Good feminists or adept film buffs may be familiar with the Bechdel Test, a metric for gauging female representation in film. Created by comic author Alison Bechdel in the 1980s, a movie has to meet three standards to pass: It must have at least two women in it, the women need to talk to each other and they should discuss something other than a man.
A climate script consultancy is so determined to raise awareness about climate change, they created a new version of the Bechdel Test (also known as the Bechdel–Wallace Test), to hold Hollywood accountable for how it depicts one of the biggest existential crises of our time.
According to the group Good Energy in partnership with Colby College’s Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, the so-called Climate Reality Check performs a similar function for raising global warming awareness. For a movie to pass the Climate Reality Check, its world must include climate change and a character who knows about it. This only applies to movies set in the present or near future, on Earth and in our shared universe. So don't expect Darth Vader to suddenly start talking about global heating.
So how well does Hollywood hold up to this standard? Good Energy and Schneider-Meyerson analyzed thirteen of the thirty-four feature length fictional films nominated for Oscars in 2024 through their Climate Reality Check.
The movies included "American Fiction," "Anatomy of a Fall," "Barbie," "Past Lives," "Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One," "The Creator," "Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse," "Io Capitano," "May December," "Nyad," "Perfect Days," "The Teachers’ Lounge" and "Godzilla Minus One." Only three of those motion pictures passed the Climate Reality Check: "Barbie," "Nyad" and "Mission Impossible."
"We hope to see 50% of Oscar-nominated films (that are set on Earth in the present or future) pass the Climate Reality Check by 2027," the authors of the Climate Reality Check write. They add later on their website that their goal "was to ensure the test was easy to use, measurable and creatively inspiring."
"I believe this test is a good reminder that climate change exists in our daily lives in a multitude of ways, whether or not we see it on screen," Anna Jane Joyner, Founder of Good Energy, told Salon by email. Joyner also said it is "incredible" that "three of the most celebrated films of the year talked about climate change in very different and fact-based ways, as it intersects with consumerism, national security, and our species and ecosystems. If you put a mirror to our daily lives, the narrative opportunity is limitless."
Not everyone thinks the Climate Reality Check is going to achieve as much good as its creators believe — including some respected scientists.
"My initial reaction is that this feels a bit hokey," Walt Meier, Senior Research Scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at CIRES/University of Colorado, told Salon. "I’m all for greater exposure to and understanding of climate change science, but I don’t think it makes sense to force it into a plot where it doesn’t fit."
Meier argued that the original Bechdel Test was created to illustrate how women are marginalized in movies, and was "fundamentally different" from a climate change test because of the divergent contexts.
"Female characters are often marginalized in movies and are not given realistic roles with depth. In virtually any movie, there is the opportunity to do so in a natural and realistic way for female characters," Meier pointed out. "I don’t think that that is necessarily the case for climate change. Of course, one could wedge it in, but if it feels forced, I don’t think it would have a beneficial effect."
Joshua Colwell, a physicist at the University of Central Florida, has first-hand experience ensuring scientific accuracy in movies: He worked as a "comet adviser" on the 1998 film "Deep Impact," which is widely regarded by scientists as one of the most scientifically accurate films in the disaster genre — not that that's exactly a high bar. According to Colwell, movies in general have the potential to raise public awareness about pressing issues like climate change. His question about the new Bechdel Test is whether it will be widely known enough to have a positive effect.
"As for the test itself, its impact will depend on the extent to which movie studios and the public care about passing the test," Colwell told Salon. "I applaud the effort to try to raise awareness, and I’d be curious to see results for all major theatrical releases, not just Oscar-nominated films."
"The line in 'Mission Impossible' that makes the movie pass the test is, I think, spot on," Colwell continued. "It points out that the combination of dwindling energy supplies and damage to food supply systems through environmental destruction are a grave global geopolitical threat."
Colwell also emphasized that addressing climate change is not just about saving polar bears. "It’s about averting mass famine, widespread migration and the spread of armed conflict. There’s a reason the U.S. Department of Defense identifies climate change as a serious threat to national security," he said.
Acclaimed screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin, who co-wrote "Deep Impact," said it's hard to say whether the test will help, but it definitely won’t hurt as Hollywood "probably need plots more focused on the problem." Rubin singled out "The End We Start From," a lesser-known survival film starring Jodie Comer, as a quality 2023 movie about climate change.
"Climate change is not an incidental plot point," Rubin said. "It is the very focus of human survival and will soon become the central story of our time, assuming we still have a civilization able to engage the unfolding drama that surrounds us all."
Meier told Salon that he has seen several of the best picture nominees for this year's Oscars, and argued that going through the list helps illustrate the test's ineffectiveness. For instance, "American Fiction" is a comedy set in our universe but has a plot that in no ways intersects with climate change. "There is a beach house in the movie, so sure, they could have the characters say something about concerns over sea level rise. But it would be forced and would detract from the main focus of the movie," Meier said.
On the other hand, Meier points out that one of the Oscar season's biggest contenders, "Oppenheimer," can be perceived through a very interesting light when filtered through the test. After all, it is the true story of a brilliant and perceptive scientist whose accurate warnings were ignored by policymakers.
"'Oppenheimer' certainly has relevance for climate change in terms of the potential negative effects of human technology and our ability to make powerful changes in the environment," Meier said, later adding in his observation that "I think there are connections to climate change that are interesting to discuss, but I don’t think climate change would fit within the movie itself."
Edward Maibach, a professor at George Mason University and director of the organization's Center for Climate Change Communication, offered his own possibility: "To pass the test, at least one sympathetic (i.e., not villainous) main or supporting character must either directly express concern about climate change and/or support for government or corporate action to deal with climate change; and/or take a meaningful action in support of government or corporate climate solutions (e.g., voting, calling their elected representative, selecting one brand over another because of the parent company’s climate commitments)."
By contrast, Kevin Trenberth — who is part of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research — speculated that it is "unlikely" that the Climate Reality Check will improve the general public's scientific literacy. "A few movies that focused on weather or climate have things quite unrealistic," Trenberth told Salon, listing "The Day After Tomorrow," "Twister" and "Waterworld" as egregious examples. He said that if Hollywood wants to depict climate change accurately, it should show widespread droughts, wildfires, extreme storms and flooding. These stories "mostly get reported as isolated events not part of a bigger picture that describes why they occur," he said.
Finally, Ann Merchant, the deputy executive director for communications at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine — and manager of the Science & Entertainment Exchange, an organization that exists to promote scientific accuracy in mainstream Hollywood releases — pointed to recent Pew data that suggests a majority of Americans view climate change as a bona fide threat to our future. This can be where Hollywood could help things out.
"Though when you pull that number apart by political affiliation there’s a big difference between Democrats and Republicans," Merchant said. "This kind of unpacking is what accounts for the necessity for different messaging for different audiences on this topic. A story that lands with one viewer might be entirely ineffective with another, which is why we need a variety of stories on this topic."
Merchant added, "In general, we’d like to see more films and television shows where climate change is featured in differing ways, but with a consistent emphasis on positive outcomes that are derived by activating evidence-based solutions. Which is a super wonky way of saying that the nihilistic, apocalyptic stories don’t really help much. We need more deeply personal stories of hope, change and survival."
