The issue of global warming, or climate change for the nervous folks, has been on the mind of the American public for decades now. Presentations depicting the gravity of the matter and attempting to incur a national response through awareness have been made year after year. The movie, The Day After Tomorrow is one such presentation. With a cast including prominent actors like Jake Gyllenhaal, and the hype of graphic effects highlighting the dramatizations, this movie managed to put out the idea of how grave this problem is. However, there is concern as to whether this attempt at spreading awareness was actually more of a hindrance to informing the public of the need for their taking action.
The crux of such disdain lies in the incongruences of the progression of climatic developments in the film. There is disputable science intertwined with the plot of The Day After Tomorrow that provoke more overlooking than looking into global warming. Audiences see the barefaced aggrandizements of the weather disasters and perceive the real issue as less severe than it really is. A false sense of security ensues, as people observe the conspicuously implausible mass destruction presented in the movie, and they recognize that the events occurring in front of them are most certainly not about to occur in the real world. Knowing, then, that the consequences they could face due to climate change will not amount to the paramount heights faced by the cast in the movie, they could feel comfortable with not worrying about it at all. The overall sentiment that results from the viewing on the part of the general, not specifically knowledgable, public is one of comfort and relief, rather than one of inspiration to make changes. Why, after all, would anyone come out of an extremist, hollywood-enhanced disaster film with genuinely feeling a stimulus to act?
Science goes bad in the movie’s portrait of global warming due to the infeasible rapidity of the disastrous developments. Negative events transpire consecutively, one directly following its predecessor, with such haste as to imply an ice age brought on in the span of a few days. The unlikelihood of this eventuating at such a pace brings on the common speculation of how much attention should be payed to the issue. Fissures appear in ice at an arctic research site, and shortly afterward snow piles up to cover more than half of the Statue of Liberty. People, even without knowing much about how the climate functions, are fully capable of identifying the silliness of the science involved. There is no way they can sensibly infer from this viewing that the issue is as dire as the movie makes it seem. Despite it all, the film did serve as a good component of the semester’s viewings. With its decent acting, attempt at effects, and aesthetic cast, the picture as a whole was appreciable enough.