“An Ecological Apocalypse: The
Story Retold in Contemporary
Hollywood Blockbusters”
Type: Master Thesis
Index
Introduction__________________________________________________________3 Showing The Ecological Crisis___________________________________________8
Ecology and Film: A New Research Field_________________________________8 The Day After Tomorrow_____________________________________________10 Noah_____________________________________________________________15 The Happening_____________________________________________________19 Children of Men____________________________________________________22 Interstellar________________________________________________________24 The Day The Earth Stood Still_________________________________________32
An Unsatisfactory Combination________________________________________36
Deep Ecological Utopia______________________________________________36 The Original Apocalypse_____________________________________________39 The American Monomyth_____________________________________________41 Global Warming; Another Story________________________________________44 Post-Apocalyptic Cinema_____________________________________________46
Alternative Representations____________________________________________52
Less is More_______________________________________________________52 We Are Animals____________________________________________________55 Natural Images_____________________________________________________57 The End is Here____________________________________________________61
Conclusion__________________________________________________________64 Bibliography________________________________________________________67
Introduction
On June 12th 2015, the latest film of the Jurassic Park franchise, Jurassic World was
released. A few days later, it had broken the box-office record of highest grossing opening weekend with an astonishing 208 million dollars, in the United States alone. By comparison; the highest grossing picture of all time with 2,7 billion dollars, Avatar (2009), had an opening weekend of 77 million dollars. Although a great marketing campaign helps to sell tickets, this number tells us more than just a result of a good marketing team. A lot of people wanted to see this movie, wanted to watch dinosaurs on the big screen again. Even though they knew these dinosaurs are not real, they are the mere result of human’s idea of what a dinosaur should look like.
The park that is shown in the film works allegorically for Hollywood blockbusters in general. Let me briefly explain this. In Jurassic World, the park is fully functioning as it was once supposed to 22 years ago in Jurassic Park (1993). People from all over the world want to go to this island, where they can watch dinosaurs. Scientists have designed these dinosaurs, genetically altering DNA until they had what they wanted. So, people are paying the price of a ticket to watch a dinosaur that is not really a dinosaur (maybe they looked very differently when they still inhabited the earth), but watch humans’ portrayal of a dinosaur. The same can be said about the people who go to watch the film Jurassic World in theatres; they come from all over the world to pay a ticket to watch human’s portrayal of dinosaurs. Some dialogue also contains this dual meaning, when explaining for instance why the new dinosaur has been made. “People want to see more than a T-Rex and raptors; they’ve seen that already. They want to see something bigger, something more dangerous.” This type of dialogue can be applied to both the park as well as the film itself, for the spectator wants to go the theatre again to watch bigger dinosaurs, not the same dinosaurs. Furthermore, the capitalist nature of the park is similar to the capitalist nature of Hollywood cinema. The main objective seems to be to show people what they want to see; otherwise they will not pay money anymore. This results in choices that are made to entertain rather than educate, without any thought about the outcome of these choices.
Even though throughout this film references are made towards the original Spielberg film, one character (and his critical viewpoint towards the park) is being left out. Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) argued already in 1993 that ‘nature cannot be controlled’. This seems to be the main objective of the theme park, to control nature in order to gain profit. Should this be the main concern of capitalist enterprises? What are the consequences of trying to dominate nature? And what part does Hollywood cinema play in these issues, for it is both a tool to reflect on life as well as a capitalist enterprise? I will try to think critically about the functioning of Hollywood cinema regarding issues of humans versus nature, therefore the importance grows every day in light of the present ecological crisis. My job will function similarly to Goldblum’s character Ian Malcolm in the first Jurassic Park film; providing a critical standpoint in relation to the Hollywood film, the ‘theme park’ (figure 1).
The result of humans’ desire to dominate nature for their own personal gain can be shown best in what is called the human footprint. According to an article by Sanderson in 2002, human beings were using 60 per cent of all the fresh water on Earth, and claims that “it would now take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population, if every human consumed at the level of the average US inhabitant” (Sanderson 891). Our use of natural resources to live up to the amount of people covering the face of this planet is leaving its footprint, making some scientists calling this era the ‘anthropocene’1 (Steffen, Tyson). This shaping of
the earth includes the building of dams, burning down forests in order to grow crops, digging up fossil fuels, building ever-growing cities, and the list goes on. The dangers of this domination of nature were already witnessed by a lot of people in the previous century, like the Earth First! movement in the 1970s (Lee 123).
These dangers were also articulated through cinema, showing these ecological issues in order to let people reflect on them. Films like Silent Running (1972), Soylent Green (1973), Logan’s Run (1976), Mad Max (1979), Mad Max 2 (1981) and Blade Runner (1982) all show dystopian futures, the result of an ecological crisis in the form of overpopulation, the greenhouse effect, industrialization, depletion of natural resources, et cetera. This idea of a dystopian future as a direct result of human actions can be traced back to the end of the Second World War, with the arrival of nuclear 1 The impact of humans on the face of the Earth for the past century has organized and completely changed the look of its surface. The past century is therefore dubbed the ‘era of humans’, from a geological perspective.
weapons. For the first time in history, humans had harnessed the power to destroy themselves and the entire earth. A nuclear war would mean the end of life as we know
Figure 1: Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park (1993), critiquing the ecological side of
the park/film while unable to interfere with the action portrayed
it, which made people in the West think about the biblical story of the Apocalypse. The images described in the Book of Revelations provided a good background to capture the imagery of the scenario of a nuclear war (Ostwalt 58, Stone 55). Hence these images were shown in cinema, in both apocalyptic films and in post-apocalyptic films2 like The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), On The Beach (1959), The Time
Machine (1960), Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), Planet of the Apes (1968), A Boy and His Dog (1975), The Day After (1983), WarGames (1983) and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985).
