Written as a Submission for CineAction Magazine
Few genres can top the disaster film when it comes to crowd-pleasing spectacles. It is arguably one of the oldest film genres dating back to the early 1900s in cinema's chronicle. Roman epics produced in Italy between 1908 and 1914, such as The Last Days of Pompeii (1908, 1913), The Fall of Troy (1910), and Cabiria (1914), are notable in how they were part of the first major cycle of disaster films. 1 One of the most significant eras for disaster films was the 1970s, which featured no less than fifty-three disaster films being released. These included such works as Airport (1970), The Poseidon Adventure (1972), and Earthquake (1974). 2 However, in the 1990s, the disaster film record was broken when fifty-six disaster films were released in the decade, most in the latter half. This decade introduced the world to Roland Emmerich with his films Independence Day (1996) and Godzilla (1998). 3
Emmerich is generally not known for creating critically revered films. His profile on the aggregate film website Rotten Tomatoes shows that only two movies made during his nearly two-decade-long career, Independence Day and The Patriot (2000), received the site's “Fresh” rating. 4 While he has done films in other genres, Emmerich is most well-known for his disaster films, which often feature spectacular images of destruction. For instance, who could forget the iconic scene on Independence Day when an alien spacecraft blows up the White House? Despite being a critically maligned director, Emmerich's films have been generally successful at the box office, with his gross domestic averaging around $139M per film. 5 It can be safe to say that Roland Emmerich's early disaster films remain firmly within the realm of science fiction. Independence Day and Godzilla are, for all intents and purposes, “monster movies,” with the latter being a remake of arguably one of the most famous monster movies of all time: Ishirô Honda's Gojira (1954). It is easy to watch all the death and destruction in these films since we know that it is not very likely that alien invaders or giant mutated lizards will attack us.
The spectacle of the disaster film likely forever changed in the aftermath of 9/11. In the past, spectators had the freedom to watch all this destruction with perverse glee since the knowledge that all this destruction was unlikely to occur in real life. However, with the attack on the World Trade Centre, fiction suddenly crossed into reality, and the news became a real-life disaster film. It can be argued that because all of the world's disasters are instantly broadcast through the world's media outlets, it is currently the best time for the makers of disaster films since viewers already see the former clichés come to life on the news. 6 As such, it can be surmised that it is for this reason that the disaster films of the 2000s focused more on global, as opposed to localized, catastrophes and drew upon current apocalyptic fears, such as climate change, viral pandemics, and nuclear holocaust. 7
As a result, starting with The Day After Tomorrow (2004), Emmerich did something different: he made Mother Nature into a monster. He took the growing concerns over the potentially catastrophic climate change events and brought that to the screen as a second ice age. For the first time in one of Roland Emmerich's disaster films, the disaster had a chance of happening. Emmerich would once again make nature the monster in 2012 (2009), inspired by the apocalyptic fears involving the end of the world supposedly happening after the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012. While not as fact-based as The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 still featured disasters, such as gigantic earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and floods, that the viewer could imagine happening.
As such, my goal here is to examine the reality behind these two films. Before describing how Emmerich adapted these theories for mindless Hollywood entertainment, I will discuss the accurate apocalyptic approaches that inspired the movie. In addition, I will examine how the films related to the socio-political climate at the time and how the governments in each film responded to the disasters. Finally, I will argue that, despite the apocalyptic themes of these films, the real message of The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 is that, even though the world as we know it has come to an end, humanity, for better or for worse, will continue in this new world.
