DIRECTED BY Roland Emmerich
STARRING John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt
US 2009 158 mins
Roland Emmerich is getting more precise with his dates. Clearly The Day After Tomorrow, his doom-laden disaster movie about climate change, didn’t actually take place the day after tomorrow, and 10,000 BC was a catch-all Stone Age reference more than a specific setting. 2012, however, can only refer to 2012, a.k.a. three years from now, a.k.a. the year when the Mayan calendar apparently predicts the end of the world – and not just the Mayans but also “the Hopi, the I-Ching, [even] the Bible, kind of” (that’s a pretty big ‘kind of’). It takes guts – and perhaps a flawed sense of marketing – to make a film with such a short expiry-date. Think how silly it’ll look in 2013, when its premise becomes outdated. Unless of course we’re all … well, you know.
The film is a big white elephant just begging to be tripped up. Already, its aggressive hype campaign (complete with fake websites) has caused a mild panic, with hundreds of distraught people calling NASA begging someone to do something about our impending doom. Critics, meanwhile, have been lining up to sneer – yet 2012, despite its fatuous premise and portentous tone, turns out to be a top-class disaster movie, consistently better than expected and seldom dull despite its bloated running-time. Here are five reasons (five being the sum of 2+0+1+2) why I found myself cheering more often than sneering:
1. It’s spectacular. As you might expect, given the exorbitant cost – the budget is estimated at a staggering $260 million – the special effects are outstanding. The destruction of LA as our heroes try to flee in a small plane is an awesome set-piece; some of those shots of freeways hanging in the air, like a city out of Dr. Seuss, deserve to be anthologized. Though admittedly Emmerich can’t resist spoiling the effect with inserts of small children looking frightened.
2. It’s (intentionally) funny. The world comes to an end in a two-stage process – first earthquakes, then tsunamis, all of it caused by solar activity – but we still find time for occasional chuckles. “I feel there’s something pulling us apart,” says a man to his wife just before a giant earthquake crack appears in the floor between them, tossing them in opposite directions. And you know you’re in good hands when a small Russian man speaking two words in a deep voice – “Engine. Start.” – brings the house down.
Mostly, however, the comedy is blended with the thrills, the film having absorbed the lessons of Spielberg even if it doesn’t always have his facility. With seconds to go before Yellowstone National Park collapses all around him, our hero (John Cusack) desperately searches for the map giving the locations of the ‘Arks’ that’ll save humanity – and thinks he’s found it, only to pull out a map of the London Underground. D’oh! Later, on the plane, having found the right map in the nick of time, he unfolds the map to see where they have to go – only to discover it’s a map of China. “We’re going to need a bigger plane,” he deadpans, making the Spielberg link explicit.
3. It’s savvy (or just cynical) about the way the world works. Apocalypse doesn’t come out of a clear blue sky: G8 leaders know three years in advance – i.e. from this year – that destruction is imminent. Do they warn humanity? Of course not. What they do instead – keeping it top-secret, and wiping out anyone who threatens to talk – is build a half-dozen Arks to withstand the catastrophe, the project financed by approaching the world’s richest people and getting them to pay $1 billion each so they (and only they) can escape. Meanwhile, the Indian scientist whose research gave the early warning in the first place is used and abused (as the Third World always is by the First), his allies forgetting to airlift him so he and his family perish in a massive tsunami. Typical.
3a. It’s anti-religion. This isn’t necessarily a good thing but it does confirm the film’s flinty spirit, refusing to believe in easy palliatives. Catholics take refuge in St. Peter’s, which of course collapses. The Christ-the-Redeemer statue in Rio is shown disintegrating. Most pointedly, one character prays to God as his death approaches, and it looks for a moment like he’s been miraculously saved – but only for a moment, then he dies anyway. The world is based on chance, says the top scientist (Chiwetel Ejiofor), citing the way Cusack’s book has made its way onto the Arks. This is brave talk in a land (the US) where a majority don’t even believe in evolution.
4. It’s truly global. Emmerich got a lot of stick for Independence Day, where America appeared to save the world – but much has happened in the 13 years since, and 2012 doesn’t just include other countries but even seems to be critiquing Bush-era unilateralism. The climax, hinging on a vital question – should our heroes save themselves, or risk destruction by opening the gates for other people? – makes the point that we’re all connected (a point also made in the plotting, where everyone seems to know everyone else) but the way it’s played it feels like America vs. the UN, White House brute Oliver Platt outvoted by a global coalition of the compassionate. Roland Emmerich, lest we forget, is European.
5. Chiwetel Ejiofor, especially when he takes on the climactic save-the-world speech and (just about) makes it believable. Also John Cusack, and Zlatko Buric, and even Woody Harrelson (builder’s bum and all). Why should people win Oscars for playing Idi Amin or Truman Capote? Surely the bigger challenge is acting opposite hurricanes and maelstroms, mouthing indigestible dialogue and still making an impact. “The Mayans saw this coming,” we’re informed, “thousands of years ago” – but did they also see that good actors would ply their craft even in the midst of global meltdown, and the worst film of the year (at least on paper) would turn out to be surprisingly entertaining? I think not.
