Arthropods
on the
Screen
James W. Mertins
R
ecent rapid development of photographic and electronic
technology plus growing environmental
awareness
have led to increased production of quality nature films.
Very few now appear in theaters, but we can enjoy exceptional
nature programming almost weekly on television through series
such as Nafllre, No/'a, SlIrl'il'al, and the National Geographic
Specials. These efforts make a positive contribution to educating
general viewers about nature, and some become available and
usdul for classroom purposes. But I wish to address the generally less constructive treatment afforded to arthropods on the
screen in films made solely for commercial release. I present
here a preliminary survey of the movies known to me whose
production depicted or used arthropods in some way. Although
primarily fictional creations of nonscientists, these works may
ser\'l' to illustrate how one group of potential mass-audience
',\:ducators" (i.e., Hollywood filmmakers) views entomological
subjects and how that view is transmitted by their medium.
For convenience I have divided the movies into three categoril's based on personal opinions of the importance of the
entomological sequences to the essence of each film. In the
first category, the entomological aspects are essential or very
important to the plot or overall impact of each film; in category
two, the arthropod/entomology
roles are, at best, subsidiary or
incidental to the thrust of each movie. Some viewers might not
agree with my somewhat subjective apportionment of certain
films between the two categories. The third category is a list of
films whose titles might infer some entomological involvement
that is not really there. The films appear chronologically by year
of release in the United States, and for each title (categories one
and two only) a word or two is added about entomological
content. I have personally seen many of the movies, but I have
also examined all available contemporary and retrospective critical reviews to fill gaps in my knowledge.
The lists include only films that were considered to be of
feature length at the time of release. Emphasis is on Englishlanguage live-action Or animated films released theatrically in
the United States; however, some made· for-television movies
are included because they were shown theatrically overseas.
Except for British and Canadian productions, foreign movies are
listed only if they were in general American release and reached
a modicum of popularity (usually dubbed or subtitled in English). Not included are dozens of other foreign-language films,
a few theatrically released documentaries, many older silent
movies, an array of movie serials, and all sorts of television
programs and short subjects.
Discussion
This is the first comprehensive review of the subject from an
entomological perspective, although Insectimes' examined a
few so-called "Big Bug Flix" beginning in 1981, and a chapter
in Medved & Medved (1980) looked at movies about "killer
bees" from the perspective of movie critics.
,A
quarterly trade publication of
NOR-AM
Chemical, Wilmington,
Del.
85
Japan is subjected to the immense backwash from the airborne Mothra (1962).
Fiction Films by Jeff Rovin.
Tbe Image o/Entomology Several generalizations arise from
the films listed in the first twO tables (hereinafter called arthropod features). The first is that arthropod features rarely project
positive images of arthropods, entomologists, or science in
general. Footnotes mark exceptions, but arthropods generally
present threatening, sinister images of danger or death; distasteful, shocking images for the squeamish; or obvious images of
silliness for ridicule by any "rational" person. Entomologists (or
usually the generic "scientists") are shown usually as detached
from reality, as eccentric buffoons, often as psychotics, or, at
best, as ineffectual dupes. One cannot find among the arthropod
features a single instance in which scientific endeavor is shown
in a completely positive light, and science or the scientific
method are often misrepresented. According to Brustein (1958),
"movies covertly embody certain underground assumptions
about science which reflect popular opinions." But do the characters speak as representatives of the general public, or are the
moviemakers speaking through them to influence viewers?
Movies marked by footnote a in the tables are those presenting
a relatively positive or truthful image of arthropods (entomologically speaking), even though some might not be appealing to
non-entomologists. That is, the insects may simply display normal behaviors of their respective ecological roles, fascinating to
the entomologist but possibly disturbing to most other viewers.
These images were probably included to project negative feelings. Not surprisingly, almost all the well-treated movie arthropods are at least somewhat anthropomorphized.
The movies
86
Photograph from A Pictorial History of Science
marked by footnote b in the tables are those that show entomologists in a predominantly positive or realistic way.
