Hollywood Science & Disaster Cinema Essay

To some extent, on the whole fiction attempts to bend factual truths in the serv tripe of the narrative. In some cases, this is done for purposes of pure function, such as heightening the stakes of narrative or preventing the dramatic momentum from craunch to a complete halt. In other cases, it is done to express a particular authorial view heading perhaps a political panorama or an observation about society which is more often than not, dependent on(p) on the thematic integrity of the narrative.In the case of cinematic fiction, Hollywood has always had a special affinity for a liberal translation of the truth. In the 90s disaster classic, Armageddon, screenwriters Jonathan Hensleigh and J. J. Abrams presuppose that it is impossible to communicate drilling bed to well-trained astronauts in order to justify sending up an oil pitch crew with no astronautical experience to save the world by dropping hydrogen bombs into a geologic mass the size of Texas which is nigh analogous to trying to split an apple with a needle.The 2003 depiction, The Core operates from a complete non-premise in which an inactive magnetic field puts country at risk from incineration by space-based microwaves which more accurately, pose no threat and are affected little by magnetic forces let alone the Earths magnetic field. One could say that Hollywood does not exclusively bend the truth. Rather, truth is made to stretch, contort and mold itself into incredulous shapes as if it were so much Play-Doh.The mental picture The twenty-four hours later tomorrow, which had been marketed heavily as an ostensibly cautionary tale about the potential perils of climate transplant, is surely no exception to this Hollywood tradition. Directed by German-born Roland Emmerich, the apocalypse smut fungus auteur of such acquires as Independence Day and Godzilla decides to unleash his cathartic urges on a larger, planetary scale (with New York remaining his primary sail of destruction).Th e Day After Tomorrow focuses on one paleoclimatologist an eight-syllable term for ridicule who studies prehistoric weather conditions and his futile attempts to convince world leaders of the opprobrious implications of climate change. While many of the scientific premises he puts out are true, it is when they reach their tipping point and send the Earth into an Ice time far sooner than he had predicted that the film enters the realm of fantasy. At the in truth least, The Day After Tomorrow does the honorable thing to scientists and tries not to set up them look like idiots to viewers who know a thing or two about science.Jack residency, the aforementioned paleoclimatologist played by Dennis Quaid, maintains a coherent view of science that is above par for most Hollywood scientists. He articulates the films core premise, which is that melting polar ice depart have a negative effect on the disconnection Stream that will severely disrupt the natural thermal flows cause sever e weather changes. However, he projects that this will happen over the head for the hills of decades or centuries. Therefore, the mechanics of climate change articulated by Hall are sound.(Duke University, 2004 McKibben, 2004) It is the rate at which climate change occurs within the film that is unrealistic, as well as the near-mystical forecasting abilities of Halls figurer simulations. The notion that no one other than Hall can commute present day meteorological data, as gathered by his helper Terry Rapson, played by Ian Holm, and his co-workers at the Hedland Climate Center, into a paleoclimatological scenario is absolutely discombobulating, as if to suggest they are the only experts who could foresee this.To screenwriters Jerry Rachmanoff and Roland Emmerich credit, they remain to the full aware of the level to which they have exaggerated these matters. The climate tipping point sends the international North into a series of weather disasters Tornados wreak havoc on the Hol lywood sign (as if to foreshadow the films ultimate rejection of a Hollywood ending solution), hurricanes sending automobiles flying all over Los Angeles, and sub-zero temperatures freeze airborne helicopters over Scotland.All the while, the hero-scientists, such as hurricane specialist Janet Tokada, point out plainly how nigh-impossible this accelerated pace of disaster is. Its nigh as if their secondary role was to remind viewers that these are all the exaggerations of fictional conceit. Unlike The Core, The Day After Tomorrow does not relate the professional integrity of the science professions by presenting a fabricated non-problem. Furthermore, The Day After Tomorrow does not propose that blue-collar derring do, when equipped with comely magical high technology can combine to form the silver grey bullet solutions which undo everything.However, by presenting the climate change problem on such incredulous terms, The Day After Tomorrow risks undermining the very pith it is a ttempting to get across, despite the fact that it has the National Oceanic and Atmospheric constitution director telling a dismissive Vice President who mistily resembles Dick Cheney, that if policy makers had listened to the scientists, you would have had a different policy to embark on with While popular culture may have a express mail influence on policy making, it most definitely affects popular perceptions of let on issues such as nuclear weaponry and bioterrorism. (Schollmeyer, 2005) The filmmakers of The Day After Tomorrow have often stated that one of their goals to draw increased attending and spur greater action towards addressing the threats of climate change. However, because many scientists on some(prenominal) sides of the climate change debate have taken issue with the scientific accuracy of the events depicted in the film, it risks muddying this goal further.This means that The Day After Tomorrows lack of scientific accuracy makes it easier for climate change sk eptics to continue to dismiss the threat of climate change by suggesting that the film is built on the foundations of propagandist and alarmist science, while the climate change Cassandras will remains Cassandras as they become forced to debunk a film that represents their own concerns. REFERENCES McKibben, B. (2004, whitethorn 4) The Big Picture. Grist. Retrieved online on December 6, 2008 from http//www.grist. org/comments/soapbox/2004/05/04/mckibben-climate/ Duke University (2004, May 13). Disaster Flick Exaggerates Speed Of Ice Age. ScienceDaily. Retrieved online on December 6, 2008, from http//www. sciencedaily. com /releases/2004/05/040512044611. htm Schollmeyer, J. (2005, May-June) Lights, camera, Armageddon. publicize of the Atomic Scientists, volume 61. Retrieved online on December 6, 2008 from http//www. illinoiswaters. net/heartland/phpBB2/viewtopic. php? t=9007