THE THEORIES BEHIND THE FICTION
In the last decade, climate change has reached a new level of awareness. This can be partially attributed to the release of the environmentally-focused documentaries An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and The 11th Hour (2007). The Day After Tomorrow predates An Inconvenient Truth by two years, making it the first significant film of the decade to address climate change. The film is unique in its portrayal of climate change since it features the somewhat contradictory scenario of global warming contributing to the creation of the next ice age. Roland Emmerich has stated that his primary inspiration for the portrayal of climate change in the film came after reading the book The Coming Global Superstorm (1999) by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber, even going on to say that The Day After Tomorrow is based on the book. 8 The book theorizes that the superstorm will be created when the melting polar icecaps results in the North Atlantic Current suddenly changing directions, moving from a northbound to a southbound direction. After this happens, ultracold air trapped above the arctic would slide downward, resulting in blizzards that will not stop until the oceans cool enough for the current flow to be re-established. The increase of the Earth's reflectivity, caused by the snow, would result in a cooling trend, possibly resulting in the creation of an ice age. 9
The Day After Tomorrow uses this theory for the film's plot. In a scene early in the movie, Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) gives a similar idea at a U.N. Conference on Global Warming. During his address, Jack describes evidence he found in core samples of a cataclysmic climate shift that occurred thousands of years ago and resulted in an ice age which lasted two centuries. When questioned about the supposed paradox involving global warming causing an ice age, Jack explains the climate of the Northern Hemisphere's dependence on the Northern Atlantic Current and how the melting polar ice caps are disrupting the flow of the current, which will cause it to shut down. After the conference scene, the theories from the book are further referenced as the storm begins to occur. First, as Jack is analyzing the developing storm, he describes how the storm's rotation is pulling ultracool air from the upper troposphere, which corresponds with the theory from the book. In addition, Jack is called upon to brief the U.S. administration about the storm. Here, Jack repeats the book's thesis statement that the battery will continue until the imbalance is corrected. In addition, during this briefing, Jack uses the term “superstorm” to describe the events.
While it can be seen that The Day After Tomorrow uses the theories Art Bell writes about in The Coming Global Superstorm, it remains questionable whether or not these theories are valid. It has been argued that both the book and the film are examples of hype and hysteria stemming from the western world's fear of global warming, which has become an obsession. 10 The issue of climate change as a whole is indeed one of the most debated topics in the world today, with arguments both for and against the theories. Films like The Day After Tomorrow, An Inconvenient Truth, and The 11th Hour have helped to raise awareness about the changes happening to the climate of the Earth. However, it can be agreed that some of these theories can border on hysteria, primarily when the bulk of the world's natural disasters that happen in this day and age are blamed on global warming. 11 When it comes down to it, The Day After Tomorrow can still be considered to be more science fiction than science fact because it relies on speculations about climate change, which creates an illusion of scientific credibility and allows the audience to suspend their disbelief about the events within the film willingly. 12 The film is not a documentary or news broadcast; its depiction of climate change is solely an extreme fictional depiction of the worst-case scenario and beyond. 13 In fact, actual climatologists have said that the film dramatically exaggerates the effects of climate change and that it would be impossible for the events to happen as they are seen in the movie. 14
Whether or not the depiction of climate change in The Day After Tomorrow is entirely accurate, it can be agreed that the film still has a valid scientific basis. 2012 is a different story since it is based on the latest in a long series of apocalyptic theories that pop up every decade or two and has little to no basis in scientific fact. 15 Emmerich likely only used the hysteria involving the year 2012 as the basis of the film so that he could have an excuse to go all out in what he stated was going to be his final disaster film. 16 That said, Emmerich treats these apocalyptic theories as fact and creates a natural disaster film that is essentially the spiritual sequel to The Day After Tomorrow. There are many theories surrounding the year 2012, which include Yellowstone National Park turning into a super-volcano, the planet Nibiru crashing into Earth, and the North and South poles reversing in a cataclysm of destruction. 17 There is some truth in all these theories, and it involves the Mayan Long Count calendar since the calendar really gives significance to 2012. However, the year is only significant in the same way 1900 is substantial to the Gregorian calendar. 18 The Mayan calendar first came into widespread awareness in 1987 when Mexican-American author Jose Argüelles wrote a book theorizing that the end of the calendar in the year 2012 would result in a new era of spiritual awareness. 19 It was only in the last decade or so that theories equating 2012 with the end of the world began to appear, a fact that is never indicated in any Mayan material. 20 Out of the many apocalyptic theories about 2012, the idea which seems to have most directly inspired Emmerich comes from Belgian author Patrick Geryl, who wrote several apocalyptic books, such as World Cataclysm in 2012 and How to Survive 2012. 21 In his theories, Geryl describes how the sun's magnetic field will create an enormous solar flare, which will result in a cataclysmic polar reversal, which would have catastrophic consequences for all of humanity 22. Indeed, this seems to be what is happening to Earth in the film, which begins with an outer space sequence depicting the alignment of the planets. The series ends with a close-up of the sun's surface as fiery flares shoot. This leads into the film's prologue, set in 2009, in which geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) visits his colleague astrophysicist Dr. Satnam Tsurutani (Jimi Mistry) in India. Satnam takes Adrian into what was once the world's deepest copper mine and shows him his terrifying discovery – the most significant solar eruptions in solar history, resulting in the highest count of neutrinos ever recorded. Satnam then explains that the neutrinos have been heating the Earth's core, and he shows Adrian a boiling water tank to demonstrate the effects. Adrian brings these findings to the White House chief of staff Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), and preparations begin for the world's end. I will speak about the actual socio-political ramifications of these preparations later on.
