This story contains minor spoilers for ‘Humane.’
A movie poster featuring rows of orderly body bags and the tagline, “dying makes all the difference in the world” naturally draws the eye.
But the debut feature by Caitlin Cronenberg, daughter of David and sister of Brandon, Humane, is far too grounded in our unfolding ecological reality to seem sensationalist.
It is arguable that the sense of helplessness we feel before our environmental plight will eventually lead to validating extreme solutions. Humane is a film about such solutions — a darkly satirical vision of the future in which a murderous logic develops to combat a world-ending catastrophe.
In the aftermath of a devastating ecological disaster, world leaders take drastic action: All countries must reduce their populations by 20 per cent. In North America, people are asked to come forward and “enlist” for euthanasia. While this policy aims to avoid human extinction generally, financial incentives indicate it’s clearly targeting the poor.
Population control and euthanasia are difficult topics to navigate, but Cronenberg’s film is the latest work in an artistic legacy treating these themes.
Wealthy feast amid water rations
Humane puts viewers into a stark landscape of haves and have-nots. While some in the city queue for water rations under makeshift tinfoil umbrellas needed to block now deadly UV rays, the York family gather in their Gothic mansion for a feast.
The extravagant dinner concludes with a revelation from patriarch Charles (Peter Gallagher): he and his wife, Dawn (Uni Park), have enlisted for euthanasia and will die together this very night. When Dawn later disappears and contractors demand a second body to satisfy their paperwork, the children of the York family must decide who among them will make the ultimate sacrifice.
Much of their indignation comes from their belief that they should be socially above making this choice. The family are able to accept this euthanasia plan as a solution so long as they are exempt from it. In so doing, they rely on what climate psyhcologist Sally Weintrobe calls “neoliberal exceptionalism,” a mindset which allows certain people to believe they are entitled to privileged resources and lifestyles at all costs.
When the siblings are forced to decide who will die, this exceptionalism leads to self-serving excuses masquerading as logical deductions. This allows three of them to agree their adopted brother Noah should die because of his history of alcoholism. His misfortune is instead seen by the others as a missed opportunity they hope to exploit.
Euthanasia in cinema, literature
The 18th-century economic theory of Malthusianism, which held that the uncontrolled growth of populations would always outstrip the means to feed them, is considered one of the first critiques of overpopulation (though the theory itself is disputed).
Read more: 'Too many people, not enough food' isn't the cause of hunger and food insecurity
But English satirist Jonathan Swift’s essay “A Modest Proposal,” which suggests that the wealthy might eat poor children to spare them and their parents hardship, predates it by over half a century. In an even-earlier 17th-century play, The Old Law, a duke introduces mandatory euthanasia for men over 80 and women over 60.
This concept of optional or compulsory euthanasia was later taken up by 70s movies like Soylent Green (1973), based on the novel Make Room! Make Room! and Logan’s Run (1976), based on the novel of the same name.
Even more recently, American satirist Christopher Buckley used the concept in his 2007 novel Boomsday.
‘Civic duty’ to die
Most interesting for comparison with Humane is the 2022 film Plan 75, by Japanese filmmaker Chie Hayakawa, in which people over this age are given the option of voluntary euthanasia to aid an economy struggling under the weight of an aging population.
A financial incentive does exists: while in Humane the amount is $250,000, a sum that substantially helps surviving family members, in Plan 75 it is a paltry ¥100,000 (around CA$900/US$650). In Hayakawa’s film, the government encourages applications by relying heavily on a sense of civic duty, but this is lacking among the York children in Humane.
Rogue actions
When Charles tells his family that he is going to enlist, his son Jared (Jay Baruchel) asks him why he would do so when he has financial security. When Charles then mentions the near certainty of mandatory euthanasia in the immediate future, Jared seems to know definitively that the family will not be called.
The viewer is left to conclude that, given Jared’s governmental links, he has been given such assurances. But the rogue actions of collections officer Bob (a brilliant Enrico Colantoni) throws this comforting exceptionalism into doubt.
Optimistic, for a Cronenberg?
In Humane, Bob wonders aloud what the world will be like once all the conscientious people have forfeited their lives for the greater good. In an interview with Hollywood Reporter, Cronenberg, too, was uncertain what would happen to the world in her film should all the “righteous” people leave it.
But despite this, Cronenberg was hopeful that in this hypothetical situation the example of such people would inspire others to become less self-serving. Oddly optimistic for a Cronenberg.
And doubly so, if we consider the sense of exceptionalism that Weintrobe believes is heavily connected with the damage to the planet.
The role of compassion
Humane raises the question: is it possible to rely on logical guidance from governments and authority figures to save us from extreme circumstances? Or do we need to personally show more compassion as we attempt to better our world and local communities?
Writing in The Walrus, journalist Simon Lewsen highlights Humane‘s spin on “Liberal Proceduralism,” in which any act can be legitimized with official paperwork. If we link this up with Weintrobe’s theory, a drastic solution is legitimized alongside “worthy” exceptions. It becomes logical that some people are exempt from sacrificing anything for collective problems.
In the “Enlisters of the Week” infomercial seen in Humane, the newly deceased smile into the camera. But the abuses of power and procedure exhibited in the movie suggest not all go willingly. Of those that do, many do so due to the financial desperation of their dependents.
Equitable footing?
These questions resonate in Canada not only in light of the climate emergency, but also with debate surrounding medical assistance in dying (MAID). The Guardian reports Canada has one of the highest rates of euthanasia in the world. A push to increase accessibility to this is questioned by those who say this is a problem particularly if dying with dignity seems more feasible than living with dignity given a dearth of social supports and investment in health care.
Read more: MAID’s evolving ethical tensions: Does it make dying with dignity easier than living with dignity?
Humane offers little light in its conclusion. But faced with that darkness, the audience might wish for real-world compassionate thinking to combat inevitable ecological disaster. Only by deconstructing privileged exceptionalism can we begin to deal with the declining fate of the planet and its precarious resources on an equitable footing.