Who's Online

We have 321 guests online

Popular

2441 readings
The political impact of "The Day After Tomorrow" PDF Print E-mail
Justice News
Saturday, 29 May 2004 08:58
The great American disaster movie has become such a staple in Hollywood that many consider it a separate genre, or at least a subgenre of the "summer blockbuster." Does such celluloid present an opportunity for the public to learn about and grapple with real-world issues, or is it simply a vehicle to sell more popcorn and soda -- or even worse, a way for spin masters to discredit legitimate fears? This season's big blockbuster, 20th Century Fox's The Day After Tomorrow, will put this question to the test o­n a grandiose scale.

Global Warning

Brian C. Howard, AlterNet

May 26, 2004

Red rivers of molten lava scorching through Los Angeles neighborhoods. Giant asteroids

hurtling o­n a seismic collision course with the Earth. Or comets. Or the Big o­ne that

threatens to send California out to sea. The great American disaster movie has become

such a staple in Hollywood that many consider it a separate genre, or at least a subgenre

of the "summer blockbuster." Does such celluloid present an opportunity for the public to

learn about and grapple with real-world issues, or is it simply a vehicle to sell more

popcorn and soda -- or even worse, a way for spin masters to discredit legitimate fears?

This season's big blockbuster, 20th Century

Fox's The Day After Tomorrow, will put this

question to the test o­n a grandiose scale. In the

movie, global warming results in the melting of

enough polar ice to spawn cataclysmic changes

in ocean currents, including the dissolving of the

Gulf Stream. Tornadoes then descend o­n

Southern California, a blizzard hits India and

hail hammers Japan. Tsunamis bob the Big

Apple, which then becomes locked in ice. Of

course what may matter most to audiences is what happens to the film's attractive stars,

who include Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal and Sela Ward -- but that's a given.

Everyone agrees that the scientific facts of the $125 million movie are manipulated --

ostensibly to fit the constraints of contemporary filmmaking. Just as no o­ne in real life can

glance at a TV in a bar and immediately see a story dealing personally with them, or never

need any change from a cab driver, ocean currents are not likely to change the climate in a

matter of days. Canadian environmental luminary David Suzuki has written, "While the

movie is based o­n a real phenomenon... It's a disaster film, and has no more grounding in

reality than the director's last big movie, Independence Day, in which aliens invaded the

Earth."

Indeed, Roland Emmerich, the film's director, is not known for making movies heavily

rooted in rigorous fact. Many are clearly works of science fiction, such as Godzilla,

Stargate and Universal Soldier, while his 2000 flick The Patriot drew fierce criticism

over historical accuracy and tone. But James Snyder, a spokesperson for the Physicians

for Social Responsibility, echoes the thoughts of many when he points out, "The Day After

Tomorrow offers an unprecedented hook to discuss something that everybody will be

talking about."

The film's producer, Mark Gordon, has been quoted as saying, "part of the reason we

made this movie was to raise consciousness about the environment." Harvard

paleoclimatologist Dan Schrag says he believes most Americans are "probably smart

enough to distinguish between Hollywood and the real world." Schrag and many other

scientists are hoping the new movie will ignite some passion in the public to get serious

about discussing the very real threats of climate change. Scientist Michael Molitor, who

consulted o­n the movie, told The Independent, "This film could actually do more in helping

us move in the right direction than all the scientific work and all the [congressional]

testimonies put together."

Other scientists, such as oceanography professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, have criticized the film for what they consider to be taking away

from the seriousness of the climate change issue. "The Day After Tomorrow is a great

movie and lousy science," argues environmentalist and author George Monbiot. Roy

Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville says, "Hollywood should not be the

driving force behind the public discussion of global warming." Writing in Grist,

environmental journalist Bill McKibben also points out that the movie's dramatic

representation may desensitize the public to the more gradual pace of actual events. "If the

reason we're supposed to worry about global warming is that it will first send a tidal wave

over the Statue of Liberty and then lock it forever in an ice cube, anything less will seem...

not so bad."

Despite such concerns, environmental groups are working overtime to highlight their

messages o­n the movie's considerable coattails. The Natural Resource Defense Council

(NRDC) and Environmental Defense both have o­nline action centers devoted to explaining

the science behind the movie's ominous predictions and offering practical steps to make a

difference, such as signing petitions and writing letters. "We want to supply ingredients for

an enlightened discussion, and give people a chance to get involved," says NRDC scientist

Daniel Lashof. Web surfers who take action at NRDC's site can even receive a coupon

for a free scoop of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

A number of groups, including the Rainforest Action Network, Global Exchange and

Internet powerhouse Moveon.org, are doing what some conservative Christians did during

the height of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: taking it to the streets. These

progressive campaigners plan to distribute leaflets as moviegoers exit theaters.

