountering it in the wild. In fact, the inaccessibility of the locations where most bears in North America reside illustrate that these animals are better suited to be far away from humans. The film suggests that since they are so unpredictable and could kill someone with a swipe of the paw, their segregation from most of the civilized continent appears warranted. Most of the shots including Chris Day and her visitors feature the people observing quietly while cowering in safe proximity from the bear activity. For some reason the film stresses the fact that bears for a long time were demonized, but what is so different about the manner they are treated now? For the most part, the film emphasizes human and bears continue their arrangement of isolationism. The bears are shown as unmanageable threats to people that the only way to prevent them from interfering with communities is to shoot them. Regardless, Bears was a stripped down documentary that featured mostly the voiceover of Benskin and occasionally, Chris Day the guide at Mount Katmai National Park. The bears are primarily the target of the narrative and there are no side plots or tangential storylines. The

101 camera gracefully pans the North American landscape and portrays the bears engaging in virtually routine behavior. The documentary presents a disclaimer at the start that it is only going to concentrate on the North American genus of bear. However, briefly it explains the plight of other bears across the world and for some reason includes the panda bear when it informs the audience that the, “Giant Panda hovers on the brink of distinction.” Only problem is that there is some debate whether the Panda is actually a bear and not from the raccoon family. Regardless, Bears pays momentary attention to the spectacled bear, the sun bear amongst others and suggests that the species is threatened by an encroaching human population. Chris Day follows a long line of bear enthusiasts more recently Timothy Treadwell or more commonly known as “Gentle Tim” who also spent 15 years observing bear behavior up- close similar to Day. However, Treadwell was eventually killed by one of the bears he had been watching and as of Labor Day, 2006, the world was shocked to learn that television star Steve Irwin was struck dead by a docile stingray’s stinger to the heart. Guides and zoologists taking risks in the field documented by programs cable stations such as Animal Planet, Discovery Channel and others have received recent attention over the last decade. Day is tamer compared to her contemporaries and takes a much less aggressive approach by enforcing policy that a considerable distance must honored between her guests and the bears. Moreover, she accentuates preserving the sanctity of the park and goes to great lengths to leave it as she arrived by ensuring there is little or no intrusion felt by the bears. Day’s hopes of “everyone leav[ing] as an ambassador for the Bears” suggests that she participated in the documentary because it would be aligned with her sentiments. Bears is loaded with details about the dangers bears face and goes as far as to implicate humans in that process. Frequent statements by the narrator such as bears “have been eliminated from over 98% of their former range.” Other statements by Benskin suggest that, “global warming is taking its toll on arctic ice conditions.” The documentaries also tackle popular misconceptions about bears like in the statement that they have “stayed true to their nature we have painted them in all sorts of different lights” and “Grizzly bears are portrayed only as fierce predators and hunters but the truth is much less exciting, they feed mostly on ‘sedge.’” Though there are sufficient warnings about the potential hazards to human life as in bear attacks occurring when a person is at the “wrong place at the wrong time,” the documentary works to point to human beings role in the depleting populations and shrinking ice caps. In addition, a

102 strong effort is made by the producers to draw heavily from symbiotic Native American Culture and inform people of the relationship humans probably had with not just bears but probably all animals. The last documentary selected for the analysis is the James Cameron extravaganza, Aliens of the Deep.

Unidentified Floating Objects

The last film featured in my analysis was Aliens of the Deep, a James Cameron film. At the top of the poster and DVD cover it reads “Walt Disney and Walden Media presents” and directly below it a quote from Siskel and Ebert, famed Hollywood critics that says “Two Thumbs Up.” In the lower right hand corner another similar caption to that of Everest and Bears proclaims, “Their adventure to unlock the secrets of life in the universe will stun you to your core.” At the very bottom, a line states “Directed by James Cameron and Steven Quale.” The movie begins with two logos, “Walt Disney Home Entertainment,” followed by a placid lake revealing the title “Walden Media.” Since Aliens of the Deep details underwater scenery, much of the film relies heavily on narration and dialogue between the people in the frames. The first scene features an observatory at dawn as the sun rapidly rises. A female voice over announces: “At the center of our existence is a powerful vitamin…the sun it gives heat light and drives the engine of life.” Immediately follows are shots of city scenes flooded with people that appear to be racing from place to place due to the camera fast forwarding the frames. A club scene is introduced with fast paced techno music with a woman dancing, an image of cow grazing and then an overweight child eating a cheeseburger when the next line says: It is the food chain and we are all a part of it. No matter who you are, even if you are a hardcore meat eater, your dinner started with some reaction by turning sunlight into food so we are all of us—solar powered. During the monologue a bear is shown, then a pig, and then an elephant. The scene concludes with a businessman clad in a red power tie talking on a cell phone. The next series of scenes feature rays of sunlight illuminating stone figurines of Egyptian pharaohs, when the female voiceover continues to say: “Maybe the ancient Egyptians were right to worship the sun—for billions of years the sun has given life to everything on land and in the sea.” The frame cuts to an African-American woman wearing a headset seated in a submersible device, staring at the sky as the water line begins to ascend over her head. She excitedly remarks,

103 “We are at the edge of the fall, and we are beginning our descent, over.” After that, the voiceover enters and utters, “I am Dijanna Figueroa, and I am a Ph.D. student at UC Santa Barbara.” Immediately, she peers around through the windows of the cabin of the submarine and says “This is cool!” Then, Dijanna says, “I have one of the coolest jobs in the world,” which is interrupted by the sight of some marine plant life to which she says, “Check out that cork screw coral down there.” Dijanna supplies the voiceover for the first part of the documentary but later alternates between Cameron and the other members of the team involved in the exploration. Dijanna continues that, “I am a marine biologist. I get to go to the bottom of the ocean and study the amazing organisms that live there. There’s nothing I would rather be doing.” In the next shot, two subs are presented repelling down an ocean cavern using large lights to illuminate the sides of the walls. At this time, James Cameron is depicted in another sub when he exclaims, “This wall is pretty amazing. We are barely on the edge of photosynthesis right now…ambient light is really gone now.” The sub begins to move and then Dijanna adds “You’re totally reliant on the technology; that’s in your little bubble; to dive at that great depth where it’s just a mystery down there you never what you are going to see.” In response to the co-pilot who interjects, “Look at all that krill!” Dijanna responds with “Oh, my Gosh!” Little bodies of krill are depicted quickly dissipating throughout the darkness covering the subs. Dijanna speaks softly, ”we are in heaven down here” to which Cameron responds with, “Yeah, Roger that, pretty incredible” and follows that up with saying, “I don’t see anything alive down here, Dijanna, how about you?” Dijanna responds with “Not much life down here at all. I think we pretty much out the floating zone.” Dijanna’s voiceover continues: With no light from the surface not much can survive down here, but there are some places in the ocean where sunlight has never reached, not since the world began and yet amazing lifeforms thrive there. So when I was invited to explore these places I had to say, yes! The next set of frames cut to speeding shots over the ocean to a large sea vessel, which appears to be the control ship. Cameron is depicted discussing plans, and is heard saying, “we got a central area…” then his voiceover takes over and explains that, I am Jim Cameron, and here’s the deal. I love this stuff—exploration, real honest to God deep-ocean exploration, this is way more exciting than any made-up

104 Hollywood special effects. These days, ocean expeditions always seem like space missions to me. So why not combine outerspace and innerspace. After Cameron’s testimony of his love for underwater adventure, a dinghy is depicted carrying the researchers to another ship where they will board their submersibles when Cameron continues: Sure, we’ll take marine biologists, but why not take astro-biologists, space researchers? So that’s how a bunch of space researchers wound up out here, a thousand miles to the nearest land where right at our feet, down in the darkness, are the most “insane” alien life forms that have ever been discovered. Two ships, four-man submersibles, forty dives at ten sites at both the Atlantic and Pacific. I like big operations, but this one was off the hook. The team begins its descent into one of the ten sites that Cameron alluded to earlier. Men in orange suits configure the pulleys designed to lower the submersibles into the water. Cameron comically interjects, “Say goodbye to the surface world!” As the subs navigate through the bleak underworld, coordinates of the team’s location appear in the corner of the screen: 8/07/03 LOST CITY 30° 02° N. 42° 11° W. 870 meters

The descent to the “lost city,” which also introduces a new voiceover, a woman who explains that, the descent to the lost city takes about thirty minutes, which is plenty of time to think about what you are about to do. My name is Lauretta Hildalgo, and I am an explorer. My goal is to one day explore the reaches of space. She goes on to say that “this was the first time that deep submersibles had ever dived together; the water pressure when you get down to 3,000 feet is mind boggling.” At this time, the Jake Cam, which is a robotic submersible camera, makes its entrance. The first images from the Jake Cam are shown with Dijanna and Lauretta’s faces smiling back when Lauretta jokingly says, “Hello, Bot.” The lower right hand corner of the grainy Jake Cam perspective flashes “Jake Cam.” At this point in the documentary, the scientists are exchanging banter and superlatives about their space-like surroundings. Frequent

105 statements of that’s “beautiful,” “amazing” riddle the dialogue or as Dijanna shouts, “This is gorgeous!” and “I am loving this!” Another scientist, an astro-biologist, Kevin Hand, is introduced by Dijanna, who narrates, “he’s a brilliant guy, really,” while Kevin is depicted juggling oranges. Dijanna helps to explain to the audience that “astrobiology is the study of life on other worlds, but since Kevin doesn’t have any real extra-terrestrial specimens to analyze yet…he’s out here doing the next best thing.” Kevin is presented, pointing to a map of what appears to be a moon back in the control room. Then he is heard discussing with other scientists, “that’s one of the interesting things I think about in the Europan (a moon near the planet Jupiter) ocean; could life have originated on Europa?” Kevin begins an account of his surroundings: The scale of these things is so much larger then I imagined—it’s amazing; huge carbonite structure—unbelievable structures. So it’s definitely interesting about these is that you don’t necessarily need plate tectonics you need some means for the water to react and then you get the serpentinization reaction, which produces the heat, which drives the formation of the such systems—absolutely lovely Kevin’s sub continues to maneuver along the dark walls of the caverns down below. This is when the two submersibles encounter protruding structures emanating black smoke pluming from the tops. Distracted momentarily from the venting fluid, a translucent tube like ring with branches of veins visible in the body appears. Kevin proclaims, “How could something like this be alive—that is just absolutely phenomenal beautiful, absolutely beautiful!” to which Cameron replies, See the reticulation inside this thing, that is amazing. I have no idea what that is, you that’s what I love about this stuff—every single dive you are going to see something you’ve never seen before. You might even see something that no one has ever seen before. In the distance, a squid-like creature enters into view, and then a flat flounder-looking fish with camouflaged skin is shown. Cameron says, “Have you seen this thing? It’s like the ugliest fish in the world. Oh look, he’s got teeth, he’s got little toe socks.” Then the voiceover foreshadows, “the thing about deep diving is you must expect the unexpected.” Suddenly, a much larger encephalopod jumps past one of the submersibles, followed by another, sleeker fish, schools of fish, spider-like anemone (all the animals do not have pigment). Cameron reflects about seeing

106 the squid-type organism, “I could watch this guy all day, almost like he’s glowing from within.” Then the scene fades to black. Back on the control, or central, ship, another member of the crew introduces herself as she walks along the deck of the boat toward some canisters and informs the audience: My name is Maya Tolstoy, a marine seismologist from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and I am trying to understand how the earth was made, how the surface of the planet is formed. We put instruments over the side of the ship and they drop into the water to gather data. Normally, I don’t have to dive in order to do my job. So it was very exciting to see the environment I have been working on for over a decade. After Maya’s introduction she is shown headed to new coordinates denoted on the bottom of the screen similarly to Lost City except this is location is called Nine North. She expresses next to Kevin that “it’s such an incredible world down there, and it is so important to the formation of our planet. It’s where 2/3 was created, and we still know so little about it.” At this time, pieces of glassy opal rock are visible to the audience, Kevin and Maya. Maya explains that the rocks are called obsidian where the lava “cooled super quickly” and that when you see very little sediment on it, you know it is very recent, to which Kevin responds, “Pretty cool.” During Maya’s narration another graphic is shown of the earth with cracks all over it that demonstrates that the sea floor is a very violent place. Below the crust of the earth, the temperatures are so great that the water gets heated, but, due to the extreme pressure, the water cannot boil which causes mineral deposits to form chimneys. Because the water doesn’t boil, the heat shoots from the top of the chimneys, causing “super heated water” to plume upward in a blow-torch effect. The temperature of the water reaches 750 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot enough to melt the windows of the submersibles. Maya then supplies a joking aside taken from Norm MacDonald from Saturday Night Live: “That’s a bad thing. Mental note: don’t melt windows of submersible!” Just as she is speaking, the subs are quickly approaching a smokestack, and she explains that a retractable arm is being used to extract a sample of minerals from the cascading fog of heat. During this episode, the corner of the screen describes that the subs are now at a different location: Snake Pit. Then the chimneys are shown billowing out black steam with small objects fervently darting back and forth and Dijanna blurts out, “Look at all that hot water.” Cameron

107 responds, “They are right in the flow—oh, man check this out, it’s like liquid fire. These guys are just dancing right next to it.” Dijanna’s voiceover informs the audience that: The science community was stunned; how could these animals be living at these toxic chemicals, at these pressures, around extremes of temperature from freezing to beyond boiling in just a few inches? [shot of coral appears] How could there be a whole eco-system living without sunlight, and not just living but thriving? Then a few shots focus on a blanket of pastel-colored substance covering a flat structure. Cameron notices and speaks, “This is the most insane biomass I have ever seen in my life,” and Dijanna shouts, “Wow! Holy Pancakes, Batman!” which is returned with abrupt, dissipating laughter. The attention turns back to the swarming crustacean-like objects around the chimney when Dijanna says, “They are right there in the flow, enjoying the hypo-thermal fluid,” which is followed by her narration: The vents were supplying the energy for life. It was coming from chemicals dissolving in the water from inside the earth itself. Not photosynthesis, chemosynthesis. It was a whole new basis for life, one that didn’t need the sun— only water and heat. The camera swings back to Cameron now standing on the deck of the control ship, partially clad in his blue jump suit, when he begins to speak: That’s a party that’s been going on in the dark for a billion years and it’s going to be going on for the next billion years. They are just doing their thing and it’s got nothing to do with us. The sun could go out tomorrow and they wouldn’t even know it, and they wouldn’t care. Kevin Hand is re-introduced, free diving leisurely in the water apparently because he had some down-time. Wearing long fins and with an enormous ocean liner a few hundred yards in the distance, he begins to narrate. He dives into the water, and a space background is superimposed over the underwater scenery. Hand reveals his intentions to further understand the possibility of life on other planets: “The search for life elsewhere—wherever we found liquid water on earth, we found life. That’s pretty profound. If we found liquid water in the solar system, would we find life? We won’t know unless we start searching…outer space.” The documentary shifts at this point to space scenes and Hand’s explanation of NASA’s intentions of launching probes to explore Jupiter’s moons. After two moons are described by Hand, he highlights the Europan

108 moon that has potential to be explored for the evidence of living organisms. Europa contains more liquid water beneath its icy crust than “all of the earth’s oceans combined.” It is this part of the documentary that foreshadows a second storyline, which is the desire of researchers to find life on other planets. Since Europa possesses qualities closest to that of the earth’s marine eco- systems, plans of expeditions have been initiated by NASA to further examine the planet’s interior. Hand’s interest and intentions in the Aliens of the Deep research endeavor is primarily designed to help him to extrapolate on the conditions on Europa. The scenery returns to the earth’s ocean in a location known as the Guamas Basin, when Cameron observes copious amounts of a luminescent moss substance on a rock formation. He expounds the following: “You see all that out there, all that yellow, white and orange, that’s just a huge colony of microbes, just acres, and acres of bacterial mass.” Then, Dijanna’s voice takes over and further explains that, “hypothermal vents have been on earth since the oceans were formed; it may have been sites like this where life itself began.” Another shot of the retractable arm from one of the submersibles is shown extracting a sample of the biomass Cameron referred to previously. Finally, the last member of the team is introduced, Dr. Pamela Conrad from the Jet Propulsion Lab. She is a senior astro-biologist, who is interested in identifying life by using ultraviolet lasers to predict how much living material exist on given structures. She informs the audience that one of the structures that Cameron was pointing out contains 14,000 counts of life forms in that particular structure. Also, Cameron interjects that, “whoever thought bacteria could be so beautiful.” The Jake Cam is depicted once again observing the shrimp like creatures that are swirling around the foggy chimneys. Finally after viewing the shrimp, two new characters are introduced, a crab, and tubeworms for quite a few frames, Dijanna informs the audience of the symbiotic relationship or symbiosis the bacteria, tubeworms, shrimp, and crab share. The tubeworms or riftea do not have a stomach; instead, the “long red plume” jutting up from the cylindrical shapes acts like a gill and takes in “oxygen and nutrients” from the vent fluid that feed the microbes that live within the riftea bodies that convert sulfide chemicals into food for the worm. Closing shots include a white octopus that wrestles with the Jake Cam when Dijanna and Kevin are shown hypothetically exploring the Europan sea, where they encounter computer-generated animals that thrive in a luminescent city in the distance. The last scene features Dijanna putting her hand up to the glass and connects with one of the strange animals and utters, “Right On!” Credits role and include the

109 participation of organizations such as the Sirshov Institute of Oceanography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Deep Ocean Expeditions, National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Hollywood Marine Edutainment

The film, Aliens of the Deep, is reminiscent of the Wes Anderson movie The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou that was released in 2004. James Cameron plays the role of Bill Murray who starred as “Steve Zissou,” with his eclectic collection of crew members exploring the far reaches of the world’s ocean. Although The Life Aquatic is designed for the purposes of making a mockery of Jacques Cousteau by depicting Zissou as an overwrought con man with little or no insight into marine eco-system, Cameron’s interjections about sea life runs peculiarly parallel to Anderson’s farce. One of the shining qualities of this feature is that it relishes in the incredibly distracting flurry of voices from numerable scientists, ship captains, crew, and frames of bustling machinery, smart robots and distracted camera people and production consultants. Of all the films, this one really accentuates the involvement of so many laborers and organizations. The collaboration between filmmakers, scientists, directors, and film and location crews is so dizzying that the endeavor reeks of Hollywood. The issue of science or the objectives of the mission that cost millions to undergo are ancillary storylines. Although emphasis is placed on what each scientist is there for provide names for processes and life forms, all the film would need to make a summer movie are the occasional explosions and sex scenes. Amidst the graphics of explanation of geologic carbonite objects, there is mostly fascination of the “insane alien life.” The filmmakers neglect to say how they manage to get to the bottom of the ocean, what this expedition may teach us about understanding eco-systems elsewhere, what further research, other than seeking the potential to colonize another planet, this trip can inspire, the role of the ocean in maintaining the balance on land, the importance of being vigilant against over-fishing or what are possible dangers of intruding on this marine underworld. The Aliens of the Deep project also is clearly portrayed as an “adventure” or “exploration” into the unknown that captures much of Cameron’s tastes as a filmmaker. Aside from his completely unqualified remarks about undersea ecology, the scientists along for the ride do supply a great deal of information about marine species, symbiotic relationships, and seismic behavior of faults miles below sea level. The most salient aspect is the manner in which the

110 description of what is occurring on camera. Each member of the team is introduced and offers their expertise on the phenomena witnessed by the scientists in the submersibles and the Jake Cam. The members Dijanna, Kevin, Lauretta, Maya, Pam, all supply sufficient reasons for why they have been included on Cameron’s journey. Dijanna, a marine biologist and one of the primary narrators articulates the life process of the organisms within the rarely seen environments. Moreover, she concisely describes the behavior of the tubeworms, shrimp and microbes with gentle clarity. The description of the food chain in most every situation the teams encounter below the waves is contextualized. For example, Dijanna makes a point to highlight the necessary photosynthetic process essential for life on earth and draws the comparisons to the ocean. By illustrating that although there is no sunlight from which these strange looking organisms draw the nutrients for survival, the chemosynthetic mechanism provides adequate explanations. The balance of life that occurs at these “pressures and temperatures” is brought to the audience’s attention so that the viewer becomes aware of the interdependence required to thrive at such extreme conditions. Dijanna’s ability to accentuate the necessary connections between living creatures seems to implicitly point to our reliance on the sun for its energy. Although the beginning of the film seems to be quite out of place considering the title of the documentary, the arguments made by researchers helpfully tie the film’s theme together. One drawback, which appears subtle and was probably dependent upon editing choices were some of the commentary by the researchers and Cameron reacting to the sea life. Frequent statements like, “Holy Pancakes, Batman” or “Oh, my Gosh”, and Cameron calling the shrimp living near the chimney’s billowing smoke a “party” detracted slightly from the film’s credibility. Cameron’s expressions like, “you see all that out there, all that yellow, white and orange, that’s just a huge colony of microbes, just acres, and acres of bacterial mass” seems to suggest he has some education in the area of marine biology, when he most likely does not. Other statements, such as, “whoever knew bacteria could be so beautiful” and “this is the most insane biomass I have ever seen in my life” imply some expertise when in actuality he is really only responsible for funding the project and decides what shot sequences are going to appear in the final cut. It appeared that the researchers’ more complex statements about phenomena were not selected for the final print. Instead, the comments seemed to be quite contrived or produced for the purposes of appealing to younger or not scientifically comfortable audiences. However,

111 jargon was used carefully and much of the main points about eco-systems, symbiosis, and the importance of continued research were relevant and cogent. The research team’s interest in studying the depths of the abyss has a much more definitive purpose; it is not only crafted in the spirit of exploration or discovery. Rather the underlying motive for astro-biologists was made very apparent by the time Kevin Hand was introduced in the documentary. Hand was preoccupied, obviously inspired by to his chosen career, to see the potential for life on the Jupiter moon, Europa. Quite explicitly, NASA’s hopes for continuing to construct more efficient space probes for determining the potential for exploiting resources on other solar bodies are declared. Thus directly pointing to why seeing what resides in the bottom of the oceans of earth could benefit space research. The type of discourse such as Aliens of the Deep project acting more like NASA training exercise is reflective of much of the productivist ideology present in mainstream popular culture. Nevertheless, many potential benefits were entertained by the researchers not exclusively for the continuation of NASA’s agenda. Seismic researcher, Maya Tolstoy’s hopes of better understanding possibilities for predicting and measuring earthquakes or Dijanna’s seeming innocent quest for further knowledge of marine environments balanced the embedded theme of hi-tech technology’s abilities to reach new places on the planet for the soul purposes of hoping to figure out more ways to exploit it.

Organizing the Conversations about IMAX

Immediately following this chapter, I start my examination of the audience remarks. Previously discussed in chapter five, I incorporated strategies arranging the discourse thematically (Kavoori, 1999; De Jong & Schellens, 1998; Lunt, 1996; Potter, 1996; Bertrand et al. 1992; Burgess, Harrison & Maiteny, 1991; Nelson, 1989; and Liebes, 1988). Responses were organized into seven distinct categories: “Factual Recall,” “Image Knowledge,” “Local Knowledge,” “IMAX Format & Production,” “Vicarious Experience,” and “Pleasure and Dissent.” Then, I assembled four collective themes from the readings that were assembled from the eight classes. The Factual Recall category includes trivia knowledge where statistics or examples that were present in their feedback. The second category, Image Knowledge refers to the tendency for respondents to connect the image of an animal or scene that was informative. Thirdly, Pre-Existing Knowledge refers to people’s ability to tightly weave in their own life

112 experience into their interpretation, which at times included actual trips viewers have made to places depicted on the screen. Then, IMAX Format & Production addresses the tendency of respondents to describe how technological elements unique to IMAX production influenced their perception. The next set, Vicarious Experience, features the way viewers attempted to empathize with the characters in the films. Notably, all of the previous categories involve levels of Pleasure and Dissent, which refers to what they liked or did not and that may or may not have led to criticisms on production of the films. Chapter eight specifically addresses this issue because it includes commentary on shot, location, and script choices, technological properties, equipment, or usage, and questioning the extent of funding contributions made by either private or public interests. For the most part, the preceding sets appear throughout subsequent chapters since much of what people thought about the movies is connected to their satisfaction and reading. I have structured the project so that each chapter of the analysis focuses on one theme. The title of this chapter, “Absorbing IMAX: Image versus Text,” expresses my argument that the audiences’ reception of information was overpowered by the IMAX format’s presentation of enormous images unless the text informed the audience of possible danger.

