The Disaster Film: A Cultural Phenomenon

 Photo Courtesy: Paramount Pictures 

In 1938, film director, writer and producer, Orson Welles, aired his adaptation of the H.G. Welles’ novel, “War of the Worlds” for the radio program Mercury Theater on Air. The novel centered on an alien invasion that takes place in 19^th century England. The 60 minute program ran without commercial breaks and the “news-bulletin” format purportedly caused mass hysteria and panic. Welles read portions of the novel on-air, interspersed with scripted dialogue read by professional actors. The following day, after the broadcast aired, The New York Times and the United Press, reported: "The federal communications commission investigated a radio program which caused thousands of persons in every part of the country to believe that the eastern United States had been invaded by creatures from the planet Mars in the first engagement of a 'war of the world.'" Many newspapers called the broadcast devious and deceptive, despite the disclaimers at the beginning and the end of the radio drama. Although some media critics have disputed how much panic the radio program actually caused, most critics agree that the news-bulletin spoofs added a level of realism that had been unprecedented in any dramatic radio show. Orson Welles not only caused a sensational reaction amongst listeners, but he evoked an emotional response that made the listener an active participant in his “experimental” documentary-style broadcast. Welles’ experiment brought the common fears of the American public to the surface. At the time, threats of a Communist takeover known as the Red Scare and the communist witch-hunt of McCarthyism were in their inception. Americans greatest fears revolved around a sense of insecurity and of being overcome by a force more powerful than the United States, and the “War of the Worlds” broadcast exposed those fears with its mock alien invasion.

Play - The 60 minute radio program, Orson Welles' adaptation of "War of The Worlds" July 11, 1938, (Courtesy - mercurytheatre.info)

Today, the Hollywood film industry has made destroying the world a regular occurrence, hoping their stories of global destruction and alien invaders translate into ticket sells. The most recent blockbuster disaster film, ‘2012,’ directed by Roland Emmerich is set to be released November, 13 2009. Sony Pictures is trying to generate an early buzz around the film, launching a viral marketing campaign centered on: www.ThisIstheEnd.com and the fictional organization, IHC (Institute for Human Continuity) which is ‘our only hope for survival.’ The official site of the IHC is compiled with fictional press releases and a ‘survival lottery,’ that is intended to give you the full ‘2012’ experience, and www.thisistheend.com is an interactive blog featuring video footage of a end-of-the-world guru played by actor Woody Harrelson, answering questions about the impending apocalypse.

While the basis for the film is rooted in the scientific phenomenon that massive solar flares are set to hit the earth in 2012, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) scientists say it’s impossible to predict the effect the solar flares will have on the planet. While the film depicts a series of devastating environmental disasters caused by the flares, some scientists say it could be nothing more than a few ‘fireworks’ in the sky. But in Hollywood, where destroying the world is big business, it doesn’t matter how it ends, just as long as it does. ‘2012’ is not Emmerich’s first disaster film. He successfully obliterated the world and specially, the White House, in his 1996 summer blockbuster hit, ‘Independence Day,’ in which an alien species launches an assault on the planet and Will Smith, teamed with Jeff Goldblum emerge as defenders of the earth, destroying the aliens’ mother-ship with a computer virus.

But at the risk of sounding like a ‘film snob,’ as a former film student and avid moviegoer, I’ve never really understood the appeal of global destruction. What is so mesmerizing about watching the planet blow-up? Disaster films have become more formulaic than the average teen comedy, with the spectacle of loud explosions, death defying escapes and over-the-top melodrama; I usually leave the theater with a pulsing headache, rather than marveling at the effort that went into blowing up the Empire State Building. The genius of Welles’ “War of the Worlds” doesn’t merely lie in the production quality of the radio broadcast, but instead in the psychological effect it had on its listeners. More often than not, Hollywood disaster films offer minimal substance, non-existent character development and excessive high-concept destruction—the equivalent to a roller coaster ride with spiraling loops, dips and upside down twists. The characters are more like set pieces placed in peril so the studio can exhibit its state-of-art special effects sequences, resulting in the ‘WOW factor.’

