Category Archives: Weekly Responses

More Than Nukes?

Posted on by

When reading Nuke York, New York, I wondered if there was something more to it than America’s obsession of attacks taking place in New York City. Instead of maintaining that mindset, it is better to take a look at this in different mindset. It seems more logical that NYC is used as the setting for attacks made on U.S. soil because it is an area that’s recognizable on the global level, and using a setting such as NYC appeals to Americans because it represents the busiest cities in the United States.

Mike Broderick and Robert Jacobs use different mediums of media throughout his essay in order to provide examples of NYC being the center of catastrophic attacks. The structure of topics that his paper covers also has sections that relate to media, including magazines, books, television, film, video games, and online content, with only two sections that do not directly relate to a medium of media. The trend that the media sections seem to follow is that they all involve NYC as a setting of attack that corresponds to an attack. For example, the authors gave the example of the film Rocket Attack as a response of the Soviet’s launch of Sputnik and also the example of the 2005 novel The Nuclear Suitcase that is about an attack on NYC with a weapon from the former Soviet Union that is purchased by jihadists. Instead of agreeing with the author’s conclusion stating an attack on NYC represents American anxieties and fears from bombing Japan and the post 9-11 world, I feel that an attack based in NYC is an attack on, as the authors write, “American progress, prestige, and profit” due to the powerful symbolism it provides. This symbolism is something that causes sensationalism in attacks that take place in NYC.

This is probably done because it is something that culture and society dictates. Philip Morrison, author of If the Bomb Gets Out of Hand, followed with the example that New York is a better setting to use because of the familiarity. Even though the novel was a reference to the atomic bombing of Japan, he had to set the story in NYC in order to appeal to the American audience. Therefore, there are two ways to address this: either there is a symbolic meaning behind attacking NYC or there is a location meaning behind attacking NYC because everyone will understand where the attack is. This will be something that I will look forward to find out when I hear Mike Broderick talk tomorrow. Furthermore, I was surprised at the many culture references that I missed like Heroes and 24, which included references to a potential nuclear blast. Nevertheless as the current villain to the U.S. is based in the Middle East, we’ll be in for a few more books, games, films, and movies about them. Just think of how Call of Duty’s villain changed over time.

Nuclear Suburbia

Posted on by

I found the online “Nuke York, New York” article fascinating especially as someone that considers herself a New Yorker, an a person that has been displaced from the city in the face of natural disaster. It was somewhat nice to see that the correlation between New York and fictional apocalypse depictions was more than my keeping my eyes open for my hometown, and interesting to see how 9/11 and Hiroshima imagery combined in the public psyche.

Continue reading →

New York: The Place Apocalypse Calls Home

Posted on by

Reading Mick Broderick and Robert Jacobs’ Nuke York, New York essay, I found myself both surprised and having moments of, “Oh, that makes so much sense!” Why New York has always been depicted as a city that gets destroyed was something I think I had noticed, but never been consciously aware of – and now I understand why, at least historically.

I find the idea of this fascination, in culture, with discussing/seeing images of NYC’s destruction so bizarre. Why New York was chosen as the main point to transfer On one hand, there is the idea that I can totally understand – Hiroshima/Nagasaki was a horrible, destructive event. Max Page refers to New York as, “regarded as a national and international site for both awe and envy” (Broderick, Conclusion). This made some sense to me. (And the irony of the Manhattan project and then a fascination with Manhattan’s destruction isn’t lost on me either.) I found myself trying to interpret why people may have become so willing to, and interested in, the image of New York City as it is being rendered apocalyptically.

On one hand, if a citizen views the destruction of cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one that, I feel, many Americans weren’t too culturally familiar with, picking a city like New York to use in the 1945 example “Here’s What Could Happen to New York in an Atomic Bombing,” chooses a city that everyone “knows,” with both foreign and familiar elements. It is als pretty tightly populated, so perhaps it makes sense to use it as an example to show things like mileage. However, it’s still curious to me. If I were a New Yorker, I don’t know how kindly I’d take to such populating images of a city’s destruction – watching movies where cities get destroyed, when I’ve been or have lived there, always feel different to me.

Post-9/11 I think that there is more of a direct link between the idea of New York’s destruction and the public or social consciousness. Also, I think that (commercial) filmmakers often set films in New York, and want to pick a place that an audience will have some identity in mind with. “Oh, a famous banker – Wall Street, let’s put it on Wall Street!” And with so many other films choosing New York, as a city where people move to “make their dreams come true,” I am not surprised that setting films where dreams come true is the first choice among lots of people. Also, New York has so many micro-cultures of its own – the line in Broderick’s essay about the destruction of east coast elites and minorities, I think, has a lot of validity for certain people. How true this kind of NYC-hate is in Hollywood, I’m less sure of, and more think that they are just keeping up an already popular kind of image.

Nuke York and Post-9/11

Posted on by

In class, we have talked so much about the secular apocalypse recently in class. Usually, we attribute the secular apocalypse to technology or disease. I never really thought about anything else that we could attribute to a modern-day secular apocalypse until now. During last class, I mentioned that it was still too early to tell what secular apocalypse story plagued our generation. But I think that Broderick and Jacobs have the answer for me. Their essay was quite convincing: we are living in a society where post-9/11 apocalyptic stories dominate our culture. Similar to the effect of the Cold War on the apocalypse narrative, I do agree with Broderick and Jacobs that 9/11 is permeating our apocalyptic narrative. Continue reading →

