Yesterday I watched a movie at the cinema called 2012. ‘It’s an apocalyptic movie, as the movie Cloverfield is’, I was told by a friend, and indeed it is. Cloverfield (trailer) is a fantastic movie with a unique, realistic documentary-like story telling style. It proves that good quality realistic disaster movies can be pulled-off. However, 2012 (trailer) is not such a marvellous movie. 2012’s (fictional) story, in brief, is about the earth’s natural physical response to astrological phenomena, and how, through tsunamis and such like, this leads to the destruction of the earth’s surface and the near-extinction of humanity, and the response to and effects of the above.

Cloverfield, the movie

I watched the film for entertainment, expecting nothing other than mind-numbing entertainment and suspension of my reality. I came out of the cinema, though, with a very deep feeling and bunch of thoughts.

The movie was excellently produced, and it featured many various excellent locations and scenes. The special effects and graphics were precedent-setting and fantastic. Yet because of these good aspects, the negative aspects were even more obvious and were accentuated in the audience’s minds: some shoddy acting, a terrible – nay, appalling – screenplay, and some very poorly directed chapters. At certain times my fellow cinema-goers and I scoffed as we witnessed improbable-car-jump after improbable-car-jump as the movie did nothing to suspend our disbelief.

2012, the movie

The amount of money that was spent on making the film was an obscene $200 million USD (c. £100m GBP). [Source]

Reverse thinking

The money could have been spent making a film which depicted the actual effects of a real climate change; one that we know has already started. So, at some point one or more persons made a decision to make the film 2012.

If I had the money and resources that the 2012 creators had I would have made a film, more like Cloverfield, only it would be depicting the impact of ‘climate change’ as it is contemporarily called.  2012’s story is that of an event which isn’t foreseeable. Instead a film could have been made about the foreseeable horror of what is going to happen (and is indeed already happening in some parts of the world): the wrath of man-induced climate change.

Man stands beside a tree as he watches the 'king tides' crash through his families sea wall, and the sea spills onto his family property, on the South Pacific island of Kiribati.

Imagine what a change could have been effected. The opportunity to open such a large audience’s eyes before Christmas 2009 by shoving in people’s faces a visualisation of the likely effect of global climate horror was foregone. Instead, a corny, almost comedy-like film is screened at cinemas worldwide.

The special effects orchestrators et al. could have been working towards a film and a cause which could have made a real difference to better humanity. The animators could have been put to work making the most fantastically realistic and powerful portrayal of what is happening and what will happen even more to the planet if we continue on this path as we know it – horrendous climate change and human inactivity in solving it.

Climate politics

Instead the film, and I intend not to foster ideas of conspiracy, made a point out of the earth’s natural trends, its own will, and our inability to affect it. This very point is one of the main arguments put forward by those who deny climate change as being man-made and our acting to redress its effects. Interesting. Very interesting.

So when people go to sleep at night having watched 2012, their subconscious dreams about all they’ve seen that day. It dreams about moments from the film, the story they’ve viewed, the characters they’ve empathised with, and it dreams also of how all of this effects the dreamer’s life. Then, remarkably, as it does every night, it makes a logicalisation, rationalisation, categorisation, and organisation of these ideas. Some of the dreamers’ minds will conclude in such a way as to reinforce the idea, belief, message, and portray of reality of those which deny man-made climate change. If this isn’t the case with all the viewers, which I expect it isn’t, it must be the case with at least a few. What a tragedy. What a tragedy that the opportunity to effect such change, such change on peoples hearts and minds has been wasted in such a pathetic way in making 2012.

Qualification

The film does, of course, open people’s eyes and minds to the issues of death, the human race’s survival, and destruction on planet earth – and this is good –, but the points I’ve made afore override this benefit, I believe.

Conclusion

An amazing movie could have been made. There could have been a heroic act, but no heroic act took place. Instead, in 2012, just ‘another’ crappy film was made.