113 CHAPTER 7

ABSORBING IMAX: IMAGE VS. TEXT

“The avalanche, the avalanche looked so real.” --J.R. From the Museum of Science and Industry after seeing Everest

“I thought I was in the airplane flying—when that bear was fishing, seemed like that bear was right over here, and I heard him over here.” --L.H. From the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater after seeing Bears

“Well, the main thing that stuck out to me, that I was thinking just a second ago, was the learning about the planets or the moons around Jupiter. But I really thought it was interesting that there was that vast of an eco-system; you hear about it taking a science class, but you don’t get to see it that vividly, so getting to see the images that big—it was a reassurance that everything you learn in the classes was true.” --L.I. From the Tallahassee Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater after seeing Aliens of the Deep

Image vs. Text: A Question of Format

This segment begins by describing the way I unpacked peoples’ statements to determine why they attended Everest, Bears & Aliens of the Deep, what their impressions were, and addressing aspects of what they liked about the films. The introductory part of the focus group analysis is designed in this way because many people answered my questions with phrases like “well, what I liked…” rather than just providing regurgitated facts and pictures (Burgess, Harrison, & Maitney, 1991). IMAX presentation of enormous images dominated much of the respondents’ readings. In all of the groups, the dialogue continually drifted toward the imagery of landscapes, oceans, and wildlife that were depicted on the screen. Because IMAX shows images that are so large, the information provided in the films was less meaningful than the cinematography. The relationship between the IMAX format and images’ influence on reception is an implicit theme. However, the two issues are not mutually exclusive because what makes an IMAX film an IMAX film is its unique presentation. IMAX technology is enticing, and viewers are afforded the opportunity to watch films on a scale not offered at the local multiplex. For example, the popular electronic handheld I-Pod introduced by Macintosh, does not actually

114 change the way music sounds; instead the device provides the user with portability. A person is able to download thousands of songs by multiple artists from their computer and then play them wherever or whenever they choose. The technology improves the listener’s reception of the music in terms of convenience, accessibility, diversity, quantity of selections, and compatibility with computer downloading. IMAX provides a convenience to viewers to see locations they could not without buying an expensive vacation package. Moreover, my reasons for this argument are based on numerous statements made by people that said that if these films were not in IMAX format their level of interest would not be the same. Understanding what the large images mean to people implies that an alternative rhetorical strategy needs to be added into the analysis of how images influence agency. Kevin DeLuca (1999) argues that images, “when taken seriously”, carry powerful meanings and “challenge a number of tenets of traditional rhetorical theory and criticism” (p. 14). DeLuca (1999) explains that an image may promote more “reasoned or civil discourse” than words (p. 14). He describes how the Earth First movement achieved great success at raising awareness of environmental injustices through media coverage of guerilla tactics, protests and other acts of resistance. In addition, photographs of famous people initiating protests can also bring attention to an environmental issue that would otherwise receive little or no attention. In the spring of 2006, folk singer and activist, Joan Baez sat atop a tree in a Los Angeles garden to remonstrate its destruction by farmers (Singer Joan Baez, 2006). News stories worldwide covered the event featuring headshots of the performer resolutely glancing down amidst the leaves. Some scholars have argued that photography may have great influence on the framing and reception of a media text (Meyrowitz, 1985, Deluca, 1999 & Gibson, 2003). In the coverage of controversial social issues and problems, photography may overpower the text, which may help people to form attitudes toward a particular event or group of people (Arpan et al., 2006). Studies in news and depictions of social protest suggest that the framing of a story depended heavily on the pictures chosen to depict an event. Laura Arpan et al.’s (2006) study, News Coverage of Social Protests and the Effects of Photographs and Prior Attitudes, found that participants were more likely to be critical toward protesters if the protesters were shown in photos depicting them in conflict versus peaceful situations. The study manipulated photos alongside printed stories of the event, suggesting that the text plays a subordinate role when people make judgments about people portrayed in printed news stories. Findings were similar

115 regarding the use of visuals in the retelling of events, issues and portrayals of protesters on television (Iyengar, 1999, Aust & Zillman, 1996, & Brosius, 1989). The extent that images, especially as large as IMAX, are intervening forces in the shaping of perception of information is a prevailing theme in my analysis. The media frequently uses images to frame environmental issues (see chapter four). The media’s reliance on photos, sound, and video bytes is a common practice in news industry’s stories about impending ecological crises. Phenomena like global warming, pollution in a local reservoir, resistance toward global water privatization, or monkey wrenching at a construction site are depicted in the media with powerful visuals Deluca calls a type of “ideograph” (Deluca, 1999, p. 49). Deluca (1999) says in the following passage that: [Terms such as] progress and nature, along with the other ideographs in the discourse of industrialism, define our society for us, justify certain beliefs and actions, and signify collective commitments, such as the belief in technology as the answer to all problems (including spiritual and environmental problem), and the treatment of all non human life forms as resources to be exploited (certain groups of humans get defined as nonhuman in certain circumstances). (p. 48) Deluca (1999) argues that the expansion of industrialization was propelled by an ideology of “progress as a natural law” that was introduced in the U.S. by the time of the First World War (p. 49). The audience’s recollection of tidbits, such as the temperatures of smokestacks at the bottom of the ocean, bear hibernation and mating habits, and Everest’s climate cycle, shaped their perceptions of those environments. The salience of the large pictures in audience impressions reinforces Deluca’s (1999) contention. IMAX ideographic portrayal of nature also furthers hegemonic notions of technological progress. Moreover, the IMAX spectacle exacerbates cultural attitudes and assumptions that do not challenge society’s exploitation of the earth’s natural resources and habitual interference with eco-systems. The analysis focuses primarily on the images, which is covered in the sections: “Just the Facts IMAX!” and “Image Knowledge”, while another segment, “IMAX Format: How are they getting these pictures?” considers the task technology or production decisions perform on interpretation. The following sections lay out what guests of the IMAX thought about Everest, Aliens of the Deep, and Bears and use the above categories as a convenient way to organize the data. Conversations presented shades of preferred, negotiated or oppositional readings, especially

116 in responses to the questions of what participants liked about the movies (Morley, 1992). The sample of films consisted of divergent storylines and agendas that enriched responses with criticisms on plot, characters, and Hollywood conventions. Not only did people specifically choose an IMAX film for the sake of seeing one, people chose to see the movies because they trusted the declaration that IMAX makes an effort to educate. Thus, IMAX attracts a wide variety of folks who have distinct cultural backgrounds and belong to varying gender, racial, and class distinctions. The diversity of the audience and peoples’ reasons for seeing the films contributed to the color of their impressions.

Who & Why Did People Visit the IMAX Theater?

One aspect of my examination was acknowledging the demographic data obtained in the screening questions, such as age, occupation, sex, race, and education. What social position brings to interpretation is that it orients the viewer as a subject situated by broader socio- economic structural constraints (Foucault, 1995 & Morley, 1992). Motivation to see a movie has to do with hobbies, outside reading, or education, which is named, “Pre-Existing Knowledge.” Since IMAX promotes their documentaries as an experience both enriching and fun, many participants desired to fulfill that need. C.L. and P.S. chose to see Bears because they “love animals”, while some college students were encouraged by an instructor to see the film for extra credit. In the case of J.F., a man took advantage of some free tickets to see Everest. More commonly, the film was just at a convenient time, such as when D.W. explains she saw Everest because of “timing.” Most thought it would be a productive and fun way to kill an hour on a Saturday afternoon. A.A. confessed that she really wanted to take her kids. Venturing to an IMAX to “learn something” new was also a common reason for seeing the films as K.K. professed: You are going to come to an IMAX, you are going to have a very pleasant educational experience and probably learn something, and I feel like I definitely learned something today and saw beautiful photography. Two parents sought out the IMAX movie Bears because they were “Movie Club” members at the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater in St. Augustine, Florida, which was a holiday family gift. Seeing an IMAX film with their children presented an opportunity to supplement

117 their home schooling curriculum. M.D. emphasizes the fact that IMAX is not just for school systems when she said that: So we hear IMAX movies are very educational and they show a lot of things that we don’t have access to, to teach them when we are at home; we don’t have a lot of the budget that school systems do, so we have to go out and find our own. M.D.’s sentiments confirm IMAX claims that it is regarded by the public as a trustworthy institution equal to a museum. Comments like these seem to credit IMAX with possessing qualities that transcend the realm of entertainment to an established agency for public education. Moreover, people’s attitudes that reinforce IMAX’s knack for instruction empowers the company in a larger socio-economic, political and cultural context. As I demonstrate below, scientific data conveyed on the big screen tends to distract audiences by the spectacle it produces. Since the narrator’s voice supplies much of the text, the documentaries tend to incorporate an expository style that, “addresses the viewer directly” (Nichols, 1991, p. 34) One way that image supersedes text is demonstrated when IMAX facts tended to be recalled more when the narration or voiceover imparted warnings about places and wildlife in the IMAX universe that were framed as a threat to human health or mortality.

Just the Facts IMAX!

Whether it is Everest’s quarter of an inch growth each year, worms with no stomachs thriving at incredibly hot temperatures at the bottom of the sea, or the recognition of different types of bears, snippets of details emerged from the sessions. Remembering the scientific names and concepts was difficult for most people. The pictures of various animals, structures, and phenomena acted as cues for most people’s responses. Scattered or random trivia pervaded much of the conversations about remembered facts. Often, people described things as what they looked like, as opposed to what they actually were called. Also, group members tended to raise many questions to jog their memories about what happened in a film such as: why were climbers doing this; why did the guide on the bear tour say that; what part of the ocean were they talking about? Consistently, participants chose to confer with me and other group members for clarification of what a species was called or what the narration illustrated. Most answers were qualified with “I think”, “What stuck out”, or “it was like a…” After seeing Everest, A.P. poses the following inquiries: “What did they do with that? I mean they said that the air got real thin and all of a

118 sudden they had to stop. I mean what was keeping them warm? Everybody had cramps?” Some people like M.G. admittedly could not follow much of the information provided in the narrative and exclaimed, “Well, I am not very scientific, so I didn’t really remember very many facts”. J.R. confirms the fact that people had a hard time remembering terminology when she says, “the scientific names that have twenty seven letters in them [were] just too difficult to say…” Sometimes, forgetting the names of species was a familiar thread in feedback. For example, S.C. confesses: “I forgot the name that they said; the tube worms, it was weird because most of the time when you think of a worm you don’t think of it was looked like that”. Taking into consideration that there were plenty of participants who felt similarly to D.W., M.G., J.R., and S.C., the responses used in my analysis highlight feedback oriented toward any type of data people remembered. After a viewing of Aliens of the Deep a male science major A.S. admits: “I didn’t know about the temperature of the heat coming out of the vents, seven hundred and fifty degrees”. A.S. discloses a fact he remembers that is certainly not derived from images, because there is no way to tell the temperature of the water through a visual representation. Instead, the narrative supplied the statistic of “seven hundred and fifty degrees”. Periodically, respondents interjected statements such as A.S. about observations or little tidbits they learned from the voiceover. M.P., offered that, “it grows ¼ inch a year, a ¼ inch every year” about Mount Everest. Examples like these illustrate the differences between rote factual recall and image cued information. After the same screening, a female college student, T.W., remarks that the “symbiotic relationships” that existed between the tube worm and bacteria was a poignant scene of the movie: What really stood out to me, I don’t know for some reason, the symbiotic like exchange between bacteria whether the worm was feeding the bacteria or the bacteria was feeding the worm, I thought that was really cool, other than the technology alone. Although the bacteria were visibly scattered around the worms, the narration was essential to inform her of what was actually occurring. Referring to images prevailed as a method for people choosing how to express the phenomena in their own words. The participants spoke of how little they knew and highlighted the appearances of “pitch black” depths abyss. L.P. describes the value of the sights she witnessed in Aliens of the Deep and ‘shed light’ on what she was completely unaware in the next passage:

119 I guess I just had never really wrapped my mind around the fact that the ocean is that deep that you can go so far down that it is pitch black. I feel silly for never thinking about it. Some participants talked at length and articulated their ideas completely divorced from any references to image and stressed the harmful consequences of situations presented during the movie. One man, H.P. says about Everest in the following passage: What stuck out for me was that there was so much danger involved that they characterize into three danger zones. {Laughs} Uh, the blood only carries 1/3 the amount of oxygen when you are up there at the top; you’d have to breathe three times for every normal breath to get the same oxygen in the blood, and they climbed at night, which is interesting to me. I never thought they would try to do this at night. I didn’t realize that there was one week during the month of May when there weren’t so many storms that you wouldn’t try to get to the top or that you had to set out at midnight in order to meet the summit by noon. H.P. focuses on the physiological stress humans experience while traversing the Himalayan mountain range. Reports like these are loaded with details not easily inferred from images. Commentary of this kind suggests that there were audience members that listened intently. However, the “danger” H.P. refers to that climbers attempting to crawl up the face of one of the world’s highest mountain suggests a fear of security, which might explain the motivation to pay attention. “1/3 the amount of oxygen” that the blood carries qualifies as a fact, even though it addresses the consequences human beings may experience from exposure to high altitude. The effect on the human body or perceived threats to human life was a recurring theme in people’s thoughts about all three documentaries. A.S. describes his thoughts on how dangerous he felt the heat at the bottom of the ocean was to the crew featured in Aliens of the Deep: “if the windows had melted there, you know that was just the risk taking factor, for them right there”. A.S. introduced the “risk factor” that he considered a significant obstacle for the filmmakers and scientists. What S.W. and J.C. focus on, also suggests that research team carelessly explored the great depths near volcanic heat in Aliens of Deep. Discourse on how the team could have experienced great peril is reinforced in the next excerpt: S.W.: And they were saying that it would bust the windows— J.C.: Yeah

120 S.W.: if they got too close— J.C.: It would bust the windows… Also, J.C. comments point to an awareness that humans are not fit for survival in some eco- systems. Audience members became more fearful realizing the severity of breaching the submarine’s cabin such as J.L. who said that, “…the idea of the smoke melting the windows of the sub freaked me out a little bit {Laughs} [and] the water got to seven hundred and fifty degrees Fahrenheit…” Obviously, the different presentation of the documentaries as emphasizing the human perspective versus the spirit of scientific discovery might be an explanation for the differences of perceived risk. However, even in a movie like Bears that presented the animal in its supposed natural environment, when guides or visitors to the park appeared in the scenes, cautionary feedback emerged. A viewer of bears developed assumptions’ about bear behavior such as L.H. who argues, “They don’t like each other. Bears don’t like each other; except when they are mating”. Yet the information here could be inferred from images of bears not shown together amicably or ‘factoids’ were provided of whether or not they in fact don’t like each other; how anyone would be able to tell this anyway is moot. Further, L.H. adds that, “Except when they are mating and go six months without eating” to where R.D. responds that bears are, “Good fishermen.” Now, the statement whether or not bears “like” each other demonstrates the common notions many group members expressed that ascribed human anthropomorphic attributes to the bears such as temperament, morality, and emotion. These ideas also run parallel to anthropocentric perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife. Moreover, whether or not bears are good fishermen adds a positive connotation to the bears’ necessary means of acquiring food. Inferences into bears’ character persisted in the excerpt below: R.D.: I always thought grizzlies were really, really ferocious R.L.: But she also said though, unless, it’s when you are looking at their young you can’t approach them, otherwise else you’ll get L.H.: Killed R.L.: Yeah, killed; yeah or well, there’s two reasons the young and food R.D.: You don’t want get in between the young R.L.: Or the food…

121 The exchange above seems to be cautionary. R.D. recognizes that grizzly bears in fact are not ferocious. Yet how could he be sure of such a fact unless he is treading across a river where a grizzly is bathing. But R.L., adds that, “unless, it’s when you are looking at their young you can’t approach them otherwise else you’ll get…” to which L.H. describes “Killed.” Undeniably, people are learning about bears, even though it is reminiscent of a National Parks public service announcement to: “Beware of the Bears.” The information here is not so much reflective of factual recall, but more aligned with observing the behavior of the bears in the documentary. Notably, the piece only shows a decontexutalized time of year, moment in time, under very specific circumstances, which does not mean that grizzlies are not ferocious all the time. Nor does that mean that they will always attack “when you get between the young and the food.” As stated earlier, the dangerous discourse was a prevalent theme in audience feedback and it continued to be oriented towards the level of safety to humans. People seemed to perceive the information presented like the careful warnings that would appear in a survival guide or on national park sign posts. According to respondents, Bears imparted lessons about how to protect yourself if you ever found yourself in similar circumstances. After a screening of Bears, D.D. comments that: Yeah I thought there were several interesting things: the hibernation factor and how they can maintain their entire family based off of, you know the one with the two cubs there, with the polar bear, and I thought it was interesting how they kind of gave the little factoid about bears across the world how they are effected and that it is not just a North American problem, but a worldwide type of problem, and I just saw the percentages of much they are impacted, ninety-eight percent of their territory south of Canada is non-existent anymore because of human growth; I thought they did a good job pulling in extra portions— Two themes appear in this reading, (1) learning of the hibernation cycle of bears and (2) the acknowledgement that there are global problems threatening the bear habitat. However, the facts presented here seem to be incomplete or vague because he does not recall the actual figure in the “factoid” about how the bears are “affected”. Either the film fails to present a clear concise message about the worldwide dilemma bear populations face, or D.D. is not able to retain the information correctly. Regardless D.D. reads the film from an environmentally sympathetic

122 standpoint. D.D., also acknowledges that “ninety-eight percent of their territory south of Canada” is “non-existent anymore because of human growth.” That said there was a considerable amount of factual recall in D.D.’s commentary. However, most audience members pointed to a great deal of ambiguity about what they saw and remembered. People alluded to their lack of awareness by including utterances such as, “whatever it is.” Thus some recollections signified that the information was not in the forefront of their minds while watching. R.L. says “I didn’t know the cubs would feed during hibernation, that they were feeding that whole time that’s a long time to keep two cubs going the six months or six weeks or whatever it is…” Recalling facts, like the example provided in A.S. and T.W. responses to Aliens of the Deep or R.L. and D.D.’s thoughts about Bears suggests that some people were able to retain facts from IMAX. However, these folks were the minority. In L.H., R.L., and D.D.’s reading it is also possible that the men needed the narrative to know that there was a difference between the bears they were seeing in the documentary. The exchange between S.C. and M.G. focuses on the challenge for respondents to comprehend the scientific processes under the ocean. Actors, researchers, scientists, directors and voiceovers are guilty of too quickly mentioning complicated jargon during scenes, which makes it difficult for audiences to grasp. Apparently, they are distracted by the state of the art sound system and vivid photography. Unless the information presented in the films was framed as cautionary, the images were more captivating and overshadowed most lessons in the narrative.

Image Knowledge

The next category, “Image Knowledge”, highlights the respondents’ tendency to use metaphors, colors, sights, and sounds to collect their thoughts. The dialogue was inspired by my question, “what images do you remember?” Underwater structures, miniature crustaceans, mountains, or bear behavior on screen dominated the discourse. Often combinations of pictures of creatures or objects and names, especially in Aliens of the Deep, verified the existence of “shrimp” thriving next to “chimney stacks” surprised people. S.C. explains that “I thought that it was real interesting that life could exist in a form like that, I know that some organisms can exist like that, but I just wouldn’t expect shrimp….” Corroborating S.C.’s surprise with their opinion of the appearance of marine biology at great depths was C.R. from another group, who said:

123 There were some chimney stacks underwater, where volcanic activity was coming from the center of the earth and there’s some particular shrimp looking organisms that’s how they got their energy from that, it wasn’t called photosynthesis, it was called like… M.F helps the discussion by interjecting, “Chemosynthesis” to which also C.R. remembered and exclaimed, “Chemosynthesis.” Commonly, group respondents supported one another by filling in scientific names of organisms and processes. The dialogue continues to further illustrate this camaraderie below. Images seemed to drive the construction of the peoples’ perceptions of the films. Pictures helped to cue the names of processes, concepts, and events depicted. In a small group discussion, images were clearly distinguishable from solid data, according to the exchange between a female and male biology student C.L. & R.W., respectively: C.L.: For me I think the images were pretty amazing I have never seen— R.W.: I agree. C.L.: I have read quite a bit about these things and heard things about these things in lectures, but I have never seen images like that especially things like riftea I have seen some photos maybe, or dried stuff but not really that way. C.L. refers to “never seeing” things that she’d only heard about. The visuals here seem to suggest that actually looking at the organisms was more important than factoids or quip phrases. Arguably, IMAX photographs of the “riftea” acted as a real verification for C.L. that the organisms existed. C.L.’s confession alludes to the notion that most of what she learned “in lectures” was an incomplete picture until she was able to see the ecosystem animated. Images surpassed facts by descriptions including words like, “amazing” or “beautiful.” More readings suggested that the images fueled much of the dialogue from viewers of Aliens of the Deep, when M.F. declares, “The image of that animal, that I had never seen before that looked like a hollowed out jelly fish, that was just kind of floating and moving in space and it was really beautiful”. Readings like this seem to illustrate that IMAX images were most resonant with the audience. M.F. tries to describe her impressions using similes, “like a hollowed out jellyfish.” Moreover, a substantial section of one session seemed to suggest that responses to Aliens were reflective of salient photography where no facts were mentioned, instead voices uttered that what IMAX projected on the bottom of the ocean, which is reflected in the next series of comments from college students below:

124 L.M.: The volcanoes, the, the S.W.: The chimneys L.M.: The chimneys S.W.: Awesome L.M.: I just couldn’t get over the little shrimp not boiling down there S.C.: The worms— The participants’ recollection of “volcanoes,” “chimneys” and “worms” were purely driven from the pictures of the objects. Nothing is mentioned about temperatures, life spans, or biological processes. Instead, recalling the name of the structures are activities most salient in the conversation. Not only are pictures perceived as verification by the audiences, but the animals are explained through euphemisms such as such P.A. who describes tube worms as “Little flowers.” Others referred to objects they saw by recalling the colors like S.C. who said, “…No, the one that had the red things and white…” Most of the group of college students’ responses to Aliens, depended on colors and metaphors such as “red or white things”, “little flowers” or “hollowed out jellyfishes”, when describing marine life. Confusion over what things were at the locations and eco-systems IMAX was filming were heavily reliant on the characteristics of the images not the content of the narration or text. Bears had similar responses but most of the members were older. The majority of people participating reported that their ages ranged from middle age to elderly. Individuals that responded to the film however, depended on the screen to tell their story of what they observed. L.H., a retired policeman, explains that in his impressions of “Bears,” that, “There’s two different names for the grizzly there’s brown bear and the grizzly I didn’t know that the brown bear was always different kind of bear, I didn’t know that”. He alludes to the fact that the information provided in the film was something he was not aware of, specifically the distinction between types of bears. Often, the factual recall people reported was very similar to this type of response where information was in the form of examples. Notably, this discourse is also oriented to the manifestation of images because L.H. was only able to actually distinguish between the two bears by seeing them on the screen as two disparate kinds of bears. Although he may have learned what he learned from the narrative guiding him through the scenes, the sight of two distinct species prevailed.

125 Visuals of the bottom of the sea or types of bears occasionally inspired individuals to recall experiences they have had at the actual places or similar situations depicted on the screen. Responses consisted of numerous examples where local knowledge such as feelings of elevation sickness helped to form interpretations of IMAX scientific nature documentaries. Moreover, participants compared the information conveyed in the films to their own research including movies, TV programming, books or newspaper articles they have read and classes they have taken.

Pre-existing Knowledge

The following section refers to the role of the subject position in profiling the discourse on the three IMAX documentaries. The analysis presented answers the research question,“what prompted you to see the films?” George Gerbner’s concept of resonance offers a powerful dimension to the category of “Local Knowledge.” He found that when audiences have had firsthand experience with the events, issues, or representations of people depicted on the screen, they are more likely to “replay the real life experience over and over in their mind” (Griffin, 2005, p. 386). Thus “amplified cultivation patterns” occur, which tend to create a situation where the mediated reality appears closer to that of actual reality (Griffin, p. 386). Although it certainly may play a role in the shaping of responses or those like it, resonance applies to a cultivation model that considers repeated exposure over many years. IMAX is usually not a format most people watch consistently, but the concept is certainly useful considering IMAX promotions of a closer to reality cinematic experience. Everest covered the trials and tribulations of a group of climbers trekking up the snowy façade. The responses were sympathetic to the climbers because some of the audience members had actually attempted to climb mountains the past. People who had some experience with events or situations portrayed on camera such as mountain climbing for example, definitely added new dimensions to the discussion such as an avid outdoorsman, C.H., who explained: Well, I like hiking and climbing and I am into that kind of stuff reading about expeditions to summits and stuff like that, I find it very interesting so that’s why I wanted to see it; we always like to hike, we’ve hiked a couple of small mountains, like 6 or 5, 7,000—not 29,000.

126 Obviously, the scale of C.H.’s experience does not compare with the exhibition portrayed in, “Everest.” However, it does present a viewpoint that he can strongly relate to what the IMAX climbers are enduring. Others came as self-appointed experts in the group such as S.H. who explains that she actually visited the Alaskan state park where Bears was filmed. She explained that: I have never been to an IMAX, theater but I came because this past summer I went with Chris Day, over to Katmai National Park and looked at the bears and got real close to them and she had ferried the crew over there but I didn’t know she was in it so much, so that was exciting to see where I had been. Also people like J.C. who said “I’m a diver anyway, so I love to go see anything that’s about underwater”, which is what prompted him to choose Aliens of the Deep. Firsthand experience with topics presented in Everest tended to produce more intense interpretations and feedback. In the following example, G.G. discloses his personal struggles while climbing a mountain to relate to what the climbers of Everest were experiencing: Well, when they spoke of the sickness you got from climbing too quickly that really hit close to home because I had experienced that firsthand it’s not a fun thing to go through—I had some jugular vein distension and what I perceived to be pulmonary edema from the pressure differences in oxygen and nitrogen once I rested for a while I was okay and kept going, but for awhile I didn’t think I was going to make it.

Others explained how anecdotes from their home town and surrounding region related to the events featured in the documentaries. It also implicitly pointed to the notion that the film resonated with the participants. A woman, S.L., from New Jersey explained, “It’s interesting…in New Jersey they were harvesting black bears this year, black bears…” A.C. explained that her outside reading of some events mentioned in Everest about a previous expedition that resulted in the deaths of climbers ten years ago motivated her to see the film by saying the following, I have the movie that was made from this true experience: “Into Thin Air”, and my husband really wanted to come to “Everest,” we’ve seen it, we watch the movie constantly at home and it’s just incredible that it is based on a true story

127 and the sacrifices people do to make a dream in their life to come true to climb Everest, I have a dream that I would like to do it but it’s just never going to happen, so to see somebody else do it and see things and experience via an IMAX knowing that I’ll never be able to do those things is what draws me. The film touches on the events featured in a book and documentary, Into Thin Air, about the 1996 tragedy of climbers who lost their lives. A.C. seems to declare much anticipation and intensified the picture’s meaning. Moreover, A.C. seemed to be enamored with how “somebody else [did] it and see things and experience via an IMAX.” The true elements of the Everest picture inspired people like A.C. to seek out the IMAX interpretation as way to enrich or confirm that events she read about in the book were real. There are also elements of A.C.’s impressions that what drew her was the desire of a “vicarious experience.” One woman, S.Z., found that what she observed about bears’ salmon fishing behavior was unexpected compared to what she already assumed in the following paragraph: I expected the salmon to be popping out everywhere and you know they couldn’t even catch them fast enough. That kind of shocked me from anything I have ever seen on TV, you know here it seemed like there were hardly any salmon and they were fighting over one, I never knew that before, it seemed like they were plentiful, and they just had more than enough, almost too much, so that kind of shocked me… Here, the new information compared to what S.Z observed previously was challenged by Bears. “That kind of shocked me from anything I have seen on TV” reifies the notion that people were definitely shown phenomena contrary to what they suspected or learned from other sources. However, in this case, S.Z had the benefit of other members’ viewpoints. Self-appointed bear experts such as N.Z. and S.H., referred to earlier, were quick to amend S.Z’s assertions and offered their insight to clarify issues. For example, N.Z. and S.H. correct S.Z. by interjecting their input about bear eating habits and frequency of salmon runs below: N.Z.: Well, they have runs and everything changes— S.H.: well they have certain runs of salmon S.Z.: Oh… S.H.: and so they come in… S.Z.: No because I saw that and I’ve never seen…

128 S.H.: Because they are usually over abundant… S.Z.: Yeah, because they were flying past them… J.M.: I guess the runs don’t last that long usually? Some people, L.I. compared his background in taking a science class like C.L. and R.W. to the presentation of the watery caverns in Aliens of the Deep when he admits: I really thought it was just interesting that there was that vast of eco-system; you hear about it taking a science class but you don’t get to see it that vividly, so getting to see the images that big, you know it was a reassurance that everything you learn in the classes was true. In L.I.’s account that he got “to see it that vividly, so getting to see the images that big” suggests that there is a greater power at work during the IMAX extravaganza. Moreover, L.I. exclaims that, “everything you learn in the classes was true” bolsters IMAX propaganda of giving the viewers a thrill ride to places and see things without having to leave their seats. The confessions that appear in the above passages are symptomatic of the “Pre-Existing Knowledge” category of responses. People tried to incorporate their own experiences hiking a rock ledge, equating Bears to a slide show reminiscent of their vacation, or seeing things only read about before in pages of a book. What folks brought into the screening definitely led to more passionate readings in addition to more in-depth recollections. However, it appears that the combination of text and images cued their nostalgic responses. People seemed to feel that they were witnessing the real thing. In actuality the ocean organisms, bears, or mountains they observed were a simulation or representation of the real environments; a simulation. The world IMAX creates is a simulacra; a montage of graphics emulating the concrete. Below, I demonstrate the influence the format has in the production of the participants’ vicarious trips around and into the 70 mm celluloid planet. Folks described their powerful emotions is a credit to IMAX ability to put up an intimate storefront window revealing a shiny new perspective of places on the other side.

