Through impressive visual evidence, Anthropocene: The Human Epoch, a 2018 documentary by filmmakers Jennifer Baichwal, Nicholas de Pencier, and Edward Burtynsky, offers a compelling testament to the immense impact of human civilization on planet Earth. The film argues that humanity’s environmental impact is so massive that it has triggered a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene. Specifically, the documentary highlights the environmental repercussions of industry and mass consumption. By providing well-rounded documentation of the effects of industry on geology, ecology and climate, Anthropocene invites reflection on and perhaps proves the magnitude of the changes to the planet since the dawn of modern civilization. However, the film’s narrative that these changes have triggered a new epoch on the geological time scale remains highly contested, and Anthropocene does not place its proposed epoch — which has lasted 70 years thus far — in the greater scope of Earth’s 4.6 billion year history. This lack of perspective and failure to address criticism of the Anthropocene epoch is potentially misleading to the institutions and audiences where the documentary is used as a tool for environmental education and governance.

Anthropocene: The Human Epoch is divided into five themes: Extraction, Terraforming, Technofossils, Climate Change, and Extinction. Each section represents a different facet of human-caused environmental change and is accompanied by visually stunning images of these phenomena in action. Anthropocene is unique because very few words are spoken throughout the documentary. Anthropocene’s argument relies on its visual storytelling and impressive cinematography. The documentary’s most moving shots depict mass resource extraction and farming operations, from cavernous potash mines in the Russian Ural mountains to Carrara marble mining in Italy.¹ One section of the documentary tells the story of Immerath, a German coal mining town that is home to the world’s largest excavation machine. The camera pans over the German coal excavator’s massive bucket-wheel as it digs into a man-made mountainside while the sun rises behind it–a scene reminiscent of a science-fiction movie.² Shortly after this scene, the narrator states that since 1978, four entire towns have been purchased and destroyed by the mining company to mine the ground below it, and a scene of a church being torn down to make way for mining adds provocative symbolism to the story.³

This cinematographic style effectively conveys the overwhelming scope of humanity’s mark on the environment. The panoramic shots of factories, mines, and landfills help the viewer visualise the scale of human consumption and its tension with the natural order. The accompanying silence allows the audience to process the weight of what they are seeing without being told how to react, providing space for an emotional response This choice was an intelligent one, given that the language of visual communication is universal and imagery is typically more emotionally palpable than statistics. Anthropocene’s neutral silence is refreshing in an era where the public is being bombarded with often unfathomable statistics and warnings about climate change and other environmental disasters. People risk becoming numb and disengaged from climate action when alarmist messages are relentlessly fed to them. 

However, some critics argue that the Anthropocene’s neutral lack of narration makes the film dangerously silent on the detrimental effects of human industry. Phuong Le, for The Guardian, wrote that without necessary social or political context, Anthropocene only serves to “aestheticize destruction.”⁴ The film’s cinematography manages to capture some beauty amid the sprawling landfills and defaced mountainsides. But, by maintaining neutrality towards these disasters, it risks evoking a sense of awe or majesty in humanity’s dominance over the environment just as much as it can evoke fear and resolve. This choice is potentially problematic considering the objective urgency and danger of environmental degradation and over-exploitation. Overall, Anthropocene’s reflective tone and ambiguity can be seen as both positive and negative in the context of inspiring environmental stewardship in the public. 

At first glance, Anthropocene also convincingly supports the claim that the Anthropocene epoch is upon us. Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer first proposed the idea of an Anthropocene in 2000,⁵ and since then, the International Commission on Stratigraphy has tasked a working group with “[examining] the Anthropocene as a geological time unit and potential addition to the Geological Time Scale.”⁶ If the Anthropocene proposal were to be officially recognized by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), it could cement the gravity of human impact on the earth and spur an international reckoning for collective action, forcing governments to acknowledge the severity of their geological impacts. Currently, states struggle to agree on even basic terms for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. At the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) climate conference in Glasgow, proposals to increase the speed at which fossil fuels are phased out were met with resistance from the largest emitters, such as China and India, and those who achieved their climate targets were the exception, not the norm.⁷ With the public pressure generated from the Anthropocene’s recognition, international bodies such as the UN may place more urgency on developing sustainable industry and meeting targets. 

Although the formalisation of the Anthropocene could be effective for political and climate policy reasons, the Anthropocene as a unit of time has yet to be approved by the IUGS and is still highly contested by scientists and scholars.⁸ When examined in the broader scientific context of the Geological Time Scale, the proposal that human-driven destruction constitutes a new epoch loses some of its credibility. The current epoch, the Holocene, began only approximately 11,500 years ago and denotes the beginning of earth’s latest interglacial period.⁹ The Holocene is an exceptionally small epoch of time compared to previous ones; most epochs each lasted millions of years.¹⁰ On the Geological Time Scale, thousands of years of planetary change, including mass extinction and vast changes in global temperature, are captured in mere centimetres-thick layers of sediment in the earth’s strata.¹¹ So can the century-long Anthropocene feasibly stand the test of geological time?