While it seems Patrick Geryl's theories involving a catastrophic solar flare were the primary basis for the events in 2012, the consensus is that his theories should be taken with a grain of salt and have been seen by some as proof of how 2012 is nothing but a joke. 23 Emmerich seems to be well aware of this and depicted Geryl and other 2012 theorists in the form of a half-crazed conspiracy theorist named Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson). Seemingly meant as a parody, the character, also used in a viral marketing campaign for the film, is an excellent example of how eschewed information about 2012 is in the popular media, especially when his ramblings are contrasted with that of actual Maya scholars. 24
In the film, Charlie gives pirate radio broadcasts in Yellowstone about the end of the world. Charlie gets the attention of the film's protagonist Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) after Charlie broadcasts an event about to happen in Jackson's home in Los Angeles. Charlie proceeds to show Jackson a crudely animated video that gives a simplified version of the solar flare theory – which went as far as to compare the melting of the Earth's crust to the hollowing out of an orange. The video credited the resulting polar shift to a theory called Earth Crust Displacement by Charles Hapgood in 1958. This can be seen as an example of how apocalyptic theorists may use fundamental ideas to give some scientific credibility to their claims. A book entitled Earth's Shifting Crust was published by Charles Hapgood in 1958. However, there was nothing apocalyptic about these theories, and Hapgood was only trying to prove how the Earth's crust had shifted on numerous occasions throughout its history. 25 Just like most significant critics of apocalyptic theories, Jackson writes Charlie off as crazy, which becomes marked in irony when the apocalyptic events start occurring. Speaking of irony, Emmerich decided to change something which was always one of the main constants in most apocalyptic theories about 2012 – the date. It has generally been agreed that the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012, though some counterarguments have stated that the date is December 23, 2012, or even October 28, 2011. 26
However, one of the main dilemmas in the film comes when Adrian gets an update from Satnam and finds out that the Earth's crust is destabilizing much earlier than anticipated. While no exact date is given, a brief mention of the suspension of the London Olympics hints that the film's events happen sometime in the summer. By changing the date of the world's end, Emmerich puts forth the idea that such a cataclysmic event cannot indeed be predicted. As such, while the film gives the impression that the Mayans were “right” about the end of the world in 2012, the change in the exact date suggests that this is merely a coincidence. It was possible that the Earth's crust could have destabilized sooner or later than it did.
THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CLIMATE AT THE END OF THE WORLD
It can be argued that The Day After Tomorrow had political motivations. The film has been described as propaganda by some critics because of its overt left-wing stance and supposed criticism of the Bush administration. 27 Indeed, one only needs to look at the film's depiction of the American Vice President Raymond Becker (Kenneth Walsh), who bears an uncanny similarity to then Vice President Dick Cheney. Going back to the U.N. Conference at the start of the film, after Jack Hall gives his warning about the coming global catastrophe, Becker, who is essentially the antagonist of the film, criticizes Jack's claims as being shocking and not worth the hundreds of billions of dollars it would have cost to pay the price of the Kyoto Accord. Becker would later in the film ignore Jack's request for an evacuation, and it was not until after the storm had decimated the United States that Jack was allowed to present his findings to the administration. By this time, it was too late to evacuate the north half of the country.