IMAX Format: “How are they getting these pictures?”—C.H.

Notably, people really wanted to see how IMAX portrayed scientific research that was different from a program on the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet. This part of my analysis, “IMAX Format”, which examines to what extent the production end of IMAX movies are most

129 salient in reception. It also previews my examination of the tensions that exist between public and private partnerships involved in the manufacturing of the IMAX spectacle. Because images were pervasively brought up in the all categories; a logical element of the discussion is to see what audiences thought about how the images were produced. Moreover, the fact that the film is large is a distinguishing characteristic of the documentaries, which helps to shed light on the delineation between image and text. Further, it supports my argument that the images distract and overpower the text in audience reading. Many reasons for people to see an IMAX film in the first place was due to the appeal of its format. In one group, when I asked, “would you agree with this statement that if: it was a regular movie you would have been as enthralled?” everyone responded “No.” Then, J.M. male exchange student from Spain offered a follow-up retort: I mean this kind of documentary, I watch lots them on the Discovery Channel, I like to watch to them, and I thought it was great to see another one, to see how different can it be…we are from Spain, and I know that there is three or four people who climb it [Everest] twice a year. The idea that IMAX is different than other formats was common theme. J.M. explained that he likes to watch documentaries on the Discovery Channel and knew that he would have a much more up close and personal glance at the mountain. In addition, L.H., from another group that saw Bears, and admits that, “The IMAX experience is well worth it if you saw that you wouldn’t come all the way out here just to see that in a regular movie”. C.W. affirms J.M. and L.H.’s sentiments by saying, “The reason I wanted to see it because if it was a regular film format I don’t think I would have been that interested, but the fact that it was IMAX also played big part.” No pun intended, but the phrase, “IMAX also played big part in why I wanted to see it” certainly confirms that IMAX affords a better way to watch films. Others sought out to see Aliens of the Deep just specifically for the merits of production. In fact, two brothers confessed that they wanted to see it because James Cameron was in the director’s seat or in this case the submarine. J.T. and Z.T. wanted to see it, because they were both “Cameron fans”, and Z.T. also revealed that his goals of becoming filmmaker were his primary reasons for his desire. J.T. a movie buff as well, adored the shot selections, lighting and sheer logistics of filming at such great depths commented that: I thought he broke some new ground as far as underwater photography goes and like and it looked like high definition cameras that he took down there and that

130 was and I don’t know that it didn’t really bring anything new to the biology, or the scientific aspect of it, but I think he likes his hardware, Cameron does, yeah, the photography, the lighting and the clarity of the photography…. The comments are reflective of an admiration of Cameron’s prowess and techniques to break “new ground” cinematically. Yet J.T. alludes to the fact he did not bring, “anything new to the biology, or the scientific aspect of it,” but certainly merits some acknowledgement for taking “high definition cameras” that deep underwater. Although the two respondents were predisposed to filmmaking and were honest about their desires to see the movie, they admit that, “it didn’t really bring anything new to the biology, or the scientific aspect of it.” Arguably, the two do not have a background in the sciences, but their reading of it seems to suggest that the production was really the objective of the “Aliens” project. In their responses there is an insinuation that an IMAX documentary has less to with education and more to do with imagination and exciting possibilities for filmmaking. Others found the ability of the crew to take snapshots of wildlife in action was commendable. For example A.A. explains her surprise that “Right at the end when the bear is running towards the…you get the feeling that it ran over the camera…are there people there?” Questions persisted regarding the way the documentaries were produced. It appeared that viewers wanted some explanation for why things looked so realistic; it was unbelievable. In M.P.’s statement, “did they do that with telescopic lenses, did somebody climb behind them?” it seemed like readers searched for some trick of the camera or digital substitution for what they were seeing. Moreover, people were so impressed with the camera work that they felt as though what was happening in the scenes was really happening to them such as when S.A. said that: I thought the cinematography was incredible I thought of whoever filmed it, when those avalanches where coming toward you, I was also wondering how they were able to film it…. Some tried to offer their own slant on how a camera person achieved capturing the angles in Everest like C.H. who remarked, “…and there were a couple of scenes it almost seemed like the filmmaker had to have been off the mountain filming; since you know that the helicopter can’t be up there.” There was not enough information disclosed to the audiences demonstrating exactly how filmmakers journeyed to the same places visited by researchers or adventurers. It appears that

131 IMAX makes a special effort not to reveal too much to the audience exactly how the films are made on purpose; the omission makes the documentaries more exciting. Regardless of IMAX decision for not showing just how the photographs are captured they are quite clever at blurring the lines between fact and fiction. L.P. describes her wonder of how odd the depictions of the real world appeared in the statement below: I had made a comment earlier in the film that everything looked so fake because of the things we have never seen before like the planets and the animals. Technology wise, it was just incredible how much money it looked like it had put in just to do the lighting so that we could see all these things; everything was good. L.P.’s last remark that “technology wise, it was just incredible” reminded me that IMAX delivers a glimpse of the world that simultaneously looks real but is not real. Viewers have the sense that what they are seeing is almost so real that things almost “looked fake.” The next vignette delves deeper into what effect the format and images had on the audience such as the emotions, connection, and disorientation. This echoes the ideas presented by Jean Baudrillard and Guy Debord that claim that media texts can produce images so real that the distinction between what is real and unreal impossible to spot. There is compelling evidence presented in the feedback that audiences are immersed in virtual spaces. However, scenes are engineered, edited, and decontextualized shots of wildlife and locations, which are recorded at one moment in time.

Vicarious Experience and Pleasure of the IMAX Experience: Feeling Involved

The final installment of the chapter includes the categories of “Pleasure and Dissent” in addition to elements of “Production” and format in the reception of IMAX documentaries. People tried to relate their own experiences into the scenes on the eight-story or Omni Dome screens. Many passed judgment on the decisions of people in the films to venture to the places they did in the spirit of adventure or excitement or both. Or people tried to put themselves in the position of the climbers, tourists, researchers, directors and camera crew that yielded deeper clues as to what about the documentaries were so appealing or distasteful. The images created by the format are very engrossing and induce sensations of “being taken into the world shown by IMAX.” Moreover, viewers felt connected to what appeared on the screen. People incorporated their own morality into their interpretation of the films such as T.K., a 39 year old female and a

132 psychologist, who explains, “It’s funny because I think the images of the personal stories I kept telling myself, I don’t know if I would ever want to do something like this”. T.K. was shocked after seeing Everest and by the tenacity of climbers and describes the height of the mountain as being insurmountable. Not “ever wanting to do something like this” points to how real the climb must have been to T.K. In fact, I inferred from the interaction that she could almost actually feel the snow up to her knees. C.H. reiterates the empathy expressed by T.K., “But I mean even just walking; just that by itself, step-by-step, 29 thousand 28 feet and that it is growing a ¼ inch a day…” Visualizing themselves in the circumstances that the researchers encountered enabled audience members to make judgments much easier. It appeared that when exiting the theater that individuals felt like they did exactly what the people did on camera. The involvement in the giant screen’s presentation was powerful. Much of the dialogue featured participants expressing emotions or thoughts about the courageous travelers in accord with many claims of “gorgeous” photography. However, the audiences justified the risks taken by adventurers because getting to see the amazing or beautiful places must have been worth it. The theme of human versus nature is similar to the risk factor discussed in my previous section of “Factual Recall.” Everest was framed in the context of human vs. mountain. Since the movie’s concentration on the individuals training, planning, and enduring the expedition, it was dominantly portrayed in the spirit of conquest. Viewers’ ‘recollections’ slowly transitioned into ‘accounts’ as if they journeyed high above the earth, into watery ravines, and faring wild bear country. A.A. says of watching Bears, “…it was right there, the sharpness of the photography, because you could see each individual fur on the bear or you know piece of hair on the bear”. This comment reinforces the idea that crystal clear photographs of nature are possibly abstracted. Feelings of intimacy where people felt as if objects “were right there” were frequent. Also, the closeness individuals felt engaged their senses and freed them from a conscious connection with reality. Others watching Bears, highlighted the vicarious enjoyment of feeling like they were “flying” in the when two respondents R.D. and L.H. concur respectively, “The flying”, “through the flying, yes”. In fact, R.D., retired air force personnel said that the experience was a like actually flying, “ I was with the airlines, I was a cadet, so you know going over the mountains and you’re at ten feet—and

133 then look straight down”. The next exchange encapsulates the strange feelings of being disoriented at times in Aliens of the Deep: M.F.: Well, IMAX it’s just so huge and the fact that it takes place in the vast underwater world that you know it’s just visually like you feel like you are in a space at times. J: Space or you feel like you are in… M.F.: the space that they are filming. J: Oh, the spaces; so you actually feel like you are in that space? M.F.: At times. The level of involvement audiences led to stronger commentary on the aesthetic quality of the films. Almost all dialogue contained some mention of the “beautiful” cinematography as L.H. reiterates when he exclaims repeatedly, “beautiful, beautiful scenery, beautiful, scenery beautiful, beautiful, I mean that’s worth seeing”. Whether it was the “just the enormity of the mountain,” as M.P. says or what M.F. proclaims as “the visual splendor, splendor of it.” IMAX apparently delivered on its promises. Awe was an omnipresent emotion evident in a majority of responses especially in people who had never seen IMAX film before. C.W said, “because the images [make you] feel like you are right there”. Utterances such as these seemed to reify IMAX promises of an engaging cinematic experience. H.P. reiterates C.W.’s thoughts by saying: because you were surrounded by the mountains in the dome theater as you view that imagery, the brain actually starts migrating in a way you actually start feeling that it was doing the sort of flying, pleasurable sensation. Some people were actually emotionally moved watching Everest, which was apparent in the next exchange between C.H. and A.C.: C.H.: I thought actually, at first the most beautiful scene in the film was the taking scenery from the top… A.C.: Yeah, C.H.: The summit. A.C.: Yeah, I cried. Viewers continued to confirm the claims of IMAX advertising that audiences “See More, Hear More, and Feel More at the Ultimate Movie Experience” or that “It Puts You in the Picture!”

134 C.L.: It brings you it puts you right in there— S.L.: You are in the forest, wherever it is you are there C.L.: whether you are in the plains, the plains, or the trees C.L.: Doesn’t matter where it is My hope of seeing if the claims of the IMAX Experience that audiences will, “feel like they are really there” were confirmed. There is a significant difference between seeing the IMAX documentary on a conventional matt screen versus the Omni-Dome as referred to by H.P. Since Everest was the only film shown in the Omni-Dome or 3-D format in Tampa, it is difficult to delineate between the shapes of the screen having any effect on audiences. However, some individuals in Tallahassee and St. Augustine that had not seen the films in the Omni-Dome or 3- D definitely intimated that they would have preferred to have seen them in a larger format. Admittedly, others at the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater had seen other IMAX films in those formats and wished Aliens of the Deep was in the 3-D or Omni Dome format. Some compared the dome versus the standard flat screen declaring that the dome was superior because it was all around them. Undeniably, there is a marginal difference between the concave versus dome format on some level of involvement. Since I was unable to get a sample of each type of screen, I don’t think that comparing the MOSI Tampa location versus the other two locations is particularly significant for my analysis.

Shadows and Echoes of Sensation: Image vs. Text

Guests of the IMAX museum disclosed a variety of facts about smokestacks billowing out dangerous steam from vents at the bottom of the ocean, that there is a distinction between brown and grizzly bears, symbiotic relationships between bacteria covering tubeworms while living at extreme temperatures, or observing the day in-day out struggles of climbers on Mount Everest. Participants’ reception was heavily mediated by the visuals presented in the documentaries. People tended to forget details, were distracted by images, or allowed images to fill in the blanks. However, from the analysis it was clear that perceptions and sympathy to the level of risk involved for researchers, filmmakers, and adventurers journeying to mysterious and harrowing locations and the sheer amazement of photography led people to feel a part of the IMAX Experience.

135 IMAX claims to present the films as close to reality as the technology can produce and many audience members reinforced the slogans. For viewers, the intensity of the images on the screen may appear real and induced viewers to feel emotions so powerful that as in the case of one woman, tears. To what extent the capability of the technology to fool a person’s mind and momentarily displace physical reality and create a situation where people feel transported is intrinsically difficult to pinpoint. To answer the question “Does size matter?” after examining the data I would have to say yes, because it weighs heavily into people’s decisions to see the film in the first place and is overwhelmingly present in the feedback. The role of vividness or degree of resonance proved to be problematic variables. Yet using the categories of “Factual Recall,” “Image Knowledge,” “Pre-Existing Knowledge,” “IMAX Format,” “Vicarious Experience,” “Pleasure and Dissent,” and “Production” to structure the collective consciousness were helpful tools for a systematic glance at reception. Only when the narration contextualized the information as dangerous or risky did people pay closer attention. Since the information was only presented as significant when it related to human life, peoples’ impressions about IMAX documentaries suggest that anthropocentric cultural assumptions are persistent in the minds of the large-format-film audience. Also, IMAX documentaries implicitly parallel dominant media representations of the environment by propagating this trend and make little or no attempt to challenge such preconceptions.

136 CHAPTER 8

CRITICISMS OF PRODUCTION & ENVIRONMENTALISM

“C.L.: I generally have a problem with documentaries I see on Animal Planet. They always need to be emotionally exciting… R.W.: …kind of sensationalized and not informative… --C.L. & R.W. From the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater after seeing Aliens of the Deep

“…having seen Titanic I knew he was going to want to put himself [James Cameron] in the film. I would rather have a limited view of the producers and filmmakers, I’d rather the focus be primarily on what they are filming.” --C.R. From the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater after seeing Aliens of the Deep

“The effects of the environment on bears’ habitat and their ability to fish; the polar bears are losing time on the ice flows due to global warming.” --A.A. From the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater after seeing Bears

Missing the “Big” Picture: The Audience’s Critical Gaze of IMAX

Previous pages centered on what audiences were learning from the IMAX nature documentaries: Everest, Bears & Aliens of the Deep. Visitors in the discussion sessions were very fond of IMAX, and their preferred readings confirmed that IMAX efforts to try to “amaze,” “captivate” or “educate in an entertaining manner” were successful (Morley, 1992). Many individuals decided to see an IMAX to learn more. However, they tend to recall only images, empathize with people on the screen, feel that the places and animals on the screen were dangerous, and are absorbed by the photography. Images overshadowed the interceding voiceovers that seemed to distract viewers rather than inform. For this chapter, audiences’ dissenting opinions are highlighted and the research question that asked, “What didn’t folks like?” is answered. College students supplied the majority of the criticisms when they were compared to other groups from varying demographics. Also, the commentary is examined, taking into consideration the level of reported environmentalism as listed on the screening questions. The screening questions addressing the participants attitudes toward the environment were obtained after administering items from an “environmental inventory” (Wiegal & Wiegal,

137 1978, p. 121). From the questionnaires, I ascertained who claimed to be an environmentalist and who did not. Often, the feedback from the older demographic was consistent with their political beliefs compared to the college students’ responses. However, this was not a common trend across every discussion group. IMAX representations did not address problems that challenged hegemonic assumptions about nature. My argument is that there was no difference between people who reported to be environmentalists and those who did not when they expressed their criticisms of the IMAX documentaries. The reason for incorporating the concept of environmentalism into this segment was because individuals’ dissenting impressions led to debates between participants about the goals of the research and the premises of the films. Since the documentaries showed field research, the thrust of the voiceovers and text were designed to inform people about the explored eco-systems and the purpose for the expeditions, while recounting the personal experiences of the adventurers involved. So the criticisms from people about each documentary’s premise transitioned into judgments on production from their perspective as a consumer, rather than as a responsible agent for treatment of the eco-system. Group members’, especially college students, condemnation of the absence of scientific data, juvenile storylines and other post-production activities had significant influence on the efficacy of the documentaries to change attitudes and routines regarding environmental issues. Thus, the feedback sets the stage for my questions about individual agency that I address in the next chapter. Responses are catalogued according to two of the sets pulled from the typology outlined in chapter seven: “Production” and the latter half of the “Enjoyment and Dissent” category. Each of the distinctions was grouped with the classes: “Factual Recall,” “Image Knowledge” “Pre- Existing Knowledge,” “IMAX Format” and “Vicarious Experience.” I have titled this chapter, “Criticisms of Production & Environmentalism,” which is the second theme of my analysis. Since the scientific facts and manner they are presented in IMAX documentaries concern the natural world, many of the criticisms circumvent environmental issues. For the most part, the reasons audiences felt that they “did not like” the movies, especially Aliens of the Deep, was because responses centered on filmmaking process. Others said that their contempt for the films originated from IMAX preoccupation on selling tickets, rather than teaching. One male college student accused IMAX of trying to capitalize on the Aliens of the Deep research trip by stressing its excitement rather than explaining the social and economic benefits it could offer.

138 Other age groups that saw Everest and Bears lauded IMAX knack for transporting them to places with breathtaking cinematography. There were some instances where the non-collegiate demographic had dissenting impressions regarding those films’ aesthetic and educational value. Also, there were some distinguishing characteristics from the college student criticisms. Members of that age group mentioned that they would have generally preferred if the film was a bit longer. At the MOSI location, they disapproved of the Omni-Dome’s tendency to disorient them or commented on the presence of imperfections in the projection. The visual components always peppered the responses from people, other than those at the Challenger Learning Center, who sometimes glossed over any negative sentiments. R.D., a 74 retired man, with some college experience and who claimed to be an environmentalist, said after seeing Bears, “I don’t think there was anything I really didn’t like.” After a Bears viewing in another group, D.L., a 49 year- old female media clerk who did not answer the environmentalist screening question, said, “I had no dislikes.” L.M., a 26 year-old non-environmentalist music therapist said in response to what she didn’t like, “I can’t think of anything right off.” Finally, at the Everest showing, a 20 year- old salesman, B.K., who was not an environmentalist, remarked that, “Nothing I don’t like about the movie personally, but I thought that the screen should be further above the seats so that it isn’t so much in your face.” Although B.K. is college age, he reported his occupation as a salesman, not a student. A.C., a 34 year-old officer manager and environmentalist, complained about “Little floaters on the screen and dust” on the Omni-Dome showing Everest. Difficulties with the Omni-Dome’s projection shaded every response to “What didn’t you like?” about Everest. Compared to the other two documentaries, Everest was perceived as not very environmentally intensive. What’s more, people at the both the MOSI and World Golf Hall of Fame locations overall had more positive things to say than negative. Though people that saw Bears did praise the film for its outstanding presentation, they were more likely than the respondents who viewed Everest to articulate themes discussed in Bears to environmental issues. Similarly, the conversations at the Tallahassee IMAX location contained elements that seem to be complimentary of the artistic value of the films. However, participants heavily evaluated the decisions made by producers, scientists and directors more than people at the other theaters. People at all three locations were aware of the agencies that funded, licensed, and supported the expeditions. Yet after seeing, Aliens of the Deep, participants vehemently voiced their criticism of IMAX. Almost every group, except for one small group discussion, featured

139 college-age partcipants or participants currently enrolled at a local university or community college. Responses pointed to problems in writing, design and motivations behind the presentation of the information in the movies. People did compare their predispositions and “Pre- Existing Knowledge” to the text to generate oppositional feedback to IMAX (Morley, 1992). Criticisms are not always knee-jerk judgments; instead, they can symbolize the viewer’s willingness to understand an experience by molding it to fit his own individual attitude schema (Perloff, 2003). The following section describes the dissenting opinions audience members’ expressed about Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep. Although the college student demographic was more vocal about what they did not like, I do draw feedback from members from other groups at other locations to support my argument that the respondents’ reported level of environmentalism had little to do with their interpretations. I have broken the chapter up into five sections: “Critics of the Big Screen,” “Campy Commentary: Is IMAX Just for Kids?” and “James Cameron & Partnerships in IMAX Production” that support my belief of “The Non- Environmental Nature of IMAX Documentaries” and suggest that IMAX is not a “Potential Site for Environmental Agency.”

Critics of the Big Screen

The direction of the discussion of two small groups at the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater and World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater gradually shifted focus from what the audiences disliked to the direction of Aliens of the Deep and Bears. Criticisms for Everest were sparse, mostly due to the fact that many viewed the documentary more like a movie than an educational opportunity because so much of the film was character driven. Due to the Hollywood-style dramatized interpretation of the climbers’ experiences, less attention was placed on scientific data in the narration. As the last chapter alluded to, Everest offered statistics about the mountain’s distinctiveness, but it usually emphasized the testimonies provided by the team attempting to reach the peak. Noting the audience’s critical gaze was essential because the discourse alluded to their awareness of the function of public and private participation in the making of an IMAX documentary. The smaller group discussions and the level of intimacy that it afforded, promoted a more open, relaxed and conversational atmosphere. Thus, individuals did not feel pressured by other participants and were more willing to offer their unabashed opinions. Initially, there were

140 types of criticisms that centered on the duration of the film, the lack of or complexity of academic and scientific detail, campy dialogue, and production and director choices. Some pointed out that the films could have been longer. For instance, C.L., who saw Aliens of the Deep, said that, “…they could have made it ten, fifteen, twenty minutes longer and included some more information.” Furthermore, an exchange between group members S.L., K.K. P.S. and A.S. (provided below) about Bears at the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater also mentioned that the lengths of films were: S.L.: Too short K.K.: I agree too short P.S.: Too short A.S.: Too short, yeah, it’s over? Aside from complaining about the length of the documentaries, the responses indicated that educational content of the films was too basic or straightforward. It appears that “more information” would have made the movies longer. The theme of “more information” was so prevailing, especially with regard to college-age respondents, that the comments sounded more like disappointment than criticism. C.R. was a 24 year-old male student who did not consider himself an environmentalist, but he said he agreed with the statement that he “worried about the effects of pollution on his family’s health.” For example, he provides disparaging remarks about the elementary instruction in Aliens of the Deep: There was very limited academic information; only a couple of times did they tell you what you were looking at in terms of this species. I wish for instance, when they showed the jellyfish like creature that they would have said, “We just discovered this; it’s been named and gone in depth.” Another part I didn’t like was hearing the reactions of the people, I liked it a little but I think that there was too much of that… C.R.’s response is quite cynical. However, he does not to recognize that the researchers were exploring unfamiliar places and discovering new species of marine life. It is fair to say that the scientists did not have a name for the “jellyfish-like creature,” mostly because the process of identifying a new species takes time and requires a more comprehensive understanding of the animal’s habitat. C.R. continued by saying, “There wasn’t much academic material in the film; I was hoping there would be more of that…” From C.R.’s contribution, it is evident to him that

141 IMAX did not clearly identify species names, offer any new information, and supplied too many on screen reactions. Along the same lines of not “much academic material,” in a focus group at the Tallahassee Challenger Learning Center, B.W. affirmed C.R.’s feelings and ardently protested the deficiency of any concrete insights in the statement, “It was patch-worked together, I was trying to get into the scientific part but I couldn’t come out with another fact.” Two students engaged in a debate where S.C. (a female) tried to defend the fact that there was a lack of scientific information presented, while B.W. proclaimed that most of the reasons for IMAX decisions were motivated by profit, which rendered it unscientific. On one hand, S.C., an African-American student, who did not consider herself an environmentalist yet “definitely” agreed with the statement that she “makes a special effort to look for products that are energy efficient and buy products that use recycled packaging” claimed that: Well, I really thought about what he said, that it is too vague, but at the same time I think they are still exploring, so they just don’t know exactly what to tell us because they don’t want to lead us down the wrong path and until they find out exactly where it’s going. Although S.C. concedes “that it is too vague,” she assumes that the team was learning about the undersea depths at the same time as the audience. On the other hand, B.W., mentioned earlier, as a Caucasian student who answered that he did not consider himself an environmentalist, responded with: When you are selling something, you want to give some general directions to people that there’s possible medical benefits, there’s possible technological, there’s possible communication, like we could do more inventions like this or something, but there just wasn’t enough of that for me. S.C.’s comments that “they are still exploring, so they just don’t know exactly what to tell us” suggests that she gives filmmakers the benefit of the doubt and eschews the notion that no specific direction or editing decisions were possible explanations for a glaring neglect of data. B.W. challenges S.C.’s belief that IMAX is attempting to capture the spontaneity of scientific discovery. He professes that IMAX is ultimately focused on turning a profit by saying they “are selling something.” B.W. acknowledges that there are specific, conscious efforts to depict the research endeavor in the context of entertainment. The lack of providing the public with the possible benefits of the Aliens project was a gross oversight to B.W. when he suggests that they

142 failed to emphasize “the possible medical, technological, and communication benefits” to inspire “more inventions.” James Cameron and the producers’ decision not to mention how the exploration could be worthwhile to human progress points to the notion that the motivations for making the movie were not in the interests of furthering knowledge. This contrasted IMAX promotions’ efforts of claiming to archive noble scientific pursuits in a thrilling way in the hopes of educating people. To B.W., the film’s primary intention to make money was transparent. Further, demonstrating the advantages of oceanographic study was not in the forefront of the producers’ minds. Yet B.W.’s emphasis on how exploring nature for the potential human “benefits” is a theme aligned with productivist discourse that I will address in a later chapter. Not all the remarks decrying the ineptitude or motives of IMAX were exclusively uttered by college students. A.A., a 52 year-old female assistant professor who reported to be an environmentalist, wanted more substantial morsels of trivia about Bears as well: “I would have liked to have seen bears from other areas.” Another woman in the non-college-age group at the Museum of Science and Industry compared the educational value of the IMAX films with her own “Pre-Existing Knowledge.” For example, V.W., a 42 year-old nurse practitioner not claiming to be an environmentalist, added that Everest “For me it wasn’t as much of an educational experience because I read so much on it already over the years, just, so for me it was the reality of feeling like flying in the mountains.” Here, the statement, “feeling like flying in the mountains” takes precedence over the fact the film was not informative. Again, a person such as V.W. who was not a college student was more forgiving of the absence of academic material because the movie was thrilling and gave her the feeling of moving with the camera. C.H. a 51 year-old financial services saleswoman and an environmentalist, at the same location, said, “Well, I liked everything about the movie I just wish it had more scientific data, facts, maybe more.” V.W. and C.H. criticized IMAX for its depleted instructional merit but qualified their responses, claiming that they liked the films on the whole and that the films had a flair for an engaging visual presentation. There was evidence that people disagreed with IMAX intentions, according to the older demographic category. Different viewpoints emerged between A.A. and L.H. after they both watched Bears. L.H., who did not report to be an environmentalist, made a point to say that he did not have anything wrong with Bears. L.H., a retired policeman, expresses

143 his feelings by saying, “I liked it. This is my second time seeing it…It was well done.” A.A. retorted with a statement explaining that she didn’t like “…the effects of the environment on bears’ habitat and their ability to fish, the polar bears are losing time on the ice flows due to global warming.” L.H. responded with “I don’t want a lot of that; I just want to see the bears.” It was obvious that L.H. was not interested in any issues such as the “effect of the environment on bears’ habitat and their ability to fish” or that “the polar bears are losing time on the ice flows due to global warming.” He eschews the opinions by A.A. and responds, “Were they implying that we are reason for that? Because see I don’t believe that…Some of these films appear to be a little left-slanted.” He declares that he did not view Bears as an environmental advocacy exposé. Instead, he questions the narrative, hinting at the possibility for human-induced changes to bear habitats or being responsible for their destruction when he says, “Were they implying that we are reason for that?” Moreover, he takes issue with the fact that the “left slant” of the picture might be the reasons why someone like A.A. would come to those conclusions. In this example, there was evidence that some subjects’ responses were heavily directed by their political beliefs. However, this interaction was an anomalous phenomenon. Most of the audience’s feedback was not issue-centered. Criticisms of production were generally derived from people on both sides of the environmental spectrum. In instances where specific issues were mentioned, the respondents that claimed to be environmentalists were more sympathetic. At the same time, there were people who said they were environmentalists who did not even bring up any occasions where environmental problems or crises were introduced. Occasionally, the feedback from the older demographic was more tinted with their political beliefs compared to the college students. Below, I examine more criticisms provided by mostly college students’ respondents that included a possible explanation for the lack of scientific information in the documentaries. The commentary’s emphasis argued for IMAX as an educational opportunity for children or an uneducated public.