Nuke York

Posted on by

Mick Broderick and Robert Jacobs’ Nuke York, New York was very interesting and reinforced an article I had read shortly after Sandy about how we love to destroy New York in popular media. I, originally, thought that New York was so often chosen as the sight for destruction because of its iconic skyline and the ability for anyone around the country to recognize it. However, Nuke York, New York also pointed out that it is useful to help describe the scale of an attack to the population and, more importantly, New York City could be viewed as the “financial and cultural heart” of the country. Essentially, destroying New York could cripple the entire country in a way that destroying another city, like Miami, would not. But it was also apparent that the idea of destroying New York City was/is terrifying and exciting at the same time. Continue reading →

Somewhere Outside the Apocalypse

Posted on by

Although Christian belief mandates that a world without the sense of a Apocalyptic setting with exist after the events occur and is the survivors’ reward for enduing tribulation, in order to hold believers accountable for keeping within the prefered behavior patterns, the modern apocalypse movies we viewed for Tuesday’s class suggest that (relatively) calm worlds might exist alongside places of conflict, most likely so we relate to the actions of survivors and possibly keep with the filmmakers’ preferred behavior patterns.

As Professor Quinby noted in her paper, this, like in the Bible, is mostly shown at the story’s end. In 28 Days Later, this is shown in the shape of the house in the hills and the possible rescue by a passing plane. In Apocalypto, this is Jaguar Paw’s new home in the woods and the ships on the horizon. In Children of Men, this is the Human Project’s boat, however it was for a time Jim’s home. Although there was a shown struggle to get to these spots by the protagonists, there is an audience understanding that these settings are manmade, that they existed before during and after the movies’ timeframe and that presence of these settings are at odds with the world’s end.

We live in such settings and as Albert noted, relatability is everything in for-profit media. (It’s difficult to share or rewatch/reread a movie or a novel that we do not enjoy or understand.) I think that a major component of apocalyptic fiction which destroys part of “another world” is to make us more aware of humanity’s current struggles.

Apocalypse in Entertainment: Living for the Group

Posted on by

Between 28 Days Later, Apocalypto, Children of Men, and the new episode of The Walking Dead, my dreams last night were filled with adventure, sacrifice, death, and a very panicked rise out of bed this morning. As I watched all of these productions, I tried to try and connect them using a common theme. Even though all of these films are obviously apocalyptic, they each gave a varying view of what “the end” could possibly entail.

Continue reading →

Apocalyptic Monster Mash

Posted on by

I was drawn to how the films, like Professor Quinby noted in the essay, differed in their specific messages and the willingness of each film (or director/writer) to deliver a socially pertinent message.

I echo the sentiments that Eric made in his post – I found myself watching clips of Apocalypto before seeing the film as a whole, and struggled to make sense of how it “fit” with me. It is clear to me now that it lies within the film’s means of being unsettled with itself, by which I mean that it kind of splits between being post-apocalyptic and pre-apocalyptic, instead of having any definite message that underlies the piece.

I was largely interested in the gender dynamic and the idea of a futuristic, or urban setting versus the, as Colby worded, “rural,” setting of Apocalypto. In a way, the apocalypse that occurs within Apocalypto happens with such an emphasis on the “natural” – the birth, the wilderness, and of course the on-coming threat of the Spanish invasion that, to me, was a step into modernization and colonialization that can be considered “unnatural.” However, the theme in Apocalypto is split regarding its thematic message.

Then there is 28 Days Later which focuses on this very present, but also futuristic idea of a pandemic. This setting is also tied to this specialization – people being pets, people being prostitutes, and things serving both very specific animalistic and scientific needs. There is also this idea of experimenting – when Major West examines the man to see how long he’ll starve, which is a reiteration of the experimenting on the chimp, or the “natural world.” That obviously leads to a kind of destructive pandemic, which is both the natural – a bodily, biological thing – and also an unnatural.

Then, with Children of Men set in 2027, there is this totally futuristic setting but this problem, of science and nature, of people no longer being able to procreate. There is the attempt to save this one, natural, pregnant woman but it’s also a very unnatural event. This movie to me felt very layered and I still am thinking through aspects of it.

Apocalypto’s Ending

Posted on by

Viewing Apocalypto, 28 Days Later, and Children of Men (All for the second time, incidentally) and reading “The Days are Numbered,” I found it most difficult to wrap my head around Gibson’s film, mainly because of how it ends. I first saw each of these movies shortly after they were released in theaters and enjoyed them all, though something about Apocalypto didn’t sit right, even with 14-year-old me. Quinby articulates my formerly ineffable misgivings in her essay, stating how Apocalypto “is both pre-apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic. This doubled effect of pre-and post-apocalyptic action is part of what gives the film its contradictory set of messages” (8).

Jaguar Paw’s journey as a hero is compelling enough, but the arrival of the Spanish coming on its heels–to me, at least–devalues the story somewhat; it’s almost as if Gibson calls “take backs” on the tale he just presented to his audience. Can one really imagine that Jaguar Paw and his family will hide and somehow survive the Spanish decimation of the Mayans? I guess it could be argued that the ending is ambiguous, but knowing the history, even the most fervent of optimists would have to learn toward “no”. If that’s the case, then the “new beginning” Jaguar Paw and his family go back to the forest to find is nothing more than a deferral of their obliteration at the hands of a different violent, oppressive group. That strikes me as an incredibly Nihilistic ending, one that a devout man such as Gibson probably didn’t intend to place in his film.

The movie’s tag line is “No one can outrun their destiny” (Quinby 7). Does this mean that being struck down by a larger, violent group is the destiny for Jaguar Paw and his family, and their escape at the end is merely a futile attempt to outrun the inevitable? This seems to be in direct opposition with sentiment of finding a “new beginning”. Maybe the more pertinent question is one that’s a bit more metaphysical: if Jaguar Paw and his family are soon found and killed by the Spanish, does that truly diminish his escape and his and Seven’s heroics that make up much of the film?