These apocalyptic images were thus fully incorporated into Hollywood cinema, with some examples of films that gave not a nuclear but an ecological example as to why the earth is coming to an end. Nowadays these apocalyptic images are widespread through Hollywood, but the cause for doomsday is now mostly due to an ecological crisis. The exception now seems to be the nuclear cause, in films like Equilibrium (2002), The Book of Eli (2010) and Cloud Atlas (2012). The documentary An Inconvenient Truth (2006) by Al Gore was intended to make people aware of global warming, something that has been one of the major reasons for the apocalypse 2 An Apocalyptic film refers to a film where the end is near, just as in the Book of Revelation; the signs of imminent destruction are given. Some of these films however avert the apocalypse. A Post-Apocalyptic film shows the world after the so-called ‘apocalypse’, after an event that has altered life on Earth completely and has destroyed almost everything.
in cinema ever since. Although the heating of our planet is a much debated issue in modern science, the results of our current population and the ways we use fossil fuels and alter our surroundings for our benefit is not a system that functions harmonically with the earth. And because we treat the earth this way, for our benefit on short-term, the idea that this will at some point lead to the destruction of humans or the destruction of the entire earth, including humans, is not very far-fetched. How then is this ecological crisis shown in contemporary Hollywood cinema? Does it warn us against the dangers of our behaviour as it tried to warn us against the effects of a nuclear war? Or do the films only focus on entertainment, using the ecological crisis as dinosaurs to entertain people and show them a good time, instead of making everybody think about all the possible dangers of this crisis? And what role does the narrative structure of the apocalypse play in the portrayal of this crisis? In order to investigate this, I will look at the narrative frameworks from both the original apocalyptic story in the Bible, as well as its adaptation in Hollywood. This adaption will be referred to as the ‘modern’ apocalypse. On top of this research in apocalyptic films I will build on the existing research regarding ecology and film, which focuses primarily on how ecological topics are portrayed in cinema. Combining these two types of research, focusing on both the narrative and the imagery, a claim can be made if the portrayal of the ecological crisis and its possible solutions in apocalyptic cinema are satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and how this portrayal should differ if it is unsatisfactory.
This research builds on an existing paper written for the course “Religion and Film: Apocalypse Now or Never” by Laura Copier and Caroline van der Stichele. I used the final essay of this course to deal with the ecological apocalypse, a topic that I elaborate on in this thesis. The essay deals with only three films (Noah (2014), The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) and Interstellar (2014)), focusing primarily on the difference of the apocalyptic narrative in these blockbusters in relation with the original biblical text, and the paradoxical message it provides in relation with the ecological background. In the thesis this research extends to multiple films, including some post-apocalyptic films, and with literature stemming not only from apocalyptic film studies but also from ecology and film.
In the first chapter I will look and discuss all the apocalyptic films that deal with this ecological crisis, for these films could function as a warning for our actions. These films include The Day After Tomorrow (2004), Children of Men (2006), The
Happening (2008), The Day The Earth Stood Still, Noah and Interstellar. In the second chapter I will further examine the solutions that these films provide for their ecological crises, and at what point they fall short. I will elaborate on their solutions by shortly discussing some post-apocalyptic films from the past twenty years or so, namely Waterworld (1995), AI (2001), WALL-E (2008), Snowpiercer (2013), Elysium (2013) and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). In the third and final chapter I will show alternative, more satisfactory solutions that some films provide, and will elaborate some more on the debate about humans versus nature, exemplified by the films Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) and Jurassic World (2015). Possible solutions for the future of cinema and the way the future is represented in cinema will be elucidated in the conclusion. I fully understand the weight of this concept for the issue of overpopulation and fatalistic consequences of humanity’s actions are difficult to digest. However, as it is the subject of so many popular forms of entertainment, who arguably deal with this subject uncritically, I deem it necessary to critically investigate the representation of these ecological crises within the apocalyptic context. The thing that enticed me to write this thesis, is the fact that both these ecological crises as well as the end of the world maybe should not be taken as lightly as certain forms of entertainment may propose through their narrative content. Hopefully this research on these representations will shed more light on a contemporary issue of global significance.
Showing The Ecological Crisis
“Ecology is a set of beliefs and a concomitant lifestyle that stress the importance of respect for the earth and all its inhabitants, using only what resources are necessary and appropriate, acknowledging the rights of all forms of life and recognizing that all that exists is part of one interconnected whole“ (Button, 190)
Ecology and Film: A New Research Field
The trend of showing the ecological crisis3 in contemporary Hollywood cinema does
not go unnoticed. With the growth of these ‘Ecological’ films, came growth in academic attention about these films. Both can be attributed to the increased awareness about the ecological crisis in general. According to Charles Corbett and Richard Turco however the production of these films is in many cases “responsible for a significant amount of both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions” (5), just like the entire film and television industry. The most research is done in light of the content of the films. This has resulted in a research field focusing on Hollywood cinema, and the way ecology in general and ecological issues are addressed here. This is done by referring to the existing field of ecology, a field that combines natural sciences with philosophy. As of today, the most relevant books about ecology and cinema combine ideas that are expressed in the field of ecology and show them with filmic examples.
Pat Brereton finishes his book Hollywood Utopia: Ecology in Contemporary American Cinema with the idea that “the dream factory of Hollywood has and can continue to play its part also by foregrounding the increasing importance of ecological debates within a global cultural consciousness” (237). He then claims that the academic world should retain a more holistic approach towards these issues, combining more fields of research in order to keep film studies at the forefront of 3 When talking about the ecological crisis I’m referring to the elements that threaten the earth and all its inhabitants, as a direct result of human action. Global warming, overpopulation, deforestation, pollution; all these elements will be called under their common denominator, the ecological crisis.
interdisciplinary research (238). The current way of conducting research, according to Brereton, is as follows:
“There continues to be a preoccupation with narratology in Film Studies, which often avoids the formal exploration of space. Coupled with this is the predominately negative ideological critique of Hollywood film, with many cultural histories predicating their analysis on Fredric Jameson’s view that ‘mass culture’ harmonises social conflicts, contemporary fears and utopian hopes and (more contentiously) attempts to effect ideological containment and reassurance” (12).
In this paper it will not be possible to conduct a holistic research combining multiple disciplinary fields, but it will be restrained towards the representation of the ecological concerns in contemporary cinema, also following Jameson’s view about mass culture. In other words, I view these films critically for their ideological content, but will explore these films not only from their narratives but also from their spaces, what is shown. This follows David Ingram’s research in his book Green Screen, where he calls this tendency of ecological messages in Hollywood Film Vert4. He
“seeks to identify the complex ways in which both nonhuman nature and the built environment have been conceptualized in American culture, and to analyse the interplay of environmental ideologies at work in Hollywood movies, while ultimately keeping the debate over environmental politics open and provisional” (vii). This way the analysis of contemporary Hollywood film serves an ecological purpose, for it will make people debate on these issues. Not everybody will start debating after a movie, but some of them will. This is the power of Hollywood cinema; its emphasis still lies on entertainment, and therefore people see these movies to be entertained (rather than informed which can be the case with ‘art’ films5). Especially this audience now gets
the opportunity to reflect on these ecological issues, issues that they might not have thought of otherwise. For this reason, the ideological and ecological messages from 4 Referring to Film Noir, a film genre from the 1940s and 1950s, emphasizing the genre element of these films while focusing on the colour green (which is associated with environmental awareness).