Campy Commentary: Is IMAX Just For Kids?

A significant part of an IMAX film is that there are people depicted in the 70 mm frames who are making interesting journeys and are invariably interacting with wildlife. Scientists, adventurers, indigenous people, directors, and camera personnel are all a part of putting together the IMAX Experience. Often, IMAX documentaries provide the insights, observations, and

144 commentary of the people on the screen. Inspired by numerous statements—such as C.R.’s: “I didn’t like hearing the reactions of the people”—I concluded that the films, especially Aliens of the Deep, were targeted to juvenile audiences. Many felt that the marketing strategy of the films to young people was the primary culprit behind the lack of elevated scientific discourse. A Ph.D. biology student intimated that the film was below his educational level. Moreover, his girlfriend, R.W., who was also a biology student, had similar thoughts. Other groups of college-age participants seemed to mock the commentary of Aliens of the Deep and felt cheated out of more complex explanations of the wildlife and environments on the screen. The dialogue below was symptomatic of this prevalent theme. R.W.: I have seen several IMAX movies that to me tend to be very visually appealing, but then in terms of the educational content, it seems geared toward either young elementary age kids or people who have hardly any kind of formal education. C.L.: Which, I guess, is okay— R.W.: It’s good, not that it’s bad to target those types of people, I just never really learned anything from an IMAX, in terms of facts or anything. But in terms of the visual, the video footage is pretty incredible… In this passage, R.W. describes that the educational content of Aliens of the Deep toward elementary age children. Her remarks that the film may also be directed toward people with “hardly any kind of formal education” are qualified by C.L. who says that was “okay,” and R.W. suggests that the films were designed to cater to an uninformed public. Furthermore, R.W. confesses that, “not that it’s bad to target those types of people,” which alludes to the fact that she feels that IMAX tries to appeal to all types of audiences. Corroborating R.W.’s impressions, female college student M.F. from another small group discussion at the Challenger Learning Center also exclaimed that it was not “geared toward adults.” This discussion further probes the issue of how educational IMAX is: J.: So you didn’t learn anything from IMAX? R.W.: I have only seen two other IMAX films; they are enjoyable for me… C.L.: I think it depends on-- R.W.: Yeah

145 C.L.: --how you define learning; for me it is stuff that I have read about, and I learn well by seeing things, and it just gives me a much better impression what it’s like. The dialogue did not seem to suggest that Aliens of the Deep was not completely void of information when C.L. says, “I think it depends.” Visually, he believed it was very informative when he said, “I learn well by seeing things.” However, “it is stuff that I have read about” implies that previous knowledge is a prerequisite. In another group, M.F. expressed that it just was not suited for an adult or educated audience: J: So you really found this was very kid-oriented? M.F.: I wouldn’t say very, I mean it would say it was the extreme of it, like dumbing it down…but I would I say that I could handle something a little more educational and more informative. Even for students not getting a Ph.D. in biology thought that, they “could handle something a little more educational and more informative.” Because participants in these groups consisted of college students, it might explain why their impressions consisted of critical overtones. Despite the responses that seemed to condemn IMAX for its lack of complex narrative conventions, students felt that the photography was stimulating. Unlike older respondents, they do not allow the imagery to gloss over the fact that the films were not enlightening. Furthermore, when I asked C.L., “So you didn’t learn anything, you don’t learn anything from IMAX?”, he responded, “It depends on how you define learning.” or “It is stuff that I have read about.” C.L. also realizes that he acknowledges he might have a minority perspective due to his educational background. Yet, ridiculing the dialogue of the scientists reactions to new worlds persisted in commentary including “there was too much of that.” Statements like “without the commentary” linked the impressions of the IMAX as not very instructive and specifically inserted to attract kids. The exchanges between the scientists in submarines and the voiceovers discussing bears and the Everest climb were criticized. For example, due the close proximity of people in the enclosed subs in Aliens of the Deep, actors often blurted out phrases that were seen as campy in the dialogue below: M.M.: Some of the commentary that they said… L.J.: Yeah…

146 M.M.: “Holy pancakes, Batman!” Like, who is this chick? L.J.: Yeah. {Laughs} M.M.: {Laughs} The ending when they-- L.J.: Right on! {Laughs} M.M.: --put their hands on the glass; it was very E.T. L.J: {Laughs} Yeah. The two 19 year-old women thoroughly relished the silliness of the blurbs and felt that the film was very melodramatic. In that two-person discussion group, the tone was condescending and the trip to see Aliens of the Deep was because there was nothing else to do on a weekend evening. Notably, M.M. who mocked the “Holy pancakes” declaration reported to be an environmentalist, while L.J. did not. Nevertheless, examples like these highlight the possibility that the dialogue in IMAX films was not scripted and tried to capture a sense of spontaneity by filming actors’ natural reactions to exotic marine life. Two opposing perspectives are presented: (1) that editing decisions may have included certain excerpts of the actors’ lines while omitting others, or (2) the documentary format is supposedly an organic or realistic archive of an event. Arguably, more Hollywood participation in the production of an IMAX nature documentary might provide the development of a highly polished script. The negative perception that Aliens of the Deep was just for kids was endemic to the college student demographic. However, I have provided a few examples of some parents who brought their children to the same film to accentuate this distinction. Two parents who took their children to see Aliens of the Deep explained that the films were great for kids because of the narrative conventions. Below J.C. a 31 year-old father, non-environmentalist, explains: Attention spans at young ages are pretty short so there’s a lot to take in; there’s a lot of visual stimulation that can keep their attention. Even for me [I thought about] what would it be like to get into that kind of field, what would it take to get to that point, you know, it just helps to broaden the imagination to be able find what’s out there, and for the kids. J.R., 44 year-old teacher’s aide, reported non-environmentalist, and mother says,

147 And explore with the kids too, to find out…unfortunately, us parents don’t know everything; for us to able to just sit down with them, and say “oh, this is so cool, look at this” [gives you] more to talk about. Clearly, these are completely divergent impressions from the college students’ statements. For the parents, like J.C., not only was Aliens of the Deep, good because, “attention spans at young ages are pretty short, so there’s a lot to take in; there’s a lot of visual stimulation that can keep their attention” but it was informative for him, as well. J.R. who also delighted in the stimulation, exclaimed that the movie afforded an opportunity to “explore with the kids” and that there’s “more to talk about” with them. The parents’ accolades are consistent the mother, M.D.’s, motivations to see Bears at the World Golf Hall of Fame (in the last chapter), namely, that the IMAX documentaries are an optimum family activity. The stark contrast between parents or an older crowd and the college students buttresses my contention that these two distinctions in subject positions had a lot to do with the reception of IMAX (Morley, 1992; Schroeder 1994; Foucault, 1995 & Jameson, 1991). More importantly, the comments by these parents who were not reportedly environmentalists but who read the films more positively than the people who claimed to be environmentalist demonstrates the fact that interpretations were independent from environmentalism.

James Cameron & Partnerships in IMAX Production

In advertising campaigns, IMAX prides itself on their ability to “take cameras to extraordinary places.” But it requires a tremendous amount of funding and willingness by the scientific community to support an IMAX documentary (www.imax.com, 2006). Often, big name actors such as Pierce Brosnan, who did the voiceover for Dolphins, and Liam Neeson, who narrated Coral Reef Adventure, are chosen to add glamour. Also, performers like Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young and Sting, respectively, provide soundtracks to the movies, further emphasizing IMAX’s desire to improve their mainstream palatability. Major box office successes, like director James Cameron, are no exception. Cameron carried his love of epic oceanic filmmaking to the high definition large-format-film arena in the film Aliens of the Deep. IMAX, hoping to cash in on Cameron’s reputation and notoriety from movies like the The Abyss and Titanic, asked him to lead the filming of their 70 mm undersea epic.

148 As discussed earlier in this chapter, James Cameron’s contribution was welcomed by two film enthusiasts. However, his cameo, production, and direction also brought significant scrutiny from other respondents. People scoffed at Cameron’s narration, which expressed knowledge about types of bacteria on the floor of the ocean. I believe that audiences were able to recognize that those funding the project seemed to warrant undue input into the presentation of the biological research. Moreover, I sensed that participants—and not just students—were quite in tune with the influence the private collaboration had in Aliens of the Deep’s production. The opinions presented by university students of IMAX content loaded with infantile sound bytes and weak scientific data immediately transitioned into questions about production. Across all groups at all three locations, viewers sought out explanations for why they were shown what they were. Participants often posed rhetorical questions about to what extent those behind the scenes influenced the scenes shot on 70 mm film. Although college students were predominantly involved in such discussion, members of all ages at all films freely interjected their own perspectives. Some chose to point to the director James Cameron’s decisions as possible reasons behind the production of the film. In fact, R.W. remarked that she loved “The Abyss, it’s one of my favorite movies, but it was kind of funny because it did seem I could really see James Cameron’s influence {Laughs}.” From another group, M.F. laughed about “when James Cameron saw that little octopus thing, and he was like, ‘I could watch this all day it’s like a dancer.’” The tone of the answer was sarcastic, not complimentary. In feedback from M.F., nonverbal messages, such as tone and inflection, present challenging obstacles to my ethnographic research. Although the transcript of the conversation reads as though Cameron’s comments were welcomed, there was a sense that M.F. was making a mockery of Cameron’s input. Moreover, the perspectives are a bit clearer in the following exchange: C.L.: Well, Jim Cameron said that “I have no idea what that is”… R.W.: Well, yeah. R.W.: I wouldn’t expect any more from him, but then they were talking about how we have all these important scientists down here, but nobody talked even about what it was. And so to me, it’s not that I wouldn’t want to see it, even though apparently they didn’t know what it was, but it just seemed like they had all this money to do the film…

149 More importantly, however, the decision to neglect information or choose specific shots in Aliens of the Deep is dissected. R.W.’s comments that there were “all these important scientists down here, but nobody talked even about what it was” and “but it just seemed like they had all this money to do the film,” indicated that she was cognizant of the power of Cameron’s pocketbook. Another example where the concept of funding was addressed was when L.P. said that, But, then again, there could be some sort of reaction where it’s like the cure for cancer; exploring is so cool. A lot of times I find myself saying “Why do we spend so much money on NASA and doing on these silly things?”, but they really have discovered a lot in these trips and I wouldn’t have a microwave and that’s very cool. Similar to B.W.’s sentiments, L.P., a female undergraduate who said she was not an environmentalist, applauds that the fruits of expensive exploration inspire the possibility to find “the cure for cancer.” Once again, the theme of human benefit surfaces because L.P. suggests that research projects are futile activity by saying, “Why do we spend so much you know money on NASA and doing on these silly things?” unless she sees immediate results. She concedes that scientists have, “discovered a lot” because she “wouldn’t have a microwave.” The anthropocentric undertones in responses by B.W. and L.P. carry strong connotations that the ecosystem is a plentiful resource that should be explored and not treated cautiously, that nature is an expendable commodity whose sole destiny is to advance civilization and improve human mortality. In sum, participants like these acknowledge that there should be a purpose for the documentary and that producers omitted declaring their intentions for the field research. It appeared that the motivations for the production of Aliens of the Deep, according to the college students, seemed based on creating a spectacular blockbuster for the purposes of wooing visitors, rather than generating pragmatic scientific data. An ancillary observation was that audiences’ commented on who was involved behind the scenes of an IMAX film; this intrigued students. Their awareness of scientists from varied disciplines surprised students like B.C., who acknowledge that “There were many marine biologists.” K.E said he learned about a new field: “Yeah, they had interesting jobs because they were doing a comparison many of the jobs I had never heard of, like a marine seismologist.”

150 For many people, saying that they were unaware of the types of careers and occupations of scientists was the only substantial knowledge generated. Moreover, the acknowledgement that wide assortments of scientists were participating did not add reliability to Aliens of the Deep’s on-camera exploration. Instead, students were quick to mock the scientists or research assistants because of comments like “Holy Pancakes, Batman!” Whereas the college students seemed to believe that the film had less authority due to the participation of a Hollywood director, viewers at other screenings felt that both public and private constituencies added credibility. I specifically queried the groups about whether or not they were conscious of who was behind creating the portrayal of North American Bears: J: So you were cognizant of the organization funding the movie? D.L.: Oh yeah. J: So you picked up on that? S.L.: That was pretty obvious to pick up. J: That was pretty obvious from the dialogue. D.L.: Well, they said it was the Wildlife— K.K.: It was the first couple of frames said that it was a movie presented by NWF, the National Wildlife Foundation. At the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater, D.L. and K.K. seemed to be cognizant of the constituencies such as the National Wildlife Foundation involved in the funding of Bears.” Further, J.R. confesses that reasons for collaboration and financial contributions were essential for IMAX development in the response to my question, reiterating: J: That’s the nature of research, that’s what we are doing right now, right? That’s kind of what it’s all about, the spirit of discoveries, so that’s cool, wow, alright… J.R.: Helps in funding. She recognizes that most research is only funded if it is worthwhile. She implies that if scientists do not justify their explorations with immediate economical, political or social benefits, the enterprise is aimless. Also, D.L. a 31 year-male geographer who does not claim to be an environmentalist “but makes a special effort to look for products that are energy efficient and look for products that use recycled packaging,” highlights the past contribution of MacGillivray Freeman:

151 D.L: It was fantastic, and the space station one, and the coral reef one was fantastic, and all the ones they bring forth, and there’s always talking about the environment, or this company that did this one… J: MacGillivray? D.L.: Yeah, Freeman, yeah they do a lot of them, and all the work that they do is fantastic, and it’s all towards—seems like they always lean towards an environmental aspect of their work, so it’s part of most of their films. People in the non-college student category complimented collaborators like the company, MacGillivray Freeman, who put together “fantastic” documentaries. D.L. also says that they lean “towards an environmental aspect,” which implies that he respects their political agenda. However, he says little about how MacGillivray’s interests in making a profit are a part of the multifarious constraints that inhibit scientists to report all the “environmental aspects” that an eco-system faces. Moreover, the work D.L. purports to be “fantastic” is also decontextualized; it is not clear if he means that their ability to take pictures in 70 mm format is fantastic, or was it fantastic that they were helping the field research? Oddly, D.L. who said he was a “geographer,” had very nonspecific insights about a documentary that was depicting a global eco-system. The identification of the NWF and MacGillivray was obvious to D.L. and S.L. However, at the Everest screening, one woman complained that the Omni-Dome format did not allow for an unobstructed view of credits at the end of the film. N.C. a 62 year-old nurse who did not consider herself an environmentalist explained that: As far as those credits go, though, they are splashed so widely you could only read small spots of it. When you got two rows of writing, you know you are staring at the middle of one to try to get it all in, you just don’t have time to get it all. Apparently, due to the Omni-Dome’s listing of the credits that “splashed so widely,” it was difficult to literally read every contributor to the Everest film. As much as the Omni-Dome projected images using a greater circumference, which is promoted as more engaging than the traditional concave screen, some felt that it hindered reading the text. Aside from the minor complaints of projection inaccuracies, others bluntly confessed that Everest was preoccupied with demonstrating the dramatic circumstances humans face overcoming adversity. L.I.

152 questions the environmental impact of all those climbers traversing the mountain. The 52 year- old female master herbalist and environmentalist uttered, Environmentally I was wondering what they do with all the stuff… What did they do with all the trash, did they try to leave everything just as it was when they got there or did they—how did they clean up? Here, L.I. addresses some very significant questions about the motivation and intentions of IMAX to educate people about the natural world developed through the collaboration of scientists in hopes of promoting environmental awareness. The question, “Environmentally, I was wondering what they do with all the stuff” directly challenges how conscious IMAX is of presenting educational material with their giant screens. “What did they do with all the trash?” suggests that IMAX really does not care as long as audiences are mesmerized by the awe- inspiring feats of brave climbers. Moreover, the statement broaches my undercurrent allegation that IMAX does not challenge ideas that market economies over-consume natural resources for sustainability. As noted in B.W.’s and L.P.’s remarks, anthropocentric positions were visible in the dissenting opinions about Bears and Aliens of the Deep. Those discourses surrounding Everest were most salient because it applauded competitive values where human beings derived great fulfillment from “taking on nature and winning!”

The Non-Environmental Nature of IMAX Documentaries

In the preceding pages, there was consensus in what people liked and disliked about IMAX across all locations. Although attention focused on a few disagreements, they were uncommon. When debates surfaced amongst participants within the college student demographic, they seldom incorporated their attitudes toward the environment. On one occasion, conflicting political beliefs entered into the interpretations between two older people, A.A. and L.H. However on the whole, environmentalism did not generally factor in people’s reactions to the documentaries. There was an agreement in the college student group that problems originated in production or filmmaking, which appeared to focus on how much they did or did not appreciate the aesthetic quality of Aliens of the Deep. College students who considered themselves environmentalists did not feel that Aliens of the Deep addressed any environmental issues. R.W., who reported to be an environmentalist, describes her feelings:

153 No, I think both of us are really concerned with environmental issues to begin with, and to me this didn’t really cause any kind of thinking about the environment, positive or negatively. It just seemed like a different, I mean, I can see how someone who is not environmentally conscious at all might see this and then maybe care a little bit more because they get a firsthand look at an environment that they are not normally exposed to but, in general to me it doesn’t seem related to environmental issues. What the statements about Aliens of the Deep imply is that the film, even for environmentalists, does not convey any environmental messages. One example from a young man not reporting to be an environmentalist who interjects similar opinions about Bears indicates that, regardless of anyone’s position on environmentalism, IMAX does not take a position on issues. The 19 year- old male, S.A., who reported that he “worked at Publix,” had “some college,” and was the son of A.A. (mentioned earlier) had much criticism. S.A. provides three passages that are critical in strengthening my determination that individuals’ perceptions were not shaped by reporting to be an environmentalist or not. The excerpts help to funnel my discussion by demonstrating that younger audiences thought that IMAX’s poor effort at education was directly due to production decisions. Regardless of their reported extent of environmentalism, the bevies of comments are more indicative of greater media literacy compared to their older counterparts. Although S.A. reported not to be an environmentalist, he made “a strong effort to recycle” when he said the following about Bears: “…they pretty much showed that this film is supposed to be about learning and getting people to save them, but they didn’t go into details about what’s happened to them.” He challenges the makers of Bears by saying that “this film is supposed to be about learning,” but that the filmmakers “didn’t go into details about what’s happened to them [the bears].” The tone of S.A.’s feedback is accusatory in the sense that he felt that the producers of Bears did not fully explain the situations bears face. Furthermore, S.A. offers possible alternatives to the script: I think that they should have focused more on the different types of bears and the individual things they could do to help them. Like, they could do this to help, that they pretty much just said stop the deforestation.

154 When he explains “that they should have focused more on the different types of bears and the individual things they could do to help them,” that signifies that, in his opinion, the filmmakers made no attempt to highlight the efforts of conservationists or activists to prevent bear habitat depletion. Moreover, the call to action S.A. describes foreshadows my discussion in the next chapter which deals specifically with how IMAX did not encourage people to change pre- existing attitudes or inspire them to make changes in their daily routines. Finally, S.A. continues to attack the film by saying, “…they were disappearing in South America and Asia. They didn’t say why, they kind of said why, but they didn’t give enough details on what to do…” He charges that Bears offered no possible reasons for declining bear populations. Again, this type of discourse was familiar to earlier examples of his age, emphasizing the lack of information, data, or “details.” However, the three passages presented by S.A. address implicit themes that support the argument that IMAX was effectual and mostly tried to capitalize on the large-format presentation as opposed to imbuing new scientific advances in the knowledge about bear biology. The object of incorporating the respondents’ reported environmentalism was to foreshadow my discussion in chapter nine.

IMAX Potential for Environmental Agency

Examples in the themes outlined by “Critics of the Big Screen,” “Campy Commentary: Is IMAX Just for Kids?” and “James Cameron & Partnerships in IMAX Production” were used to answer the question “What did folks dislike?” A significant finding in my analysis is that people generally did not read the films as environmental. There was a plethora of commentary that centered on the acknowledgement that different agencies participated in the creation of the documentaries but few connections were made regarding the level of contributions made by public and private partnership. Some people commented that IMAX’s primary objective was to sell tickets, which implied that films like Aliens of the Deep were a sophisticated product of private enterprise. According to the audience interpretations appearing in this sample, there was an absence of any concrete educational material in the narrative of the documentaries. More importantly, some college students blamed the filmmakers for emphasizing the joy of discovery, rather than its benefits, accentuating anthropocentric ideology. In chapter nine, people’s interpretation of the environment in IMAX documentaries is further examined. The final two research questions are targeted, questions that deal with attitudes

155 and to what extent environmental awareness was invoked. Based on much of the discussion in this chapter, I sifted through the collage of dialogues and determined that no environmental advocacy was promoted by any of the three films. People’s attitudes remained unchanged. More feedback is also examined that illuminated deeper cultural attitudes people have about nature. In one session after the Bears screening, one woman who held passionate beliefs about the environment felt compelled to quiet her feelings due to another older gentleman in the group expressing his strong views on hunting. However, the conflict did not depend on the film’s lack of emphasis on environmental issues; instead, it mostly originated from clashing personalities. The beginning of the analysis demonstrated that participants condemned the absence of scientific data, child-oriented convention, and editing choices. Whether viewers reported that they were environmentalist or not, prior attitudes did not weigh heavily on their interpretation of Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep. Yet, IMAX had no effect on people’s attitudes toward nature and wildlife and failed to inspire them to make any type of change in their routines, such as recycling, water conservation, or buying green products. The next installment argues that IMAX’s lack of inspiration or call to agency warrants my claim that IMAX documentaries are ineffectual at informing the public. The larger implication of this propensity suggests that IMAX propagates and exacerbates cultural assumptions that the environment is a consumable commodity. Thus, many arguments in the areas of Political Ecology and Economic Anthropology discussed in chapter three are supported by the interpretations of the 85 people participating in the group discussions.

