Thursday, May 20, 2004

The Gospel of Tomorrow

Sandy Starr at Spiked has an excellent discussion of The Day After Tomorrow as Green propaganda. Entertainment or science? “The answer you get from the filmmakers depends on whether they stand to gain publicity from a scientific debate about the film (in which case, it’s serious), or whether you’re taking them to task over the film’s scientific accuracy (in which case, it’s just entertainment). You have to hand it to the marketing department—the blurring of fact and fiction is an ingenious promotional technique.” Heads you win, tails I lose. “What purpose can raising ‘awareness’ of an unlikely or impossible scenario possibly serve, other than encouraging people to be more afraid than is rational? And why would scientists, of all people, wish to encourage such irrationality?”

Well Sandy, since you ask, it occurs to me that this is a reminder that ]http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php] much of environmentalism is, as Michael Crichton has argued recently, more religion than science[/url]. This movie is thus more than mere propaganda (boring). It is proselytizing (even more boring, not to mention hypocritical given the Passion hysteria). I’m all in favor of religion in movies, but let’s at least be honest about it. Truth in advertising? In this case let’s try starting with truth in science.

phlagrant ::: from editor ::: (2) Comments

Comments

1

Then again, maybe The Day After Tomorrow is an accelerated documentary about the city of Chicago, as this AP article implicitly suggests.

Posted by publisher on 20 May 04 at 03:06 PM
2

Environmentalism a religion more than a science?  Because it allegedly and superficially parallels some facets of Judeo-Christian religious beliefs?  Give me a break.  Crichton writes wonderfully commercial fiction, but his arguments in this case are equally arbitrary and specious.  Not least to mention the hosting site, PERC.org (Property and Environment Research Centre), would have their own motivations that support such an denunciatory supposition.

The movie is a disaster flick, and any good one in that genre tap into a collective fear.  To write off that fear as merely the product of a tenacious group of johnny-come-lately proselytizers is insulting considering not only the increasing factual, not truthful, scientific evidence to the contrary but also the changing day-to-day experience of everyday life.  It’s not “doomsday” faith that acknowledges increasing rates of asthma and cancer and their environmental causes generation to generation.  Those are facts.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 24 May 04 at 02:03 AM

Post a Comment

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?