the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Jan 2023
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better”: An environmental discourse analysis of animated films The Lorax (2012) and Tomorrow (2019)
Abstract. Using environmental humanities discourse analysis, this article asks how environmental issues are exhibited in two environmentally focused animated films, The Lorax and Tomorrow, produced in Hollywood (United States) and Dhallywood (Bangladesh), respectively, and how people responded to these films on social media websites. The first part of the article is the analysis of selected social media pages to understand the impact of these two films on contemporary environmental discourse, and the second part comprises an analysis of the environmental narrative of the films. I selected these two films for four reasons: i) they are both environmental educational and pedagogical tools; ii) they use environmental storytelling; iii) they both address sustainability; and iv) they may have influenced some discourse on environmental issues on social media. The study demonstrates that environmentally driven animated films can shape the discourse of their audiences. This study also demonstrates how narratives from films such as The Lorax and Tomorrow can lead an audience to consider large-scale environmental issues.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(885 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(885 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1452', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Mar 2023
Please see my attached commentary on the article, and thank you for your submission.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
Hello,
Thank you for your valuable feedback! I have used it to polish and revise the paper into a better work. Your point of improving organization and streamlining is an important one, which I have incorporated into my revised version.
Introduction:
Per your suggestion, I experimented with expanding Ursula Heise, but ultimately it was too disruptive to flow, and so it was omitted in the first paragraph per your other suggestion.
I added more justification as to “why” these two films were specifically chosen.
Methodology:
Your direction to move from more general to specific here and to swap those two paragraphs greatly increased flow and readability of the section. While I kept the initial heading the same, some reformatting has greatly improved this section, especially as it provides a better setup for discussion of environmental discourse analysis – I appreciate your guidance here.
Film Synopses
I expanded the description clarifying the Lorax movie from earlier versions. An early draft of this paper had indeed discussed this more in depth, but I had cut it due to feelings of flow. However, upon further reflection, you are right that it is absolutely needed in order to maintain a clear distinction for readers less familiar with this then ourselves. Further focus was given to the section on Audrey and how she is different from other Thneedville residents.
For Tomorrow I added those additional citations as requested – It is important for all information presented to be verifiable, so I appreciate you pointing out where citations may be lacking.
Analysis of public reactions
You are correct about table 1 – I offered some more clarification on the comment example criteria shown there. For the graphs, I maintained the original to offer easy comparisons, but also split it up as you suggested, which greatly enhanced the readability of this section. You are correct that the location of the intersectionality information is awkward, but it is somewhat intertwined with this structure now, and finding a way to properly integrate this elsewhere is proving more difficult than expected.
For the skip gram I am considering modifications that would make it more readable, but this too is more difficult than expected, as I am not satisfied with the current accessibility of the image but am unsure how to improve it to be more accessible while still getting the data across.
Environmental Discourse Analysis
The order has been changed as suggested. I am trying to add more discussion of the movies in my revision per your suggestion, but I also wish to avoid repetition with the earlier synopses.
Environmental Catastrophe
This has been condensed and partially revised to increase clarity per your suggestion.
Environmental Storytelling
I attempted to be more specific without disrupting flow and keeping things streamlined.
Conclusion
I have tried to search for areas to bring these sources up earlier in more places than the start – However doing so without causing streamlining issues is a challenge.
Thank you for all your comments! They have made my revision a better paper, and I seek to fix and address what I so far have not yet been able to address.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1452-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1452', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Mar 2023
This article compares two animated movies with climate themes: The Lorax and Tomorrow. One was produced in the US and released globally, and the other was produced in Bangladesh with a more limited regional/linguistic distribution. The analysis comprised two phases: a comparative thematic discourse analysis of social-media commentary on the films; and, a comparative analysis of the "environmental narratives" presented by the two films, organized according to the themes discovered in the first phase.
The strengths of the article are its attention to environmental media produced outside the Euro-American context; and, the clear and concise style of the prose.
Unfortunately for this reviewer, those strengths never coalesce into a cogent and focused argument. I find 3 major problems with the current analysis (some of which are also noted by RC1):
1. The grounds for comparison between the films are never established. There needs to be a "why" for comparing the films, and that "why" needs to make sense logically *and* be connected to current, exigent problems in the environmental and geoscience communication fields. The "why" we get in the intro is weak: that both are recent animated films with climate-change themes and a robust social-media response. That's insufficient to interest established scholars in the field--and GC readers. A much stronger paper would compare the reception of these two films *in Bangladesh*; then, the differences observed in social-media commentary could be interpreted against a focused, common political background, which leads me to my next point....