There have been previous times in Earth’s history when the planet emitted mass amounts of carbon and saw rising sea temperatures to an even greater extent than what humanity has witnessed over the past century. For example, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred 56 million years ago, the planet warmed by between five to eight degrees Celsius (in comparison to today’s projected 1.5 degree increase¹²) and the earth’s natural systems emitted an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to burning our entire fossil fuel reserves.¹³ This thermal maximum lasted roughly 5,000 years and resulted in mass flooding, storms, and the death of coral reefs worldwide.¹⁴ It was not, however, considered an epoch; it was an event. It is premature, anthropocentric, and inconsistent with the current scientific standard of measuring geologic time to argue that human activity since the industrial revolution will last for thousands upon thousands of years to come and that it warrants not a small event in earth’s deep history, but an entire epoch. “The Anthropocene”, therefore, seems to describe a phenomenon relevant to humanity rather than a scientifically accurate unit of measure.¹⁵ This is not to say that the current rate of climate change is not concerning or does not need to be remediated — rather, we must seek different ways to demand global environmental policy instead of altering the integrity of an existing system of measurement. 

Despite these inaccuracies, the Anthropocene as a concept has already made its way into dominant media and public discourse. The filmmakers of Anthropocene offer a curriculum guide to using their documentary in partnership with the Royal Canadian Geographic Society and the film was even screened at COP26 in Glasgow.¹⁶ Although the validity of the Anthropocene epoch is debatable, the film does provide a sobering view of the consequences of mass consumption and industrialization. In this respect, the documentary is a powerful and accessible way to educate the masses and subsequently incite policy changes. The social movements of the twenty-first century are driven by the media and the “universal language” of visual communication. The film’s success, including its screening at conferences attended by international policymakers, demonstrates the productive power of filmmaking as a tool for disseminating knowledge and awareness.¹⁷ For a documentary as influential as the Anthropocene, however, it would have been beneficial if the greater debate surrounding the Anthropocene epoch was addressed within the film to allow the audience to critically assess its argument. 

The documentary ends with the following message: “Recognizing and re-imagining our dominant signal is the beginning of change.”¹⁸ To re-imagine humanity’s modern relationship with the earth is an undoubtedly difficult yet necessary undertaking. Thus far, global climate conferences demonstrate how global climate accountability is challenging and often at odds with economic development, humanity’s “dominant signal”. Drastically changing the hallmarks of modern humanity, such as the extraction, industrialism, and mass-consumption depicted in Anthropocene, appears almost unfeasible. If any hope is offered in the Anthropocene documentary, it is how it showcases humanity’s capabilities: if humans are capable of changing the planet enough to supposedly spark the beginning of a new geological epoch, we are capable of coordinating solutions to heal the planet as well. ∇

Milena Pappalardo is a first-year Social Sciences student at the University of Toronto aspiring to major in International Relations. She is interested in global current affairs and journalism and is a contributor to U of T's student newspaper.

1. Anthropocene: The Human Epoch, directed by Jennifer Baichwal, Nicholas De Pencier, and Edward Burtynsky (Toronto, ON: Mercury films, 2018).
2. Anthropocene.
3. Anthropocene.
4. Phuong Le, “Anthropocene: The Human Epoch Review: colossal eco doc prettifies disaster”, The Guardian, last modified September 4 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/01/anthropocene-the-human-epoch-review-jennifer-baichwal-nicholas-de-pencier-edward-burtynsky.
5. Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer, “The ‘Anthropocene’”, The International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Global Change Newsletter, no. 41 (2000): 17.
6. “Working Group on the Anthropocene,” Submission on Quaternary Stratigraphy, accessed November 21 2021, http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene/.
7. “COP26: What was agreed at the Glasgow climate conference?” BBC News, accessed on November 15 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56901261.
8. “Working Group on the Anthropocene,” Quaternary Stratigraphy, working group chaired by Colin Waters, accessed November 21 2021, http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene/.
9. Anson W. Mackay, “An introduction to Late Glacial–Holocene environments.” Holocene Extinctions (Oxford Scholarship Online: Oxford University Press, 2009).
10. “Geologic Time”, Encyclopedia Brittanica, last modified on June 2 2020, https://www.britannica.com/science/geologic-time
11. J.P. Kennett and L. D. Scott, “Abrupt deep-sea warming, palaeoceanographic changes and benthic extinctions at the end of the Palaeocene”, Nature 353 (1991): 225. https://doi.org/10.1038/353225a0.
12. “Climate change widespread, rapid and intensifying - IPCC”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, last modified on August 9 2021, https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/.
13. Peter Brannen, “The Anthropocene is a Joke”, The Atlantic, August 13 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/arrogance-anthropocene/595795/.
14. Brannen, “The Anthropocene is a Joke”.
15. Stanley Finney and Lucy Edwards, “The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?”, GSA Today 26, no. 3 (2016): 4-10.
16. “Education", The Anthropocene Project, accessed December 2 2021, https://theanthropocene.org/education/. “Anthropocene: The Human Epoch, a cinematic meditation on humanity’s massive reengineering of the planet”, UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021, last modified on September 30 2021, https://ukcop26.org/events/anthropocene-the-human-epoch-a-cinematic-meditation-on-humanitys-massive-reengineering-of-the-planet/.
17. Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, Power in Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 20.
18. A dominant signal is a characteristic behaviour where a species asserts their dominance over their environment. Anthropocene.