Yet there are a handful of disaster films that attempt to reflect or allegorize social realities, even examining the role spiritualism can play in impending doom. In the case of ‘Knowing,’ a sci-fi disaster film directed by Alex Proyas, which attempts to craft a story around the films characters, and particularly their beliefs, or lack there of, and issues of faith as opposed to a story only centered on the destruction of the planet. ‘Knowing’ centers on a college professor and mathematician played by Nicolas Cage, who discovers a mathematical code that predicts dates of major disasters and the total of lives that will be lost; when Cage deciphers the complete code, he realizes the final date marks the end of the world. An interesting enough plot, but what I found most intriguing was the inclusion of a group of odd beings that interact with Cage’s young son, often providing him with visions of the oncoming disaster, or doomsday. A majority of film critics suspect the beings to be aliens, while others believe them to be angels, as written about in the Bible’s ‘Book of Job.’ Various themes of spirituality help bolster that interpretation. Whether the beings are angels or aliens, I felt their inclusion in the story offered a refreshing twist on an otherwise tired genre. Although there is the iconic scene of a sprawling city on fire, I found the destruction in the film to be central and pertinent to the story and necessary to the climax. As a viewer, I actually cared about what happened to the characters and ultimately what happened to humanity. The ambiguity of what led to the earth’s destruction and the odd beings cloaked in black trench coats, only added to the overall mystic and sorrowful tone of the film. The dark, subdued and still scenes that led up to the inevitable destruction were like the calm before the storm, and offered a stark contrast to its fiery climax. And Cage’s character showed a believable mixture of heartbreak and fear, unlike the fairly general depiction of the ‘know-it-all-macho-hero’ who takes on saving the world half-cocked, or the brainy scientist who predicts the disastrous event and that no one bothers to listen to until most of the world’s population is destroyed. A prime example of this form of Hollywood hackney is Michael Bay’s 1998 film, ‘Armageddon.’ Saturated with seat-vibrating noise, explosions and quick disorientating edits, the characters exhibit a dearth of emotional zeal as an approaching asteroid the size of Texas is set to destroy the planet. The film lacked an overall emotional believability, while one would imagine an asteroid hurdling toward the planet to provoke a wide array of emotions, here there were none.

The world ending isn’t a novel notion. Many religions and philosophies have prophesized the imminent end of civilization. The Mayan calendar, the I Ching and even the internet have been used to calculate the day the earth will stand still. But are disaster films simply ‘vague nonsense’ as film critic Fred Kaplan of “Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media” states, or are they actually making a commentary on contemporary society? According to Kaplan, audiences flock to see disaster films out of “essential boredom of modern life as experienced by millions…anything really big and action-packed and exciting will sell in a very big way.” While Hollywood is invested in making big bucks, what does the audience gain? Are we simply interested in special effects snuff? Is it Escapism? Or is it an attempt to desensitize ourselves to catastrophic events? It’s my belief that disaster films, though mainly spectacle still hold a kernel of truth in their storytelling. A well-crafted disaster film can show truths about human nature, and how well we respond when facing an epic crisis. Disaster films commonly show a breakdown and inability of governments to function in a crisis and society reverts into something medieval and uncivilized, and those who are intelligent, resourceful, resilient and often tech savvy usually survive, adhering to a kind of “disaster Darwinism.” This concept was most evident post Hurricane Katrina, when the United States government left thousands stranded without food or water for days—one of the United States most colossal failures in leadership and infrastructure. The aftermath of Katrina seemed to mirror the second act in many Hollywood disaster films: people, mostly poor and without resources, displaced, countless dead bodies left to rot and an inept President, late to act and seemingly useless. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as with any well written disaster film, reality and fantasy seemed to merge. Two distinct images come to mind, that of President George W. Bush riding on a convoy with military detail through the ruins of New Orleans’ ninth ward, similar to a scene out of a Michael Bay film (minus the slow motion), and later, Bush delivering a televised speech behind a beautiful purple and green backdrop lit by generated lights. But watching him cruise through the ninth ward, squinting at the ruins as if to be searching for some answer in the wreckage and later rigging a dozen lights for the televised production, all conveyed one thing: “We’re down, but not out.” This was complete fantasy, as New Orleans would not have its power restored for months and many residents would not be able to return for years. The United States government’s colossal failure in tending to the victims of Hurricane Katrina causes one to wonder if disaster films are more prophesizing than fantasying when it comes to the aftermath of doom and destruction, that perhaps they aren’t just ‘vague nonsense’ as Kaplan suggests, but a glimpse at the fate that may await us in a definitive case of “life imitating art.”

 

 

Comments

I think that the part about the world ending not being a novel notion is true. But in the form of a novel, HG Wells was one of the first to do it well and reach out to many people. He wrote fairy stories for grown ups - playing with time, aliens and outerspace. After mass media became truly mass, such concepts became cliched. When orwell made the radio broadcast, both radio and the concept wasn't cliche.

Now it's different The Armageddon is a catch phrase. The world ending is passe.
The 'in' thing is rebirth. Or that we are living in the Age of Kali which is tangential to the whole rebirth concept.

So Katrina, the Mumbai floods, Tsunami, etc are part of this downward spiral - can be interpreted as proof of Kali.

Movies based on the 'world is ending' concept are now meant for a mass audience, they have a cult following but is aimed at the box office. Like a James Bond film - it's predictable, you know what you're going in for and you dont really have to think for a few hours.

Not becoming B grade, but becoming Block buster, meant for the lowest common denominator. The LCD doesn't really want to think, or so we've been told

It's a vicious circle. The dumber you think collective consciousness is, the dumber it will become.

A downward spiral. The Age of Kali again. Which at this point of time, happens to be on the rise in the collective consciousness. It could be another belief/theory 50 years later which becomes more relevant.