Short Take: Incredible to look at but sells itself a little short

Director: Roland Emmerich (Independence Day)

Screenwriters: Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser (10,000 B.C.)

Cast: John Cusack (1408), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children of Men), Amanda Peet (Whole 9 Yards), Thandie Newton (Crash), Oliver Platt (The Ice Harvest)

Length: 2h 38m

Synopsis: In 2009 geologists discover that abnormally large solar flares from the sun have begun to heat the earth’s core to higher temperatures than it’s meant to withstand. They calculate that in a few years the earth’s core will reach such high temperatures that the crust will become unstable and completely reorganize itself, resulting in mammoth earthquakes and tsunamis. The Mayan calendar ends on December 21^st, 2012. As it turns out, they weren’t far off.

Analysis: Self-described as a disaster movie, 2012 can then be presumed to take just as much (if not more) pride in its visuals (form) than its story (content). The film’s visual effects (and in this case by association its aesthetics in general) are debatably the most realistic of any film to date. It would not be a stretch for someone to consider the film sublimely beautiful (regarding of course the realistic quality of the images, not the havoc and misery that such images depict).

According to philosopher Immanuel Kant in his book The Critique of Judgment, describing something as “beautiful” is to say that it has a “form of finality,” meaning that the thing being described appears to have been designed with a purpose even though it may not be a practical one. And to say that something is “sublime” is to say that it is beyond the limits of human comprehension and, thusly, an object of fear. This sublime object may not actually be physically threatening, but simply recognized as being deserving of fear. Such adjectives as “sublime” and “beautiful,” then, would go far in describing 2012.

The special effects of the film could be described as “beautiful” because the obvious purpose they fulfill is presenting the story in the most realistic and yet dynamic fashion, attempting to dazzle the eyes while also trying to rely as little as possible on an audience’s suspension of disbelief. The “sublime” quality of the film is two-fold. Both visually and via the plot it instills a breathless fear that registers with our eyes and our primal human nature. The fear of the end of the world is engrained in our collective psyche, and so to see its depiction on screen in such a clear and effectively illusory manner only helps to augment or surface that fear. Such a fear is subject to intense and seemingly infinite speculation because it is indeed beyond our comprehension (if only because it’s part of the future), and things we don’t comprehend we are naturally apprehensive of. Within such anxiety the story attempts to ignite optimism by showing the great (hypothetical) lengths that some humans will go to in order to save and protect each other. The extent to which this humanist aspect factors in depends on what level an audience is able to connect with the characters in the story. If such a level of connection is moderate or high, a reception mixed with both mortal fascination and moral comforting is likely. However if such a level of connection is low, then all that is to be interpreted is a copious amount of disarmed, powerless fear.

Side Note: The film introduces issues such as the valuing of certain lives over others and the moral stakes attributed to such practice, and the partiality to fulfill ideal patriarchal roles. However, these complex and highly valid issues are relegated to the film’s peripherals and not given considerable thought and/or attention. Being that the film already stands at over two and a half hours long, one can understand that length had to have been a conflicting issue. Nonetheless, a lack of elaboration or exploration of such topics lends the film open to criticism of aiming too low at its target audience.

Rating: 6.5