5 The contrast between Hollywood cinema as ‘entertaining’, and art cinema as ‘informing’ is not nearly as clear-cut as presented here. There are a lot of exceptions on both sides, for Hollywood directors often want to inform public and art cinema does not need money to make their films. However, in a broad sense, this distinction can be made. The nuances and exceptions do need to be kept in mind though.
these films need to be examined, in order to serve a good reflection on these matters for everybody who watches these films.
Robin Murray and Joseph Heumann on the other hand conduct a more historic overview of ecological cinema in their book Ecology and Popular Film from 2009, trying to help ‘green’ the film industry and its content, and encourages other researchers to do the same. One of their findings regarding the content of contemporary ecological cinema is what they call the ‘eco-hero’. This type of hero differs from the ‘normal’ hero in the sense that the heroic role is “filled not by tragic pioneers or even bumbling comic heroes, but by fathers seeking to save their own children or children they adopt as their own from an environment that humanity has made toxic in multiple ways” (6). They show this by an example from The Day After Tomorrow and Children of Men, but as we will see there are more accounts of this eco-hero. Murray and Heumann perform a lengthy analysis of the eco-hero in The Day After Tomorrow, but my analysis will focus on more than the portrayal of the hero.
On top of the connection with ecological issues, my research will build on the existing research regarding apocalyptic cinema. How the biblical narrative has been altered to fit Hollywood cinema, and what connection this narrative has with the way we perceive the world around us. Apocalyptic thinking has increased in general with the turn of the millennium and again in 20126. The scholars I will elaborate on are
most notably Jon Stone and Conrad Ostwalt. I will look at the connection between apocalyptic thinking and the ecological crisis in cinema. How is this crisis shown, and what solutions are being provided? And are they satisfactory relating them towards apocalyptic narrative? This research will balance between the narrative structures and the images provided, for the connection between these two (time and spaces) make for a new story with new meaning, one that reflects and helps reflect our perception of the ecological crisis and its possible outcomes.
The Day After Tomorrow
6 From a Christian perspective the turn of the millennium would mean the end of a time of peace and the arrival of the Antichrist; in 2012 the world would come to an end according to the Mayan calendar. Both have had impact in the Western world, and have resulted in an increase in apocalyptic films.
The Day After Tomorrow was one of the first films to explicitly show a doomsday scenario as a direct result of global warming. Due to the melting icecaps shown in the beginning of the film (figure 2) the North Atlantic current becomes disrupted, quickly cooling down the water and with it the entire Northern hemisphere. This plunges the earth into another ice age, which makes people globally migrate to the south. At the end of the film two astronauts look down on Earth from outer space, remarking that the sky has ‘never been so clear’ (figure 3). Pollution has been reduced significantly. So the ecological crisis in this film is global warming, as a result of pollution. This is made clear through dialogue of the protagonist, Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), and shown in the beginning of the film when a large part of ice of Antarctica breaks of. The resulting threat to humans then comes not in the form of heat, but in the form of an ice age (with temperatures dropping with 10 degrees per second). So the effect of global warming is reversed (from warming up to cooling down), and dramatized in order to provide spectacle. Instead of the original forecast of these events7 it happens really
fast, which is opposed to the ‘real’ global warming, which is a non-dramatized, slow process, and therefore has no value in film. The extreme weather conditions shown in The Day After Tomorrow make for attractive special effects (figure 4-7) but do not reflect the real dangers of global warming. The portrayals of the effects of global warming in this film are problematic for the activists who are trying to create awareness for global warming, for the conclusions made in this film are the opposite of the real situation, with such extreme events making it almost laughable. It works as a piece of entertainment, but by doing this it distorts facts in such a dramatic way that global warming and everybody talking about it become laughable. But it does more than show dramatized (and reversed) effects of global warming.
After the giant storms have dissolved and the survivors are being transported to the south, the survivors are happy, some troubles between the First and the Third world, like the financial debts of the Third world, seem to have dissolved along with the clouds. Furthermore the new President of the United States claims that he was wrong about global warming. A new beginning can be made. One way to read this film is from the perspective that nature will restore itself, no matter what. We heat up the earth by burning fossil fuels, which leads to the melting of ice making the earth cold again. In fact, in The Day After Tomorrow it is like a reset button has been hit, 7 The arrival of a new ice age was supposed to happen in 100 or 1000 years, but it happens in a couple of days instead.
making it cold to such an extent, that heating up the earth will be a good thing. This is the paradox in this film. It seems to warn us for the possible effects of global warming, which kills a lot of people.
Figure 2: Melting ice caps result in cracking ice Figure 3: Europe shown with a clear, unpolluted
sky
Figure 4: Tornado’s in Los Angeles Figure 5: Hailstorm in Tokyo
Figure 6: Flood in New York Figure 7: New York City covered in snow, frozen
On a local level however this storm is the cause that reconnects a father (the eco-hero) with his son, and on a global level it reconnects the First world with the Third world. The storm even reduced a large part of our population size, which is not seen as a bad thing but as a solution to our problem regarding our world population. In other words, all problems (local and global) are fixed because of the events portrayed in this film.
If the cause of the extreme weather is due to global warming and the way humans have polluted the earth, the outcome of this behaviour is the solution of all our problems. In other words, all we have to do to save our species from the incoming dangers of global warming is not to change our ways, but continue on this path of warming up the planet. Even though the events portrayed have major ecological effects, some ecological dangers like pollution and overpopulation will be solved after this big storm. The emphasis lies on the solution of these issues, for they are thought to be the cause of the events in the first place.
There is some discussion about whether The Day After Tomorrow is an apocalyptic film, or whether it is merely a disaster film. This difference can be found in the revelatory nature of the apocalypse8. According to Stone, an apocalyptic story
contains a “message whose source comes from elsewhere – that is, outside the present conditions or circumstances – and is mediated through an agent who stands between these worlds” (Stone 71). By showing a new world, a different reality then the present one, the protagonist can learn something and take this information back to our present world. Apart from its revelatory narrative, another trait of the apocalyptic story (from a literal point of view), as opposed to a disaster story, lies in its eschatology9. It tells
us something about a final judgment and the punishment of the sinners, only ‘true believers’ are rewarded to the new world (Stone 57, Ostwalt 62). Jon Stone describes five different traits of an apocalypse in literature, containing a revelatory element (through a dream for instance), interest in otherworldly forces (such as angels and demons), belief of divine intervention in human history (seen in the ending of an evil person or power, or end of time), the restoration of paradise on Earth (termination of the old world and creation of the new), and finally the reward for the believers and punishment for the sinners (Stone 58). This is different from its metaphorical use, where it mainly consists of its connection to the end of times. A disaster story revolves its entire plot around the disaster, without a message or eschatology. This revelatory film genre might be called apocalyptic fiction, according to Stone, “not because its subject is cataclysmic per se but because its generic form is similar to that of an apocalypse and its underlying function is that of a warning of imminent danger 8 An Apocalypse (derived from the Greek word Apokalypsos, meaning reveal) is a text with revelatory elements, where the source is from a different world or divine. This source reveals a reality not yet known by the recipient, the apocalypt, or its audience (Stone 57).
9 Eschatology is a part of theology concerned with the end-times, with the final events of history. It literally means ‘study of the last’.
and of a way to avert impending doom” (Stone 59). While not all the apocalyptic films discussed here contain all the apocalyptic elements, they all set themselves apart from disaster movies by showing that the events threatening human survival are a form of punishment for our behaviour.
Hollywood cinema has made some alterations to the original apocalyptic story, not incorporating all the elements as much as in literature. Most of the films have included a happy ending, because the ‘real’ apocalypse is averted. The narrative pattern in apocalyptic cinema is as follows: “first, the hero or heroine receives a special message or revelation, usually from outside the present circumstances; second, the civil authorities (or so-called experts of society) reject the warning or refuse to act to avert catastrophe (instead, their energies are absorbed harassing the hero): third, the hero or heroine, along with a ragtag collection of compatriots, rescues society from near disaster, destroys the menacing force, and makes the world safe once more” (Stone 61). The same is the case in The Day After Tomorrow. The message from another source is not ‘otherworldly’ in a religious sense, but scientific. The message comes from data; the otherworldly might refer to the computer. The protagonist learns something about incoming danger, tells the Vice-President but gets ignored, and in the end saves his child and with him all the remaining survivors in the north10.
The story thus follows the apocalyptic pattern, but what of the punishment of the sinners? If it truly is an apocalyptic film, than the people who have died were the sinners and the survivors the believers who are being rewarded. In this case, the ‘believing’ refers to believing that global warming is real. One of the ‘unbelievers’, the Vice-President, says in his final speech: “I was wrong”, which marks his turn in belief. The other people however are not marked clearly as unbelievers; in fact some of the believers perish in the storm and are not rewarded (martyrs?). Maybe the ‘sinners’ are not the people who refuse to believe in global warming, but are the perpetrators who have caused global warming. This seems much more plausible, for the effects of global warming are destroying almost the entire First World and rewarding the Third World. Because there is no talk about punishment or perpetrators, and the source of the message is not entirely otherworldly, this film’s apocalyptic elements remain somewhat ambiguous. Because its political message does not warn us about global warming at all but seems to celebrate it, the story does revolve more 10 The safe return of Jack with his son convinces the President to send helicopters to the north to look for survivors.
about the disastrous events. In my opinion, this film is apocalyptic because of its narrative framework and because it does seem to warn us about an incoming danger, but it gets caught up in the disaster elements making the message very paradoxical.
Noah
A good example of an apocalyptic film is the adaptation of a biblical apocalyptic story, namely the story of Noah. This epic from 2014 shows a message from an otherworldly source (a vision from God, referred to as the Creator), a punishment of the sinners, and a restoration of paradise on Earth for the believers. It follows the original story from the bible, but it has some alterations. In these alterations, the ecological nature of this remake comes to light. The Creator will destroy everything because of the way humans have treated the earth and its inhabitants. This is shown with shots of mining (figure 8), deforestation (figure 9), pollution (figure 10, 11), eating of animals (figure 12) and the building of cities (figure 13,14). This is in stark contrast with the harmonic way Noah (Russell Crowe) lives, for which he is rewarded. The film does seem to show that a more harmonious, equal way of living with the earth will make it possible to ensure survival.
The film seems to tell the story of Noah as a historic event. This is emphasized by the way that the flood is depicted. When the rains start to fall, a shot from outside the earth is given (as from a satellite), showing the entire earth covered in storm clouds (figure 15). It thus gives a scientific view of a divine event, as if to convince the viewer that it really happened. When Noah is telling his children about genesis however, he claims that people started to kill each other. This is shown with fast-paced images of people with weapons, killing other people with weapons (figure 16-36). Looking closely at these images, it becomes evident that the weapons shown are not only historic weapons, but also weapons used in present times. This marks the connection this film has with our present times; it not only tries to tell a historic story but also connect this story with our present times. This connection makes the wicked behaviour of the people in the film a critique of the way people are treating the earth right now. The punishment from the Creator therefore functions as a threat, as something that might happen if we don’t change to a harmonic way of living. If this film is to be read allegorically for present times, than its events function as a warning.
The solution it provides however is the killing of almost everybody on Earth, in order to start again. This is the only way to save the planet, an enormous reduction of our population.
Figure 8: Mining Figure 9: Deforestation
Figure 10: Pollution Figure 11: Pollution
Figure 14: Cities devour the earth Figure 15: Rainclouds cover the earth
Figure 16-36: Frame by frame shots of sequence about people killing other people from all different
But what happens after the apocalypse, when Noah and his family are building a new future? Where they lived as nomads before (figure 37) now the family settles down and starts farming (figure 38). This is paradoxical, for humans are being punished for the way they have subdued nature, and Noah is being rewarded for his harmonic lifestyle. As soon as they are rewarded, they start to subdue nature in the form of agriculture, which will lead to cities and the same sinful behaviour as seen before. He abandons the lifestyle for which he was rewarded. His behaviour in this new world will inevitably be punished. When Noah was still working on the Arc, he is shown surrounded by cut-down trees, similar to the shot of deforestation (figure 39). Because he has the right motivation, his actions are not punished, even though the actions are exactly the same. This may be perceived as the evil that is inside all of the human beings. Therefore any attempt to fix our world and create a better world would be futile. This paradox might be explained by the dual function of the film as both a historic account of a biblical story, and a critical reading of our current behaviour with its possible outcomes. The new world of Noah will in time be corrupted again and lead to our current times. Therefore this film lacks the ability to provide an alternative, and unifies the problem with the solution (the domination of nature). This is the philosophical problem of the story of Noah, the fact that it places humans above nature. Humans are asked to build an Arc, to take care of the animals, because humans are special. The place of humans in the universe needs to be reviewed critically in order to review our actions critically. A possibility to do this is by moving away from the idea of a God that watches over us and punishes us like in the original apocalyptic story.