Quality of the Movies. A second generalization about arthropod features is that Hollywood's use of arthropods is usually
associated with the production of bad or mediocre movies. As a
result, these films often play to limited audiences and many
remain quite obscure. Major reasons for low quality are inadequate financing and simple incompetence. Of course, "bad" is
a subjective based mostly on film critics' opinions, and in some
cases films panned critically find success at the box office. Only
rarely do arthropod features, especially those in category one,
earn Oscar nominations. Particularly rare is the arthropod feature
that wins a so-called "major" Oscar. All of the few arthropod
features I have identified that have won major Oscars are in
category 2; the most highly honored of these, Annie Hall, won
three major Oscars plus one other in 1977. Typically, the minor
roles of arthropods in these movies have little or no bearing on
their honors. Not surprisingly, arthropod features are most often
cited for their visual effects and for their musical scoresproduction aspects that often set or enhance an intended mood.
Despite some awards, most arthropod features are abysmal failures-artistically,
critically, and financially. It is difficult to describe how poorly written, badly acted, and cheaply made some
of these films are. As just one example, in a nationwide Worst
Film Poll (Medved & Medved 1980), two big-budget arthropod
features placed among the top five-no.
2, Exorcist II-The
Heretic, and no. 4, The Swarm (called by the Medveds "the
BULLETIN
OF THE ESA
most badly bumbled bee movie of all time"). In some cases
(e.g, /::wm:ist II), the arthropod sequences may be the highest
quality aspen of the movie.
CbrcJ/lological Sequence. An examination of arthropod features by decade reveals some trends2. During the silent film and
early talkie eras, there were very few feature movies with a major
entomological theme. The early arthropod features in category
two used entomological themes and images in ways divided
about equally between positive and negative. Finally, many
silent movies ascribed assumed arthropod characteristics to a
leading character, and, hence, the name of the arthropod was
metaphorically given to the character and often the movie. Such
arthropodization of human characters is the unifying feature of
l
There seem to be some sizeable gaps in the recorded chronological
appearances of arthropod
Features. These may be true reFlections of
periods whell mo\'iemakers
be artit~lcts or discontinuities
a\'~lilabk.
StiMMEl{
19H6
neglected arthropod
ill the Filmographic
themes, or they may
reference
materials
nearly all the films listed in the third table. Movies with signifi·
cant entomological content seem curiously absent during the
1930's.
The 1940's began benignly with three entertaining films fea·
turing lovable anthropomorphic
insects, but sinister spectres
(especially bees and spiders) filled most of the few other
notable films of the decade.
The 1950's also began calmly, with enjoyable but brief roles
for caterpillars in Alice in Wonderland and Hans Cbristian
Andersen. But there was almost nothing entomologically positive in arthropod features for the rest of the decade, and although
many films were made, the 1950's were the low point for
entomology in the movies. Them! (1954) was the pivotal film in
the history of arthropod features and, in fact, for the entire
fantasy movie genre. It set a plot pattern that was followed
frequently: scientific tampering with the unknown could often
loose awful consequences on humankind. There were some
pretty entertaining arthropod features in the 1950's, but most
emphasized negative aspects of arthropods and were incredibly
bad.
87
Movies with relatively minor entomological el menu mcludlng films with pasili e 01' at least neutral. realiStic images of arthropods (a) and with
generaUy positive images of c:ntomologl
(b)
1916
1918
192
1923
192
1925
l31kl
Bill/! Blood·
192
ilem)
1966
011 glat emomolog) and prof,
anthropom
1928
rphlc
196
1
1930
193
19 0
net 1be Tbi if
if
19.•'\
1951
19
19
1952
19')3
W
1957
ld witbout End
brlt,kinll
19
195H
9
1959
1960
1961
3
1962
1963
196
1965
A few posItive images occur in arthropod features of the
1960's, but mostly the prejudices of the 1950's continued. Nearly
all of the bright spots occur in films from Japan. The other
movies of the 1960's that reflect well on arthropods show them
as pets of some sort. Many of the remaining features of the
88
1960's variously reworked the old mad scientist or science·
generated monster themes or portrayed arthropods as agents of
injury and death.