156 CHAPTER 9

IMAGE MAXIMUM NATURE: AUDIENCE ATTITUDES & AGENCY

“It doesn’t seem to be related to the environment.” --R.W. From the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater after seeing Aliens of the Deep

“It would have been good if they gave more information because it is a documentary, a way to inform the audience about the ocean.” -- K.R From the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater after seeing Aliens of the Deep

“They didn’t give enough details on what to do…” --S.A. From the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater after seeing Bears

Audience Attitudes & Agency

In chapter eight, people criticized the IMAX films selected in my analysis. Also, people provided commentary on the private and public constituencies that influenced filmmaking decisions. Many college students blamed the director, James Cameron’s, involvement for the oversight of scientific facts, weak dialogue and child-oriented storyline. Moreover, the theme that IMAX’s agenda was more focused on making a profit than education permeated the discussion groups of all ages. This section, “Audience Attitudes & Agency,” probes IMAX’s ability to promote environmental consciousness. The following pages are organized into three main sections: “Pre-Existing Knowledge in IMAX Environmental Representation,” “IMAX Environmental Awareness,” “Showing Never Before Seen Images of Nature?,” “IMAX & Attitudes about the Environment,” “Inspiring Environmental Agency,” and “The IMAX Suggestion Box.” Finally, “Audience Anthropocentrism” previews my summation of my entire analysis. Chapter ten, named “Biocentric versus Productivist Discourse & Media Literacy in IMAX Everest, Bears & Aliens of the Deep” features the fourth and final major theme, biocentric versus productivist discourse, and combines my three previous arguments leading up to my final conclusion. The collection of the responses included in this chapter answer questions that were designed to determine whether or not individuals acquired a sense of environmental awareness from the Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep. There was proactive consciousness visible in

157 some participants’ responses, but most of the discourse was stimulated by debating facts and images present in the productions. Individuals’ “Pre-Existing Knowledge” initiated most of the discussion regarding the level of their environmental concerns. Arguably, the documentaries may have inspired some deliberations about nature and wildlife by prompting people to remember their own experiences. However, IMAX did not directly bring the issues to the surface. The first part of the chapter, in which certain group members had to include their own personal narratives into the group dialogue to accentuate what IMAX omitted, failed or chose not to disclose, is explained. Ultimately, there was no attitude or daily-routine change instigated by Everest, Bears, or Aliens of the Deep. The objective of this stage of my analysis is to answer the questions: “Did the films change any previous attitudes you had toward the environment?” and “Did the films’ coverage of the environmental issues inspire you to make changes in your daily routines?” My research shows that IMAX did not alter pre-existing attitudes or encourage people to make changes in their daily routines. The majority of the answers to both questions was “no.” Similar to my conclusions in the previous chapter, many people believed that the films did not have any messages informing the public about ecological crises or advocated environmental responsibility. For the most part, people thought that IMAX failed to make efforts to fully divulge the complexity of any of the environmental angles. The respondents appeared to be cognizant of the tendency for IMAX to skirt issues that deal with trash on Everest, the influence of global warming on bear habitat depletion, and human relationships with water and marine eco-systems.

Pre-Existing Knowledge in IMAX Environmental Representation

The thrust of my project was to explore how people interpreted the meanings in IMAX’s scientific nature documentaries. Commonly, people responded to the films by saying that they did not feel the movies imbued any type of environmental message. For example, C.R. explained after seeing Everest that “it didn’t seem they addressed any environmental issues.” In the sample of films selected for the analysis, it was likely that not every film exclusively followed an environmental itinerary. However, IMAX prides itself in its advertising campaigns that it is a company with an educational agenda and it is an ideal destination for field trips for primary and secondary schools. Everest primarily archived the journeys of climbers, so environmental issues

158 were not at the forefront. Moreover, the lessons learned in the film stressed the climbers’ physiological response to the extreme climate and included stories of individual heroism. M.P. embellishes on Everest’s concentration on the climbers’ familiarity of the mountain: “You almost get the feel that the climbers are like one with their environment; but it seems like such a self-serving adventure that they do…” Notably, M.P. acknowledges there is a dialectical relationship between climbers being “like one with their environment” while the expedition was a “self-serving adventure.” Furthermore, G.G. reiterates the theme addressed by M.P. by offering the fact that he read the film as “man versus nature to the extreme.” The sentiments felt by M.P. and G.G. echo similar thoughts from the previous chapter that anthropocentric viewpoints about the relationship between humans and nature are riddled with individuals’ interpretations. Further, in chapter eight, B.W., C.R. and L.P. expressed the idea that the purpose of scientific exploration of caverns beneath the ocean should yield “benefits.” Viewing nature as a resource that needs to be more effectively managed implicitly supports managerial or productivist cultural assumptions (DeLuca, 1999). People thought IMAX primarily portrayed the difficulty humans faced while trying to cope with outdoor extremes and cautioned viewers about the dangerousness of bears. Residual concepts uttered by participants such as, “benefits,” “competition,” and “self-serving” powerfully articulated individualism to the overall tone of the films. These ideas are also similar to instances featured in the previous three chapters of analysis. Such remarks are recapitulated in the last chapter, where the discussions are framed as they relate to the characteristics of biocentric and productivist discourse. Any thread of environmental discourse, especially with regards to Everest, was generated by Pre-Existing Knowledge. People like A.C., a 34 year-old female office manager, incorporated information from outside sources saying that, “two years ago they did a clean up on Mt. Everest. They brought down like 25,000 pounds of trash.” She related elements of her own story to the aspects of the expedition shown on camera not mentioned in the film: The trash from the mountain—when we lived in Alaska—we just moved back this last year—when we would go hiking up in the mountains, whatever you pack in you are supposed pack out for respect for the environment. It really upset us to see trash everywhere. To see such a beautiful serene thing and you come upon someone who had camped there the night before and left trash. … In the 25,000 pound documentary, the Buddhist priests were saying how it saddened their hearts

159 that the trash was left behind there on the mountain, all the bottles that are stuck in the snow. It disturbs me to know that people aren’t packing out what they pack in. Unfortunately, when you are on a mountain like that, it takes all your effort and strength to carry it up there. To bring it back down would probably be a detriment to your health. The passage above demonstartes there was evidence that people were thinking about environmental circumstances or hazards. A.C. describes, at length, how when she lived in Alaska she learned that “whatever you pack in you are supposed pack out for respect for the environment.” Moreover, she explains that after viewing the film, which she provided the euphemism “the 25,000 pound documentary” equipped her with facts going into the film that spoke of damage humans can cause while pursuing their dreams of surmounting Everest. In addition, A.C. highlights the reaction of the Buddhists who said that, “it saddened their hearts that the trash was left behind there on the mountain.” Yet none of the information A.C. introduces was broached by Everest. Instead, she adds her own outside reading and perspective to the interpretation. Not only had she investigated accounts that described previous attempts to survive an Everest mission, she has had intimate experience with hiking in a vast National Park, “when she lived in Alaska” with her husband. However, others challenged the claims made by A.C. about 25,000 pounds of trash. M.P. declares that she was not privy to the information concerning the abundance of trash, so it did not have very much to with her reading. In the excerpt below M.P. proclaims: I am saying did we get off the track? when you are asking questions about has it changed our opinion, there’s nothing in there about the trash, I have no opinion about that because it really wasn’t in the movie, that’s new information I am learning so it doesn’t affect my opinion of the movie I just saw today. In the passage above, there is evidence that participants with more personal experience about the topics addressed in the films were resented by those who had walked in without any prior knowledge. M.P. comments that “there’s nothing in there about the trash” and that the information A.C. brought to the session was “new information I am learning, so it doesn’t affect my opinion of the movie I just saw today.” Nevertheless, the individuals who had never read about, seen another documentary on the subject, or taken hiking trips had less to say about the environmental implications that Everest introduced.

160 Another idea that A.C. presents is the notion of a pristine, unfettered wilderness, echoed by the arguments presented by Greg Mitman (1999). He contended that early documentary filmmakers attempted to capture a pristine, vast, and sturdy nature. When A.C. says that she was in awe after seeing “such a beautiful, serene thing” and feeling aghast when she encountered, “someone who had camped there the night before and left trash,” it is apparent that her viewpoint is that natural landscapes are naturally “beautiful” or “serene” until humans come along and denigrate it with filth. However, A.C. does seem upset that humans leaving “trash” was inexcusable. The sentiments point to the way spirituality is honored by the Buddhist monks and was trampled upon by irresponsible climbers. The idea that Everest is a source of solace and spirituality resonates in A.C.’s comments. Her testament deifies the mountain as having unearthly qualities, which implies that if it was not as aesthetically satisfying, it would not warrant as much admiration. However, similar discourse helped to strengthen early conservationist movements in the late 1900’s. When Kevin DeLuca & Anne Demo (2000) examined Carleton Watkins photographs of Yosemite, they alleged that imagery stressing nature’s purity helped to generate momentum for federal legislation that appropriated land for the purposes of conservation. The theme of awe-inspiring sites has been residual in many comments by the participants at the locations I visited. For example, C.L., a 61 year-old female member of the Chamber of Commerce of Palm Coast, Florida and environmentalist explained after seeing Bears that, The only thing I could say, and I may be going in a stupid direction, but I just thought how clean everything looked. The water looked clean, the landscape looked clean, and I know there are some areas I have been in where I have walked through the woods and [noticed] the garbage and things like that. We’re kind of taking a bad route here, guys, you know, and I looked at that and went “Wow, is that not beautiful, is that not pristine, the way it should be.” She accentuates the idea of “cleanliness” in her monologue. C.L. describes how she “thought how clean everything looked, the water looked clean the landscape looked clean,” yet there were times that she noticed “the garbage and things like that. We’re kind of taking a bad route here guys.” C.L. demonstrates her concerns that humans, when careless, definitely have a deleterious impact on the environment. However, her opinion that nature “should be” pristine is contrived by the IMAX representation. Nature is not always “cleanly.” There is destruction, death, and

161 messiness (Williams, 1980). Although C.L. was aware that humans can potentially have an adverse effect on the eco-system, it is constructed by IMAX’s presentation of nature as a place void of ugliness. In reality, the value of aesthetics is a human invention that is susceptible to fluctuation. J.C. states that Aliens of the Deep strengthened his impressions, but draws some of the same conclusions as C.L.: Being a diver, I don’t like seeing coastal areas destroyed. It is one thing to build along the coast and grow out responsibly, and there’s another to destroy a whole eco-system all for the all-mighty dollar. That does kind of irk me because you see the animals’ homes and that’s their life, that’s there environment, what they live in. Well, we eat them and that’s part of us. I have seen some absolutely gorgeous underwater surroundings and [wonder] “How can you destroy something like that?” and I understand accidents happen, but there’s a lot of things that do pollute coastal areas, that when you go from a coastal area where waters are murky, they’re brown; you can tell they are polluted. And [then] you go twenty miles out and a lot of that same water is gorgeous blue—It didn’t change my ideas, but it just helped to deepen the impression. In J.C.’s account, he adds tangential information spurred by the film’s imagery similar to C.L. by injecting his own personal beliefs. One of the most salient aspects of his statements was that he declared that, “it is one thing to build along the coast and grow out responsibility, and there’s another to destroy a whole eco-system all for the all-mighty dollar.” Although he ascribes an aesthetic quality to water that is not affected by coastal development as “gorgeous,” he disagrees with the pollution of the ocean for the “all-mighty dollar.” J.C. recognizes that there is the possibility of growth occurring responsibly, yet to what extent growth can continue without destroying “animals’ homes” is an entirely separate issue. Most growth is initiated by the desire to accumulate the “all-mighty dollar”; these concepts are not mutually exclusive. Rather than suggesting that there is a social and cultural infatuation with the “all-mighty dollar,” J.C. points to the way that the “gorgeous underwater surroundings” are threatened, yet he does not fully associate the greater causes. Thus, if the marine eco-systems were not “gorgeous” would they be appealing to protect? C.H., a woman who watched Everest, emphasized that appreciating natural beauty was a positive solution to getting other people to change their minds about preserving the environment:

162 For preservation, to me that’s great. It didn’t change anything. I do think for some people it does because helps them to appreciate the beauty of the nature of the world and the importance of preserving certain sites, you know, for other generations. It is unclear from J.C.’s account if he is aware that sediment deposits can brown coastal waters, which signifies that only healthy marine eco-systems are “blue.” Similar to C.L.’s discussion of the clean environment, J.C. also attributes the characteristics of beauty as clean. Arguably, he does not see the eco-system as possessing qualities that might not be pleasant. J.C. also admits the film did not change his “ideas, but it just helped to deepen the impression” of the environment. However, his impressions of the environment are that the eco-system is supposed to be in an unadulterated, pristine state. J.C.’s interpretation seems to place value only on nature that looks like the pages from a tourism catalogue or cruise line website. Furthermore, P.S., an 82 year-old male hunter, acknowledges the fact that Bears presented the animals and landscape as “beautiful” purposefully: No, I think they were trying to bring out a point there that the wildlife was going to be presented it as they see it, and they are going to show the good parts. They ain’t gonna show the bad parts of it. It appears that P.S., unlike J.C., was keen on IMAX’s attempt to depict bears in a manner that the audience would find pleasing such as avoiding showing the “bad parts.” IMAX’s attentiveness is certainly toward the good parts; seldom were bears shown killing their prey, giving birth, sick, or victims of hunters. P.S. describes his feelings about the film bears. The first question in this interview, which was “What prompted you to see Bears at the World Golf Hall of Fame & IMAX Theater?” had scarcely left my lips when he immediately launched into the following: Well, because I have always been interested in bears ever since I was a small child. I have hunted bears throughout the United States. I’ve killed quite a number of bears. The bear, to me, it is the ultimate trophy in the United States. When it comes to sportsmen taking trophies, a lot people don’t appreciate or approve of killing an animal, but it depends on where you were born and raised. That’s the whole thing about it. I know that if I was probably born in New York and went to the zoo, I’d probably wouldn’t have the heart to kill it, but I was born on the farm

163 where we subsisted by going out and killing an animal for food, and I have done that for quite a few of my own years, so, therefore, to me, somebody says to me, “you’re cruel”, to me I am not cruel. I have probably done more good for the animal than those people have that are telling me that I am such a terrible guy for going out and killing them. You see there’s need. Drawing from his personal experiences, like so many individuals did in my study, P.S. describes his motivation to see Bears. He explains that “since he was a small child; [he] killed quite a number of bears” and that “the bear, to me, is the ultimate trophy in the United States.” Furthermore, P.S. eloquently illustrates the power of subject position when interpreting a media text when he says that “it depends on where you were born and raised. That’s the whole thing about it. I know that if I was probably born in New York and went to the zoo, I’d probably wouldn’t have the heart to kill it, but I was born on the farm where we subsisted by going out and killing an animal for food.” He argues that, depending on who you are and your upbringing, your reading of a film like bears might be one of appreciating the “trophy” as it trollops across the screen. However, even people like P.S., who was an avid sportsman, were affected by the IMAX format; IMAX had shown him a side of bears that he did not initially anticipate. When P.S. continues to explain what has happened to bear population declination in Yellowstone over the years, we see a different side of the hunter who views bears as “trophies”: It got to the point where the bear had lost all fear of the man [and started] moving them all out of the area. And they’d come back, and sometimes they had to eliminate the bear, which is a sad thing. Well, I hate to see a bear destroyed because of his attitude with people. People have caused that; the bear just has the natural instinct to be where he is. People destroy that by feeding them, and he’s lost all fear of a person. And the person gets cold and gets too close, and he’s gonna get swiped and then they want to destroy the bear, and that’s the sad thing of it. Over the course of the discussion, P.S. sentiments changed about how his love for killing bears was either due to seeing some unpopular expressions or hearing oppositional commentary from other group members or is possible he actually thought about the animal as a species with just as much right to live as he did. Perhaps, IMAX’s ability to provide an up-close-and-personal view of the animal combined with IMAX’s attempts to anthropomorphize it, and that he was able to

164 recognize that “people have caused that [lack of natural fear in the bear of humans], the bear just has the natural instinct to be where he is. People destroy that by feeding them, and he’s lost all fear of a person … then they want to destroy the bear” which he laments as “sad.” I chose to include this segment to demonstrate the power IMAX has not only to amplify personal experiences or assumptions people have, but also maybe to force them to reconsider some of those beliefs and question their own attitudes. Depending on temporal and contextual cultural constraints, ideas of beauty shift. The aesthetics of art, music, or nature are contingent upon criteria that are generally initiated and propagated by the ruling class of a society (Schumpeter, 1998, Jameson, 1991; Kellner, 1989; Gramsci, 1989 & Williams, 1980). However, conscious decisions to pollute do not merely tarnish the appearance of landscapes but interrupt nature’s cyclical order. Humans tend to ascribe positive or negative connotations, personify wildlife, and ascribe morality to ecological phenomena. When problems created by human interference arise, some discourse justifies it by arguing that since nature has the capacity to self-correct itself, the complications are adjusted to “naturally.” Humans have evolved by steadily eroding and carelessly squandering their foundations for sustainability (Polanyi, 1944). C.L. and J.C. introduce the concept that nature prospers through a delicate balance between physical forces, which humans can choose to interfere with or not. Viewer feedback that further skirted the issue of agency’s effect on nature was expressed by those who had firsthand information about the places and animals on the screen. After watching Bears, S.H. complains about the fact that the film emphasized “global warming” as opposed to other threatening circumstances that bears face. Moreover, the tone of the following passage seems to implicate IMAX, once again, for not being thorough: One thing I didn’t like is they focused mainly on global warming, and there is a lot more, there is a greater problem with [humans] encroaching their natural habitat. Chris and I communicated a lot about hunting before I went down there, about hunting and people encroaching, being in the wild but not taking the precautions and to protect their area and being negligent to cause the bear to come to them and then cause a ruckus and the bear gets killed— S.H. reiterates how IMAX representations of the bears’ quandary at Mount Katmai National Park are decontextualized representations. S.H., who was referred to in previous

165 chapters, took part in a guided tour of Katmai National Park with Chris Day. She remarks that, “Chris and I communicated a lot about hunting before I went down there, about hunting.” This alludes to the fact that S.H. comes from a perspective that is unknown to other members of the group. She refers to an up-close-and-personal experience with the places, bears, and same people depicted in the film. The insights about the “greater problem with encroaching and their natural habitat” suggests that S.H. was more acutely aware of the bears’ plight than the average Bears viewer. Moreover, this type of Pre-Existing Knowledge points out that IMAX is not particularly effective at blurring the lines between the actual and virtual with those audience members who have been to the locations and interacted with the wildlife that are portrayed on the giant screen. This might explain why a majority of the people answered “no” to the questions inquiring on whether or not their attitudes had been augmented, or if they were inspired to change their routines. The overriding collective consciousness of the groups indicated that the films did not imply that the intention was to compel people to join or donate to a green-friendly organization. Although some people did feel like they may donate to institutions such as the NWF, the aggregate impressions seem to point to a lack of advocacy on the part of IMAX. Contributing to the environmental movement is not entirely rooted in monetary compensation; most of the activities that help to improve ecological conditions can be achieved through simple day-to-day steps taken by individuals. Reducing water consumption during hot months, recycling bottles and cans, or deciding to bike or commute to work are standard suggestions by environmental advocacy groups. Yet minor adjustments such as these were not mentioned by participants as what IMAX chose to focus on. Instead, the people observed that the issues that dealt with aspects of the environment were ancillary or nontransparent themes. It was clear that IMAX’s attention was on engaging the audience through mesmerizing shots and glimpses into the unexplored nooks and crannies of the earth while sprinkling in scientific glitter.

“Showing Never Before Seen Images of Nature?” IMAX & Attitudes about the Environment

Respondents were not hesitant to offer their perspectives after hearing the inquiry emphasizing the impact of IMAX documentaries’ focus on attitude or possible behavior change toward the planet’s eco-system. Some participants immediately piped up like, A.I. who exclaimed, “I don’t think they addressed environmental issues at all.” It was also surprising that

166 even people who considered themselves sensitive to environmental issues, and active in regular management of their personal waste and green-friendly shopping habits felt the same. In another exchange, C.H., an environmentalist, bluntly answered my question: C.H.: No, I’ve been an environmentalist for years. J: So you didn’t really find anything shocking— C.H.: No. J: —about humans and nature? C.H.: No, sadly. Apparently just like A.I., C.H. was not particularly receptive to the environmental elements in Everest’s portrayal of the Himalayan Mountain range. Rather, she felt that the film reinforced her previous ideas and that she was not shocked from a typical representation centered on human’s selfishness. Initially, C.H. provided a stronger rationale for why she uttered the statements “No, sadly” and grounded her position when she expressed these thoughts in this subsequent conversation: C.H.: …which was contrary to the what the whole Buddhist philosophy of, you know, pride and arrogance being a negative and not the mountain—and I liked when she said the mountain lets you know when you climb— A.C.: Right. C.H.: And that you would think would reflect a certain oneness with nature. I agree with that, it sort of becomes about the quest… but I think the Buddhist philosophy is certainly about being one with nature, and I wish we all thought that way. This lengthy dialogue was inserted to illustrate the stalwart alertness by people who verbally admitted to and reported being environmentalists of IMAX’s ineptitude at raising the most urgent ecological issues. My feeling after the interaction with people like these was that IMAX “talked around” problems and did not attempt to tackle underlying ideologies that are propagated by social and cultural systems. I got the sense that C.H. believed that there is a cultivated cultural perception that runs counter to discourse “reflecting a certain oneness with nature.” Moreover, she alludes to the attributes of “pride and arrogance being a negative” to Buddhist philosophy. C.H. expresses a longing interest in hoping that progress is made in transforming cultural attitudes that reject symbiotic philosophy and promote individual prosperity at all costs. The

167 thoughts that “the Buddhist philosophy is certainly one with nature” and that “I wish we all thought that way” implicitly attack the lack of insight that the filmmakers had in making Everest. According to C.H., Everest merely intensified the fact that some human beings are continually driven by a hell-bent desire to use Mother Nature as a jungle gym. Yet at the same time, B.H. echoes the sentiments that “Nature rules,” to which A.C. responds, “Yeah, nature tells you what you are going to do.” Oddly, there is incongruity in the themes presented by A.C.’s impressions that signify an understanding that even if humans try to conquer nature, it is an uncompromising force. T.K, the psychologist, says the same thing: “I just think there’s a question, actually, for me, as a person, for me it was like the power, like the fear of the—how powerful the environment can be.” IMAX’s projection of Everest’s majestic peak generated a healthy respect amongst the respondents. Although they seemed to acknowledge the courage of the climbers and shared vicariously in their victories, there was undercurrent deference in their tone. Nature demanded the audience’s reverence, and it was evident that IMAX amplified this theme by using a methodical frame-by-frame technique to harness the grandeur of the mountain. The next passage, from G.G., a 41 year-old male medical doctor who did not purport to be an environmentalist, is a response to the same question and embodies an overriding ego- centric perspective: Well, I guess I am taking it to the extreme in that I am not exactly the same as I was going into this movie. I am more enlightened about certain things, like the very thin air at the top. I didn’t realize, or I never really think about how a helicopter would have difficulty biting into air that high, so it changed…well maybe it didn’t change my opinion about the environment so much as it did my understanding of it. G.G. amplifies my arguments in chapter seven, that people were extremely cognizant of the IMAX emphasis on the impact of climate, topography, treacherous terrain, and frightening wildlife on human mortality. Comments like “certain things like the very thin air at the top. I didn’t realize, or I never really think about how a helicopter would have difficulty biting into air that high” stress the notion that those people are treading on unfamiliar territory and should be wary of the possible risks like A.S.’s statements about submarines melting glass in chapter seven. G.G. suggests that he is mostly captivated by nature’s capacity to exercise its authority and that even desires of “self-preservation,” wisdom, and determination are no match for the

168 dispassionate and unpredictable temperament of the Himalayas. He does not offer his thoughts about what possible impact on the environment the presence of people would be, unlike others who mentioned excessive trash; instead, he heeds the warnings of trudging up to high altitudes. Moreover, when he stated “so it changed…well, maybe it didn’t change my opinion about the environment so much as it did my understanding of it,” he realized that nothing was really different, other than a fear of Everest. G.G. also found a new appreciation for the brave souls who achieved success negotiating the perfidious mountain range. Whereas chapter seven revealed from group discussions that images were the most prevalent characteristics of Everest, Bears, and Aliens of the Deep, the environmental angles were a subordinate feature compared to the imagery and perilous warnings. Individual commented that they felt that the movies were much more effective at reinforcing their opinions of nature rather than inspiring new possibilities of social action into their regimen. Also, many respondents responded to the question “Did the films inspire you to make changes in your daily routines?” by exclaiming that they felt that they did enough already. What’s more, there was no evidence that speakers felt that there were specific messages promoting more proactive solutions to improving the eco-system. At the Everest showing, the following exchange presents the typified response to the question “Did the film change any pre-existing attitudes you had about the environment?” L.I.: No, not really. C.W.: No. D.I.: Don’t think so. At the St. Augustine locations I queried the participants about the same topic to which they answered: L.H.: No. J: In other words, oh, uh, I just want to make sure before… R.L.: No, It didn’t change them. Finally, most people at the Tallahassee Challenger Learning Center Aliens of the Deep replied to the question with: A.S.: No, it really didn’t. C.M.: I don’t think it’s that big of a deal because I didn’t have an epiphany about the environment.

169 Although these are just snippets of the many conversations, invariably, people did not see anything remotely environmental. T.W. expressed in this quote: “Environments…meaning?” I had to re-phrase, clarify, and redefine the question for participants because people in the groups were either caught off-guard or truly did not see the films having environmental meanings as undercurrent agendas. However, after allowing some time to pass for the question to sink in, I noticed that audiences tried to qualify their thoughts, such as C.M. who said, I guess it just made you think that we as humans walk around thinking we are, you know, top of the crop, top of the food chain, and when you see other organisms, it makes you feel differently, makes you want to know what else is out there. Here, there is a contradiction in C.M.’s answer. Whereas earlier he explained that he didn’t “think it’s that big of a deal because [he] didn’t have an epiphany about the environment,” he follows up by saying, “we as humans walk around thinking we are, you know, top of the crop, top of the food chain.” He admits that he did think about the environment, but argues the position that humans misunderstand their relationship to the eco-system. C.M. accepts that perhaps seeing movies like Aliens of the Deep may “make you feel differently.” However, C.M. may already be aware of the fact that humans considering themselves the primary species is a cultural misapprehension. Nonetheless, that IMAX documentary was ineffective at changing any of the respondents’ minds. Finally, M.D., the mother who attended the Bears screening offered some insight as to why attitude change was not as accessible in all the participants’ minds in the following statement: “I think it would be the other way around. We are interested in environmental issues so Bears became interesting for us to see.” She explains that people already environmentally consciousness may have chosen to see the film to affirm their attitudes. Moreover, M.D. highlights the argument that perhaps people might have been more involved coming into the films as opposed to people who just came to catch a flick. Either way, I have demonstrated that numerous people, regardless of their reported environmentalism, did not find the films encouraging different ways to see nature. The next segment examines whether or not people felt the desire to comply with greener regimens.