Figure 39: Noah surrounded by cut down trees, similar to the shot about deforestation. Paradoxical
representation
The Happening
In Hollywood’s apocalyptic cinema the role of God is often replaced by other elements, like Global Warming in The Day After Tomorrow. The ‘punishing’ elements in these films differ. In The Happening for example, the trees and plants are disposing a chemical element into the air that causes people to commit suicide (figure 40). This film revolves around this plot and the mystery as to why people suddenly kill themselves, but when it becomes clear that the trees are responsible for the suicides, the ecological message becomes clear. After the theory that ‘it could be plants’ is suggested, the first place they park is shown with two enormous nuclear power stations behind them (figure 41). Emphasized by dialogue between the characters as to why this is happening, it is suggested that we (humans) have become a threat to this planet and its inhabitants (because of, for instance, our nuclear waste), which causes the other inhabitants like the plants and trees to fight back and get rid of us.
This idea about the earth as a system that reacts to our actions is part of a theory by James Lovelock, called the Gaia theory. Lovelock is a theorist in the field of Ecology, a research field from which a lot of ideas concerning the ecological apocalypse are stemmed from. The idea of Lovelock is that all organisms on Earth work in such a way as to create a more habitable environment for itself. For instance the trees produce oxygen, which in turn creates an atmosphere, which then helps defend the trees and everything else against the impact of an asteroid. In other words, every organism is instigating some sort of feedback loop, which in turn will make the earth more habitable. All these feedback loops taken together are called the Gaia-system, a system that is not ontologically unified11: even though it refers to the Greek
mythological figure Gaia, or Mother Earth (Latour 10). Throughout his publications, Lovelock argues that human-beings are a somewhat different organism, for they are now instigating a negative feedback loop, meaning that the result of their actions12
actually makes the earth less habitable for us (and others as well). ‘Gaia’ is heating up, which will eventually lead to an environment where humans cannot survive. Or, as is the case in The Happening, the trees will create an atmosphere that kills humans in order to make the earth habitable again.
The nuclear power stations are not the only suggestion made as to why this ‘feedback’ loop has started. One scene plays out in a house where everything is fake, a so-called model home (figure 42). When they leave this area, the camera lingers on a billboard about new houses being built (figure 43). When looking closely to these two images, the model home is the house that is shown on the billboard. This emphasis on new empty houses being built, along with the fact that larger groups of people are attacked sooner than small ones, tells us something about the critique on humans. Because there are too many people on Earth, new houses have to be built and new parts of nature dominated. Because of this, nature has no other option than to get rid of humans. In other words, our overpopulation will cause our downfall; it will create a negative feedback loop. Our hand in this is shown by the act of suicide; we are killing ourselves, literally. By polluting and overpopulating the planet we are digging our own graves.
11 Meaning that it is not a system that decides, like a God. It is merely a combination of feedback loops.
What kind of solutions then does this film provide for these ecological issues? The eco-hero in this story is a science teacher called Elliot (Mark Wahlberg), who restores his relationship with Alma (Zooey Deschanel) after they have taken care of his friend’s daughter. He saves them by using his scientific approach, the same approach that has caused the events in the first place. After their relationship is restored, the events stop. A reward is given three months later in the form of a pregnancy. This happy ending to their story was only possible by the abilities of the protagonist; again a solution is provided that is similar to the cause. This film differs slightly because it has added a short scene after the happy ending of the couple, of a park in Paris where the events are now starting. This could mean several things, either the pregnancy stands for peoples inability to change and continuation of expending the population for which we are punished, but it could also mean that the Americans were warned and have proven themselves, and now it is Europe’s turn. Either way, it does not come up with a viable solution; it either shows us what we shouldn’t do (produce more babies) or it celebrates our ability to love. It does not however show us something that can be done.
Figure 40: People commit suicides because of trees Figure 41: Nuclear power stations in the
background suggest the cause for the action of the trees
Figure 42: Fake houses Figure 43: Text above billboard suggest our
influence in the events; “You Deserve This”
Children of Men
A similar representation of the ecological crisis is given in Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men. Here the apocalypse is shown because for some reason no children have been born for the last 18 years. This leads to chaos around the world, with hope of survival diminishing everyday, until the protagonist Theo (another eco-hero, played by Clive Owen) comes across a pregnant woman. Again the reason for this apocalypse is not provided, it is only suggested by one character and this suggestion is emphasized by several images. Jasper (Michael Cain) thinks the infertility is the result of pollution. Throughout the film there are shots of pollution, which can be attributed to the lack of interest of cleaning up garbage, lack of working population, but in turn it shows the impact we have on our planet (figure 44-49). Even more so when facing our own mortality, and the disregard we have regarding the planet if we will no longer inhabit the planet. The infertility in this sense is the result of a negative feedback loop, created by pollution and overpopulation.
Because no children are being born, both the characters in the film and the viewers watching the film are forced to reflect on mortality, and on ideas about the earth without humans. What happens to animals after we’re gone? The film seems to pose this question by showing all sorts of domesticated animals13 in different locations
(figure 50-61). But beyond this philosophical idea of what will happen after humans are gone, domesticated animals are a symbol for something else. They are the living proof of a part of nature that is dominated by humans for their own benefit. Therefore it adds a layer to the cause of the infertility; not only because of pollution, but because we dominate nature we are punished, put back in place as just another species struggling for survival.
What is strange is that this film, while showing the end of the world and the end of our species, is focused on immigration. The politics of this film concern the human rights of the ‘fugees’14. Theo and the woman with her baby have to escape
13 Animals that are used by humans for whatever reason, and have possibly lost their ability to survive in the wild because of their dependency on humans.
England through one of the refugee camps, after several accounts of immigrants in cages are shown (figure 62-64). A connection is therefore made between immigration and pollution. In combining these two themes, this alternate universe shows the truly devastating and threatening effects of global warming, which are described by Lovelock in one of his latter books, The Vanishing Face of Gaia. He argues that the heating of the planet will not necessarily endanger us, but
“… what might do so are the disastrous consequences of sea-level rise, leading to the destruction of a major city or the failure of food or electricity supplies. These dangers will be aggravated by the ever-growing flux of climate changes. Our gravest dangers are not from climate change itself, but indirectly from starvation, competition for space and resources, and war.” (Lovelock 31) The solution to these problems comes in the form of a baby. A baby is a symbol for future generations, a new opportunity. When Theo and Kee (the baby’s mother) sit in a boat, the army destroys the refugee camp from whence they came (figure 65). The future of humanity sits in that boat, awaiting ‘Tomorrow’15 (figure 66). In order to
build a new world, the old one needs to be destroyed. The boat will take them to a place called The Human Project, where top-scientists are working on a solution for our infertility. This place is presented as the only place where a solution can be found to the effects of infertility/global warming, by trying to counter nature with science. This hopeful idea that our solution lies in science implies that issues like global warming, overpopulation and pollution16 can be overcome by dominating nature.