The greatest array of arthropod features appeared in the
1970's, but the positive aspects were mostly restricted to youth-
BULLETIN
OF THE ESA
oriented cartoon characters. A few entomologists were positively
portrayed, but most of the others were psychotic or bizarre. The
physical size of 1970's arthropods (villainous and otherwise)
tended toward more realistic proportions, although a few giant
crabs, spiders, cockroaches, and Hymenoptera turned up. Movil'makers must haw kept up on news reports, for when the
prest'nn.' of the African honey bee was first publicized widely
(Anonymous 1972), there quickly began a series of "killer bee"
movit's. The production credits for these and some other 1970's
arthropod features provide a possible clue to the shifting image
of arthropods on the screen. Directors began to hire and give
credit to entomological consultants (sometimes real entomologists and often called "insect wranglers") to provide and manipulate arthropods according to the scripts. This increased alleged
sophistication, and (one hopes) rational advice from the consultants (advice, unfortunately, not always followed) may explain why the frightening, but impossibly overgrown, giant
arthropods all but disappeared in 1970's films.
Thus far, arthropod features in the 1980's seem to be extending the late 1970's tradition. Fewer films are using arthropods
in major themes, but more are using them in subsidiary ways.
Arthropods are being used more intelligently and in more realistic ways. The emphasis seems to be more on the presence and
activities of arthropods as contributory realistic details.
Ta.\"o/IO/Ilic Frequel/cies. For various reasons, it is not always
easy to identify screen arthropods with assurance. However,
identities can be fixed well enough to show that arachnids
clearly appear most frequently. Except for a few scorpions, the
majority of arachnids used are spiders, and tarantulas are the
favorites. The spider image invariably represents evil and morbidity, and the filmmakers, relying on the viewers' learned fears
or innate fear of the unknown, seem to believe in the effectiveness of spiders for conveying or creating a dark and sinister
mood. If audience fear of pain, injury, or death from encounters
with
arachnids
is the
key
to
the
popularity
of spiders
1<)H6
connection
191<;
IIl/g,
1915
A Blltlerfl.1
011 tbl!
1918
1919
1920
1921
192Z
1923
and
scorpions, then the Hymenoptera must be second most popular
for similar reasons, headed by 17 appearances by bees. Next,
the Lt'pidoptera are mostly treated neutrally or with favor, but
even they sometimes play killers (e.g., Mothra, The Vampire
Beast ere/I'eS Blood, Tbe Butterfly Murders). A few other taxa
make multiple but less common appearances, including orthopteroids, crustaceans, and Diptera, but the relative rarity of beetles
in films is notable in light of the great number of species.
Otber O!Jserl'{lti(J/ls. Hollywood often relies on arthropods to
stimulate audience emotions and to create a desired mood. A
number of movie making devices involving arthropods are used
frequently to amplify a desired response. First there is the minor
but interesting idea of adding cricket chirping to the soundtracks
of countless films during nighttime scenes. Similarly, dipteran
buzzes or slaps at phantom "bugs" may represent pestilence and
irritation. A fairly subtle means of heightening the tension between arthropod and human characters is the inevitable meeting
of the two in a closed space from which there is no easy escapeplaces like cellars, locked rooms, islands, and, especially, tunnels, caves, and caverns. Another dramatic device is a much
more blatant play for a quick, graphic shock reaction. It is the
repetitive use of entomophagy by humans to jar the audience;
this dfort to disgust has been used frequently, especially in the
last decade. Tactile contact with walking arthropods on human
skin is similarly exploited in many movies, as in the uncounted
westerns, for example, wherein people are buried or staked with
bare skin exposed to torture by ants. Actors walking through
cobwebs is a similarly exploited situation. If one watches carefully, insects sometimes appear on screen unintentionally, esSliMMER
Movies with no known true entomological
pecially in the backgrounds of movies filmed on location in
jungles or other tropical locales. Finally, Steven Kutcher (personal communication), a practicing entomological consultant to
Hollywood filmmakers, believes that 25-35% of all feature films
have some entomological reference in them, even though some
may be as minor as a picture on a wall or a single word of
incidental dialogue.
Conclusion
Brustein's (958) contention that movies and filmmakers reflect society's opinions about science seems to apply to a degree
specifically to entomology. Moviemakers sense public opinions
about their films through test audiences and especially by hox
office receipts. Their primary aim is to make a profit and, in the
process, to entertain. They know how to tweak an audience,
what succeeds, and what sells. Audience distaste for arthropods
is a proven filmmaking ploy, and, thus, most arthroRod appearances on screen are for scares in so-called "exploitation" (e.g.,
horror, fantasy, and science fiction) films. If a film entertains
and rings true with audiences, it succeeds, and it may inspire
more like it. But Brustein also inferred that filmmakers judge
89
scientific endeavors and furtively include their own feelings in
their movies, thereby not only reflecting public opinion but also
serving to form and direct it. Commercial films have a very large
potential audience that mostly consists of impressionable young
people. Unfortunately, the movie images of arthropods and
entomology shown to them have been mostly inaccurate and
unflattering.
