keane opens: “scenes of mass destruction have proven a longstanding and pervasive feature of the cinema of spectacle”. however, “disaster movies have remained relatively neglected within film studies” (1).
keane also asks “How are we to look back on disaster movies in the wake of events such as these [9/11, katrina, etc.]? and how have recent disaster movies [...] responded to this new relevance and responsibility?” (2) … this establishes both their social currency and way to look at them (re. responsibility).
recent genre criticism, e.g. altman (99) and neale (2000), “look at the processes through which genre has come to be understood” and ask what properties “might go towards identifying a film as a disaster movie”.
keane notes there are three key sources: sontag’s ‘the imagination of disaster, maurice yacowar’s ‘the bug in the rug’ (77) and nick roddick’s ‘only the stars survive’ (80).
he argues there is a danger in including too many films, so favours a “focus on identifiable historical genres” (4).
keane’s book explores the ideological and the industrial. “ideological readings [...] generic cycles are sparked by resonant ideas, that they are acutely reflective of social, cultural and political developments”. “conversely, the more practical, industrial reasoning is that it only takes one commercially successful film to spark an interest in bringing certain [...] genres back again” (4). industrial imperatives “do not preclude subsequent ideological readings of individual films and overall cycles [...]. in order to appeal to audiences, films must also reflect the times in which we live”. And disaster movies “are said to be borne out of times of crisis” (5).
keane also notes that “most of all disaster movies provide for solutions in the form of a representative group of characters making their way towards survival” (5) … it is interesting that ‘wtc’ does this, but that ‘united 93′ or ‘cloverfield’ do not.
“… the question of who will survive is central to the basic narrative pleasure of disaster movies”, particularly where identification is facilitated by stars. “yet disaster movies quite simply would not be disaster movies without key disaster sequences”, describing representations as having a “rather ‘negative’ appeal” tied to the cinema of spectacle (5).
spectacle: “aesthetics, technology, and the industrial and commercial bases underpinning [...] the need to attract spectators. spectacle has traditionally been criticised as cosmetic, mechanical thrill-seeking [...] that spectacle offers scale over subtlety, eliminating character development and reducing narrative to a succession of thrills and spills”. recent studies (e.g. king, 2000 & 2002) have emphasised that cinema has always relied on ‘pay and display’ and ‘attractions’ (5).
however, disaster sequences are also used “within the narrative structure of disaster movies [... and] often excessive scenes of disaster and destruction can be said to take on more reflective, contextual meanings” at times (5).
bazin, writing about the early cinematic roman epics, used the term ‘nero complex’ to describe how “audiences are able to sit back in emotional involvement and awestruck contemplation for the comfort of their picture palaces” (see lubin 1999).

the 1950s showed renewed in ancient-world epics and sci-fi b-movies, located within the context of the cold war. sontag argued: ‘from a psychological pov, the imagination of disaster does not greatly differ from one period in history to another. but from a political and moral pov, it does” (224). “these films were clearly metaphorical yet both generic packaging and special-effects splendour can be taken to task for simultaneously simplifying the issues and glossing over the pressing realities of the time” (11). however, as sontag concludes, “the films perpetuate clichés [...] not serviceable in our present extremity. but collective nightmares cannot be banished by demonstrating that they are, intellectually and morally, fallacious. this nightmare – the one reflected, in various registers, in the science fiction films – is too close to our reality” (225).
as roddick clarifies: “what then is a disaster movie? clearly it is not just a movie with a disaster in it: it must be ‘about’ the disaster” (246). “in oder to distinguish ‘disaster-ridden movies’ from disaster movies, roddcik lists a number of important requirements. the actual disasters must be ‘diegetically central’; ‘factually possible’; ‘largely indiscriminate’; ‘unexpected (though not necessarily unpredicted)’; ‘all-encompassing’; ‘and finally, ahistorical, in the sense of not requiring a specific conjunction of political and economic forces to bring it about’” (13). as such, disaster movies operate withing the realm of the possible, rather than being about monsters from space [that said, dixon still chooses to write about 'war of the worlds'!]. in short, roddick argues that “People must believe ‘it’ could – indeed, very well might – happen to them’ (246)” (13).
yacowar notes they “tend to take place in contemporary settings and the characters represent a cross-section of american society” (14). as such class and other representative conflicts occur … although not in ‘wtc’ quite significantly. moreover, “all the marks of ‘civilisation’ – from moral codes to technological systems – duly fail in the disaster” and character fates generally revolve around ‘poetic justice’ (96-105)” (14).
roddick also argues that 70s disaster movies were primarily concerned with class-based readings. “the typical disaster movie’s characters are distinguished by their jobs, status or standing in society. how these characters fare when ‘society’ breaks down thus provides for the ultimate test” (14).
