Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:59 pm
London Flooded..
A *new* disaster film uses muchos cgi to depict a devastating flood of central London by a huge storm surge in the North Sea that overwhelms the Thames Barrier. It's a good excuse to rehash some of those aerial shots of Docklands from 28 Weeks Later and Robert Carlyle gets to play his usual role of rugged misunderstood Scotsman, his character's ex-wife is in charge of the Thames barrier or some such, his estranged dad is the scientist predicting disaster that no-one including Robert Carlyle's character will listen to, until it's too late of course. Usual contrived emotional sub-plot to pad about the bits between the special effects, but then, it is derived from one of those airport pulp novels.
The chap who directs this film, however, is the same bod who made Supervolcano, which I must admit that really enjoyed. It's the realism of the decision making process and the slimy politicos getting it wrong and trying to spin to save face, in the face of overwhelming natural power, that made it so gripping. You might remember that was also one of the strongest aspects of The Day After Tomorrow, although Flood is almost as scientifically inaccurate as that film was. Apparently apart from the special effects, the emergency Cabinet meetings are where the film really comes to life, but they are all quality British actors so you'd expect decent performances.
I must admit that as a Northerner I will rather enjoy watching Old London Town get splurged by several billion tons of dirty water. Like most people born and brought up "in the provinces" I resent its monopoly of wealth and resources, the London-centred politics that divide the nation, and the near neglect of anything outside of London as far as promoting the country to foreign visitors is concerned. I also don't like their awful loudmouth gobsh*te accent, which just makes my skin crawl when i hear it. I don't think they'll be saying "pukka" when the Norf Sea is rising up the stairs in their council flats, innit! And with any luck Charley from Big Bruvva might actually shut up when she's 30 feet underwater and drowning down the Old Kent Road.
I s'pose it's a good thing that it keeps environmental issues fresh in the minds of the great unwashed, and is well timed after the recent floods in the Midlands, now that almost everyone has forgotten about Hurricane Katrina (amazing how public attention is so easily distracted - I mentioned the New Orleans reconstruction to someone at work the other day and she didn't even know what I was talking about!)
And on reflection I think that the paradigm shift from traditional big-budget disaster films of yesteryear, such as Earthquake, or even relatively recent offerings in the genre such as Dante's Peak, is a positive development. Those films were typically elemental tales of man against wild and irrational nature. Even though they depicted the best crowd-pleasing devastation that sfx both boefore and after the advent of cgi could render, the ingenuity and the resilience of humankind always won the day. Now, however, there is an urgency to the message. In films such as Flood and The Day After Tomorrow , nature is no longer the enemy but a victim of man’s base insensitivity and commercial greed. Here the devastation is double-edged and self-inflicted, while the urge to survive is cautionary and less triumphant.
Populist movies are now reflecting an increasing urgency within Hollywood to address environmental issues as directly as possible. This has even extended to off-camera activities. Here both the forthcoming Russell Crowe western 3:10 to Yuma and Paul Haggis’s Gulf war movie In the Valley of Elah recently set the green standard by detailing the fuel efficiency of their production vehicles and the bio-degradability of the products used during filming. Meanwhile, Kiefer Sutherland has announced that 24 will be turning its attention to global warming, both within the show’s storylines and in all other aspects of production.
Anything that promotes a signal change in mass behaviour towards global warming is a good thing, imo, it was never going to be a quick process to re-educate people and it's only through mass media and populist offerings that the message gets delivered effectively, but somehow I think it's all going to be in vain. London almost certainly won't be flooded in the next few years by a freak wave or anything else, but in 50 to 100 years time I imagine that the Earth is going to be a pretty miserable place to live.
The chap who directs this film, however, is the same bod who made Supervolcano, which I must admit that really enjoyed. It's the realism of the decision making process and the slimy politicos getting it wrong and trying to spin to save face, in the face of overwhelming natural power, that made it so gripping. You might remember that was also one of the strongest aspects of The Day After Tomorrow, although Flood is almost as scientifically inaccurate as that film was. Apparently apart from the special effects, the emergency Cabinet meetings are where the film really comes to life, but they are all quality British actors so you'd expect decent performances.
I must admit that as a Northerner I will rather enjoy watching Old London Town get splurged by several billion tons of dirty water. Like most people born and brought up "in the provinces" I resent its monopoly of wealth and resources, the London-centred politics that divide the nation, and the near neglect of anything outside of London as far as promoting the country to foreign visitors is concerned. I also don't like their awful loudmouth gobsh*te accent, which just makes my skin crawl when i hear it. I don't think they'll be saying "pukka" when the Norf Sea is rising up the stairs in their council flats, innit! And with any luck Charley from Big Bruvva might actually shut up when she's 30 feet underwater and drowning down the Old Kent Road.
I s'pose it's a good thing that it keeps environmental issues fresh in the minds of the great unwashed, and is well timed after the recent floods in the Midlands, now that almost everyone has forgotten about Hurricane Katrina (amazing how public attention is so easily distracted - I mentioned the New Orleans reconstruction to someone at work the other day and she didn't even know what I was talking about!)
And on reflection I think that the paradigm shift from traditional big-budget disaster films of yesteryear, such as Earthquake, or even relatively recent offerings in the genre such as Dante's Peak, is a positive development. Those films were typically elemental tales of man against wild and irrational nature. Even though they depicted the best crowd-pleasing devastation that sfx both boefore and after the advent of cgi could render, the ingenuity and the resilience of humankind always won the day. Now, however, there is an urgency to the message. In films such as Flood and The Day After Tomorrow , nature is no longer the enemy but a victim of man’s base insensitivity and commercial greed. Here the devastation is double-edged and self-inflicted, while the urge to survive is cautionary and less triumphant.
Populist movies are now reflecting an increasing urgency within Hollywood to address environmental issues as directly as possible. This has even extended to off-camera activities. Here both the forthcoming Russell Crowe western 3:10 to Yuma and Paul Haggis’s Gulf war movie In the Valley of Elah recently set the green standard by detailing the fuel efficiency of their production vehicles and the bio-degradability of the products used during filming. Meanwhile, Kiefer Sutherland has announced that 24 will be turning its attention to global warming, both within the show’s storylines and in all other aspects of production.
Anything that promotes a signal change in mass behaviour towards global warming is a good thing, imo, it was never going to be a quick process to re-educate people and it's only through mass media and populist offerings that the message gets delivered effectively, but somehow I think it's all going to be in vain. London almost certainly won't be flooded in the next few years by a freak wave or anything else, but in 50 to 100 years time I imagine that the Earth is going to be a pretty miserable place to live.