2. The "public" in "public reception" is undefined. There are certainly theories of the public sphere that would define a "public" as a group of agents who coalesce around films like Tomorrow or The Lorax, but those theories aren't cited; in fact, no theories of publics are cited (e.g., Habermas, Goodnight, Warner, Asen, Brown, etc.), which is suprising given the theoretical range of works cited here. The author writes, "Solitary public comments on social media may be inconsequential on their own, but together, they are important to understand public reception" (p.8). But without some clear bounding of who that "public" is and what values/goals hold them together, it's impossible to draw any significant conclusions from a study of "public reception." This weakness is the biggest reason why this article does not cohere into an argument.
3. The analytic approach is scattershot. The methods for finding patterns in the data are clear enough (environmental discourse analysis, skip-gram and frequency analysis), but the methods for establishing the *significance* of these patterns is not. As RC1 commented, there is no unified lens of analysis, so the paper reads as a collection of patterns that the author has applied a collection of theories to interpret. A collection is not an argument. The most telling comment here by the author is found on p. 22 when they say, "This paper avoids the debate over the 428 (dis)similarities of environmental ideologies and environmental discourses to focus on empirical findings." An author simply cannot avoid "the debate over the (dis)similarities of environmental ideologies" if they wish to make a coherent argument about the reception of climate-change media--because this reception doesn't take place in an Excel spreadsheet; it takes place in real places, at real times, with real people with real politics.
Based on the interesting topic and the quality of the writing, I have every confidence that this author can generate a more focused comparison with a common ground of comparison and a unified lens, capable of defining its "publics" and drawing conclusions based on the contemporary politics of those publics. From that perspective, this article reads as a preparatory pilot study toward a research article publishable in GC.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1452-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
Hello,
Thank you for your valuable feedback – I have used it to help improve my revision of the submitted paper.
Your points are very good, and I have attempted to address them as best as I could in my revision.
For point 1, I included more justification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare film reception in depth within just a Bangladeshi context as internet penetration in the country was quite low during the era of the large, animated Eco blockbusters such as The Lorax or WALL-E. There is enough to analyze within Tomorrow because it is recent enough that almost a quarter of the population had online access at that time and it was of domestic interest, but the others were culturally relevant in an era prior to common enough internet access. I agree this would be a stronger paper, but we may have to wait an indeterminate amount of time for a comparable international animated blockbuster to come out that the population of Bangladesh could have a significant online reaction to while it was relevant.
For point 2 I have attempted to define the public better in the revision, using Warner’s idea of the public specifically to avoid a scattershot approach.
For point 3, I have attempted to better showcase significant in the revision. You are also correct that this debate cannot be avoided – I have tackled it in the revision.
Again, I appreciate your feedback – It has made my revision much better!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1452-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1452', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Mar 2023
Please see my attached commentary on the article, and thank you for your submission.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
Hello,
Thank you for your valuable feedback! I have used it to polish and revise the paper into a better work. Your point of improving organization and streamlining is an important one, which I have incorporated into my revised version.
Introduction:
Per your suggestion, I experimented with expanding Ursula Heise, but ultimately it was too disruptive to flow, and so it was omitted in the first paragraph per your other suggestion.
I added more justification as to “why” these two films were specifically chosen.
Methodology:
Your direction to move from more general to specific here and to swap those two paragraphs greatly increased flow and readability of the section. While I kept the initial heading the same, some reformatting has greatly improved this section, especially as it provides a better setup for discussion of environmental discourse analysis – I appreciate your guidance here.
Film Synopses
I expanded the description clarifying the Lorax movie from earlier versions. An early draft of this paper had indeed discussed this more in depth, but I had cut it due to feelings of flow. However, upon further reflection, you are right that it is absolutely needed in order to maintain a clear distinction for readers less familiar with this then ourselves. Further focus was given to the section on Audrey and how she is different from other Thneedville residents.
For Tomorrow I added those additional citations as requested – It is important for all information presented to be verifiable, so I appreciate you pointing out where citations may be lacking.
Analysis of public reactions
You are correct about table 1 – I offered some more clarification on the comment example criteria shown there. For the graphs, I maintained the original to offer easy comparisons, but also split it up as you suggested, which greatly enhanced the readability of this section. You are correct that the location of the intersectionality information is awkward, but it is somewhat intertwined with this structure now, and finding a way to properly integrate this elsewhere is proving more difficult than expected.
For the skip gram I am considering modifications that would make it more readable, but this too is more difficult than expected, as I am not satisfied with the current accessibility of the image but am unsure how to improve it to be more accessible while still getting the data across.
Environmental Discourse Analysis
The order has been changed as suggested. I am trying to add more discussion of the movies in my revision per your suggestion, but I also wish to avoid repetition with the earlier synopses.