Moveon.org even has a meeting scheduled to mirror the film's New York City premier.

Luminaries such as the Als (Gore and Franken) are expected to show up to stir the

masses. In a statement, Gore has said, "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters

on Memorial Day weekend, asking the question, 'Could this really happen?' I think we

need to answer that question."

Several environmental groups, as well as the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)

network, are using the movie to garner political support for the McCain-Lieberman

Climate Stewardship Act, which outlines a plan to reduce America's production of

greenhouse gases. In October 2003, the U.S. Senate voted 55 to 43 against the bill. The

close margin encouraged many climate change campaigners, who now hope that the bill

will be reintroduced soon, as the sponsors have suggested.

A number of groups have also come out criticizing discussion of any links between The

Day After Tomorrow and threats of climate change. The conservative Competitive

Enterprise Institute has attacked the science behind the movie as "fiction." Their position

surprises few observers, however, since the think tank has long been a staunch denier of

global warming and the Kyoto Treaty, calling the latter the "most economically damaging

idea ever to come out of the United Nations." In 1997, the group started the Cooler

Heads Coalition "to dispel the myths of global warming." This position may explain their list

of contributors, which includes: Ford and General Motors, Texaco, the American

Petroleum Institute and the Amoco and Arco foundations, among others.

Patrick J. Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute has blasted The Day After Tomorrow,

calling it "propaganda" and "lies cloaked as science." Michaels is well known as o­ne of

America's most vocal critics of the idea of global warming. Interestingly, Cato has received

grants from ExxonMobil, and in 1995, Michaels testified to receiving $165,000 in funding

during the previous five years from fuel companies.

The Bush administration has already suffered a minor scandal as a direct result of the film.

And the President certainly has reason to be concerned as his administration has been

resistant to taking any action o­n global warming, most notably reneging o­n the U.S.'s

participation in the Kyoto Treaty (claiming it was too expensive). While Bush has merely

ordered more, and largely redundant, studies o­n climate change, his political rivals Ralph

Nader, Dennis Kucinich and even John Kerry have drawn blood over the issue.

In April, an official memo sent to all NASA scientists from the Washington headquarters

was leaked to the press. The document advised, "No o­ne from NASA is to do interviews

or otherwise comment o­n anything having to do with ... The Day After Tomorrow." After

public embarrassment, the agency retracted the memo. Many pundits have speculated that

fear of Bush administration wrath in a hot-wired White House prompted the memo's

composition.

In fact, the whole incident sounded all too familiar to many who decry the Bush

administration's meager support of environmental protection. Britain's The Observer

recently uncovered a February email to the press secretaries of all Republican

congressmen advising them what to say when questioned o­n the environment in the

upcoming election cycle. The message acknowledged that Democrats will "hit us hard" o­n

the environment and recommended that campaigners paint a rosy picture of environmental

quality and stress that "global warming is not a fact." It concluded, "Republicans can't

stress enough that extremists are screaming 'Doomsday!' when the environment is actually

seeing a new and better day."

In the face of sagging public opinion polls, torture in Iraqi prisons and continued

uncertainty, both in the war o­n terrorism and o­n the state of the economy, the last thing

President Bush wants come November is a public intent o­n making global warming a

major issue. A recent BBC News report estimated "80% of the people in Washington who

are really informed feel dramatic climate change is a major threat." The vast majority of

scientists around the world feel the same way; a Pentagon report even predicted the dire

consequences of climate change.

MoveOn.org has called The Day After Tomorrow the "movie George Bush doesn't want

you to see," and interestingly, critics who have seen the film report that a vice president,

bearing an uncanny resemblance to o­ne Dick Cheney, mocks warnings despite the

impending doom.

It remains to be seen how the American public will respond to the summer blockbuster.

Will it serve as a catalyst for action, the way the early '80s nuclear disaster scenario The

Day After did? In any case, it should certainly prove to be more compelling than computer

models and hulking reams of data, which frankly have done little to excite the average

person about climate change. o­ne thing is for sure: If efforts to connect the film to policy

are successful, it could spell trouble for Bush. As the previously mentioned Republican

memo warned, "(the environment) is probably the single issue o­n which Republicans in

general -- and President Bush in particular -- are most vulnerable."


Brian Howard is the Managing Editor of E/The Environmental Magazine.

? 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

 

Last Updated on Saturday, 29 May 2004 08:58
 

Latest News