Another interesting socio-political element in The Day After Tomorrow is how climate change's effects turn the tables on the “rich country/poor country” relationship between the U.S. and Mexico (and all the third world, for that matter).28 In the film, Jack recommends Mexico as the best place for Americans to evacuate to. However, as the evacuation begins, the refugees are seen being stopped at the border. The refugees are then seen getting out of their cars and walking across the border, with a news reporter describing the action as a “dramatic reversal of illegal immigration.” The refugees were later allowed to cross after the President negotiated a deal to forgive all Latin American debt. This is a significant development since, in actuality, “poor” third-world countries like Mexico could not adequately prepare themselves for the catastrophic events of climate change like a “rich” country like the United States would be able to.29 There would probably have to be a debt-forgiving scenario, like the one in the film. In addition, the film dramatically portrays Mexico and all third-world countries as the savers of humanity. In fact, towards the end of the film, Becker, who is now the President, gives a speech thanking the third-world countries for their hospitality in taking in refugees from the countries of the north. This suggests hope for a unified humanity in the wake of such a global disaster. It remains to be seen whether or not a scenario such as this would occur; several focus groups that discussed the film admitted that this was not a scenario that they, at the time, would have considered.30
The political climate in the U.S. had changed by the release of 2012, which came out in the first year of Barrack Obama's presidency. The Obama character in this film comes in the form of President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover), who is portrayed as a soft-spoken leader coming to grips with the end of the world. He is introduced at the G8 summit, where he relays the information he learned from Adrian Helmsley about the coming future. The look of worry and sorrow on his face in this scene shows that he still cannot believe the end is coming even though he had six months to process this information. At the summit, President Wilson and the other leaders devise a top-secret plan to save humanity – constructing a series of arks built by Chinese labourers, funded by the billionaires who pay one billion Euros each for a seat. The ramification this plan has on those involved becomes a significant plot point within the film. It is established early on in the movie that the government is willing to kill anyone who threatens to reveal the secret when the curator of the Louvre's car is blown up on his way to a press conference to show that the Mona Lisa and other paintings were not taken to a bunker in the Alps as he was told. The most prominent supporter of the extreme measures used to preserve this plan is White House chief of staff Carl Anheuser, who becomes the film's antagonist. He is consistently at odds with Adrian over the ethical issues of the government's plan, making him the film's voice of reason.
When the evacuation plan goes into motion, Adrian insists that the general population should be told and that they should be given a chance to fight for their lives. However, Anheuser counter-argues that telling the people would result in anarchy and that they would wait until everyone who paid for a seat on an ark has boarded. Meanwhile, President Wilson, who is guilt-ridden over the government's decisions, decides to stay behind and tell the truth to the American people. President Wilson's decision works to separate himself from Anheuser. It can be assumed that since Wilson is an archetype for Obama, he is also a left-wing Democrat. As such, it would not seem appropriate for him to side with Anheuser, who comes off as a more conservative right-winged individual. Anheuser's extreme nature is fully revealed after he finds out about the President's decision and decides to declare himself the new head of state. This further distresses his relationship with Adrian, especially when Adrian subsequently finds out about how the government was killing anyone who talked.
When Adrian boards the ark, he is shocked that it could have easily held more people than the few hundred thousand billionaires who paid for a ticket. In addition, he finds out that his friend Satnam Tsurutani, the man who discovered everything, did not get airlifted and was left to be killed by a tsunami in India. This, along with Anheuser refusing to allow those stranded outside the ark to board, leads Adrian to finally reach the breaking point. He opens communication with the other world leaders and makes a passionate speech about being human. The scene plays off as a debate between Adrian and Anheuser, both arguing for and against letting the people aboard the ark. Adrian claims that everyone who died, including Satnam, would have been killed in vain if humanity's future had begun with an act of cruelty. Adrian's speech wins over the world leaders and allows the people to be let aboard.
With this ethics subplot, Emmerich contrasts the two possible ways the government could handle the apocalypse. First, through Anheuser, there is the conservative right-wing method. With this method, the government keeps the end of the world secret from all but a selected few. While this method ensures that humanity is guaranteed to make it through, it also means that the government is committing genocide on an unsuspecting general public. Next, through Adrian, there is the left-wing idealist method. With this method, the general public would have been told about the apocalypse and be given a chance to fight for their lives. While the survival of the human race is not guaranteed with this method, it does leave clear consciences for those involved. In the film, it is the idealist method that finally wins. However, it can be argued that Adrian gets his way too late. While Adrian's actions allowed entry for the few thousand individuals stranded on the deck, most of the individuals on the arks are still the billionaires who paid for a ticket, with most of the world's population having already died without receiving a real chance.
