This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/Capture d’écran 2026-04-14 à 12.57.02.png 2026-03-22T17:32:28-07:00 Scientists, our True Saviors? 13 image_header 2026-04-14T13:13:35-07:00 In this section, I wish to explore the ways scientists are represented in cinema, and how this specific portrayal can lead to the population’s idealization of this figure. Scientists in films are often shown either as heroes or villains, but these two characterizations are intrinsically linked: they both depend on their supposed genius-like and mighty abilities.
  
  A dominant narrative of the Anthropocene casts scientists as hero-like figures. This builds on the idea that humanity unknowingly damaged the planet for decades. Scientists then discovered the problem, and are now warning society to try and save the future. However, this narrative is misleading and too simplistic, something Bonneuil and Fressoz argue in The Shock of the Anthropocene. They explain that environmental awareness is not new: people, including scientists, have been aware of the damages for years. Moreover, scientific knowledge did not lead to prevention: societies chose to continue harmful practices for economic and political reasons. Lastly, scientists were not always outside the system but have often been participants. Even if critical, they were sometimes complicit.
  This constructed narrative of the savior scientist shifts responsibility away from political and economic systems and delays accountability by presenting the crisis as a problem of knowledge, not one of power or choices. Viewing scientists as environmental saviors also puts the population in a paralyzing state of passivity and waiting. While it is, of course, necessary to rely on scientists to understand, survive and find ecological solutions in our geological epoch, it is also important to avoid mystification that feeds on the presupposed inadequacy of the people. To stay critical of the Anthropocene by acknowledging that it is possible to become an intellectually and physically active agent, even without being an expert, is necessary to thrive.
  This inaccurate portrayal of the scientific savior is perpetuated in cinema, creating a falsified narrative. I wish to deconstruct and undo this myth by exposing its workings in cinema.
  
  In movies, hero scientists represent the best of science, one aiming to save the entire human race, which some scientists attain through martyrdom. The typical depiction of scientists in cinema is the following: usually a white man, called “Doctor” or “Professor” by their colleagues, wearing a white lab coat, glasses, having disheveled hair, lacking time for his family and physical appearance. However, this authoritative type of depiction is very exaggerated: the title “Doctor” is very sparingly used in real life and lab coats are optional (Perkowitz 169). By reducing scientists to types, cinema simplifies complexity. By simplifying these important actors of the environmental crisis, Hollywood prevents the spectator from delving deeper into structural issues like colonialism and capitalism. Because cinema shapes how we see the world, these types of representation not only direct our view of science, but also of the Anthropocene and of the environmental crisis itself.
  
  
  The god-like abilities of scientists can also be conveyed by the villainous applications of their knowledge. Because they are all-powerful, they become capable of destroying the planet or humanity.
  In The Island, a 2005 science fiction movie directed by Michael Bay, scientists create human clones to rip out their organs for money and power. The character of Dr. Merrick explains his actions in the following way:

  MERRICK: I have discovered the Holy Grail of science, Mr. Laurent. I give life . . . The possibilities are endless here. In two years’ time I will be able to cure children’s leukemia. How many people on Earth can say that . . .
  
  LAURENT: I guess just you and God. But that’s the answer you want, isn’t it?

  (Perkowitz 181) Even if a negative portrayal is created here, it is still recognized that the scientist has God-like capabilities that could lead to humanity’s destruction. However, in another context, these abilities could be used in positive and hopeful ways. The figure of an all-knowing, all-powerful scientist, whether as a villain or a hero, emphasizes individual and human-dominant solutions in the Anthropocene. Scientists are depicted as “other” citizens, ones socially and intellectually separated from society. This divide reflects the official Anthropocentric idea that knowledge is abstracted from ecological relationships, reinforcing the rift between humans and nature.
  
  By understanding and hacking these stereotypical representations, I hope that, as a spectator, you can begin to shift your attention from such portrayals towards new narratives that promote relational, multi-species ways of knowing and living in the Anthropocene.