Maybe the baby is born because of some divine intervention, and not because of a scientific solution. This is a possibility because no explanation about her conception has been given, and a lot of different religious groups are praying for our sins. The baby could be a reward provided by God. Even if this is the case, the objective is still to get this baby, or present from God, to the scientists because they will know what to do. The domination of nature is therefore suggested as a more viable solution than changing our attitude against the earth and arguably God.
15 The name of the boat that should pick them up and bring them to safety. The boat is a symbol for our future, for a possible ‘tomorrow’.
Figure 52-61: Domesticated animals
Figure 62-64: Immigrants are put in cages, showing the troubles of increased immigration
Figure 65: Refugee camp gets destroyed Figure 66: Boat called ‘Tomorrow’ picks them
Interstellar
The idea that science17 is the solution to our problems happens in Children of Men
only in the background. In Interstellar however, this idea about science has been pushed to the foreground, thereby celebrating science. Because crops won’t grow anymore due to dust created by insects, a food crisis is imminent. It is only a matter of time before there won’t be anything edible, thus threatening life on Earth. Because everybody needs to be a farmer in order to supply the world with some food, crops are shown in every scene on Earth (figure 67-75). The food production capacity of the earth cannot sustain the amount of people. All these images of crops therefore become symbolic for the amount of people, for all these crops are still not enough to feed the population. The overpopulation has resulted in an exhausted Earth, incapable of carrying this capacity. This is emphasized by the location of this crisis: the United States. As mentioned earlier, “it would take four Earths to meet the consumption demands of the current human population [in 2002], if every human consumed at the level of the average US inhabitant” (Sanderson 891).
The excessive consumption of resources in America can thus be attributed as a cause to the crisis. This connection between the food production crisis and America is made visible through the aforementioned shots of crops, taken together with the excessive amount of shots of the American flag (figure 76-80). Another function of the flag is the claiming of new territories. Humans have put flags into new grounds, and then made the ground useful to them. The protagonist, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), affirms this ability of humans. He calls us “pioneers, explorers, not caretakers” when talking about our place amongst the stars. However, our desire to claim new grounds and dominating them for our own benefit seems to have resulted in a food crisis that threatens the entire species.
The solution in this film lies not in the reversal of this negative feedback loop, undoing what has been done to the earth. It seems as though attempts have already failed, leaving no options. In the beginning of the film a drone is captured flying on 17 Modern science is the result of humans’ attempts to dominate nature. Therefore science is a word capturing the act of dominating nature in all its forms.
solar energy, a sustainable energy source (figure 81). In the background some windmills are shown, another sustainable energy source (figure 82). These are the only accounts of our energy supply, and it is sustainable and ‘clean’, rather than polluting and short-term. This image becomes utopic when relating it to other ecological issues nowadays besides our overpopulation and food production industry; issues like pollution and energy seem to have been solved. But even in this utopic future, the world is coming to an end. The change towards sustainable energy sources is not enough, meaning that there is nothing that can be done. The utopic image therefore contains a certain hopelessness of the situation.
Because the earth itself is shown beyond saving, the solution lies in the exploration of new planets to inhabit, new worlds to plant our (American) flag. The enterprise through space is accompanied with even more pictures of flags, emphasizing this effort of searching for new worlds to dominate (figure 83-94). The film concludes with the discovery of a new habitable world, thus ensuring human survival. If the crisis is caused by our desire to claim new lands and domesticating them, the solution is again similar to this cause. Not only is the discovery of the planet the solution given, but also the humans that were living on Earth need to be rescued as well and taken to this new planet. This is made possible by Cooper, who has gone into a different dimension to translate data about gravity back to his daughter Murph, making their journey off the earth possible. The film therefore becomes a celebration of humans, especially of our science that will make it possible to move through different dimensions in the future. This celebration of science becomes evident because certain scientific theories explain the entire journey made through space, about space travel, wormholes, black holes, gravity, and so forth. All these theories are true18, thus literally celebrating solutions that are made possible through science.
18 A scientific theory is valid, or true, as long as no evidence is provided that counters the theory or a theory has been formulated that better explains the phenomena and disproving the theory.
Figure 67-75: Shots of corn; showing our food production and the way it alters the Earth
Figure 76: American flag outside the school Figure 77: Picture of American flag in school
Figure 80: American flag on the miniature space shuttle in the opening credits
Figure 83-94: American flags throughout space; the entire galaxy gets occupied and claimed by
(American) humans
The Day The Earth Stood Still
An opposing idea about science, focusing more on the fragility of technology, is shown in the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. An alien visitor by the name of Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) comes to save the animals from the humans, for we have become a danger to our planet and its inhabitants. This danger is shown in multiple shots of oil distilleries and oil drills (figure 95-96). This enterprise has polluted our environment and stands at the basis of our modern Western society. After oil was incorporated into our society, our population grew exponentially from 1,6 billion people around 1900, to 6 billion in 2000, and already 7 billion in 2015 (Hirschman 6). Oil therefore is a metaphor of our ecological issues, ranging from Global warming and pollution to overpopulation because of this domination of nature. For this domination we are being punished; the earth gets ‘cleansed’ of humans. This is done by a swarm of iron-eating grasshoppers, eating everything in their path. Before this event, all the animals are taken up into the sky by green spheres to protect them from this swarm. These two images refer to the biblical story of Noah, with the swarm being symbolic for the flood and the spheres are a form of an Arc, saving the animals from the flood. The big difference however is that there are no ‘good’ humans; everybody is being punished by this otherworldly force.
So the only way to save the planet would be if humans were no longer on Earth. This is not only due to our usage of oil. Other signifiers for Western culture are given, like McDonald’s. The decision that humanity does not deserve a second chance gets made inside of a McDonald’s for instance (figure 97-98). The motivation for this decision is implicated in the location of the McDonald’s. This chain of restaurants is symbolic for both the Western culture in general and American culture specifically, it is a multinational exploiting poor people while providing food without any nutrition (Ritzer 6). A second signifier for our culture, and a reason our species should perish, can be found in technology. There is a continuous referral to technology, and these references are established in the background (figure 99). In this image the car of the protagonists drives past a store containing electronic devices, and when looking closer the car itself turns out to be a hybrid. The car being a hybrid shows the connection
between the fossil fuels and electricity, for these cars use both. And both are equally responsible for the way we are destroying the earth.