Another interesting socio-political element in 2012 comes from Emmerich's treatment of religion. It can generally be agreed that the apocalypse is a very religious subject, and indeed, the film features many depictions of people gathering for prayer. At times in the movie, Emmerich was compelled to make anti-religious statements. The first comes during President Wilson's last address. Wilson's goal with his address was to redeem himself for keeping the end of the world secret for so long and give the public comfort and a chance for themselves to say goodbye to each other. However, at a pivotal moment during his address, the President begins to recite the 23rd Psalm, only for the feed to suddenly cut off, which results in everyone watching, running in panic. As such, the irony here is that a statement meant to bring comfort only served as a way to increase the anarchy. The second and more disturbing swipe Emmerich makes against religion involves a scene which features a large group of people gathered at the Vatican. While the people are gathered in prayer, an earthquake hits, and St. Peter's Basilica collapses. The domed roof of the church rolls as it hits the ground, crushing those in St. Peter's Square. This scene pushes boundaries about what is acceptable as mindless entertainment in disaster films. There is no real reason for this scene to be in the movie other than a brief statement by Anheuser, saying that the Italian Prime Minister has stayed behind to pray. It can only be surmised that Emmerich included this scene to give the not-so-subtle message that trusting in religion at the end of the world is futile.31 That said, it should also be noted that the film's entire climax is a reference to the biblical story of Noah's Ark. As such, it cannot be surmised that Emmerich is entirely hateful of religion. This can also be seen in how President Wilson is shown as being utterly faithful until the bitter end. As he is about to be killed by a tsunami, Wilson looks up and says, “I'm coming home, Dorothy.” As such, despite the end of the days, Wilson is still faithful enough to believe that he will be reunited with his dead wife in the afterlife, which is as optimistic as it gets.
A NEW BEGINNING?
With all the death and destruction in Roland Emmerich's films, it can be easy to forget that there is always a story of survival at the centre. Both The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 provide a happy ending in the wake of apocalyptic disasters. In The Day After Tomorrow, Jack Hall successfully finds his son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) alive and well in the New York Public Library. In addition, survivors are located in the frozen New York City, and humanity is poised to begin a new life in the former third-world countries. 2012's story of survival is even more unbelievable. After miraculously surviving several disasters, including a catastrophic earthquake in Los Angeles and a super-volcano in Yellowstone, Jackson Curtis and his family successfully manage to get to China and stow away onto one of the arks. In addition, in a miraculous discovery, the African continent survived the worst of the cataclysm and humanity is poised to begin a new life in “The Cape of Good Hope.”
Both films end in a typical Hollywood fashion. However, upon closer examination, survival comes at a price. This is most apparent in 2012 when the only possible happy ending for Jackson and his family was to get onto one of the arks.32 Pretty much everyone else on the planet perished, with only a couple hundred thousand people surviving on the arks. Of those people, the majority are wealthy billionaires. As such, despite Adrian Helmsley's passionate speech about the nature of humanity, the presence of all these billionaires weakens any shared humanity scenario.33
The future is much more optimistic in The Day After Tomorrow. The fatality rate is much lower than in 2012, and humanity might even prosper in the aftermath. One of the most shocking images in the aftermath of the superstorm in the film was how Mexico was depicted as being relatively snow free. As such, despite the world being plunged into a new ice age, humanity is set to survive in the former third-world countries. The endings of both these films can be seen as Emmerich giving an ironic take on the happy ending typically seen in Hollywood films; the world as we know it may have changed forever. However, for better or for worse, humanity will still carry on.
CONCLUSIONS
In the Day After Tomorrow and 2012, Roland Emmerich moved away from his previous science fiction-based disaster efforts and made two films more centred in reality. Whether or not the theories behind them are accurate, Emmerich used the movie to see what the world would be like if it was hit with a cataclysmic natural disaster. Both films featured governments based on the U.S. administration of the time, and Emmerich provided a commentary on how they might react in response to such a disaster. Despite being an excuse to include awe-inspiring destruction sequences, at the heart of Emmerich's films is a story of survival. Both films feature families trying to survive the disaster at any cost. Ultimately, Emmerich gives the hopeful message that humanity will survive the apocalypse, no matter the price.
If Roland Emmerich is to be believed, 2012 ends his two-decade career of making disaster films. He will likely continue to make films in other genres and continue to be taken less than seriously by critics. However, as I have demonstrated, there is still plenty to talk about whether or not Emmerich's films are treated seriously in critical circles.
Support Us
Lights, camera, support! 🎬 Join the Sean Kelly on Movies community and help keep the reels rolling! If you've enjoyed our cinematic insights and reviews, consider becoming a patron on our Patreon or making a one-time donation. Every contribution ensures we can keep delivering top-notch content. Join us on Patreon or donate today to fuel our passion for film! 🍿✨