170 IMAX Environmental Awareness

At first glance, it appeared that no attitude change was present in my discussion groups, with regards to whether or not audiences come away with a new understanding of the natural world. However, after further consideration, I appreciated that many people felt they were introduced to environments they normally would not see if they did not attend an IMAX viewing. For example, one African-American male student, O.W., offered: I think the fact that you have a totally separate eco-system way down there than you have on earth—the fish and everything that is at a dive-able depth—you don’t think about if I go down, thirty-five hundred feet down, that they have an entirely separate eco-system, which means it is not powered by the sun, like he said the sun could go out tomorrow—they wouldn’t know it, and that’s true. Here, it is evident that what Aliens of the Deep was able to show O.W. was a unique glimpse of a marine environment not “at a dive-able depth.” It is apparent that without the benefit of Cameron’s expedition, O.W. would never have appreciated the fact that there is a “totally separate eco-system” that is “not powered by the sun, like he said the sun could go out tomorrow—they wouldn’t know it.” Now, whether or not that particular eco-system “wouldn’t know that the sun went out” is probably not accurate, considering that James Cameron, who is not a marine biologist, spoke those words. Nonetheless, O.W. walks away with a clearer picture of world’s oceans marine life at extreme depths. Next, I return to the biology students R.W. and C.L., who participated in a small group discussion session. The two were quite vocal about what they did not like about the documentary, Aliens of the Deep, based on their academic experience. They had similar comments on Cameron’s statements that “it is a totally separate eco-system that is not powered by the sun, and the sun could go out tomorrow—they wouldn’t know it.” In fact, R.W. argued that the film was “not about conservation or at least not to me,” which suggests that she did not see the documentary as a carrying out an environmental agenda. Further, she articulates her feelings in the following: They kind of depicted it in a way that it is so distant from us, that the surface world doesn’t affect that much, but to me the thoughts of the environment even come into my head at all. Well, I say that, too, but only if I am sitting there and

171 trying to think about it. It’s not like I walked out there and thought “I don’t need to recycle anymore” or something like that… Her boyfriend, C.L., the doctoral student in biology, shared her sentiments when he suggested that IMAX was not making an impact on informing people about the problems marine eco- systems may be facing, such as the depletion of coral reefs. He states, Right, I am the same. It’s more, it’s actually more of the opposite, actually. I had more of the feeling that no matter what we do, it doesn’t affect that kind of environment; I think maybe, in the long run, it would effect people, some environments, too, but I think looking, but just watching this movie, I pretty much have the feeling this particular environment is probably not effected by the way we live. Although C.L. recognizes and concedes with the claim that what occurs above sea level, “doesn’t affect that kind of environment,” he then says that “in the long run” it may have some affect. So, it is unclear what the two visitors felt about the claims made in the movie. It appears that they were wrestling with their reading by comparing their own knowledge about biology and what was presented in the film. R.W. further reveals this inner struggle when she retracts her previos statements: “Anything we do up here is going to have an impact, whereas I have seen the Coral Reef one and that one seems to have emphasis on—we need to all do stuff.” Here, R.W. begins by agreeing with Cameron’s comments but then says “anything we do up here is going to have an impact” and refers to the way Coral Reef Adventure depicted similar issues. Nonetheless, it appeared that the college students, who were also very critical of the participation of James Cameron, struggled more with the representations than the older segment of people in my sample. My argument here is that these people are actively comparing what they know about big budget, media-produced texts, personal experience and education to analyze the messages. I believe that, at times, the reading with the younger groups of audiences was more oppositional in nature; there were numerous times that these participants toggled back and forth, illustrating that what was presented in the films was polemical. Further, I consider that the younger audiences paid more attention to the information because they were accustomed to highly polished, gaudy, and digitally manipulated images. The internal struggle over their readings can be identified as deciphering the real from the fake. Many students commented on the ridiculous quality of the last scenes of Aliens of the Deep, which included computer-generated images of alien marine life

172 on Europa. To them, the scenes appeared to lack authenticity and added sensationalism to a film they thought was going to be educational.

Inspiring Environmental Agency

The next question focused on whether or not IMAX documentaries stirred people to participate in environmental activities and prompted equally defiant responses. As I illustrate in the section immediately following this one, since most people did not anticipate or see evidence that IMAX had a desire to advocate environmental duty, individuals had plenty to say on how the documentaries could have. Returning to the conversation I had with two biology students, R.W., the undergraduate, and C.L., the Ph.D. student, I illuminate IMAX’s potential to inspire people to make changes in their daily routines: J.: Did Aliens of the Deep’s coverage of any environmental issues inspire you to make changes in your daily routines? C.L.: No. R.W.: No. Evidently, the couple were quite uninspired by the film to do anything such as conserve more water or energy, or recycle. Others were more frank, such as J.R., who said about Aliens of the Deep that the film, “wasn’t like ‘I’m gonna run out and change my life’ type of thing.” Furthermore, when I posed the same question to guests at the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater, they responded with: R.D.: In our house, I don’t think we could recycle anything else… B.D.: Right. R.D. and B.D. felt that there was nothing more they could foresee doing for the environment. Mostly, when I asked this question, people tended to respond with blank stares as with the previous question, so I would occasionally embellish on what I meant by “routines.” I included giving the groups examples such as, recycling, turning off lights, not using too much water in the summer months, buying only green-friendly products or engaging in other environmentally oriented activities. In the same vein, a small group discussion revealed that others had similar impressions expressed: M.F.: Yeah, there seemed to be no agenda for the film, like what you could do or anything like that—

173 C.R.: Yeah. M.F.: So, I can’t think of anything else to try to tell… C.R.: Yeah, I didn’t feel like there was any guilt or made me think about my habits. It made me think about on a grand scale, like I said about the war, I wish that all the tax money could go towards NASA and exploration, but nothing like personal really. M.F.: {Laughs} Not really. I mean, there didn’t seem to be any kind of dogma. They didn’t even mention any kind of effect you could have. M.F. directly challenges the notion that Aliens of the Deep had any kind of mission to help get people to augment their lifestyles. When she explains, that the documentary made no attempt to offer “what you could do,” it was very clear that my question seemed to come from left field. Further, when C.R. utters that the narrative did not use strategies invoking “any guilt or made me think about my habits,” he implicitly mocks most advocacy campaigns for admonishing people for their sloppy laissez-faire inclinations. However, C.R. does say that Aliens of the Deep made him “think about on a grand scale, like I said about the war, I wish that all the tax money could go towards NASA and exploration.” Again, the theme of “beneficial” research emerges from discussion; he specifically points to more productive efforts for improving people’s lives. C.R.’s attack on the misappropriation of “tax money,” which was better suited toward space exploration, reiterates ideas endemic in anthropocentric and productivist solutions toward progress (Deluca, 1999). Later, he added that he thought about “how important it is to keep exploring [nature].” Finally, M.F. highlights the fact that “there didn’t seem to be any kind of dogma,” which signifies that some social movements have biases that indoctrinate views dedicated to furthering a particular agenda against the interests of the greater good and condemnation of civil liberties. After seeing Bears, D.L. answered the same question about daily routines: “You can recycle all day but when you see a neighbor over there say, ‘well, we don’t need that,’ and then they just go and throw it away, where are you gaining in this picture?” Pessimistically, D.L. describes that he considered his routine recycling efforts as an exercise in futility because he frequently sees a “neighbor over there say, ‘well, we don’t need that,’ and then they just go and throw it away.” He figured that his behaviors were not “gaining” anything when there are just as many people who throw caution to the wind and not hold up their end. D.L. also explains that the

174 only way he felt that agency for environmental changes was invoked was through economic support. In the next segment, D.L. proposes that the only attempt by Bears to get people to think differently about wildlife was expressed by a desire to generate donations to recognized national philanthropic organization. …to change people’s views, so that’s the only thing that I think because they probably portrayed the bears not from the total objective position that most scientists could portray them, as they have an underlying motive here to make sure that people to give more money to environmental organizations to preserve the environment. The agency that D.L. refers to is based primarily in getting “people to give more money to environmental organizations to preserve the environment.” Moreover, he insinuates that the documentary’s revelation that it was partially funded by the NWF explains why the subject of global warming appeared as a possible contributor to bear habitat depletion when he explained that the filmmakers “probably portrayed the bears not from the total objective position that most scientists could portray them.” Apparently, D.L. felt that the film was advocating environmentalism because he assumed the scientific data was procured to be reflective of anti- global warming campaign. In fact, he suggests that if the scientific information was more “objective” there would be less justification to give money to institutions like the World Wildlife or the National Wildlife Federation. Conversely, N.Z. bought the supposed promotion strategy, unveiled by D.L, hook line and sinker when she admitted “It made me want to support the bears more, like giving to groups like the World Wildlife Federation. I realized how important they are and makes me want to donate more.” The phrase that an IMAX documentary such as Bears made a participant “want to donate more” was the first and last of its kind throughout the groups I interviewed. The extent of environmental action inspired by the films materialized in the willingness to donate money to institutions such as the aforementioned WWF. Although donating to NWF or WWF is not, by any means, a meager gesture, it pales in comparison to the advantages of individual proactive measures toward improving ecological crises. As I described in chapter three, many slogans, like “think globally act locally,” propagated by environmentalists emphasize the power that people have has agents in changing circumstances. The rippling effect of grassroots organization, demonstration, boycotting, or simply making a conscious effort to act differently on a daily basis

175 can significantly help in reversing macro-level, socio-economic ecological consequences. Yet, as I demonstrate further, people continued not to witness any call to action by IMAX. To answer the same question about Everest, I present some comments by A.C., mentioned in the previous section, when she explains: I would say no, the movie didn’t. We weren’t there to get an environmental warning: “pick up your trash,” or “recycle,” or that’s not what the movie was about. The movie was about the experience in the lives that were lost that day on the mountain, I don’t think it would change me personally, to recycle anymore than I did before. A.C. openly confesses that Everest was not a film set on arousing new behaviors dedicated to saving the environment. She professes that clearly in the sentence “we weren’t there to get an environmental warning: “pick up your trash,” or “recycle,” or that’s not what the movie was about.” Nor did it ask A.C. to do anything that she did not already do. At the same time, S.A. argued that Bears did not goad her to “do” anything, even if she was hyper-sensitive to the plights that wildlife faced: Well, maybe not for me because I love the wildlife so much that I was sick of that stuff. But then for other people, I think would make a bigger difference like some of my friends. I know they’ll throw out cans, bottles—all that stuff… However, S.A. offers that there would be a possibility that for “other people,” it would “make a bigger difference” because she has friends that “throw out can, bottles” indiscriminately. Arguably, she believed that, for an environmentalist, the film was “preaching to the choir,” and she thought that perhaps it would get “others” to think about what they throw away. However, C.W., a 32 year-old woman who claimed to not be an environmentalist and who was probably an ideal example of what S.A. referred to as an “other,” did not get much inspiration from Everest, either as evidenced by when she said, “The movie didn’t change anything; it’s not going to have an effect on me…” As I have illustrated, the IMAX films Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep were not effective sources of attitude or possible future behavior change. For the most part, people did not view the films as supporting environmental causes. Yes, there were instances, as in Bears, where global warning was subtly implicated as a cause of habitat deterioration, but the overriding commentary suggested that this was an anomaly. IMAX apparently does very little in furthering

176 a better understanding of the earth’s eco-systems by encouraging its visitors to become more active. IMAX tries to be as unobtrusive as it can in the hopes that audience members do not become alienated by politically charged messages. The slightest professed environmental allegiance is lost amidst a bibliography of credits that are quickly flashed across the concave or stretched dome canvas. Information, if any, is related to movie-goers as sterilized, out-of-context trivia bits that are transmitted faintly behind a flurry of intoxicating imagery. However, the next section is more optimistic because people offered their own ideas on what could be improved.

The IMAX Suggestion Box

Another thread that supports my argument that IMAX did not advocate environmental responsibility was gleaned from hints or cues implicit in audience members’ dialogue. Chapter eight illustrated that there was much criticism that persisted in group discussions. The one thing I did not anticipate, however, is that people offered their own solutions or suggestions to improve IMAX presentations of the eco-systems they depicted. Some participants that incorporated their own Pre-Existing Knowledge to their reading and others who felt strongly attached to the environment, regardless of their politics, provided constructive insight. Also, from the college demographic, who had applauded Aliens of the Deep for its highly technical, polished, and amazing visuals, but blasted its vapid and childish description of marine eco-systems made comments that were rich with proposals to fix the films. In this section, the level of concentration by Bears to stress the influence of human beings on bear vitality was exposed when I queried, “So not enough on human impact, you’d say?” S.H., the visitor to Mount Katmai, M.D. the mother of two, and D.D pointed to the way IMAX might be revised to better inform the public of a more substantial picture of bear habitats and survival. S.H. offered, “It’s not just the environment, it’s really broad. They need to mention other factors…” As described earlier, S.H. alludes to the fact that Bears focused on the global warming aspect but did not disclose the encroachment of human beings into their habitat. Ambiguous as the statement by S.H. is, it still raises a significant oversight by IMAX to select factors while omitting others. However, failing to cover every angle of the bears’ livelihood would not be economically feasible, due to the excessive costs and logistical challenges involved with the 70 mm filmmaking process.

177 M.D. points to some difficulties with the depiction of bears as inherently fierce in the following: I see a need with all wildlife and all natural environment stuff is that they need people need to teach the general public how to relate to animals. If you feed an animal, the animal is going to come associate you with food, and so if you are feeding it, and then all of a sudden it bites your arm off or attacks you for food, then you have trained that animal for that expectation. And so I think a lot of people are just ignorant on how to relate to animals, and there needs to be some group effort to teach the people as a whole. Her emphasis on more attempts to “teach the general public how to relate to animals” signifies that the film was too shortsighted to frame bears as potential killers. M.D. offers the proposal common to national park signs declaring that, “if you feed an animal, the animal is going to come associate you with food, and so if you are feeding it and then all of a sudden it bites your arm off or attacks you for food, then you have trained that animal for that expectation.” However, what she reveals is a broader testament about misconception of humans feeling that they are entitled to a level of superiority over other organisms. The statement that “I think a lot of people are just ignorant on how to relate to animals” reiterates the notion that it is not that people are ignorant, it is that they are ego-centric. People’s impressions of the world around them are developed through socialization. In modern society, humans develop in arenas sheltered from unrefined or less civilized corners of the world, causing distension in the separation they experience from material reality (Bauman, 2000; Giri, 2001 & Williams, 1980; 1973). Below, D.D. describes that: I would have to say it would be interesting to see, since they want to reintroduce the grizzly bear into the habitat that has been the mainstay of the black bear only for such a long time now. What do they see as the impact that it could possibly be on the black bear population once you start introducing the other bear? Except I don’t what they how they are territorially, the two different style of bears, so it would be interesting. D.D. addresses the interest he has in the way grizzlies and black bears would respond living in the same habitat. He feels that IMAX should have delved further into “what do they see as the impact that it could possibly be on the black bear population once you start introducing the other

178 bear.” Once again, it appears that Bears should have tried to tell a more complete story about the bears of North America. M.D. explains that IMAX only “focused on one geographic area” and that she was expecting to see more of that in the subsequent monologue: They are focusing on this one geographic area. And we have bears, too, and they could have showed that there are bears in other places, and they had different issues, not just the northern bears. I was expecting to see that; I didn’t. I was expecting to see more, more topography of the bears. They only showed the northern region. It seems that in M.D.’s and D.D.’s responses, too much of IMAX was based in displaying visceral graphics as opposed to using the camera as a tool to explore. The suggestions were certainly welcomed because it prompted others to think more deeply about their experience. In addition, the responses are optimistic because they show that people were not passively absorbing the films’ dizzying shots all the time. In fact, there were occasions where people negotiated the meanings IMAX constructed and thought about how the documentaries could have been more substantial (Morley, 1992). Aliens of the Deep was the most criticized film. C.L. and R.W., whose comments were listed throughout this analysis, felt that some tweaking to the narrative structure might have changed their impressions. As in chapter seven, people desired more facts and data in the films. M.M., who was a 19 year-old female taking part in a two-person interview session, said that she would have liked Aliens of the Deep “If there were more factual things.” R.W. echoes the earlier sentiments of S.A., by saying, I could see that it would maybe inspire people who weren’t previously interested in environmental stuff, just because anytime someone is even thinking more about the natural world, it seems it like it would make them more conscious of that stuff in general, too. So, I could see it going both ways. She argues that IMAX can be beneficial to those with little knowledge about the environmental dilemmas the earth faces, especially those like her who are not majoring in biology. Further, R.W. says that “anytime someone is even thinking more about the natural world, it seems it like it would make them more conscious,” is a positive aspect of the films. Her boyfriend, the doctoral student in biology offers:

179 Well, I think there are some connections that were not really mentioned in the movie. I think there are things like global warming that could have a huge impact on the environment because I don’t know enough about these things. But I think just a slight, just a slight increase in temperature could lead to release of a lot of methane from a lot of the geology there, but I don’t know that much about that. But I think there are some connections that could be made or should be made but none of that is mentioned. One of the most important words in the above dialogue was “connections.” Here, what “was not really mentioned in the movie” refers to the articulation of the complex marine eco-system’s response to global warming. Although C.L. prefaces the statement with, “I don’t know that much about that,” he states that a “slight increase in temperature could lead to release of a lot of methane from a lot of the geology there.” Those “connections that could be made or should be made” is an important aspect of my analysis of IMAX representation of nature. Whereas Bears mentioned the effect of global warming on their populations, Aliens of the Deep treated the eco- system below the waves as separate from the globe above water. The way IMAX portrayed the undersea depths as an exclusive system not interdependent to the earth’s entire eco-system is addressed in the tenth chapter. From the examination, it has been clear that the connections that C.L. asks for are simply avoided. At Everest, S.A., who previously expressed the fact that the film did not seemed to be framed environmentally, repeated her thoughts in the statement, “They didn’t really focus on environmental issues. Like they didn’t tell you that they carried everything back out.” Not telling how the climbers “carried everything back out” or implicating socially induced problems, such as global warming, as possible sources of environmental degradation was definitely the connection IMAX was missing. Finally, after the Everest screening, an elderly man, C.P., spoke up at the end of a session with a unique insight: I have a suggestion for the producers. I think they could have got some money from Canon, or whoever it was, and put it up on there on the screen where thousands of people could have seen that this was filmed with a Camera or whatever such and such lens. Canon has a big advertising budget, or whoever made the lens, maybe not Canon themselves. Here’s an opportunity to get exposure to millions.

180 Of all of the previous input provided by audiences I included in my analysis, this particular interpretation stands out. After discussing the possible facts, images and environmental angles that IMAX depicted, I was amazed at the simplicity of C.P.’s recognition that the screen was an ideal billboard. It was shocking to this man that IMAX did not jump on the opportunity to “get some money from the Canon, or whoever it was, and put it up on there on the screen where thousands of people could have seen.” The insight was startlingly basic. Above all the claims of educating the public in their promotions, ultimately the technology translates as a really swell “opportunity” for a company’s product “to get exposure to millions.”

Audience Anthropocentrism

At the beginning of the audience analysis, participants expressed a sense of the IMAX universe in which they were wooed by special effects that upstaged the information. They reported a sense of caution with regards to the risks of the wilderness as portrayed on the screens. The following chapter illuminated the fact that college students were the most critical viewers of the documentaries based on decisions of the filmmakers. However, all participants in the three locations included aspects of the movies they did not like. In this chapter, people’s attitudes about the environment were not changed. In some instances, respondents who reported to considering themselves environmentalists had their opinions reinforced. In response to the question posed about whether or not participants were likely to incorporate new behaviors into their daily lives, most said that IMAX did not inform them of any possibilities. However, there was evidence that respondents were eager to provide their own suggestions that might make IMAX more inspirational for making the world a better place for those unaccustomed to environmental discourse. Pre-Existing Knowledge, where individuals brought their own personal experience into their interpretation, was the most influential factor when individuals considered the environmental implications of Everest, Bears or Aliens of the Deep. What was surprising was that when I asked questions about the environment, people tended to provide answers that corresponded with the concepts of managerialism, anthropocentricism, and productivist discourse. The impact that the wilderness has on human vitality was a popular stream of discourse. Very little attitude and desire to change behavior was apparent in my interview

181 sessions. Although IMAX promises to be educational, the volunteers in my study did not perceive it that way. Instead, for the cost of a ticket, IMAX provides a seat on a technological tilt-a-whirl that spins the viewer dizzy. The themes presented at the conclusion of this chapter close the analysis and develop a cogent transition into my final theme of Biocentric versus Productivist Discourse According to Actor Network Theory in Audience Reception of Everest, Bears & Aliens of the Deep. In the pages that follow, the findings are summarized by inserting some final examples to shape the audience reception data. Prevalent themes in group responses reified the theories and framework of discourse outlined in the earlier chapters.

182 CHAPTER 10

CONCLUDING REMARKS: ANTHROPOCENTRISM, MEDIA LITERACY & AGENCY IN IMAX VIEWER RESPONSES

“There could be some sort of reaction where it’s the cure for cancer. A lot of times I find myself saying ‘Why do we spend so much money on NASA and doing on these silly things?’ But they really have discovered a lot in these trips, and I wouldn’t have a microwave, and that’s very cool” --L.P., From the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater after seeing Aliens of the Deep

“It made me want to support the bears more, like giving to groups like the World Wildlife Federation. I realized how important they are and makes me want to donate more.” -- D.L., From the World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater after seeing Bears

When my project concluded, I reflected on the experiences I shared with the people who participated in my interviews and discussion groups. Initially, I appreciated that the logistics and organization required to orchestrate field research at three cities and three different IMAX theaters was my greatest challenge. Yet, the interaction with the viewers of Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep was the most rewarding part of my journey. On many other levels however, my learning process could not be easily categorized as exclusively an academic one. Though talking with visitors about their experiences at the IMAX theater started as a scientific investigation, something more significant unfolded; I witnessed the mechanisms of human meaning-making. In addition, I noticed that people were quite anxious to disclose their honest impressions of the documentaries. Viewers admitted a wide variety of personal experiences. In order to maintain this connection with people, I had to develop an atmosphere of trust. Thus, the dialogue was able to take shape as a living organism, constantly growing, changing, and re- forming just like an artist’s sculpture. Though the bulk of this chapter sums up my arguments, discusses the significance of my research, and offers suggestions for additional study on IMAX and the environment, this project inspired me to use ethnographic methodologies in the future. Included in the following pages are the answers to my research questions: What do audiences learn about the ecosystem in IMAX scientific nature documentaries? Do audiences come away with a new understanding of the natural world? Are feelings of increased

183 environmental awareness invoked by the films? How do IMAX documentaries construct representations of nature and wildlife? Do the tensions that exist between public and private institutions and IMAX affect these representations? To answer these questions, each preceding chapter dealt with a set of research questions. For example, chapter six set up the project, and I used my readings of DVD copies of Everest, Bears and Aliens of the Deep to understand how IMAX documentaries construct representations of nature and wildlife. However, that question was also answered by the responses from participants, which I incorporated throughout my analysis. Chapter seven focused on what audiences learn about the ecosystem in IMAX scientific nature documentaries. The eighth installment featured audience criticisms that addressed the question: Do the tensions that exist between public and private institutional collaboration with IMAX affect these representations? Finally, in chapter nine, I examined IMAX representation of the environment and I answered the question: Are feelings of increased environmental awareness invoked by the films? Also, chapter nine considered audiences remarks in answer to the question: Do audiences come away with a new understanding of the natural world? From the threads of the participants’ discourse I have analyzed in chapters seven, eight, and nine, I identified three major arguments. First, I argued in “Image versus Text” that IMAX images overshadowed the content of the films’ narratives. In the second section, the “Criticisms of Production & Environmentalism,” I concentrated on the fact that younger audiences were highly critical of the films and that there was very little difference between the people who reported to be environmentalists and those who did not when they expressed their impressions of the IMAX documentaries. The criticism from younger audience members might be explained by the fact that they were more media literate than their counterparts. In chapter nine, “Image Maximum Nature: Audience Attitudes & Agency,” I found that IMAX did not necessarily alter pre-existing attitudes or encourage people to make changes in their daily routines toward the environment. However, this finding did not mean that IMAX does not imbue an appreciation for the natural world. It is possible that such awareness may lead to behavior change in media- literate respondents or people with firsthand interactions with the environment, and this might be a rewarding direction for continued research. In sum, I argue that, although many respondents’ comments are reflective of productivist discourse, the viewers with local knowledge or personal experience and media literacy had more proactive interpretations of the films. In this segment, I return to the statements made by

184 audience members whose viewpoints echoed sentiments aligned with the concept of anthropocentrism. However, I juxtapose my conclusions with the way the younger members of the group tended to be more aware of the constituencies involved and the technology used in the documentaries such as Aliens of the Deep. Also, younger people were more critical of the films based upon the production choices, as when some viewers pointed to the wizardry employed by James Cameron to capture the scenes at the bottom of the ocean. Throughout my project, I recognized that IMAX is a part of a broader media system. The documentaries are loaded with hegemonic discourses about the environment. However, I do not exclusively contend that people’s readings reinforced cultural assumptions about the environment and values consistent with the idea that material nature only exists as an exploitable commodity. Rather, based on certain subject positions, I suggest that people can come away with a new understanding of the natural world. For example, comments from B.W., who said that Aliens of the Deep needed to “give some general directions to people that there’s possible medical, technological, and communication benefits,” suggests that some viewers felt that nature is an exploitable resource necessary for the prosperity of human society. Yet another person, C.M., who saw the same movie thought that “…it just made you think that we as humans walk around thinking we are you know, top of the crop, top of the food chain, and when you see other organisms, it makes you feel differently.” Both of these participants were included in the younger segment of the discussion groups, but the disparity of the themes provided in the statements illustrates the importance of individual perspectives. Accordingly, I do not say unequivocally that IMAX works to perpetuate dominant ideologies about the environment. Instead, individual subject position heavily guided interpretation. For example, J.C. uttered “you know being a diver, I don’t like seeing coastal areas destroyed.” People who participated in outdoor activities like hunting, hiking, scuba diving and frequent traveling, as well as those who lived in rural environments, read news reports about developments encroaching on bear populations, and enjoyed watching nature documentaries were more cognizant of implicit environmental crises. Issues outside the texts emerged from the discussion groups, such as stressing responsible growth and treatment of coastlines, the effort to help bears all over the world, and the recent situation concerning the over-abundance of trash on Everest. Others expressed a willingness to donate to organizations dedicated to protecting the environment. I offer the example of media literacy to explain the distinctions between younger

185 and older respondents, as well as local knowledge to describe the differences amongst all of the responses. This chapter’s objective is to describe my reasons for these claims.