This film is very different from the original film The Day The Earth Stood Still from 1951. And precisely in these differences the ecological message of the film becomes clear. The original film provides a warning of the consequences of a nuclear war. In the original, Klaatu lands with his spaceship in Washington D.C (figure 100). Here he wants to address the world leaders and reason with them. In the remake, the landing site is Central Park, New York City (figure 101). This small difference shows the different reason why Klaatu has arrived. While in the original he lands in Washington D.C., the political heart of America with the capacity to start a nuclear war, in the remake this location has been replaced by Central Park. This park is surrounded by a large city, and has been designed by humans. This location thus shows a prime example of humans’ desire to dominate nature. The original ends with a robot that remains on Earth after Klaatu leaves who will destroy the earth if another act of violence is perceived. So in order to save us from ourselves, an even greater danger is placed before us. This externalization of danger functions as a tool to create awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons, it can truly destroy the entire earth.
In the remake this gets replaced with technology/electricity. Klaatu has the power to tap into electronic circuits and control technology. Helicopters, satellites, lie detectors, cameras; all can now be used against us which shows both the fragility and dangers of these technologies. This is the solution the film provides, a move away from technology. After humans are granted a second chance, all our technology stops. Both fossil fuel generators and electricity are shut off (figure 102-106), forcing our society to live without these things. But if this is the solution, why then has this superior being control over technology? Shouldn’t this be something to achieve? When relating these questions back to the function of the apocalypse, I would argue against this. The fact that Klaatu has control over technology shows his superiority, like a God. This is emphasized by his arrival on Earth, where his spaceship is first shown as a bright light coming from behind a church (figure 107). In the Old Testament, according to Jagersma, the apocalypse functions as a threat that happens when people are placing themselves next to God. This is why God sends the flood, to remind people that they are in fact not God (Jagersma 84). When viewing Klaatu as a Godlike being, his abilities are different from human abilities, and our desire to harness these abilities will be punished. In order to attain a sustainable relationship
with the earth, we must therefore rid ourselves of everything that makes us feel like God and that makes us the ‘master of nature’; meaning the usage of fossil fuels and modern technology regarding electricity.
Figure 95: Klaatu walking past an oil distillery Figure 96: Grey industrial polluted world,
occupied by oil drills
Figure 99: Shot showing both an electronic store as well as a hybrid car
Figure 100: Original landing site, Washington D.C. Figure 101: New landing site, Central Park
Figure 102: Oil distillery’s light dying out Figure 103: Oil drill stopping its movements
Figure 106: Satellites stop moving Figure 107: Religious aspect of the arrival of the
spaceship
An Unsatisfactory Combination
“The modern apocalyptic imagination removes the end of time from the sacred realm of the gods and places the apocalypse firmly in the grasp and control of humanity. It is this development that defines the cinematic presentation of the end of time, and it is this revision of the apocalypse that allows the apocalyptic message to remain meaningful for modern and secular society” (Ostwalt 63).
Deep Ecological Utopia
As we have seen the cause for the world to end in contemporary Hollywood cinema is an ecological one, although its precise cause differs between films. The solutions provided are also quite different, and often unsatisfactory. There is something however that all these films have in common, an image that is both ecological as well as utopian. The common image I’m referring to is the one of a future inhabited by fewer people. Every film shows this idea, leaving the audience with the utopic idea of a less populated Earth as a solution to our problems. The aversion of the apocalypse therefore only happens when people have already perished. Only after a viable amount of people has perished is redemption possible. In The Day After Tomorrow the cold restores balance by killing a lot of people on the northern hemisphere, in Noah a flood wipes out almost everybody, in The Happening the earth literally makes people kill themselves after which people are shown pregnant again. Pregnancy has become impossible in Children of Men, which automatically reduces the population after which it becomes possible for somebody to become pregnant. The worldview of Interstellar shows a lot less people living on Earth, and even fewer start a colony elsewhere. In The Day The Earth Stood Still another depiction of the flood only stops after it has killed a lot of people, not before.
In order to attain a harmonic sustainable relationship with the earth, the total human population should lay around 500 million people, according to Thomas Malthus (17). He witnessed in as early as 1798 the problems caused by population
growth, and the impossibility of the food production to keep up with the population. Certain developments in food production have been made that Malthus could not foresee, but his argument still stands, with some great ethical difficulties however19. In
the 1970s the deep ecology movement incorporated this idea that humans should radically reduce their numbers to achieve a harmonic relationship with the earth (Devall, Sessions 72). This radical approach differs from what Arne Naess calls ‘shallow ecology’, whose primary objective is to “increase the health and affluence of people in developed countries” (Naess 95). The deep ecologists Devall, Sessions and Naess all have described a utopic future of a less inhabited world, a view that is now shown in apocalyptic Hollywood cinema. Another trait of deep ecology was already present in Hollywood cinema, namely the idea that every living organism is principally equal (95). According to Brereton,
“Through sublime moments evidenced in the closure […] space and time are given over to therapeutically promoting the wishful fantasy for deep ecological harmony. In most of the films discussed, audiences are presented with an excess of signification through narrative closure, encouraging a metaphysical engagement with spatial identity, which is posted as co-existing with more conventional psychological and temporal identity (233).”
Apocalyptic Hollywood cinema thus adds to this view of deep ecological harmony the image of the deep ecological utopia; a world where fewer people are living on Earth, and live in harmony with each other and their surroundings (figure 108).
19 Hitler also used the ideas of Malthus to back up his philosophy behind the concentration camps (Cocks 85).
Figure 108: Happy ending in Noah, providing a utopic worldview of an earth with fewer people
Brereton explains utopianism as something that “can be broadly defined as the desire for a better way of living expressed in the description of a different kind of society that makes possible an alternative way of life (21).” This utopic vision that (mainstream) films provide, is the function of these films, according to Fredric Jameson in 1979. In his essay “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture”, he explains the ideological workings of the utopic images in films like Jaws (1975) and The Godfather (1972). This is important, because “everything is mediated by culture, to the point where even the political and the ideological “levels” initially have to be disentangled from their primary mode of representation which is cultural” (139). In his research, Jameson shows that these utopic images in mainstream Hollywood cinema rather confirm than critique the dominant ideologies. The same can be said about the utopic image in the apocalyptic cinema; it provides a utopic image that is satisfactory in order to confirm the current ideology, instead of critiquing the actions that have led to this apocalypse.
