Ebola was hot in the mid-1990s. That virus was everywhere in 1994, like copies of Midnight in the garden of good and evil or John grisham‘s The client. This was largely due to Richard Prestonfrom 1992 New Yorker article and later novel The hot zone, a dramatization of a real-life Ebola outbreak in Reston, Virginia, outside the nation’s capital. It makes sense: America was between the wars at the time, many of its citizens had to search for things to worry about, and a carnivorous nightmare is the kind of thing that captures people’s imaginations in a bleak, apocalyptic panic of sorts. on the way. Plans to adapt the story into a film began almost immediately, with filmmakers like Wolfgang Petersen Y Michael Mann considered for the project before Ridley scott he was finally chosen to direct a feature film starring Robert Redford Y Jodie foment. Obviously, this version of The hot zone It never materialized, although Scott eventually produced a miniseries adaptation for National Geographic in 2019. However, Petersen went on to direct the 1995 film. Outbreak, about a strain of the virus that infects a small town on the California coast. Released 26 years ago this month, Outbreak was partially inspired by Preston’s article, although it increased the dramatic tension and added considerably more Morgan freeman.

Outbreak it has an interesting relationship with real life events. It hit theaters in March 1995, just a few months before a major new outbreak of the virus occurred in Zaire. Last year it celebrated its 25th anniversary, during the same month that the coronavirus pandemic began to paralyze the United States. It became one of the most streamed movies on Netflix during those early blackout days, presumably because people were watching the gruesome disease and dystopian social breakdown to make sure that at least things weren’t going to get too bad. That assumption turned out to be partially correct: the coronavirus did not develop in the same way as Outbreak in the sense that no one had to fly a helicopter in the path of an Army bomber to prevent the vaporization of an American city and all of its citizens. And the Army never drove tanks down Main Street USA to pick up the infected and keep everyone else incarcerated in their homes. Nevertheless, Outbreak correctly identified the government’s role as a terrifying entity that allowed the virus to spread for dire reasons. Watching the movie now, a year after a historic global pandemic that has killed nearly 3 million people, including more than half a million Americans, it is remarkable how much we took for granted about the country’s ability to cope with a serious crisis. of public health and how unprepared we were. they were due to the banal reality of state violence.

See also  Resident Evil: Infinite Darkness clip pits Leon against zombies


Image via Warner Bros

The main conflict of Outbreak refers to two army generals, McClintock (Donald Sutherland) and Ford (Freeman), who come across a new strain of Ebola in a mercenary camp in Zaire in 1967. McClintock cremates the camp and all its occupants, both to prevent the spread of the virus and to keep its existence secret. that can be developed as a biological weapon. When the virus reappears in an extremely sweaty form Patrick Dempsey and his deeply unfortunate girlfriend, McClintock does everything in his power to keep the virus a secret, hampering efforts to study and contain it and withholding a vaccine developed for the 1967 strain. This allows the virus to spread uncontrollably in the fictional town of Cedar Creek, California, which McClintock turns into a total police state and ultimately attempts to attack with nuclear weapons to keep the virus (and potential bioweapon) under wraps and cover his negligent butt. . Ford, having reluctantly followed McClintock’s orders for years, finally releases McClintock from duty and arrests him. A new vaccine is developed and the day is saved.

RELATED: The 21 Most Essential Apocalyptic TV Shows, From ‘Planet of the Apes’ to ‘The Walking Dead’

The reality of what Really occurred during the coronavirus pandemic makes watching the extreme melodrama of Outbreak almost picturesque. The horror dreamed up by Hollywood screenwriters saw a handful of top government officials willingly sacrifice human lives to preserve the viability of the virus as a biological weapon. They couldn’t imagine a world in which the White House repeatedly denied the existence of the virus, downplayed the severity of the pandemic, and left states and their people to fend for themselves. Outbreak presents the scariest images of a hypothetical pandemic as a battalion of armed, faceless soldiers enforcing Martial Law in a small town in the United States. In reality, the enduring images of COVID-19 are all defined by the absence of government: hospitals overcrowded with insufficient supplies; closed businesses and jobless people without debt relief or federal aid; Anti-lockdown protesters burning masks and assaulting front-line workers trying to enforce basic security protocols.


Image via Warner Bros.

The government’s response to a real-life pandemic was truly terrifying, as Outbreak guessed. But while Petersen’s film predicted ruthless military action to contain and eliminate the threat in the name of the greater good, the sobering reality Outbreak I could not have anticipated was that the federal government would do absolutely nothing. The filmmakers never considered that the president and his supporters would publicly denounce scientific experts and flagrantly distort the facts in an attempt to convince the American people that the virus was a hoax fabricated by their political opponents. An important component of the film’s ending revolves around McClintock withholding the existence of a vaccine to convince the president to authorize the total destruction of Cedar Creek. It turns out McClintock shouldn’t have worried: He could have bombed California under false pretenses, or for no reason at all, and the Trump Administration would have awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Outbreak It also exemplifies a major problem with the public’s perception of major health crises, which is that, essentially, we only take illness seriously when the illness itself seems scary. In a way, Ebola is a perfect Hollywood villain – its effects are grotesque and it has an extremely high death rate, killing more than half of the people it infects on average. But most diseases are apparently not as dramatic as Ebola. The suffering they inflict is mostly invisible to all except the afflicted. Ebola could well have been dreamed up by a grindhouse horror movie, a relentless pathogen that essentially liquefies its victims from the inside out. But the coronavirus simply looks like the flu, a fact that was repeatedly used to minimize its severity, even as the rate of deaths and new infections continued to rise. If you’re not literally rotting away the flesh on your body, we just don’t think it’s that important. Ironically, Outbreak It’s probably at least partially responsible for this misconception, because it brought both Ebola and the idea of ​​an unthinkable epidemic on American soil into the mainstream, and it has remained a popular movie for the past quarter century. And judging by the current state of American political discourse, both the general public and our elected officials make an alarming majority of their decisions based on the shit they once saw in a movie.


Image via Warner Bros.

The outbreak begins with a chilling quote from the microbiologist and Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg: “The greatest threat to man’s continued dominance on the planet is the virus.” This has always been the case; Throughout history, we have seen dramatic examples of powerful civilizations brought to their knees by viral epidemics that did not have the knowledge or resources to fight. The filmmakers simply intended to create an entertaining thriller by imagining a modern plague scenario involving a terrifying new virus, but the infinitely more insidious truth contained in Dr. Lederberg’s quote is one we are only now beginning to realize: that the richer, more technologically The advanced civilization in human history would prolong an epidemic, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, because taking any action in the name of public health, including acknowledging the existence of the virus, was politically inconvenient. The events of the past year lend an almost Sorkin quality of melodramatic naivety to some crucial scenes in Outbreak that neither Petersen nor the cast intended, particularly the moment when Dustin HoffmanThe character refers to the 1918 influenza pandemic saying, “What if there were men who could have stopped him, but didn’t? What would the story say about them? ”

Those men, it turns out, do exist, and they don’t care how history will treat them.

KEEP READING: 11 Movies That Are Totally Different The Second Time

‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ review: Longer cut causes new problems

Given its long running time, the announced ‘Snyder Cut’ never justifies its epic scope.

About the Author


Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *