"The Day After Tomorrow"
Category: Movies...
Posted Friday, May 28, 2004 at 04:40 PM [GMT-6]

MLB took today off so we went out for breakfast (IHOP), got in a nice tandem ride (20 miles) and caught a matinee of "The Day After Tomorrow" (large popcorn and two large DCs).

Now, I'd like to act all outraged over the not-so-subtle eco-shrieking (James Lileks' term; link below) and current administration bashing (really, Mr. Emmerich...could you be any less obvious with your American vice-presidential character?), but, frankly, I knew about it going in and was able to compartmentalize and even embrace it as just another special effect dreamed up by the masters of imagination in Hollywood. So, we were able to enjoy the movie for what it is: a spectacular (awesomely so, in fact) fairy tale.

It had enough gallows humor in it to keep it from just dragging you down completely, and even though many of the sub-plots were preposterous or never resolved, it was still fun to watch. I have to admit that I still get the willies anytime I see a disaster hit NYC, even an absurd made-up one, but I guess that's something we'll all be dealing with for a long time to come. At the same time, the filmmakers have raised the bar for special weather-related disaster effects. (Although I suspect that Minnesotans will be thinking, "huh...they call that a cold front?")

I did have to laugh at the attempt to dramatize the terror induced by a cold snap. Any clarification would represent a spoiler, so you'll have to see it for yourself.

The movie closes with a view of the newly-devastated Earth from the Space Station, and we see clearly that the USA is now solid ice all the way down to Florida. Nevertheless, it appeared to me that Midland was clear, and in fact, received less than a tenth of an inch of snow during the "storm of the epoch." At least some things never change, even in science fiction!

I'm not sure I would have enjoyed the movie quite as much if I'd read today's Bleat beforehand. You should read the whole thing, but at least scroll down 2/3rds of the way to read about director Emmerich's interview with a German publication. Roland apparently spent a little too much time in the f/x room making this movie, as his perception of reality is about as grounded as the plot of his film.

Permalink
Comments

Call me a grouch, but I take an instant dislike to propaganda passed off as entertainment, particularly as science fiction. The "future" is a favorite place for speculation and, increasingly, politically motivated preaching. The genre frees the creators from any factual constradictions to the "message" they're trying to push. Star Trek is a great example.

I've also noticed any time a person objects to the "message" a film pushes, its defenders start claiming, "It's just a movie! You're taking it too seriously and reading too much into it. It's a story, nothing more."

Sure. Try telling Abraham Foxman at the ADL that.

"Hey man, why are you so worked up about 'The Passion Of The Christ'? It's just a movie! You're taking it too seriously and reading too much into it. It's a story, nothing more."

Mr. Foxman understands only too well how cinema can combine a "message" with "entertainment". The Nazis were famous for it.

"Not-so-subtle eco-shrieking" has been an accepted part of Hollywood's proselytizing for a long time. Anybody remember Kevin Costner in "Waterworld"?

Lessee...

The earth gets deluged from melting ice-caps (Pro-environment shrieking: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling.")

The villains are called "Smokers" and seen constantly smoking cigarettes (Anti-smoking shrieking: "Smokers are dangerous and inconsiderate, etc. etc.")

The evil "Smokers" are the only ones who still use fossil fuels. (Pro-environment shrieking: "Fossil fuel use is bad, except when Tipper Gore cruises around in her Ford Expedition SUV. That's different.")

The evil "Smokers" are the only ones who still use firearms. Kevin Costner uses a shotgun only at the very end, and even then it was one taken from a "Smoker". (Anti-gun shieking: "Guns are bad, except when Karl Rowe shoots a man swimming in his pool or Ted Kennedy's bodyguard carries an Uzi under his coat. That's different.")

The evil "Smokers" are led by a "Deacon" who leads "The Church Of The Provider". The Deacon has a very "evangelical" style to his speech. (Anti-Christian shrieking: "Christians are bad, especially evangelical Christians. Tolerance is good but only when WE say so. Then that's different.")

The Day After Tomorrow is more of the same, except now we've got Global Warming and Global Cooling all in the same film. Politically-motivated junk science passed off as entertainment. It's bitterly appropriate that it's a sci-fi movie. Ask two "eco-experts" what's happening with the weather:

Mr. Freen: "Hey guys, 'ssup. What's goin' on long-term?"

Expert #1: "It's getting warmer! The greenhouse effect is melting the polar ice caps! We're all going to drown!
Fossil fuels and big oil are to blame!
By the way, 'big oil' means George W. Bush, so make sure you vote for John Kerry."

Expert #1: "It's getting colder! The hole in the ozone is lowering the temperature! We're all going to freeze!
Fossil fuels and big oil are to blame!
By the way, 'big oil' means George W. Bush, so make sure you vote for John Kerry."

Mr. Freen: *yawn* Thanks, guys. Speaking of science fiction... Guess what's coming out in September?

Posted by: Mr. Freen at May 29, 2004 01:13 AM

Whew! Glad I got this in before you shut down the comments.

Eric, thanks for that review of the movie. I don't intend to pay to watch it, but I'll probably watch it when it's shown on network tv - I'm guessing it will be on ABC in October.

Posted by: George at June 1, 2004 04:08 PM

George, why do you think it will be on ABC?

Reason I ask...in the movie, all of the fictional TV broadcasts of worldwide disaster carried the Fox News logo. I assumed that Fox was somehow involved in the making of the film; perhaps it just bought placement rights.

Posted by: Eric at June 1, 2004 04:14 PM

Eric, I could be way off base on this. And you may have a good point about Fox.

I don't watch enough of ABC, NBC or CBS to say with first hand knowledge, but there are people who say that there is a lot of anti-Bushism on ABC. So, if there is a chance that the movie could advance that sentiment, then ABC might be the one to run it. But, what do I know?

Posted by: George at June 3, 2004 08:12 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]
Note: You must provide either a website URL or an email address...but there's no rule that says you have to tell the truth. If you don't want your email address published on this site, just input a website URL, or make up an email address.









Remember personal info?