Lydee Striplin

ENC 4404

11/4/2020

Before the Flood: An Analysis of the Deification of Celebrities Even in Scientific Discourse and

the Importance of Place in Climate Change Discourse

For my analysis, I’ve chosen to focus on the chapter in the documentary Before the Flood

that is introduced by Leonardo DiCaprio comparing the naïve environmental destruction of

nature by fur traders in the 1800’s featured in his film, The Revenant, with the deliberate, current

destruction of our environment by oil and other fossil fuel companies. This is followed by some

sweeping shots of DiCaprio marveling in horror at oil sands from a helicopter and trudging

through an Arctic tundra learning about glacier melt from a National Geographic explorer and a

local resident who hunts polar bears in the Canadian Arctic. This “chapter” wraps up with a

stunning shot of whales breaching and clicking a stone’s throw away from where DiCaprio

stands and a flashback to when the world thought climate change could be fixed by a simple

switch of a lightbulb. I chose this particular chapter of the film because it demonstrates both the

complexities of placing nonscientists at the center of public discussions of science (Von Burg,

p.175) and the devaluation of place that Killingsworth discusses in Appeals in Modern Rhetoric:

An Ordinary Language Approach. These two texts in conjunction with one another and analyzed

against the backdrop of Before the Flood can provide some insights into how climate change

arguments are constructed and the subsequent results of that construction.

 In Rhetoric Across Borders, Von Burg speaks on the relationship between scientists and

nonscientists in scientific discourse, “traditional notions of expertise are either valorized or

problematized depending on the types of expert appeals needed in putative public debates” (Von

Burg, p. 176). He goes on to say on that same page that reliance on non-scientist speakers in the

context of public discourse can help ease the public’s distrust in science and even combat the

public’s disenfranchisement with scientific discourse and the lack of accessibility there. This

documentary has that in spades. DiCaprio is continually placed between scientific experts and

the general public to translate, personalize, and glamorize factual evidence of climate change. He

reassures watchers and constantly reiterates that climate change is real. One positive of this tactic

is that it legitimizes scientific claims in the eyes of the public and it makes climate change more

easily understood, more accessible. The struggle the film faces is in maintaining the perfect

balance between expert and nonexpert. The assumption the film makes about its viewers is that

they are easily persuaded by celebrity endorsements and they generally distrust republican

politicians, an assumption the film makers leaned on pretty heavily. The question remains if

DiCaprio lacks the epistemic resources needed to, “offer judgements on the merit of scientific

knowledge” (Von Burg, p.178). This question weighed heavy on my mind when DiCaprio’s

Revenant film crew was shown relocating from Canada to Argentina in search of fresh snow for

their movie set. I couldn’t help but wonder about DiCaprio’s personal carbon footprint. His star

power certainly created a wider public discussion around climate change, but I have to consider

what is sacrificed when nonexpert opinions and celebrity endorsements are prioritized over

technical expertise.
 Another tactic this chapter relied on heavily was dramatic images of melted icecaps, vast

oil sands, and collapsing glaciers. All of these of course are staple conventions of the climate

change documentary genre. Killingsworth speaks on this appeal to place (and time) in Appeals in

Modern Rhetoric, “it is exceedingly difficult for a religion, once bound to history, to incorporate

sacred places into its doctrine but religions that are spatially determined can create a sense of

sacred time that originates in a specific location” (Killingsworth, p.55). This passage might not

seem that relevant to Before the Flood at first glance but what is science if not a modern form of

religion, a way of explaining the inexplicable. If you consider scientific discourse through this

lens, the arctic is to climate change as Mecca is to Islam. The two are inexorably intertwined, the

arctic is where you can most visibly see the results of climate change, the degradation of the

environment, and it is the center of the narrative for film makers and scientists alike. By

showing this destruction and ruin the film makers tap into our worst fears (Killingsworth, p. 67)

as an audience and makes us reconsider the value of modern conveniences if this must be the

cost. The stereotypical starving polar bear image to demonstrate the horrors of climate change is

an appeal to our emotions but it is also an appeal to our sense of time and place, the place is

wherever you can see the physical manifestations of climate change and the time is now.
 Works Cited

"Before the Flood." , directed by Fisher Stevens. , produced by Trevor Davidoski, et al. ,

National Geographic, 2016. Alexander Street, https://video-alexanderstreet-

com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/watch/before-the-flood.

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeals to Place.” In Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An Ordinary-

Language Approach. Southern Illinois UP, 2005, pp. 52-67

Von Burg, Ron. “Localized Science Sentinels: TEDx and the Shared Norms of Scientific

Integrity.” Rhetoric Across Borders, edited by Anne Teresa Demo. Parlor P, 2015, pp. 175-86.