One previous study dealt with another potential medium of
mass education about entomology (Moore et a!. 1982). Recent
magazine articles and pictures aimed at the general public show
a strong bias against insects in articles of an entomological
nature. Except in nature magazines, insects are shown mostly in
an unfavorable light as "bad organisms." And it seems that the
movie image problem for arthropods and entomology has been
exactly comparable. However, one hopes the recent trend continues, wherein arthropod features are of higher quality, more
realistic, and more intelligent than in the past. The change may
result from the increasing help of entomological consultants, or
it may be from a general maturation of attitudes, ideas, and
abilities
in audiences
and the film
industry.
I hope the trend
is
real, but I must point out that 1984 brought us Runaway, a
movie with a new twist, the first robotic arthropods, and Hollywood made them evil! Let us hope that this sort of portrayal is a
short-lived fad.
Acknowledgment
I express my gratitude to May Berenbaum for early interest and
suggestions, to Steven Kutcher for much useful information and insight,
and thanks to Marilee Mertins for buying so many movie tickets for me.
3,104
INSECT
Anonymous. 1972. Final report, Committee on the African Honey Bee.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Brustein, R. 1958. Reflections on horror movies. Partisan Rev. 25: 288--
296.
Medved, M. & H. Medved. 1980. The golden turkey awards: nominees
and winners-the
worst achievements in Hollywood history. PUll1um,
New York.
Moore, W. S., D. R. Bowers & T. A. Granovsky. 1982. What are magazine
articles telling us about insects? Journalism Quarterly 59: 464-467 .•
JAMESW MERTINSis a free-lance entomological consultant,
writer, and insect photographer, with a B.s. in zoology (Univ.
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
and M.S. and Ph.D. in entomology
(Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison).
His major interest in bionomics and taxonomy of insect predators and parasitoids is reflected
in most of his publications, including a coauthored textbook on
biological insect pest suppression (1977). His long-standing
interest in movie arthropods received additional impetusfrom
work on an "Insects In the Arts" program for the North Central
Branch meetings in 1978and discussion of cultural entomology
in an introductory entomology course he taught at iowa State
Univ. Readers with knowledge of arthrOPOd appearances in
films not included here are encouraged to contact the author.
SLIDES
REF-11
1M
ALL ORDERS are filled with first
generation
slides made directly
from the
oriqinal camera color NEGATIVES.
NO DUPLICATE
References Cited
SLIDES - ALL ORIGINAL
Computerizes your REFERENCES
and prepares your BIBLIOGRAPHIES
o
o
Minimum order 20 slides - $22 .00
21 to 49 slides
- $1.10 each
50 to 99 slides
- $1.00 each
OVER 100 SLIDES - $0.90 each
o
o
o
o
AVAILABLE in 18 sets to fit crop and/or
commodity groups at a 10f per slide discount or 80f a slide.
Slides are from
the Oregon State University
Kenneth Gray
Collection.
(120 page catalog ~3.)
WE try to make all shipments
within
hours or less from receipt of order.
48
EUGENE MEMMLER
(818) 246-3182
3287 Dunsmere Road + Glendale,
CA 91206
Maintains a data base of references
Searches for any combination of authors, years of publication,
reference title (or any words in the title I. and topics covered
by the reference
Formats bibliographi$s exactly as you want them
Alphabetizes references
0 Menu driven dialogue
Abbreviates journal titles
0 Compact storage format
Runs on any video terminal 0 20 lines of comments for
and printer
each reference
$19500
00
. $250
$35000
IBM PC/XT/AT, MS-DOS, CP/M 80 .. ,
RT-ll, TSX-P1us,RSX-ll,
P/os
VAX/VMS (native mode) . _
ANY
MANUAL
"DEMO
S2ftOO
U--
322 PrDspect Ave., HartfDrd, CT 06106
(203) 247-8500
Connecticut residents add 7V.% sales tax.
90
BULLETIN OF THE ESA