Image vs. Text; Criticisms of Production & Environmentalism & Image Maximum Nature: Audience Attitudes & Agency

The first issue I described, Image versus Text, argues that the images on the big screen significantly tinted the content of the audience responses. I am not suggesting that the image prevailed to the extent that it completely stifled audience members’ comprehension or recognition of the informational tidbits disclosed in graphics or the narrative. Further, S.C. interjected, “the tube worms were weird because most of the time when you think of a worm you don’t think of it was looked like that.” What I intended to illuminate through statements by S.C. was that the way IMAX made giant landscapes and organisms appear heavily influenced the reception process. People also recalled certain pictures that cued their recollection of the facts. My observation concluded that the images that IMAX lauds itself for being able to conjure with its 70 mm cameras were supported by the statements made by guests of the theaters. People were also mostly fearful or frightened about the dangers the nature could unleash. T.K., the psychologist, renounced any desire to try to climb Everest and said, “For me, it was like the power, the fear of how powerful the environment can be.” Many statements that had tones of risk, warning, caution or potential human fatality filled the discourse. This is another reason why I had to concede that the movies leaned toward an anthropocentric perspective. Statements like the ones from T.K. seem to portray the mountain as a foe or villain and anthropomorphized as some living breathing entity. My analysis was trying to determine what audiences learn about the ecosystem in IMAX scientific nature documentaries. It was apparent that, in fact, viewers did remember some information in their impressions of the films, but my argument is that large frames probably assisted in their recollection. In addition, one of my ancillary concerns was the issue of the IMAX technology’s role in the reception process. The intimation that “size matters” seemed to be true, especially since most respondents could not divorce any of their thoughts about the film from how everything appeared. In some instances, viewers preferred seeing the IMAX exhibition of the topic and probably would not have seen the documentary if it was just in a conventional television or 35 mm format; for example, a few people said that they wouldn’t have seen it or

186 would be that interested if it was shown in a regular film format. My assertion that the image overshadowed the fact-oriented statements was in support of the idea that the size and realism of the IMAX projection process was considerable in the interpretation of the films. Approaching the next set of research questions in chapter eight was somewhat of a caveat, due to the fact that the discussion was fueled by my necessity to examine “what folks did not like” about the three films. As I explained at the start of chapter seven, I had to collate responses according to “what folks liked” because prior to viewers answering what they remembered about the films, they usually began with “well, what I liked.” In order to handle the next half of the interview question—which was naturally, “What didn’t you like?”—I devoted an entire chapter, called “Criticisms of Production & Environmentalism.” The reason I included the angle of environmentalism was to determine how IMAX documentaries construct representations of nature and wildlife. However, the transition into environmentalism ended up being much more natural than I anticipated. C.H. explained that “Well, I liked everything about the movie. I just wish it had more scientific data, facts, maybe more.” Younger audiences, however, had a lot to say about the quality of the movies. For instance, M.M. made fun of Dijanna’s (the Ph.D. student in Biology from Aliens of the Deep) comment, “Holy Pancakes, Batman!” when she said, “like, who is this chick?” People discussed what they did not like, and it invariably included dissenting opinions about script writing, how the film was shot, or why certain aspects of the environments on the screen appeared the way they did. Filmmaker decisions to omit names for wildlife and utilize campy responses to marine life were frequently the subject of the conversations. At the beginning of the project, I thought that the people who claimed to be an environmentalist in the screening questions would have statements that were reflective of that belief system; what I found in this section was contrary to those assumptions. Reports of environmental sensitivity appeared not to factor into audience feedback. There were critical responses spoken by younger audience members that echoed sentiments aligned with anthropocentric and productivist discourse because people recalled research to extending mans’ understanding of earth and space. People were actively aware that there were tensions that existed between public and private institutions supporting the IMAX films, which had separate agendas. Others, such as C.R., noted that “a couple people from NASA were there to collect data and not just make a film, which makes more valid to me,” and L.P. recognized “that they really have discovered a lot in these trips” after seeing Aliens of the Deep. These viewers realized that

187 the documentaries were shaped by editing decisions, script revising, shot selection, and dialogue to ensure that specific constituencies like NASA, Lockheed and Martin or The Smithsonian appeared in a favorable light. In this way, IMAX makes a strong effort to depict itself as a harbinger of public education and dedicated to the advancement of human knowledge. An emergent theme developed when differences arose between the commentaries according to subject position. Since younger participants seemed much more critical of the IMAX films than other members of the discussion groups, this cynicism might have developed from a more media savvy upbringing. Comments from J.T., a film buff who remarked, “I thought he broke some new ground as far as underwater photography goes, and it looked like that he took down high-definition cameras,” seem to point to the fact that younger audiences were attending to areas other than just fish, snow or bear cubs on the screen. I return to this argument later in the chapter where I specifically explain why I believe that media literacy of younger viewers helps shapes the impressions of IMAX. Also, due to this awareness of media texts, there is more potential for IMAX to have a pro-social impact on these audiences. Chapter nine contemplated my research question, “Are feelings of increased environmental awareness invoked by the films?” and led to the determination that, for the most part, IMAX did not alter pre-existing attitudes or encourage people to make changes in their daily routines. Occasionally, people responded to these questions, like R.L. who said, “No, It didn’t change them” or L.I., who retorted, “No, not really.” There were examples where people’s personal experience and level of media literacy contributed to more awareness. S.H., who took the tour with Chris Day that was depicted in Bears, responded to the questions by saying, “One thing I didn’t like is they focused mainly on global warming, and there is a lot more, there is a greater problem with [humans] encroaching their natural habitat.” People like S.A., who said, “not for me, because I love the wildlife so much,” added to my argument that visitors’ pre- existing knowledge heavily affected their reading. Yet people such as C.H., after seeing Everest, suggested that, “I do think for some people it does because helps them to appreciate the beauty of the nature of the world and the importance of preserving certain sites, you know, for other generations.” I expanded on my conclusion later, arguing that IMAX could inspire an appreciation for unique eco-systems that may encourage attitude change and new understanding of earth’s diverse eco-systems based on the respondents’ reported education level and media literacy.

188 IMAX Discourses of Anthropocentrism & Productivism

The discussion presented in chapter three integrated arguments presented by the paradigms of Economic Anthropology, Political Ecology and Actor Network Theory. I wish to provide a synopsis on the role technology filled in the reception of information and that contrary to IMAX claims that it is an institution for public awareness, it operates similarly to other media industries to generate a profit. One of my observations from the discourse I analyzed was that many viewers’ impressions seemed to be reflective of how animals or dangerous locations on the screen could potentially threaten human vitality. Due to the omnipresent theme of risk associated with the onscreen expedition, I have gathered that audiences were fearful of the natural world. Also, like in the film, Bears, the grizzlies, black bears, and polar bears were frequently personified in the narrative when shown in playful behavior. Moreover, people were very wary of the animals temper or disposition such as when R.D. expressed that, “I always thought grizzlies were really, really ferocious.” Another theme closely aligned with participants believing that the human species are the center of the universe and the tendency for them to assign human characteristics to animals; individuals alluded to the possibilities of how the on-camera field research could benefit human beings. Comments from J.L. who uttered that the, “smoke melting the windows of the sub freaked me out a little bit” and A.S. who said “if the windows had melted there, you know that was just the risk taking factor” and finally, the exchange between R.D., R.L. and L.H. that if you come between a bear and it’s young you could potentially die are just some of the statements that encapsulate the thoughts of many of the cautious, wary and frightened viewers. Although aspects of the documentaries were probably enhanced or dramatized for the sake of adding to the excitement of the trips, it appeared that people honed in on areas of the documentaries that informed them of “what not to do.” For the most part, responses such as these seemed to reinforce the literature that stresses society’s movement toward a commoditization of nature and wildlife through a variety of cultural artifacts such as literature, greeting cards, video games, films, news reporting and television programs (Williams, 1980; Shanahan & McComas, 1996; Anderson, 1997; Brulle, 1996; Davis, (1997); Smith, 1998; DeLuca, 1999 & Whatmore, (2001). Moreover, the images or ideographs rampant in dominant mainstream media tend to reinforce society’s relationship with material nature, which assumes natural resources are bountiful thus over-exploitation is justified

189 (Giri, 2004; Deluca, 1999; Escobar, 1999, Luke, 1997; O’Connor, 1988; Humphrey, 1985; Smith, 1984; Marx & Engels, 1976; Polanyi, 1944). After my analysis of people’s responses to the three films, I argue that IMAX scientific documentaries are cultural artifacts that intensify or exacerbate cultural assumptions, perceptions, and attitudes about material nature and wildlife by emphasizing how continued scientific exploration of the world’s eco-systems are an essential path mark in the sustainability of Western civilization. Also, some individuals armed with the ability to identify public and private constituencies involved in the production of IMAX films that it is possible that many representations have been greenwashed. However, based on the media literacy and local knowledge of viewers, the films can potentially be a source of inspire participation in environmental change or inspire new awareness and encourage further discourse about environmental issues.

Media Literate Audiences: “Well, Jim Cameron said that ‘I have no idea what that is.’”— C.L.

A glaring distinction I noticed in the groups, which I discussed chapter eight was that young people were far more inclined to criticize the merits of the documentaries. Thus dissent was not relegated to specific aspect of the films. However, one explanation for the skepticism and critical overtones in younger audiences’ feedback is that they are more media literate than the older segment of the audience sample. Commentary from these respondents, mostly college students, included a variety of contexts such as the technology used in filming, dialogue of actors, directors, and partners involved in the production and the motivation behind certain editing choices. Many students from local universities at the locations I visited tended to supply much of this discourse. C.R. argues that, “It was patch-worked together.” S.C. said “That it is too vague.” B.W. commented that, “When you are selling something, you want to give some general directions to people that there’s possible medical benefits, there’s possible technological, there’s possible communication, like we could do more inventions like this or something but there just wasn’t enough of that for me” R.W. said, “I have seen several IMAX movies that, to me, tend to be very visually appealing but then in terms of the educational content, it seems geared toward either young elementary age kids or people who have hardly any kind of formal education” And from M.F., “I would I say that I could handle something a little more

190 educational.” Responses like these suggest that younger people were not easily wooed by the technological efforts made by Cameron and his staff. Instead, the college respondents were more demanding of substantial content concerning the fruits of the research. Others appreciated the fact that Cameron introduced groundbreaking camera work like when J.T. exclaimed that, “the photography, the lighting and the clarity of the photography” were especially significant. Further, L.P. commented that “Technology wise, it was just incredible how much money it looked like it had put in.” Yet C.L. seemed shocked at the lack of information considering the fact that “they had all this money to do the film.” After I considered the significance of this phenomena, and older members of the discussion groups who did not respond with similar details, I reconciled the idea that younger people must be more aware of the conventions and strategies IMAX employs that are similar to other media. More knowledge and expectation of special effects provides a simpler explanation. I considered that just based on how much younger audiences have been exposed to things like digital images or characters, where highly polished technological tricks are used to woo audiences compared to a much older constituency. Younger people are probably more media literate, which Straubhaar & LoRose (2004) refer to as a “critical understanding of media” (p. 28) Also, younger audiences that are exposed to media messages much earlier than their older constituency have a greater capacity to read between the lines of images and text on the radio, television, films, and Internet websites. Furthermore, younger audiences have the potential to be more informed about the “the means by which citizens defend against such tactics and see through attempts to manipulate” (Straubhaar & LaRose, p. 357, 2004). However, much of the research in this area calls for more efforts to educate children in elementary education about implicit advertising strategies used on television. Since according to Peity, Priester, & Brinol (2004) “the goal of a mass media is to produce long- tern changes in attitudes with behavioral consequences”, there is significant support among media scholars to prepare youth with the necessary skills to effectively evaluate messages (p. 189). Yet just as powerful were people’s backgrounds that intervened in the construction of their readings.

191 Popcorn & Personal Experience Seated in Front of the Big Screen

Another surprise result of my project was how much previous knowledge individuals brought into their interpretation of the documentaries. Some audience members had actually taken a trip to the Alaskan outback with Chris Day, the woman depicted in the Bears film. This level of firsthand of experience was rare, but allowed individuals to feel more connected to the documentaries than those participants killing an afternoon. Thus the impact of the environmental issues either explicitly or implicitly discussed in the documentaries such as dwindling bear populations, ice flow melting, trash on Everest, delicacy of deep marine eco-systems, seemed to be much greater. This does not suggest that even people who had very little local knowledge could not have been affected similarly; it is that they were not as vocal as those who had. Personal experiences people incorporated into their reactions was equal to the extent that media literacy of shaped the readings of younger viewers and I was surprised how much people could relate to the events played out on-screen. Like G.G. who said that when he climbed he also had the altitude sickness and shared that what the men and women in Everest were going through particularly resonated with him. He confessed seeing that really “hit close to home because I had experienced that firsthand.” In other instances, it was not that respondents had actually attempted the feats of the climbers or been on excursions to the places IMAX showcased. There were examples where people had integrated stories they had read in books, news media, were aware of local issues pertaining to bear sightings or simply taking a walk in the woods and appreciated that they were responsible for the vitality of their natural surroundings. For example, C.L. introduced her anecdote of “black bear harvesting in New Jersey” and remarked that, after taking a walk in the woods and noticing some trash thought, “we’re kind of taking a bad route here, guys.” Some people read up on the film before seeing it, like A.C. who watched the “movie that was made from this true experience—Into Thin Air” and remembered from a news report that a cleaning crew “brought down like 25,000 pounds of trash.” In fact, the disparity between those with outside knowledge or sensitivity to the implicit environmental issues not explored by the films was apparent from a reaction from a group member response. M.P., one other member of that group reacting to statements made by A.C., mentioned that since she did not see or hear anything “about the trash, [she had] no opinion about that because it really wasn’t in the movie.” Finally, C.L. who had extensive scholarship in the area of biology said in reaction to Aliens of the Deep

192 that, “you hear about it taking a science class but you don’t get to see it that vividly.” In circumstances like the excerpts listed above, the documentaries impact was more extensive evoked memories or accessible previously held beliefs and attitudes pertaining to implicit environmental messages.

Significance of Analyzing the Audience Knowledge of IMAX Documentaries

With the release of March of the Penguins in 2005 and its subsequent Academy Award for Best Documentary, there seems to be a growing popularity of the nature and wildlife film genre. Moreover, the optimal means of viewing documentary film according to the people surveyed in my project is at the IMAX Theater. I believe that this project added to the breadth and depth of current environmental communication literature by identifying some significant issues in the area of documentary film. However, the results of my research seem to point to a new area for scholars to explore, more specifically the role of IMAX technology in the presentation of environmental issues and promoting advocacy. I have determined that IMAX reinforces many assumptions already made by scholars such as Anderson (1997) and Smith (1998) that the media is an institution that operates as a greenwashing device obscuring the real issues the planet’s eco-system faces. Moreover, the films fail to highlight ingrained socio- economic rituals that exploit, consume, waste, and pollute the environment for the sole purposes of accumulation. In that way, IMAX is no different than another medium’s depiction including news portrayals or theme parks. However, possibilities for encouraging pro-social environmental advocacy were observed similar to DeLuca’s (1999) assessment of NSM’s like the Earth First and ELF attempts at exposing industries committing atrocities to the earth by luring news groups to cover their guerilla tactics and staged protests. Though dependent on peoples’ media literacy, education and personal experience with the nature and wildlife, IMAX can act as a powerful medium to further inspire progressive discourse and maybe get more individuals to appreciate the value of the planet’s eco-systems. Everyone in my discussion groups were to some degree captivated and engaged by the “stunning” and “beautiful” 70 mm photography. Thus there is potential to explore how these representations may work to nurture environmental consciousness and continue to research the conflation between media literacy and the environmental movement. The more literate people are the more likely they are to consider cogent suggestions for changing

193 routine behavior such as donating to organizations, joining a local grassroots taskforce, participate in community clean ups, recycle more, conserve water and energy, vote for more green candidates at the local or national level, or even take their child, niece or nephew to an IMAX movie. Perhaps, after watching it, it may inspire a conversation that stresses the environmental aspects of how important nature and wildlife is to our sustainability and livelihood; the third-person effect. Thus my final thoughts about my project are that if IMAX makes its mission to develop documentaries in the hope of informing the public about nature by collaborating with public and private institutions, why are many other agencies ignored? Why hasn’t the EPA been considered as a possible contributor or been asked to produce a scientific nature documentary? There are also dozens of non-profit organizations that are completely ignored in the IMAX decisions to create an educational film about the environment such as Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, Earth First, American Wildlife Foundation, Clean Water International, Rainforest Alliance just to name a few (www.ndrc.org., 2006). Although Aliens of the Deep did credit the Woods Hole Research Center and the National Wildlife Foundation was also frequently cited with a “special thanks,” the majority of the films claimed support from private corporations. At least if these organizations were at the forefront of a documentary, it would provide a spotlight to local grassroots movements around the country or smaller groups, like the Wildwood Preservation Society in Tallahassee, Florida, Save the Bay Foundation in Narragansett, Rhode Island and San Francisco, California’s, Rails to Trails (a national group that works to convert railroad tracks to nature trails), the Alaska Rainforest Campaign, or even hundreds of Organic Food Providers across the Western part of North Carolina and Tennessee. The possibilities and efforts across the world and United States are virtually innumerable because they sprout up everyday but are engaged in a constant battle for funding, awareness, and participation. Moreover, the agendas of these constituencies were not the focus of the documentaries. Why is it that an organization like Greenpeace or Earth First is considered or approached to be featured in a documentary or at least consulted as a primary sponsor? The fact is, organizations such as these are extremely critical of the government, industry, and legal practices that cause a tremendous amount of damage to the earth. In addition, groups like Earth First directly challenge cultural assumptions and perceptions and implicate corporate destruction of wildlife habitats, pollution of clean water, capitalizing on natural resources while tirelessly looking for legal loopholes to keep poisoning the soil and air.

194 Groups like these demand accountability and question individualism and social value systems that perpetuate wasteful behavior. It is not a question of funding because generates millions from Hollywood blockbusters such as the Harry Potter series, Spiderman, Superman, Star Wars prequels to finance or assist these organizations. Regardless, some of the constituencies are financed by federal monies—for instance, tax payer dollars—and have alleviated taxation. Undeniably, economic constraints fostered by media consolidation eliminate the chance for progressive representations. Yet these obstacles significantly detract from the educational value of the films by excluding pertinent information of real threats to the planet’s eco-systems. Further, IMAX is empowered to make decision on what it will show based on a film’s content. I explained in chapter one that IMAX Theaters chose to not show Volcanoes at a Texas location in fear of being attacked by vehement Christian groups because of the film’s emphasis on evolution (Dean, 2005). However, since IMAX positions itself as an institution or authority on education, especially since school groups are provided free packets for lesson plans designed to allow teachers the opportunity to make the field trips more worthwhile, why does it omit valid and important voices from reaching those audiences? My project shed light on the impact the IMAX format has on audiences but also demonstrated that media-literate individuals who bring in their own local knowledge may benefit from a deeper appreciation and understanding for the potential challenges their world faces. Some people, like R.W. who was a biology student, argued that although she was critical of Aliens of the Deep, she did see some value in that the film could introduce new concepts, animals, processes, and eco-systems. “I can see how someone who is not environmentally conscious at all might see this and then maybe care a little bit more.” Further, R.W. adds that they potentially “get a firsthand look at an environment that they are not normally exposed to.” In response to the questions posed by my colleagues, friends, and family—for instance, “Why does it matter?”, “Does the size of the film make any difference?”, “Does IMAX really have that much of an impact on people’s perceptions about the environment?”—that I presented at the beginning of chapter five, I can say a few things. First, my project showed that the more people are actively interacting with nature, wildlife, and representations of the environment like the ones in IMAX, the further entrenched are their existing passions. This is important because this finding challenges many assumptions by economic determinists and political ecologists that assert that the practices and values associated with the ethic of accumulation in Western social

195 systems is only increasing the detachment between human beings and physical nature, which is known as the human-nature gap (Giri, 2004; Deluca, 1999; Escobar, 1999; Luke, 1997; O’Connor, 1988; O’Connor, M., 1994; Deleage, 1994; Altvater, 1994; Beckenbach, 1994; Humphrey, 1985; Smith, 1984; Marx & Engels, 1976; Polanyi, 1944). People who are involved in hobbies such as hiking, traveling or walking in the woods tend to have an increased awareness of the environmental problems caused by the practices of pollution, waste, and encroachment. This is significant because IMAX vivid portrayal of some peoples’ firsthand experiences with nature and wildlife seem to have more resonant impact with these viewers. I have further shed light on the way people perceive media depictions of the environment, which strengthens the necessity to continue research on role of subject positions in constructing judgments about environmental issues. Given my analysis of IMAX documentaries, a new bridge has been constructed to an improved understanding of two ways (individual experience and media literacy) that people use to form their impressions of environmental texts. My findings are not designed to contradict Deluca’s (1999) argument that media images of activism can deliver powerful messages informing people about illicit or damaging industry practices or nurture alertness toward the dangers the eco-system. Pictures of regular people standing up for what they believe in definitely help to encourage feelings in audiences that such efforts are real and effective at making change. However, I assert this study has generated new attention on the importance of the extent people’s connection to the circumstances reflected in the media pool.

Limitations: Issues of “Natural” and “Contrived” Data Finally, many limitations in the project have been previously mentioned, including the literature on ethnographic ontology, discursive space, social context, and techniques used in interviewing fieldwork (Nelson, 1989; Burgess, Harrison & Maiteny, 1991; Bertrand et al., 1992; Morley, 1992; Tedlock, 1994; Schroeder, 1994; Potter, 1996; Lunt, 1996; De Jong & Schellens, 1998; Green, 1999; Glesne, 1999; Krueger & Casey, 2000; McCarthy, 2001; Speer, 2002; Hollander, 2004). Issues like groupthink, unpredictability, varied methodologies of interviewing strategies, ability of and contamination by the moderator, and sample selection are obstacles. Speer (2002), drawing from arguments made by James Potter (1996), also argues that there are important distinctions between “natural and contrived” data using ethnographic methods. For example, researchers must make the distinction either by acknowledging that

196 all data can be natural or contrived depending on what one wants to do with them; if one wants to analyze interview data in order to discover how interviews work, then an interview can be treated as natural for our present purposes (in can be naturalized). (p. 520) Or Speer (2002) offers that if one wants analyze interview talk where participants are asked to comment on gender issues in order to discover how people do gender as a matter of course, then such prompted gender commentary may seem contrived and thus not the best data for our present purposes. (p. 520) The difference between natural and contrived ontology raises significant questions about how data should be used to arrive at generalities. However, the interpretative tradition focuses on the fluid generation of ideas in a casual setting, and does not purport to be used as a source for making inferences on broader population. Speer (2002) also says the delineation between contrived or natural depends on the role of the moderator. If the moderator spends time getting to know participants to make participants feel more comfortable this is considered “more natural” as opposed to treating respondents clinically or like lab rats making the interview process very formal. Either way, much depends on the abilities of moderator and what he or she is looking for according to theoretical consistency. Further, my biases, values and beliefs are influential, but they facilitate the analysis by articulating responses to the theoretical framework.

“Holding Back” in the Group & Directions for Further Study

One of the most salient limitations to my research was experienced in the interviewing of people within the groups I examined. According to James Potter (2002), the issue of natural and contrived in ethnographic research is problematic. I found that even if the moderator spends time getting to know participants to make them feel more comfortable, it is not necessarily “more natural” than designing the interview process formally (Speer, 2002). Instead, the setting of the interviews is somewhat contrived and not in a natural setting—such as when people are seated comfortably in their homes—so it is difficult to say where the thresholds for a casual environment begin and end.

197 In Margaret Kinder’s 1991 book, Playing with Power with Movies, Television, and Video Games from Muppet Babies to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, she describes how she went to people’s homes to observe video game playing in a pseudo-natural environment. However, to what extent her presence in the home compromised the ecological validity is a different matter. One of the major problems of observation/participation is that the research potentially interferes with people’s willingness to disclose honestly or it simply reduces the chances for organic responses. The ability of the moderator definitely influences the extent that the data is contrived or natural. My process of interviewing was certainly not infallible, though I closely followed the helpful suggestions and strategies from a breadth of ethnographic researchers (Geertz, 1973, Liebes, 1988; Nelson, 1989; Kinder, 1991, Burgess, Harrison & Maiteny, 1991; Bertrand et al., 1992; Morley, 1992; Tedlock, 1994; Schroeder, 1994; Potter, 1996; Lunt, 1996; De Jong & Schellens, 1998; Green, 1999; Glesne, 1999; Krueger & Casey, 2000; McCarthy, 2001; Speer, 2002; Lowe, 2003; Hollander, 2004). Moreover, there were instances where people felt that they could not speak freely because a certain person in the group had professed a belief system they felt was morally offensive. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) lay out various strategies for conducting ethnographic research. They also forewarn that the group make-up influences some respondents from disclosing their honest impressions. For instance, P.S. spoke up that he alienated K.K., a female from Colorado and environmental engineering student. K.K. and I discussed her unwillingness to express how she felt about the Bears documentary because she feared a backlash from P.S. But more importantly, K.K. confided in me that it ruined the atmosphere and quelled her desires when she said, “I just couldn’t do it,” so, “I held back from saying what I really felt.” K.K. was the only group member I encountered who needed to tell me that she did not feel uncomfortable. This could have happened countless times. However, I would not have any knowledge that some visitors were feeling that way. I tried promoting as comfortable of an environment as possible, but issues like these definitely provide a barrier between an audience’s interpretation of a media and the researcher recording it.

198 APPENDIX A

ORAL CONSENT FORM

Focus Group Introduction

Moderator:

Good afternoon, my name is Jason K. Smith.

I am a Doctoral student at Florida State University conducting research on IMAX films and what you folks thought about it. I’m not affiliated with the World Golf Hall of Fame/MOSI/Challenger Learning Center/IMAX Theatre here in Tallahassee; however, I am interested in making the results of my research available to World Golf Hall of Fame /MOSI/The Challenger Learning Center/IMAX theatre to help understand or perhaps improve visitors experiences based on what is discussed here and in other discussion groups held over the summer.

With that in mind, I would like to stress that all points of view are valid for my research, and I would like for everyone to share their thoughts even if they differ from others within the group. This discussion group will be recorded in order to insure I don’t miss anything. So please speak up.

I and my supervising professors will be the only ones with access to the video and audio tapes, and your responses will be kept confidential. No names will be used in the final paper. At any time during this session you are free to leave.

