New York is drowning, Japan is attacked by a terrible hailstorm and the entire northern hemisphere is going through a catastrophe as a result of global warming * This is the plot of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" * But unlike other disaster movies, this movie causes a public uproar * Scientists admit that it is based on a kernel of truth * The left uses it to attack the Bush administration which neglects the quality of the environment
Tornadoes engulfing the West Coast in the United States, head-on hailstorms falling on Japan, huge flocks of millions of birds that hide the sun during its concentrated and sudden migration south and cast a constant shadow over the Northern Hemisphere, and a tsunami wave that drowns New York and leaves Only the arm of the American Lady of Liberty above the water, as a reminder of all that once lived beneath her. These scenarios are just some of the events that pass through our poor world in the big hit of the summer, which hits the screens this Friday, "The Day After Tomorrow". Ever since the legendary American director Orson Welles announced on the radio in 1938 that "aliens have landed in our backyard" as part of a thriller, and put the entire United States into an impulsive panic attack, Hollywood has known how to stretch the limits of the human imagination and exploit its deepest fears in order to generate huge profits at the box office. It is not by chance that ominous futuristic hits such as "War of the Worlds", "Dr. Strange Love" and "1984" became historical landmarks in Western culture.
In recent years, it seems that the same tendency to take advantage of our apocalyptic fears is only increasing, as evidenced by a variety of successful films from the genre such as "Armageddon" and "The Third Day". And at the same time, the prophecy of the Torah apocalypse coming to the screens in the coming days is fundamentally different from its predecessors in one significant thing: it is based on the foundations of truth. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that the massive film production, costing more than 125 million dollars, has already managed to provoke a public uproar no less destructive than the one on the screens. And even if that storm does not have the power to bend the towers of New York, it could bend the American president and cause significant changes in the United States.
"Possible, but not like this"
"At the base of every disaster movie there must be a factual element," Roland Emmerich, the film's director and creator of the previous apocalypse hits "The Third Day" and "Godzilla," recently stated. Indeed, the basic idea on which the plot of the film is based is the danger of global warming, the same climatic opinion that is accepted in the scientific world that advocates that the warming of the earth may cause the poles to melt and thus bring about severe climate changes in the world, such as those shown in the film in such an extreme way. Although most of the scientific community in the United States expressly opposes the presented scenario, according to which the same process of warming occurs within a few hours, they do not deny that these scenarios are, in essence, possible. As Prof. Dan Schrag, a renowned climate researcher from the prestigious Harvard University in Boston, admitted to the entertainment weekly "Variety": in reality the expected disasters may be the same as those in the movie, only that the duration of their development will be "much slower and more boring", according to him.
While the film's producer, Mark Gordon, certainly admits that the film shortens the "spaces of time in which an ice age can be created for dramatic reasons", he insists that the conceptual foundation of the film is based on an existing fear. "Although our goal was first of all to make a fun film for the summer, our ambition is that the film will not only entertain the viewers but also succeed in educating them," said Gordon recently.
Considering the natural disasters that befell the world during the filming of the film in the last two years, it seems that nature itself only strengthened the opinion of the filmmakers; From the hailstorms the size of an egg that hit China and killed 25 people in 2002 to the events of the previous summer, which were dubbed the "floods of the century" after several of Europe's tunnels overflowed and flooded major population centers across the continent, causing total destruction and claiming the lives of more than a hundred humans. It seems that the gap between the reality and the imagination shown in the film has been narrowing.
Perhaps the most alarming event that creates the bridge between the screen and reality is the fall of part of the "Larson Ice Shelf" - a glacier on the continent of Antarctica - into the sea in March 2002. This scenario was put on the script paper shortly before it happened in reality. After that event, the filmmakers said that they started joking that if they didn't hurry, the film would turn "from a fictional film into a documentary".