This is done in the film by combining the journey of the (eco-) hero with the saving of the world. The fulfilment of his journey in turn means the saving of the entire planet. It thus combines the wish of the hero (individual) with the wish of the species (collective). This combination is problematic, because the individual and the collective wish often oppose each other. Viewed historically, in order to let society grow in numbers, rules against individual freedom were made (Foucault 243). This ‘biopolitics’, a term introduced by Michel Foucault, describes the tension between individual and collective. The same is the case with the deep ecological utopia. In order to achieve this wish, other people must die. So if the collective wants fewer people to inhabit Earth, than this will go against the freedom of life of certain individuals. So the collective deep ecological wish goes directly against the individual wish. In cinema this tension gets resolved by showing a hero who wants to save everybody around him, while an external force makes people die. In the end the earth is less populated (fulfilling the collective wish), while the hero, and the audience with him, succeeded his (or her) individual journey, saving the people around him (fulfilling the individual wish of life). In The Day After Tomorrow, the individual journey of the eco-hero is completed, while the cold has taken many lives. The film concludes with a hopeful feeling that love can overcome anything, while in the
meantime the issues of pollution and overpopulation have been resolved (figure 109). This is a fictional story, because in reality the individual and the collective wish always oppose each other in some way. This tension is absent in cinema fulfilling only a utopic wish, which confirms the dominant ideology20.
Figure 109: The protagonist watches other people getting saved, combining the individual journey
with the collective cause, creating a happy ending in which every problem is resolved
The Original Apocalypse
The original biblical text of the apocalypse shows similar traits, but it does have fundamental differences regarding the collective and the individual. The Book of Revelation for example, speaks of a time of turmoil that has to be endured, after which reward will be given through the return of the Messiah and the punishment of the unbelievers. So the people who will perish are sinners that will be punished, and the survivors are rewarded for their belief. This distinction does not get made in contemporary cinema; at first everybody is being punished, and in the end everybody is being rewarded. No clear distinction is being made, a distinction that made it possible to provide a clear message. The Book of Revelation was written around 100 20 In the end of The Day After Tomorrow, populating and heating up the earth are the things that should be aspired; the current affairs are therefore celebrated and not criticized.
CE, in a time where the Romans were prosecuting Christians. This text therefore functions, according to most theology scholars, as a story to give hope for the Christians, to endure their struggles without question, in order to keep their beliefs instead of adjusting to the Roman way of life, which was destroying all kinds of smaller cultures. In this respect, the text is not prophetic in nature; it does not give us divine insight into what will happen, it is merely a reaction to the situation around which it was written (Walsh 16). Nowadays cinema provides this reaction to our situation, but its message of a possible reward does not provide a satisfactory manner through which this reward could be achieved.
Another reason for why the apocalypse happens in the bible, which can be found mostly in the Old Testament, is when humans are placing themselves next to God. God, in a variety of forms, therefore punishes this sinful behaviour. The story of Noah in Genesis, for instance, tells us that people have become ‘wicked’. In fact, they perceived themselves as Gods, as rulers of the earth (Jagersma 84). All but Noah and his family, who therefore are given the task to save two of every animal (for the animals are innocent as well), and gives him insight into what will come. Then God sends the flood, which terminates everybody on earth, leaving only Noah and his Ark filled with animals, to repopulate the earth (Genesis 6:9-8:19). In Noah the repopulation by humans gets called into question, after which a second chance is granted for our species (figure 110). Another story is found in the story of Babel, where people are all working together to create an enormous tower, levelling themselves next to God. When this is seen, God creates the confusion of tongues, so people cannot work together anymore to create such things (Genesis 11:1-9).
A new world replaces the old sinful world. The new world gets referred to in the bible as the New Jerusalem, this is the world inhabited by the believers after the sinners have been punished. Before this New Jerusalem is created, there is a battle with the Antichrist, a person who claims to be a prophet, a messiah, but who is false. Sinners follow this Antichrist, who later does not view himself as prophet but as God himself. This is the personification of evil: somebody who claims to be God (Revelation 13: 1-2). The true Messiah defeats this Antichrist; he destroys the old world and creates the New Jerusalem (Stone 57). While the cause for the apocalypse might still be the same in contemporary cinema21, the function of the Antichrist and
21 The result of human behaviour regarding the planet can be interpreted as a modern version of people who perceive themselves as Gods, as rulers of the earth.
the New Jerusalem have been reversed, thus changing the message of the story. What new meaning does this story have in light of the original story?
Figure 110: A vision of Noah shows the result if humans survive the flood; the entire world will burn.
The American Monomyth
In contemporary apocalyptic cinema, no distinction is made between sinners and believers. Because the cause for the apocalypse is ecological, humans are all responsible for this apocalypse. Because of this, no new world is created for the believers, for everybody should die along with the old world. This is the case in Noah for example, where everybody is shown as sinners, including Noah, and the restoration of paradise would mean the death of everybody. Because of love they survive, they are granted a second try in paradise, they are reinstalled in the old world. The focus therefore shifts from the creation of a new world towards the preservation of the old world. In this respect, the messianic figure22 in these films no longer
functions as a creator of a new world but makes sure the old world remains, “he prevents the dawning of the […] eschatological kingdom” (Ostwalt 62).
22 The messianic figure refers to the hero of these films, which is the person who saves everybody, sometimes through sacrifice (as in Children of Men). A messianic figure discerns himself from an ordinary hero by the scale of what/who he saves, together with the religious nature he may receive through the immortification of mankind by saving them.
This role of the messianic figure can be explained from the background of American cinema. Since the 1930s, a new type of myth has been born in cinema. Jewett and Lawrence describe this new myth, called the American monomyth, as stories where “helpless communities are redeemed by lone saviour figures that are never integrated into their societies and never marry at the story’s end. In effect, like the gods, they are permanent outsiders to the human community” (Jewett and Lawrence 29). The reintroduction into society was the case in the ‘classic’ monomyth, where the protagonist first leaves society and then re-enters society as a full member (Campbell 18). The American monomyth is most notably present in superhero stories23 but can be witnessed in apocalyptic American cinema as well. In fact, the
superhero films incorporate a lot of apocalyptic imagery into their stories. So the world is a harmonious paradise that is threatened by evil, and our protagonist needs to destroy this evil (Walsh 4). Because apocalyptic cinema has adapted this storyline, the old world is not portrayed as sinful but as paradise, and the arrival of a New Jerusalem becomes a threat to the old world. Where in an apocalypse the destruction of the old world creates paradise, in the American monomyth the world is already perfect, and to destroy this world is evil. In The Happening, the forced act of suicide is claimed as pure evil, while this is supposedly done to create a world that can live in harmony. The trees try to create paradise for themselves, a New Jerusalem, without sinners. But because all of the humans are sinners, the individual journey of the hero concludes with the passing of these events; the apocalypse is averted. Their lives are back to normal again; the old world is restored (figure 111).
