Global Warning

Red rivers of molten lava scorching through Los Angeles neighborhoods. Giant asteroids hurtling on a seismic collision course with the Earth. Or comets. Or the Big One that threatens to send California out to sea. The great American disaster movie has become such a staple in Hollywood that many consider it a separate genre, or at least a subgenre of the "summer blockbuster." Does such celluloid present an opportunity for the public to learn about and grapple with real-world issues, or is it simply a vehicle to sell more popcorn and soda -- or even worse, a way for spin masters to discredit legitimate fears?

This season's big blockbuster, 20th Century Fox's The Day After Tomorrow, will put this question to the test on a grandiose scale. In the movie, global warming results in the melting of enough polar ice to spawn cataclysmic changes in ocean currents, including the dissolving of the Gulf Stream. Tornadoes then descend on Southern California, a blizzard hits India and hail hammers Japan. Tsunamis bob the Big Apple, which then becomes locked in ice. Of course what may matter most to audiences is what happens to the film's attractive stars, who include Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal and Sela Ward -- but that's a given.

Everyone agrees that the scientific facts of the $125 million movie are manipulated -- ostensibly to fit the constraints of contemporary filmmaking. Just as no one in real life can glance at a TV in a bar and immediately see a story dealing personally with them, or never need any change from a cab driver, ocean currents are not likely to change the climate in a matter of days. Canadian environmental luminary David Suzuki has written, "While the movie is based on a real phenomenon... It's a disaster film, and has no more grounding in reality than the director's last big movie, Independence Day, in which aliens invaded the Earth."

Indeed, Roland Emmerich, the film's director, is not known for making movies heavily rooted in rigorous fact. Many are clearly works of science fiction, such as Godzilla, Stargate and Universal Soldier, while his 2000 flick The Patriot drew fierce criticism over historical accuracy and tone. But James Snyder, a spokesperson for the Physicians for Social Responsibility, echoes the thoughts of many when he points out, "The Day After Tomorrow offers an unprecedented hook to discuss something that everybody will be talking about."

The film's producer, Mark Gordon, has been quoted as saying, "part of the reason we made this movie was to raise consciousness about the environment." Harvard paleoclimatologist Dan Schrag says he believes most Americans are "probably smart enough to distinguish between Hollywood and the real world." Schrag and many other scientists are hoping the new movie will ignite some passion in the public to get serious about discussing the very real threats of climate change. Scientist Michael Molitor, who consulted on the movie, told The Independent, "This film could actually do more in helping us move in the right direction than all the scientific work and all the [congressional] testimonies put together."

Other scientists, such as oceanography professor Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have criticized the film for what they consider to be taking away from the seriousness of the climate change issue. "The Day After Tomorrow is a great movie and lousy science," argues environmentalist and author George Monbiot. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville says, "Hollywood should not be the driving force behind the public discussion of global warming." Writing in Grist, environmental journalist Bill McKibben also points out that the movie's dramatic representation may desensitize the public to the more gradual pace of actual events. "If the reason we're supposed to worry about global warming is that it will first send a tidal wave over the Statue of Liberty and then lock it forever in an ice cube, anything less will seem... not so bad."