This should last no longer than 45 minutes. There are refreshments which you can help yourself to at any time. If you need to use the restroom or get up for any reason, please feel free to do so. Alright let’s get started.

I think it’s clear that we’re talking about the IMAX film ______. But several of you might have noticed that I haven’t been really specific about what I am looking at. Well, the reason for this is that I don’t want to confine your responses to my ideas. My first discussion question is:

199 APPENDIX B

SCREENING QUESTIONS

Initials of first and last name: ______

1. Age: ______

2. Occupation: ______

(Please Indicate your Response with a Check Mark in the Corresponding Space Provided)

3. Sex: Male ______Female ______

4. Race: African American ______Caucasian ______Latino ______Asian______

Other: (Please specify) ______

5. Educational Background: 12 or less years ______12 years (High School)______Some

College ______AA degree ______Bachelor’s ______

Some Graduate ______Graduate (MA or higher) ______Professional ______

6. Are you from the St. Augustine area?

Yes ______No ______

(Check all that apply)

6a. Did you come to visit the World Golf Hall of Fame/MOSI/Challenger LC? Yes ___No

___

6b. Did you come to visit the IMAX Theater? Yes ___No ___

6c. Did you come to stay at the World Golf Village? Yes ___No ___

7. What was the activity most appealing to you at World Golf Hall of Fame/ MOSI/Challenger

LC & IMAX Theater? (Please only check one)

____ Shopping _____ Golfing _____ Visiting Hall of Fame ____ Vacation

200 Other: _____ (Please specify in space provided below)

______

______

8. Was this the first time you saw [name of documentary]? Yes ____ No _____

9. What IMAX films have you seen? None ______If Yes, what were they

______

______

10. Did the cost of a ticket to the IMAX movie help determine whether or not you chose to see the film? Yes ______No ______

(Please “bubble-in” answer)

11. I worry a lot about the effects of I Definitely I Definitely environmental pollution on my Agree Disagree family’s health.

12. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Yes ______No ______

If you answered “yes” to question 11, proceed to the following:

(Please “bubble-in” answer) I Definitely I Definitely Agree Disagree 12a. I make a special effort to look for products that are energy efficient

12b. I try to buy products that use recycled packaging

12c. I make a strong effort to recycle everything I possibly can

12d. Are there any other activities you engage in that you consider make you an environmentalist? (Please List Below)

201 APPENDIX C

PROPOSED QUESTIONS

1. What prompted you to choose to see the [name of documentary]?

2. What were some of the impressions you had about the [name of documentary]?

a. Were there any specific images you remember?

b. What facts do you remember?

c. What other information did you remember?

4. What did you enjoy about the film?

5. What did you dislike about the film?

6. Did [name of documentary] change any previous attitudes you had toward the environment?

7. Did [name of documentary]’s coverage of the [environmental issue(s)] inspire you to make changes in your daily routines?

8. Could you tell me some of your impressions of the World Golf Hall of Fame MOSI/Challenger LC & IMAX Theater?

9. Do you have any other comments regarding your visit World Golf Hall of Fame/MOSI/Challenger LC & IMAX Theater?

202 REFERENCES

Notes from Chapter 1

1. From a conversation with Mary Nucci of Rutgers University regarding IMAX at the 2004 ICA conference in New Orleans at a panel titled: Conceptualizing Audiences as Publics: Theories, Discourses, Uses, and Meanings. We discussed her upcoming research plans regarding the impact of the IMAX technology on audiences Nucci, M. In the land of giants: public pedagogy, entertainment, and the uses of large format cinema. 2004 Presented at the International Communication Association Conference May 27-31.

2. Marc Leverette from Rutgers was especially helpful in working on the ontological dilemma of associated with audience reception research in Cultural Studies. Leverette, M. Audiences as a philosophical issue: Some ontological uncertainties 2004 Presented at the International Communication Association Conference May 27-31

3. In Mary’s presentation she explained that the “wow factor” refers how IMAX movies are a powerful way to draw interest to publicly funded attractions such as museums and aquariums in hopes that visitors will be enticed to visit exhibits coinciding with IMAX releases, Nucci, M (2004) In the land of giants: public pedagogy, entertainment, and the uses of large format cinema.

Notes from Chapter 2

1. It is important to note that screen sizes vary, the first figure measures a screen size in Jarkarta, Indonesia featured in Tana Wollen’s “The Bigger the Better: From Cinescope to Imax” in Philip Hayward and Tana Wollen (Eds) (1993) Future Visions: New Technologies of the Screen, while the second was an approximation from Charles Acland from his article “IMAX technology and Tourist Gaze”, Cultural Studies, 12(3), 1998 429-445

2. Much of the information on the chapter on the IMAX Experience was generated from a conversation with Carl Fullerton, Projectionist at the Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater in Tallahassee, FL. June 2004. Fullerton helped my understanding of the IMAX projection process. During a few sessions in the projection booth at the Tallahassee IMAX Theater, he explained the logistics behind loading films in and out of the property, distribution problems, some economic information such as costs to format IMAX film, and administrative decision-making on what films are shown and when. He also explained to me the differences between 35 mm and 70 mm projection.

3. From Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2004 Financial Results; Copyright 2004 Canada NewsWire Ltd. Canada NewsWireAugust 9, 2004, Monday http://web.lexis- nexis.com/universe/document?_m=22dffabb7f2f56846d74d7e55d1d9d7b&_docnum=2&w chp=dGLbVtb-zSkVA&_md5=225584f53533c56ddeceffa9df3c5bb0

203 4. From Corporation Reports Second Quarter 2004 Financial Results; Copyright 2004 Canada NewsWire Ltd. Canada NewsWireAugust 9, 2004, Monday http://web.lexis- nexis.com/universe/document?_m=22dffabb7f2f56846d74d7e55d1d9d7b&_docnum=2&w chp=dGLbVtb-zSkVA&_md5=225584f53533c56ddeceffa9df3c5bb0

5. According to the GSTA 2004 viewer study also discovered the reasons why people attend local IMAX theaters. For example, Rod Brooks vice president of administration of the Exploris IMAX in Raleigh, North Carolina explained that the first GSTA 2004 viewer study, “confirmed some of our assumptions about our audience members, such as the amount of time they travel to our theater, the higher percentage of attendance by local visitors and issues of concern such as parking” (p. 56). From Kennedy, Mary. K.; Evaluating Market Add-On Studies. The Big Frame: A Publication of the Giant Screen Theater Association. 2004. Summer. 52-61.

6. This is quoted from a collaborative paper between Andy Opel and me that investigated the representation of wildlife and nature in video game portrayals. Drawing on Susan Davis’ book, Spectacular Nature: Corporate Culture and the Sea World Experience, We argued that in the CD-Rom game Zoo Tycoon™, virtual animals are found to serve as both labor and products in this game that teaches capitalist business strategy and managerial skills. From Opel, Andrew & Smith, Jason; ZooTycoon™: Capitalism, Nature and the Pursuit of Happiness. 2004, Ethics & The Environment 9, 2 103-120.

Notes from Chapter 3

1. Many economic anthropologists have made strong claims based on Polanyi’s criticisms of market civilizations. The great transformation refers to the dominance of accumulation in societies and challenges Adam Smith’s notion that human’s are inherently competitive. Early market economies thrived under monarchies or with tribal leaders who oversaw transactions, which was the primary mechanism in deterring the generation of individual wealth was ensuring that every exchange would somehow benefit the collective. However, Polanyi’s does not discount human’s propensity for ownership. Instead, he suggests that society’s where regulated individual wealth through some mechanism occurred, the result were social stability, lack of waste, and less internal tribal conflict. Because tribal wars yielded goods and artifacts, to say that any individual desire for wealth would be nearsighted. For the most part, the evolution of the function of trade in early societies is further discussed in Dalton, George & Kocke, Jasper (1983) The Work of the Polanyi Group: Past, Present, and Future. p. 26 In Sutti Ortiz Economic Anthropology: Topics and Theories pp.21-50 Monographs in Economic Anthropology 1. University Press of America: Lanham, MD

2. Manifest and Latent functions of activities was introduced by Sociologist, Robert Merton, who came to understand that meaning created from all social activity is not deliberate. In his concept of reformulating functionalism, he argues that there is a clear distinction from deliberate action and connotation it carries to the collective. For

204 example, a rain dance’s manifest function is to perform an expressive act to generate rain for the village, yet the latent function of the ritual establishes community cohesiveness, solidarity and fosters communication between members. Merton, Robert K; (1949) Social Theory and Social Structure From http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Merton/MertonBooks.htm Retrieved Nov.5, 2004

3. Polanyi’s argument regarding unregulated market systems is similar John Maynard Keynes, who also recognized the danger of liberal markets in the creation of monopolies. However, the major difference is that Polanyi works from a model where accumulation is not a ‘central’ means of organizing social systems. Keynes supports the intrinsic ‘basic human right’ to barter, trade and truck, but argues that government intervention must be implemented to avoid unequal distribution of wealth

4. From a BBC website featuring an article by Rincon, which centered on plans by United Kingdom to install more efficient smokestack scrubbers, which is filtration system designed to reduce the amount of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. For the most part, I used the article to describe what exactly a ‘scrubber’ does. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3612739.stm, “Plan to build emissions scrubber” by Paul Rincon Tuesday, 13 April, 2004

Notes on Chapter 4

1. Drawing from Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1995), discourse is the site where meaning is shared through the exchange of ideas either through written or spoken dialogue and positions the subjectivities involved. The discursive practice is the result of a chronological historical and sociological chain of events that situates subjectivities involved according to power accompanied by a specific social position. Media discourses for example are artifacts such as the editorial page of newspaper, the back and forth exchange on television or radio news, talk and entertainment programs, or the engagement of two or more people in conversation. Also see Richter, David. H. (1998) The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Boston, MA.: Bedford/St. Martins p. 1208

2. This was a paraphrased statement of Mitman (1999) in his discussion of early Government film propaganda and news reels that were designed to inform the public of the efforts by the U.S. to improve irrigation and water management. Much of the section on the history of nature on film was found in Mitman, Greg; Reel Nature: America’s Romance with Wildlife on Film. 1999. Cambridge MA. Harvard University Press.

3. The role of postmodernism in this project refers to the way texts produce hyperreality in the restructuring of capital, re-constitution of space and place and the way technology can produce media like the IMAX theatre that have the potential to disarticulate people from material reality. According to Baudrillard (1988) the difference between materiality and representations of nature exists in the last two orders of the simulacra: (1) “simulacra that

205 are productive, productivist, founded on energy, force, its materialization by the machine and in the whole system of production and (2) simulacra of simulation, which is founded on information, the model, the cybernetic game—total operationality, hyper-reality, aim of total control” (p. 121). The argument described by Baudrillard is useful to IMAX’s promotion’s claims that it creates immersive movies that suspends audiences judgment of what is actual and simulated.

4. In Kellner’s Media Spectacle (2004), drawing from Guy Debord and Jean Baudrillard, acknowledged that the postmodern condition is most visible in the hyperreality created by technology in the media culture. The “media spectacle” created by the profit driven media industry using everything from cell phone ring tones, hi- definition broadcasts of the Super Bowl to flash software on the Internet reinforces ideas about American nationalism and has had a direct impact not only peripheral nations economies, but imbued capitalist assumptions, values, and attitudes cultural discourse.

206 BIBLIOGRAPHY

About the Headwaters Forest. (n.d.) Retrieved July 21, 2005, from www.headwatersforest.org.

Acland, C. (1998). IMAX technology and Tourist Gaze. Cultural Studies, 12 (3), 429-445.

Acland, C. (1997). IMAX in Canadian Cinema: Geographic Transformation and Discourses of Nationhood. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Society, 3, 289-305.

Altvater, E. (1994). In O’Connor, Martin (Ed); Is Capitalism Sustainable? Guilford. 76-89.

Anderson, A. (1997). Media, Culture and the Environment. London: UCL Press.

Andrew, D. J. (1976). The Major Film Theories: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arpan, L., Baker, K., Lee, Y., Lorusso, L., Jung, T., & Smith, J. (2006) News coverage of social protests and the effects of photographic framing, issue, and prior attitudes. Mass Communication & Society 9, 1.

Barthes, R. (1977). Image, Music, Text/Roland Barthes: Essays Selected and Translated by Stephen Heath. New York: Hill & Wang.

Bagdikian, B. (2000). The Media Monopoly (6th Ed.). Boston: Beacon.

Baudrillard, J. (1988). Simulacra and Simulations. (translated by Sheila Faria Glaser). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Berman, M. (1988). All that is Solid Melts into Air. New York: Penguin.

Bertrand, J. T. Brown, J.E. & Ward, V.M. (1992). Techniques for analyzing focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 718-723.

Beckenbach, F. (1994). In O’Connor, Martin (Ed). Is Capitalism Sustainable? Guilford. 91-104.

Big movie zone: Every IMAX and giant film and theater world wide. Retrieved April 17, 2005, from www.bigmoviezone.com.

Brand U. & Gorg, C. (2001). The Regulation of the Market and the Transformation of the Societal Relationships with Nature. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12, 4.

Brereton, P. (2001). Utopianism and Fascist Aesthetics: An Appreciation of “Nature” in Documentary/Fiction Film. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12, 4.

207 Brulle, R. J. (1996). Agency, Democracy, Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (2002). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Burgess, J, Harrsion, C. & Maitney, P. (1993). Making sense of news about nature. In Burgess, J. (ed) People, Economies and Nature Conservation (Ecology and Conservation Unit Discussion paper 60). University College. London.

Buttel, F. H. (1992). Environmentalization: Origins, Processes, and Implications for Rural Social Change. Rural Sociology, 57, 1.

Cantrill, J. (1996). Gold, Yellowstone, and the Search for a Rhetorical Identity. In Herndl, C. G. & Brown, S. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Clark, J. (2001). Contributions to the Critique of Political Ecology. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12, 3.

Consumer Debt Rises to 2.12 Trillion. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from www.dowjonesnewswire.com.

Cooper, M. M. (1996). Environmental Rhetoric in the Age of Hegemonic Politics. In Herndl, C. G. & Brown, S. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Cottle, S. (2004). Producing Nature(s): On the Changing Production Ecology of Natural History TV. Media, Culture & Society, 26 (1), 81-101.

Dan Heaton reviews Grand Canyon Hidden Secrets. Retrieved June 4, 2006 from www.digitallyobsessed.com.

Davis S. (1997). Spectacular nature. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

DeLuca, K. M. (1999). Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism. New York: Guilford.

DeLuca, K. M & Demo, T. A. (2000). Imaging Nature: Watkins, Yosemite, and Birth of Environmentalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17 (3), 241-260.

Deleage, J. P. (1994). In O’Connor, Martin (Ed). Is Capitalism Sustainable? New York: Guilford. 37-51.

de Jong, M., and Schellens, P.J. (1997). Reader-Focused Text Evaluation: An Overview of Goals and Methods. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11.

208 Dean, C. (2005, March 21). Evolution on Film? Cut!; Some U.S. Theaters Bow to Creationists. The New York Times. pp. 11.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp 1-28.

Dunlap, R. & Van Liere, K. (1978). The Social Basis of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypothesis, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly.

Du Gay, P. et. al. (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: the story of the sony walkman. London: Sage.

Eggerton, J. (2006, June 6). Bush Cites PBS Doc in Monumental Decision. Broadcasting & Cable.

Escobar, A. After Nature: Steps Toward an Anti-Essentialist Political Ecology. Current Anthropology, 40, 1.

Everest expedition hopes to conquer summit and trash. Retrieved on Sept. 7, 2006 from http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/03/30/clean.everest.02.enn/index.html.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Press.

Garnham, N. (1995). Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Divorce. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12 (1), 62-71.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays By Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic.

Gertner, Jon. The Futile Pursuit of Happiness. Retrieved April 23, 2005 from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/Futile_Pursuit.htm.

Gibson, R. (2003). Effects of Photography on issue perception. In Bryant, Jennings, Rosko- Ewoldson, David & Cantor, Julie. Communication and Emotion: Essays in Honor of Dolf Zillman. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 323-343.

Giddens, A. (1985). The Nation-State and Violence.

Gilbert, D. (2004). The Peculiar Longevity of Things Not So Bad. Psychological Science, 15, (1), 1-19.

Giri, S. (2004). Nature, Human Labor and the Limit of the Social. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15.

209 Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University California Press.

Glesne, C. (1999). Making Words Fly: Developing Understanding Through Interviewing in Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. New York: Longman. pp. 67-93.

Golding, P. & Murdock, G. (1977). Culture, communications and political economy. In Curran, James, Gurevitch, Michael & Woollacott, Janet (Eds.). Mass Communication and society. London: Arnold. pp 11-30.

Grossberg, L. (1995). Cultural Studies vs. Political Economy: Is Anyone Else Bored with this Debate?. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12 (1), 72-81.

Hall, S. (Ed). (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

History of the Tennessee valley authority. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from www.tva.gov.

Hoover’s IMAX corporation. Retrieved Oct. 15, 2006, from http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu.

Harvey, D. (1985). The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Harraway, D. (1997). Modest Witness at Second Millenium FemaleMan Meets OncoMouse. London: Routeledge.

Henry R. (1996). Henry After Mabo, What About Aboriginal Sovereignty? Australia Humanities Review. Retrieved September 28, 2006, from www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue.

Hetherington, K. (1999). From Blindness to blindness: museums, heterogeneity and the subject. In Law, John & Hassard, John. Actor Network Theory. London: Blackwell. pp. 51-74.

Holbert, et al. (2003). Environmental concern, patterns of television viewing, and pro- environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, pp. 177–196.

Hollander, J. (2004). The Social Contexts of Focus Groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, (5), pp. 602-637.

How IMAX works. Retrieved March 19, 2004 from www.howstuffworks.com.

Humphrey, C. (1985). Barter and Economic Disintegration. Man, 20 (1), pp. 48-72.

210 IMAX Corporation reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year Financial Results. Retrieved on May 20, 2005, from www.newswire.ca.

IMAX Corporation reports first quarter financial results. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from www.newswire.ca.

IMAX Corporate Website. Retrieved on January 16, 2005, from www.imax.com.

Ingram, D. (2000). Green Screen: Environmentalism and Hollywood Cinema. Exeter, UK.: Exeter University Press.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Karliner, J. (1997). The Corporate Planet. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club.

Kavoori, A. (1999). Discursive Texts, Reflexive Audiences: Global Trends in Television News Texts and Audience Reception. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43.

Kellner, D. & S. Best. (2004). The Post-Modern Turn. New York: Guilford.

Kellner, D. (2004). Media Spectacle. New York: Routledge.

Kellner, D. (1995). Media Culture. New York: Routledge.

Kennedy, M. K. (2004). Evaluating Market Add-On Studies. The Big Frame: A Publication of the Giant Screen Theater Association. Summer. 52-61.

Kleinschrodt, M. H. (2005, January 7). “Sharks” a beautiful, fascinating 3-D adventure. Times Picayune. Lagniappe, p. 5.

Kidner, D.W. (2001). Nature and Psyche: Radical Environmentalism and the Political Subjectivity. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Kinder, M. (1991). Playing with power with movies, television, and video games from muppet babies to teenage mutant ninja turtles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kleinschrodt, M. H. (2005). “Sharks” a beautiful, fascinating 3-D adventure. Times Picayune January 7, 2005. Lagniappe p. 5.

Krueger, R.A. and M.A. Casey. (2000). Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research. (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Liebes, T. (1988). Cultural Differences in the Retelling of Television Fiction. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, (4), pp. 277-292.

211 Lowe, M. (2003). Colliding Feminisms: Britney Spears, “Tweens,” and The Politics of Reception. Popular Music & Society, 26 (2).

Luke, T. (1999). Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology: Departing From Marx. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Lunt, P. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communication. Journal of Communication, 46 (2).

Lunt, P. & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of communication, 46 (2), pp. 79-98.

MacGillivray-Freeman Corporate Website. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from www.macfreefilms.com.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man; Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1976). Capital. Translated by Ben Fowkes. Vol. 1. New York: Random House.

McCarthy, A. (2001). Ambient Television. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

McChesney, R. (2004). The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the Twenty- First Century. The Monthly Review Press.

McChesney, R. (1999). Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

McLuhan, M. (1969). The Gutenberg Galaxy. New York: The New York Library Press.

Meister, M. & Japp, P. M. (2002). Introduction: A Rationale for Studying Environmental Rhetoric and Popular Culture. In Meister, Mark (Ed.). Enviropop: Studies in Environmental Rhetoric in Popular Culture. Wesport, CT: Greenwood.

Mitman, G. (1999). Reel Nature: America’s Romance with Wildlife on Film. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, C. R. (2001). Environmental Issues and the Watchdog Role of the Media: How Ellul’s Theory Complicates Liberal Democracy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21 (5).

Morley, D. (1992). Television, Audience, and Cultural Studies. 1992. London: Routledge.

212 Museum of science and industry website: Tampa Florida. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from www.mosi.org.

Nelson, J. (1989). Eyes Out of Your Head: On Television Experience. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, pp. 387-403.

New National Amusements’ IMAX® Theaters Open Strong. Retrieved July 23, 2005, from www.newswire.ca.

Nichols, Bill. (1991). Representing Reality. Indiana University.

Nova: Everest. Retrieved February 3, 2005, from www.pbs.org./wgbh/nova/everest.

Nucci, M. (2004). The Land of Giants: Public Pedagogy, Entertainment, and the Uses of Large Format Cinema. Presented at the International Communication Association Conference May 27-31.

O’Connor, J. (1988). Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Theoretical Introduction. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 1 (1).

O’Connor, M. (Ed). (1994). Introduction: Liberate, Accumulate—and Bust. Is Capitalism Sustainable? New York: Guilford. pp. 1-20.

Old City: St. Augustine Florida website. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from www.oldcity.com.

Opel, A. & Smith, J. (2004). ZooTycoon™: Capitalism, Nature and the Pursuit of Happiness. Ethics & The Environment 9, (2), 103-120.

Petty, P. & Brinol. (2002). Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In Bryant, Jennings & Zillman, Dolf. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 159-198

Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

Potter, J. W. (1996). An Analysis of Thinking and Research About Qualitative Methods. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.

Rehling D. L. (2002). When Hallmark Call Upon Nature: Images of Nature in Greeting Cards. In Meister, Mark & (Ed.). Enviropop: Studies in Environmental Rhetoric in Popular Culture. Wesport, CT. Greenwood.

Schroeder, K. (1994). Audience semiotics: Interpretative communities and the ethnographic turn in media research. Media Culture & Society, 16 (2), pp. 337-347.

Schumpeter, J. (1998). Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

213 Seguin, D. (2004, October 25). The Big Picture. Canada Business. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from www.web.lexisnexis.com.

Shanahan, J. & McComas, K. (1999). Nature Stories: Depictions of the environment and their effects. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Singer Joan Baez takes up residence in tree. Retrieved on August 24, 2006, from www.news.softpedia.com/news/SingerJoanBaezTakesUpResidenceinLATree.

Smith, J. K. (2002). Counter-Hegemonic Masculinity in Hip-Hop: An Analysis of the Roots’ Construction of Masculinity in their Music and in the Media Culture. [Unpublished Master’s Thesis] West Hartford, C.T.: University of Hartford.

Smith, A. (1991). Wealth of Nations. Amherst, New York: Prometheus.

Smith, T. M. (1998). The Myth of Green Marketing: Tending our Goats at the Edge of the Apocalypse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Speer, S. A. (2002). “Natural” and “contrived” data: a sustainable distinction? Discourse & Society.

St. Augustine, Florida: Metropolitan city population statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1270600.html.

St. Augustine, Florida: St. John’s county population statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1270600.html.

Steinberg, P. (1999). The Maritime Mystique: Sustainable Development, Capital Mobility, and Nostalgia in the World Ocean. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, (17), pp. 403-426.

Stamou, A. & Paraskevopoulos, S. (2004). Images of Nature by Tourism and Environmentalist Discourses in Visitors Books: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Ecotourism. Discourse & Society, 15 (1).

Stormer, N. (2004). Addressing the Sublime: Space, Mass Representation, and the Unpresentable. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 21, (3), 216.

Straubhaar, J. & LaRose, R. (2004). Media Now: Understanding Media Culture and Technology. Wadsworth.

Sunderlin, W. (2003). Ideology, social theory, and the Environment. 2003. New York: Rowan & Littlefield.

214 “Superman Returns” smashes IMAX box office records; World's First Live-Action Feature To Include Scenes Converted into IMAX(R)3D Shatters Every Opening Box Office Record for an IMAX Hollywood Simultaneous Release. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from www.prnewswire.com.

Szaz, A. (1994). Ecopopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice (Social Movements, Protest, and Contention. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Tallahassee, Florida: Metropolitan city population statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1270600.html.

Tallahassee, Florida: Leon county population statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12073.html.

Tampa, Florida: Metropolitan city population statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1270600.html.

Tampa, Florida: Hillsborough county population statistics. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1270600.html.

Tedlock, B. (2000). Observation of Participation and the Emergence of Public Ethnography. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp.467-482.

The Challenger Learning Center and IMAX Theater homepage. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from www.challengearth.com.

The World Golf Hall of Fame and IMAX Theater homepage. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from www.wgv.com.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free Press.

Waddell, C. (1996). Saving the Great Lakes: Public Participation in Environmental Policy. In Herndl, C. G. & Brown, S. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Water Privatization. Retrieved March 27, 2006, from www.indymedia.org.

Whale Strandings in New Zealand, Australia: Scientists Look for Cause of Mass Strandings. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from www.cnn.com.

Whatmore, S. (2001). Hybrid Geographies; Nature, Cultures, Spaces. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

215 Wiegel & Wiegel. (1978). In Dunlap, Reily & Van Liere, Kent. The Social Basis of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypothesis, Explanations and Empirical Evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly.

Williams, R. (1973). The Country and The City. New York: Oxford University.

Williams, R. (1980). Problems of Materialism and Culture. London: Verso.

Young, S. D. (2000). Movies as Equipment for Living: A Developmental Analysis of the Importance of Film in Everyday Life. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17 (4), pp. 447-468.

216 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jason Kemmitt Smith, Ph.D. (Florida State University) is currently a visiting professor at Western Carolina University. His research interests include popular music, large-format-film, greenwashing, social movements, and the environmental movement. He is working on a new project concerning the cultural roots of addiction and alcoholism in the age of consumerism.

217