Whether or not Stezaker had this in mind when, scalpel and glue in hand, he created these collages, Badger has a point. We fetishize natural beauty spots and turn them into a product for our consumption – whether as romanticized image or as a pilgrimage destination for the faithful. The product is starting to become so valuable and so rare that, like a unique painting or crown jewel, it is now surrounded by fences and patrolled by guards with mere people only allowed in under strictly controlled circumstances – and after having bought their ticket.

Little or none of the “Nature” that we consume is ‘real’, ‘unspoilt’, ‘genuine’ or whatever else we choose to call it. Armies of scientists and technical specialists work every day to ‘conserve’ it and keep it beautiful and ‘natural’ in much the same way, suggest Stezaker’s images, as we have armies of plastic surgeons working to conserve celebrities’ faces and bodies.

Yet, Nature is a product that many of us still want to have and want to consume – in one form or another. The character, shape and form of that product has changed and will continue to change over time. We will adapt to those changes but, I suspect, we will continue to seek and enjoy that product and will continue to want it to be available.

This is the question that is addressed in a recent Hollywood movie entitled “The Day The Earth Stood Still”.

Given Hollywood’s power to shape our culture, it is regrettable that Hollywood seems to be dragging its heels about engaging meaningfully with environmental issues.  This in spite of actors, directors, producers and sundry other claiming to be concerned and committed to environmental issues.

“The Day The Earth Stood Still” (a 2008 remake of a 1951 movie of the same name) does take environmental issues head on.  Here is a brief synopsis:

Beings from another planet land on Earth, sending Klaatu – one of their own in human form (in fact in the form of Keanu Reeves) – to speak to world leaders about the need to stop destroying the planet.  Needless to say, Klaatu doesn’t get a civilized invite to the White House but, instead, is met by bullets, capture, interrogation and other well known welcome methods that humans have adopted for centuries towards anything, or anyone, that is not considered of their own kind.

Finally Klaatu reveals that his mission is to destroy the human race and all that it has created as the only option left to save the planet.  “If you live, the Earth dies.  If you die, the Earth lives”.  There is no other option.

A cloud of tiny robots (nanobots) is released and the destruction begins.  Until the attractive Dr Benson (Jennifer Connelly), persuades him otherwise.  Witnessing the strength of a mother’s love for her son, Klaatu is persuaded that the human race has some merit after all.  He believes that, once we see the edge of the precipice, we will do something about it and mend our ways.  The destruction is halted.

Did Klaatu get it right?

I have to admit, that watching this movie, I wondered about the outcome.  I wondered whether destruction of the human race and all our intrusions on the planet would have been a preferable ending.  I did not really believe that we were capable of turning back at the brink. Would the world be better off without us?

After Copenhagen, what do you believe?  Did Klaatu make the right call or was he had?  Leave a comment with your verdict.

This movie is not the most gripping or best acted movie ever made but it’s a reasonable story line, it is one movie that addresses environmental issues head on and the special effects are great.  You can view a short trailer here.