2012: The Post- American World
After watching 2012, one cannot help but feel perplexed: where does this movie show China saving the planet? Some viewers have claimed that because the movie mentions China eleven times, it proves China’s importance in the international arena. But this is a science fiction movie. It is not about China’s current international status. At any rate, the hubbub over this topic has exposed one strain of this country’s collective consciousness, the portion that is crazed with arrogance, exposing the extreme lack of confidence beneath.
In the movie, “Noah’s Ark” is actually made in China, while it is Americans (and a few Indian scientists) who caused the global crisis. But the ones who invent and direct a plan to save the planet are Americans. Even the captain of the “Ark” is not Chinese. If we were to view the movie as a metaphor for reality, China can be thought of as the “world’s factory.” In this fictional crisis, the Chinese do indeed play a critical role, but only in cooperation with the rest of the world. Claims that the movie depicts China saving the planet are exaggerated.
Looking at the film in its entirety, the director’s intention is extremely clear. Roland Emmerich is the director behind Independence Day, The Day after Tomorrow, and other major hits. He is also responsible for the disastrous 10,000 B.C. In 2012, we begin to see him making up for this loss, taking the same route to the top as the one by which he fell. Emmerich’s expertise is clearly in special effects, and it is 2012’s special effects that earned the film its box office success. (The special effects of Chinese movies lag behind those used in 2012 by about ten years.) But in this film, a predominant idea emerges as well: future global crises can only be overcome with the complete cooperation of all humanity. An underlying message is that the U.S. must share power with other countries and consent to go forward hand-in-hand with the rest of the world.
This is a new perspective on globalization. According to the Chinese worldview, we are now seeing “the rise of a new superpower,” while according to Americans, we are looking at “a new world order.” According to the book The Post-American World, which U.S. President Barack Obama has read, the scope of this shift is vast. There are positive ways of interpreting this book. But problems emerge when people interpret the book’s message inaccurately. Analogous lines of thinking can be found in Chinese books like China Can Say No, or Unhappy China.
Economic development has made China a major player on the international stage. But this does not mean that China has already won the authority to call the shots. That is to say, the U.S. remains the world’s sole superpower. We should remember that, according to the Indian-American Fareed Zakaria, author of The Post-American World, a shift in global power implicates not only China, but also India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, and other nations. In other words, The Post-American World does not augur the U.S.’s decline in favor of a new superpower. Instead, new types of power will emerge in this new world order.
This crucial point merits clarification. Let us rationally examine the Chinese notion of “the rise of a new superpower.” We should look across the entire world and see that China’s rise is only one piece of a larger trend. The notion of a shifting world order should be a wake-up call to Obama, but those who view the changes underway as “the rise of a new superpower” are fooling themselves. Why, then, do some see in 2012 a fantasy of China saving the world? I am afraid the answer lies therein.
If we look at 2012 (or at The Post-American World) as a sort of prediction, it’s actually reminding us of the importance of cooperation, and is not depicting one nation as the “savior.” We have observed a dizzy excitement surrounding this film, an excitement that disregards the film’s true message. Did the director do it this way with ticket sales in mind?
That is a different question.
In the movie, “Noah’s Ark” is actually made in China, while it is Americans (and a few Indian scientists) who caused the global crisis. But the ones who invent and direct a plan to save the planet are Americans. Even the captain of the “Ark” is not Chinese. If we were to view the movie as a metaphor for reality, China can be thought of as the “world’s factory.” In this fictional crisis, the Chinese do indeed play a critical role, but only in cooperation with the rest of the world. Claims that the movie depicts China saving the planet are exaggerated.
Looking at the film in its entirety, the director’s intention is extremely clear. Roland Emmerich is the director behind Independence Day, The Day after Tomorrow, and other major hits. He is also responsible for the disastrous 10,000 B.C. In 2012, we begin to see him making up for this loss, taking the same route to the top as the one by which he fell. Emmerich’s expertise is clearly in special effects, and it is 2012’s special effects that earned the film its box office success. (The special effects of Chinese movies lag behind those used in 2012 by about ten years.) But in this film, a predominant idea emerges as well: future global crises can only be overcome with the complete cooperation of all humanity. An underlying message is that the U.S. must share power with other countries and consent to go forward hand-in-hand with the rest of the world.
This is a new perspective on globalization. According to the Chinese worldview, we are now seeing “the rise of a new superpower,” while according to Americans, we are looking at “a new world order.” According to the book The Post-American World, which U.S. President Barack Obama has read, the scope of this shift is vast. There are positive ways of interpreting this book. But problems emerge when people interpret the book’s message inaccurately. Analogous lines of thinking can be found in Chinese books like China Can Say No, or Unhappy China.
Economic development has made China a major player on the international stage. But this does not mean that China has already won the authority to call the shots. That is to say, the U.S. remains the world’s sole superpower. We should remember that, according to the Indian-American Fareed Zakaria, author of The Post-American World, a shift in global power implicates not only China, but also India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, and other nations. In other words, The Post-American World does not augur the U.S.’s decline in favor of a new superpower. Instead, new types of power will emerge in this new world order.
This crucial point merits clarification. Let us rationally examine the Chinese notion of “the rise of a new superpower.” We should look across the entire world and see that China’s rise is only one piece of a larger trend. The notion of a shifting world order should be a wake-up call to Obama, but those who view the changes underway as “the rise of a new superpower” are fooling themselves. Why, then, do some see in 2012 a fantasy of China saving the world? I am afraid the answer lies therein.
If we look at 2012 (or at The Post-American World) as a sort of prediction, it’s actually reminding us of the importance of cooperation, and is not depicting one nation as the “savior.” We have observed a dizzy excitement surrounding this film, an excitement that disregards the film’s true message. Did the director do it this way with ticket sales in mind?
That is a different question.