9/11 “had a seismic effect on the ways in which we might regard the status of disaster movies”, both those after and those before, since “there was also a certain, chilling, retrospect; the uncanny feeling that we had seen something like this before” (89).
“… the events of 9/11 represented a startling reality bordering on the hyperreal (see dixon 2004; king 2005)”, ‘like a disaster movie’ (90). the attacks were “a strike at the heart of the american imaginary that also resonated for all of the world to see” (90).
geoff king argues that “where contemporary hollywood cinema has worked in convincing us of the reality of its spectacle, television and documentary reconstructions of the events of 9/11 have presented us with a form of reality as spectacle. [...] conveyed through the sort of narrative and grammar found in disaster movies, the most mediated disaster of all time was to become the most cinematic in terms of its initial scope and subsequent re-construction (47-57)” (91). dixon argues this was done to help us understand and make sense of what happened in a visual language we are familiar with, not to reduce events to media spectacle and disaster movie.
feil (2005: 4-5) observes that video and dvd rentals of disaster movies reached unprecedented demand following 9/11, even though [or perhaps because] tv refused to show them… “the invitation being to regard them as simultaneously far-fetched and not so far-fetched” (91).
on elements of the post-9/11 ‘imagination of disaster’: “the ‘spectacle’ of urban destruction; the ideologies of national security and international terrorism; [...] the new paranoia, of unexpected attack and of a sort of internal breach as distinct from the theme of invasion, for example, in that we have already been infiltrated”. and while “action and disaster movies have always been domestic, [...] now, it would appear, they have a new responsibility to face up to” (93).
ken feil argues that 9/11 “compels critics and filmmakers firmly and rigidly to separate sadistic pleasure, comedy and irony from disaster. maintaining these distinctions exemplifies tasteful reverence for the victims and survivors of 9/11″ (2005: 124).
on the sum of all fears: also marked by post-9/11 sensibilities with disaster a “low-key” sequence and political backdrop of film giving it “an old-fashioned quality” (94).
on ‘the day after tomorrow’: “works in simultaneously reflecting and distancing itself from the events and psychological after-effects of 9/11. on one level the film cannot be read in terms of anything other than the post-9/11 imagination of disaster”. 1. uses NYC and 2. “in contrast to its looser treatment of la for example – the approach to ny ["an appropriate degree of seriousness and sensitivity"] is a particular indication of post-9/11 sensibilities”. “what is particularly noticeable, however, is that ny ultimately survives [...] it remains a beacon of hope” unlike in 90s disaster movies (96).
“rather than being used as a mere spectacular location [...], ny becomes the main location for the remainder of ‘the day after tomorrow’. [...] much more central in terms of narrative” (99). significantly, son, sam (gyllenhal), has to become the leader until his father, jack (quaid), the “potential disaster movie leader figure”, arrives. that said, “survival is still the topical order of the day”.
the film also uses omniscient shots following the wave and first-person wave shots. also, “In correcting itself [the planet] has also redressed ingrained imbalances in the current state of the world as a whole” (103) … and is therefore much more of a traditional disaster movie, unlike ‘cloverfield’ for example.
“from the 1990s onwards there has also been an attempt to ‘characterise’ that subsequent, impersonal spectacle, not so much to represent the natural disaster as the villain but as a monster unleashed (for all intents and purposes we have caused the disasters [...]” (101).
a “common criticism of disaster movies”, that characters “are dwarfed by the issues and hyperbolic spectacle” (103) … has now been invested with greater ‘reality’, given the events of 9/11 did just that. thus, in a sense the containment of the disaster in ‘wtc’ is figured in the foregrounding, the reasserting, of the human element!
keane notes that there is “a current context where so many films can be read as ‘disaster films’”, from signs to vendetta, flightplan, as distinct from disaster ‘movies’. he further surmises that film directly about 9/11 “will lead to a clear demarcation between” the two types (106). note also the failure of poseidon (2006) – too safe, too retro, unreflective of current climate and “a further retreat form the present” (106).
“perhaps this, then, will be the main distinction between disaster movies and disaster films, spectacle on the one side and a form of ‘new realism’ on the other”; “more sober” (106).
“either way, disaster movies have new responsibilities to take on [...]: not the seduction but the involvement in spectacle; intelligence and empathy rather than functionality and simple entertainment; an awareness [...] which will above all provide disaster movies with enduring relevance” (107).