Environmental Catastrophe
This has been condensed and partially revised to increase clarity per your suggestion.
Environmental Storytelling
I attempted to be more specific without disrupting flow and keeping things streamlined.
Conclusion
I have tried to search for areas to bring these sources up earlier in more places than the start – However doing so without causing streamlining issues is a challenge.
Thank you for all your comments! They have made my revision a better paper, and I seek to fix and address what I so far have not yet been able to address.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1452-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1452', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Mar 2023
This article compares two animated movies with climate themes: The Lorax and Tomorrow. One was produced in the US and released globally, and the other was produced in Bangladesh with a more limited regional/linguistic distribution. The analysis comprised two phases: a comparative thematic discourse analysis of social-media commentary on the films; and, a comparative analysis of the "environmental narratives" presented by the two films, organized according to the themes discovered in the first phase.
The strengths of the article are its attention to environmental media produced outside the Euro-American context; and, the clear and concise style of the prose.
Unfortunately for this reviewer, those strengths never coalesce into a cogent and focused argument. I find 3 major problems with the current analysis (some of which are also noted by RC1):
1. The grounds for comparison between the films are never established. There needs to be a "why" for comparing the films, and that "why" needs to make sense logically *and* be connected to current, exigent problems in the environmental and geoscience communication fields. The "why" we get in the intro is weak: that both are recent animated films with climate-change themes and a robust social-media response. That's insufficient to interest established scholars in the field--and GC readers. A much stronger paper would compare the reception of these two films *in Bangladesh*; then, the differences observed in social-media commentary could be interpreted against a focused, common political background, which leads me to my next point....
2. The "public" in "public reception" is undefined. There are certainly theories of the public sphere that would define a "public" as a group of agents who coalesce around films like Tomorrow or The Lorax, but those theories aren't cited; in fact, no theories of publics are cited (e.g., Habermas, Goodnight, Warner, Asen, Brown, etc.), which is suprising given the theoretical range of works cited here. The author writes, "Solitary public comments on social media may be inconsequential on their own, but together, they are important to understand public reception" (p.8). But without some clear bounding of who that "public" is and what values/goals hold them together, it's impossible to draw any significant conclusions from a study of "public reception." This weakness is the biggest reason why this article does not cohere into an argument.
3. The analytic approach is scattershot. The methods for finding patterns in the data are clear enough (environmental discourse analysis, skip-gram and frequency analysis), but the methods for establishing the *significance* of these patterns is not. As RC1 commented, there is no unified lens of analysis, so the paper reads as a collection of patterns that the author has applied a collection of theories to interpret. A collection is not an argument. The most telling comment here by the author is found on p. 22 when they say, "This paper avoids the debate over the 428 (dis)similarities of environmental ideologies and environmental discourses to focus on empirical findings." An author simply cannot avoid "the debate over the (dis)similarities of environmental ideologies" if they wish to make a coherent argument about the reception of climate-change media--because this reception doesn't take place in an Excel spreadsheet; it takes place in real places, at real times, with real people with real politics.
Based on the interesting topic and the quality of the writing, I have every confidence that this author can generate a more focused comparison with a common ground of comparison and a unified lens, capable of defining its "publics" and drawing conclusions based on the contemporary politics of those publics. From that perspective, this article reads as a preparatory pilot study toward a research article publishable in GC.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1452-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
Hello,
Thank you for your valuable feedback – I have used it to help improve my revision of the submitted paper.
Your points are very good, and I have attempted to address them as best as I could in my revision.
For point 1, I included more justification. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare film reception in depth within just a Bangladeshi context as internet penetration in the country was quite low during the era of the large, animated Eco blockbusters such as The Lorax or WALL-E. There is enough to analyze within Tomorrow because it is recent enough that almost a quarter of the population had online access at that time and it was of domestic interest, but the others were culturally relevant in an era prior to common enough internet access. I agree this would be a stronger paper, but we may have to wait an indeterminate amount of time for a comparable international animated blockbuster to come out that the population of Bangladesh could have a significant online reaction to while it was relevant.
For point 2 I have attempted to define the public better in the revision, using Warner’s idea of the public specifically to avoid a scattershot approach.
For point 3, I have attempted to better showcase significant in the revision. You are also correct that this debate cannot be avoided – I have tackled it in the revision.
Again, I appreciate your feedback – It has made my revision much better!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1452-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mohammad Mizan-Rahman, 30 Jul 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 384 | 251 | 20 | 655 | 13 | 13 |
- HTML: 384
- PDF: 251
- XML: 20
- Total: 655
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(885 KB) - Metadata XML