The secret report
Another event that seemingly strengthens the degree of plausibility of "the day after" is the disclosure of a special Pentagon report prepared in recent years by the "Strategic Risk Assessment" office. The report already warned at the beginning of the year that climate change could cause catastrophes around the world. The study, prepared under the supervision of veteran Pentagon adviser Andrew Marshall, was revealed by the British "Guardian" newspaper last February. His main conclusion is that the expected climate changes in the next twenty years may cause a global drought and a shortage of water and energy sources. The report estimates that the same shortage could cause "global chaos" and a permanent state of war. "Scarcity and fighting will become an inseparable part of the world's reality," the secret report reads, "and as in the distant past, war will define human life here."
Among the possible scenarios presented in the report were the freezing of Great Britain and most of Europe under a "Siberian climate" and the outbreak of perpetual wars between the countries of the world over the control of the extinct sources of life. The authors of the report noted that 8,200 years ago a severe climate change caused droughts, famine and significant population migration in the world. This scenario, they state, may repeat itself.
And yet, despite the kernel of truth behind the apocalypse scenarios presented in the rising Hollywood hit, most of the scientific community around the world continues to see the film as a completely imaginary option. Many scientists try to reassure the public about the imaginary scenario of the film, stressing that it is intended for entertainment purposes only.
Ecologist Patrick Michaels from the Washington Research Institute "Kaito" said that the film simply "doesn't tell the truth". At a special press conference held at the beginning of last week, members of an American group of experts expressed their opposition to the film theory and even stated that the film does not even meet the definition of science fiction since in science fiction, according to them, there is at least some "scientific basis". "The film is propaganda designed to influence political policy-making," declared Michaels at the press conference and warned that "lies disguised as truths should never influence the way we live our lives."
in the service of the politicians
Beyond reassuring the public or maintaining scientific purity, Michaels' words also had a clear political message, in his attempt to prevent the film from becoming a tool in the hands of critics of the Bush administration, who oppose the president's disdainful policy towards the environment. But despite the attempts of Michaels and quite a few of his colleagues to defend the administration, his opponents are already preparing to use the blockbuster battle to try and break the president. The left-wing organizations in the United States, led by the former Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, intend to use the film to promote criticism of the administration's handling of the environment, in an attempt to gain valuable political gain in the five months remaining until the next presidential election.
"The administration is even more imaginary than the film itself, in that it continues to tell the public that there are no real environmental problems," Gore said recently. Gore and his people are preparing to go this weekend on an awareness campaign for the quality of the environment that will be called "Tomorrow" (referring to the movie). As part of the journey, they plan to take to the streets across the United States, hand out information pamphlets and hold public meetings in order to increase awareness of the environmental problem, which, according to them, the Bush administration has failed to address. "Global warming is not just a movie, it is our future," read the brochures intended for mass distribution.
Business as usual?
The people of the White House, for their part, give the impression that they are not moved at all by the storm. Apart from a brief response that "the president is not in the business of reviewing movies," the administration tried to convey a business-as-usual atmosphere, at least in public, but the "New York Times" newspaper recently revealed that in March the White House ordered the American space agency NASA to forbid its people from commenting on the movie, for fear of damaging the president's status. And even if we assume that the White House is not worried about the film itself, they are undoubtedly worried about the environmental issue, especially in view of the fact that the elections are approaching. The British "Guardian" newspaper revealed a month ago that the White House sent an official e-mail to the public relations teams of the Republican members of Congress, with instructions on how to respond to claims that the administration is not doing enough for the environment.
"Say that everything is fine" is the main message they are asked to convey, plus recommendations for a response such as: "global warming is not proven", "water and air quality is improving" and "the amount of trees is multiplying and not decreasing". Government officials rely on scientists and various research institutes in their attempt to portray an optimistic state of environmental quality in the United States, but the "Greenpeace" organization said that these are "puzzling conclusions of dubious scientists who have an unrealistic 'Alice in Wonderland' view of the environment."
In light of the public uproar, it is no wonder that there is great excitement in the public upon the release of the film. Many think it may make history, as did the publication of the book "The Silent Spring" in 1962, by the American naturalist Rachel Carson. The book was then able to create an earthquake in American public opinion regarding the quality of the environment, and many historians see it as a landmark that led to the emergence of many laws to preserve the environment. "The day after tomorrow", quite a few Americans hope, will relaunch the fight for the quality of the environment, which in recent years has seemed weaker than ever.
Yoav Fromer
