The Case for Cocaine Bears

 Maybe a deadly beast hopped up on nose candy is exactly what the environmental movement needs.

The film "Cocaine Bear" has been marketed as a comedy about a bear that ingests cocaine and goes on a rampage in Georgia. However, the film also has an underlying ecological message that challenges traditional environmental messaging. The film's director, Elizabeth Banks, argues that the movie is about humanity's hubristic desire to dominate its environment, and she insists that "if you fck with nature, nature will fck with you."

This ecological angle of "Cocaine Bear" is unexpected because most environmental discourse in America is solemn, accompanied by a minor soundtrack, and characterized by piety and a dash of mournfulness. Above all, environmentalist content, whether a feature film or a World Wildlife Fund commercial, is invariably didactic. It would have us learn something, and through that education, inspire us to act. Almost all environmental discourse in America is predicated on the old enlightenment idea that knowledge is power: that if we simply know more about humanity's impact on the environment, we'll change our behaviors and attitudes.

The problem is that this premise is dubious. Research shows that being more informed about environmental issues doesn't always change people's habits or behaviors. What's more, some scientists argue that the doom and gloom that often characterizes mainstream environmental messaging might actually be counterproductive, encouraging anxiety rather than action.

Nicole Seymour, an environmentalist and English professor at California State University, has asked a provocative question: If pious messaging doesn't inspire change, what if environmentalism might "work" better by becoming more irreverent? More ribald and less self-righteous? Silly rather than somber? More about giggles than guilt? Seymour calls this cheeky posture "bad environmentalism," which she defines as "environmentalism with the 'wrong' attitude—without reverence or seriousness—and while also having a sense of humor about oneself."

"Cocaine Bear" exemplifies this "bad environmentalism." The film's desire to shun any pretense to illumination is communicated from the very start. Before we catch our first glimpse of the bear on cocaine, the movie opens with an epigraph providing very official-sounding information about what to do in the event of a bear attack. As soon as the film finishes providing these helpful survival tips, though, the epigraph concludes by citing its source: "National Parks and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, ca. 1970." It's a subtle joke, but it sets the tone for what's to come.

The movie is full of irreverent humor, from the scenes of the bear getting high to the bumbling drug smugglers who accidentally drop their cargo out of a plane. The two young hikers who eat spoonfuls of cocaine and get lost in the woods provide some of the film's most comical moments, as they stumble around in a state of delirium. The film even has a musical interlude in which the drug smugglers sing a song about their cocaine operation.

The humor in "Cocaine Bear" is not just a way to make the film entertaining. It is also a way to convey its ecological message. By taking an irreverent approach to environmentalism, the film challenges viewers to think differently about our relationship to nature. The film suggests that we don't always have to take ourselves so seriously in our efforts to protect the environment. We can have fun and still be committed to conservation. And perhaps, by embracing a more playful and less pious approach to environmentalism, we can inspire more people to get involved.

Of course, "Cocaine Bear" is not without its flaws. Some viewers might find the film's humor crass or offensive. Others might argue that the film's message is too subtle or too buried under the