My flatmate, in the ultimate display of friendship, has given me her Netflix log-in details. This has changed my life.
So for reasons that defy human understanding, I recently found myself watching Roland Emmerich's terrible natural disaster film, 2012. This was followed by an epic session of binge-watching Twister, Volcano, Dante's Peak and The Day After Tomorrow. Now I bloody love a good disaster film; you put
an improbably attractive scientist, some naysaying politicians and the unstoppable
onslaught of Mother Nature into a film and I will be there in a heartbeat. And I'm clearly not the only one: Twister was
the second highest grossing film of 1996, grossing nearly $500 million worldwide, The Day After Tomorrow grossed over $544 million, and 2012 grossed over $770 million
despite being mind-blowingly terrible.
So why do we love disaster films? What is
it about massive human casualties and the destruction of beloved national
monuments that makes us want to hand over our money? My theory is that
disaster films are a lot like romance novels.
As a part of my undergrad degree I studied the
sociology behind romance novels (because this is the kind of knowledge that is going to give me an edge in today's highly competitive job market) and
there are a lot of similarities between romance novels and disaster films. Numerous sociologists, such as Ann Douglas and
Janice Radway, have noted that romance novels can be pretty brutal. On the
surface this seems somewhat counter-productive since the women these authors
interviewed claimed that they read romance novels as an escape from their
everyday lives. If romance novels are supposed to be an escape, why do women
want to read about women experiencing graphic brutality?
According to the sociologist, Geertz,
all art forms render everyday experiences comprehensible by presenting them in
forms where the practical consequences have been removed. By reading about a violent event, we can
experience something horrific, but without the horrific consequences. The
horrific becomes comprehensible and therefore surmountable without any personal
risk.
For the women Radway interviewed for her
book, ‘Reading the Romance’, it was important for them to read about the
stories’ heroines experiencing something terrible but surviving and coming out
of the ordeal as stronger individuals, still capable of loving and being loved. This theory also makes sense when
applied to disaster films. When you watch a disaster film you inevitably place yourself
in the role of the protagonist and imagine how you would fare in the face of
epic disaster. It is comforting, and maybe even thrilling, to see ordinary
people face the monstrous power of Mother Nature and come out triumphant.
This is why the protagonists in both
romance novels and disaster movies are so monumentally bland. If we go back to
Radway’s book, for the women she interviewed it was important for the readers
to feel like they were the character
in the story. They didn’t want to just read about a romantic relationship but
what it feels like to be the object of one. This is why Bella is such a popular
character in the Twilight series despite lacking any kind of personality – she’s
supposed to be dull so that whoever
is reading the book can imagine themselves as the object of obsession for a
sexy vampire. Disaster films feature similarly bland characters so that we can
more easily insert ourselves into the story and personally experience man’s
victory over nature.
Disaster films, like the more violent sections of Romance novels, allow the audience to experience something harrowing and survive, without having to face any actual peril.
Books:
Radway J (1984) Reading the Romance
Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures
No comments:
Post a Comment