The rise of the environmentalist villain.

A new trope emerges.

Villains are normally portrayed in media as obsessive, evil, power-hungry, or a pick-and-mix of the seven deadly sins. Take literally any Disney villain, for example. They create simple storylines, are easy to hate and fun to dress up as for Halloween. But perhaps the best villains are those with more complex motives, the ‘misunderstood’ and downtrodden. Wicked: The Musical is a wildly successful Broadway production about how the Wicked Witch of the West came to be, The Joker exceeded box office predictions, and there is a surprising amount of Draco Malfoy fanfiction. Villains with backstory and complex motives perhaps excite the most interest.

Poison Ivy is one of them. She is probably the most famous villain with environmentalist motives. In 1966 she appeared in the Batman comics as botanist with a PhD, and she has been described by one of her creators, J.T. Krul, as, “walking the fine line between bastion of Mother Nature and psycho eco terrorist”. Of course, exactly how she is presented depends on the writer, but her half-human half-plant appearance, and many of her actions, show a disregard for human life (except children) as much as an affinity for plant life.

Unfortunately, fictional characters who show any concern about the environment are more often portrayed as eco-terrorists than passionate conservationists or even eccentric hippies. The disregard for human life is a linking feature for many on screen characters who mention environmental issues, from Thanos who aimed to kill half the universe, to Valentine from Kingsman: The Secret Service and the unnamed villains in Tenet who wanted to kill absolutely everyone in order to protect the planet.

Photo by Ahmet Yalçınkaya on Unsplash. Photo shows large white letters spelling out 'HOLLYWOOD' on a hilly landscape.

Perhaps the writers of these villains learnt about climate change in school or saw a documentary with Leonardo DiCaprio and have some genuine concern for the state of the planet… or maybe environmentalist villains are an easy way to introduce complexity. Environmentalist intentions provide the villain with a 3D personality – they want to protect something! – without having to do too much character work. As a bonus, these villains also have appeal to people who aren’t as concerned about depletion of the Earth’s resources, or the changing climate. This piece claims that “radical environmentalists (…) are perfect villains for our times: well-intended enough to seem somewhat reasonable, but meddlesome busybodies who hopes and dreams are to radically reduce standards of living”. It seems that villains showing some sort of concern about the welfare of the planet are enjoyed by all viewers, no matter their own level of engagement in environmental issues.

"Environmentalist intentions provide the villain with a 3D personality without having to do too much character work."

These villains might encourage a troublesome view about environmentalists. I am sure many people disagree, believing that their opinions can’t be altered by popular media. But in the US from 1930-1968 the Hollywood Production Code was created to do just this, and ensure that “the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin”. This, of course, was determined by the morals of the time, and meant that nudity was not allowed and gay characters could only be portrayed as villains. Although this code is no longer in use, Hollywood continues to depict villains as those they perceive as ‘bad’ in some form. From the start of the US’s Cold War there have been so many Russian villains that in 2014 there were calls from Russian directors to limit Hollywood movies due to US sanctions and the negative portrayal of Russians.

Even if preformed opinions aren’t altered by popular culture, in the absence of other knowledge it is possible that misinformation can be spread. Indeed, after Jaws was released, many people falsely believed that sharks targeted and threatened humans, and the shark population declined as a result. Perhaps movies use threats that people already believe in, or that are easy to believe in, to create an engaging film and a recognizable hero or heroine.

In the case of environmentalist villains, the threat comes from two sources: the villain’s actions and the environmental issues spotlighted. After the hero or heroine vanquishes their rival, they saunter off proudly into the polluted air – saving the environment is not their job. I can’t disagree with them, it’s definitely less glamorous. Saving the world even from one environmental foe (take your pick: climate change, air pollution, biodiversity loss etc.) is too complex, political, and multifaceted for one person or group to defeat. Even the villains’ insane and destructive actions are too simplistic. Aquaman’s King Orm can throw all the trash back on land, but he might have trouble constantly rounding up the microplastics. Tenet’s villains from the future will likely cease to exist themselves if they kill everyone in the past. And the overpopulation crisis, which has almost become a trope in itself, has been repeatedly exposed as a myth.

Characters who care about the environment more than human life make brilliant baddies, but this portrayal presents humans’ relationship with the Earth as antagonistic: either us or them. In fact, we are much more dependent on the Earth than any hero would like to admit, as the Planetary Health concept continues to show. Human health and environmental health are related in many ways, from antimicrobial resistance to the reduction of bee colonies. The desire for a healthy Earth goes hand in hand with the desire for a healthy population in the future.

Unfortunately for the movie industry, no single person has the power, knowledge, and motivation to save the Earth, hero or villain. Instead, we need many people who are willing to speak up, stay informed, and support each other. As the planetary health concept and the links between humans and the environment become more well known, I hope these villains will retire. But perhaps I’m taking this all too seriously. After all, in many of these universes radiation exposure can give you superpowers.

By Katharine Palmer