Nowhere: How Covid-19 Impacted Disaster Thrillers

For me, watching disaster thriller movies used to be an enjoyable activity before the pandemic. However, after the pandemic, it has become distressing.

According to the explanation on disaster thriller films in some textbooks, this genre transforms disasters into spectacles in two ways. Firstly, they transport the audience from the uncertain real world to a more terrifying fictional world through extreme disaster scenarios, which allows viewers to feel grateful that they have not encountered the dangers and misfortunes depicted in the film. In comparison, the unemployment, robberies, and injustices in real life appear insignificant. Ultimately, they are thankful to be alive and well. Secondly, these films promote a positive emotion and atmosphere by featuring a heroic protagonist who perseveres despite facing despair and dire circumstances. This protagonist saves themselves, loved ones, partners, and even the entire world. This constant reinforcement of a positive and existential belief embeds itself deeply in the audience - that they must make choices in whatever situations, and they have the absolute freedom to do so. The free choices they currently make determine their fundamental personalities and future circumstances. How simple and hopeful it is! Just like the saying we have heard since childhood: "You reap what you sow."

However, in the post-pandemic era, both fantasies have been disillusioned. On one hand, the line between the real world and the fictional world depicted in movies has blurred; everyone has experienced a sense of panic as the virus wreaks havoc. On the other hand, the virus has tragically taken numerous lives. Many people have succumbed to illness after contracting the virus, revealing the unfortunate reality that humanity as a whole is so vulnerable, let alone each individual.

This is exactly the dilemma and pain I felt when watching Netflix's new release "Nowhere". Admittedly, this disaster thriller is well-made and undoubtedly a superior work in its genre. However, I no longer derive the same enjoyment from the genre as I did in the past.

"Nowhere" Is Good

Disaster thriller movies often feature a time limit, such as a ticking bomb, a last-minute rescue, or, as in "Nowhere," a shipping container adrift in the vast ocean with a pregnant Mia (played by Anna Castillo) inside while the water seeps in through bullet holes. Alongside the time pressure, a confined space is also a crucial element in disaster thriller film plots. With death approaching, the limitless stretch of time would only undermine the sense of urgency, as would an open space. By restricting the space, the crisis forces the protagonist, Mia, to take action. If she fails to find a way to open the sealed container, both she and her unborn child will sink to the bottom of the sea.

The space-time setting in "Nowhere" is well done, but what makes it even more exciting is the background of extreme resource scarcity. In an effort to reduce resources needed for allocation, the government has implemented a ruthless policy of slaughtering women and children (the elderly have already been killed off), and that is how Mia loses her eldest daughter. As a result, a large number of women and children are compelled to flee through illegal immigration. Unfortunately, Mia is accidentally separated from her husband on the way. After narrowly escaping a hail of gunfire, she is swept into the sea in a sealed container by a storm.

While some viewers may find this fictional background unnecessary, I personally take it quite ingenious. Disasters in the westerners’ mind seem never to eschew from the shadow of God's judgement. For a long time, disasters in films are mostly brought by the knowable, civilized nature. Later, as disaster thrillers evolve, they start to feature the deviation of social structures, as well as errors and wrongdoings - caused by the inexhaustible growth of greed - as the sources of the fear and sense of nihilism. In "Nowhere," the disaster arises from the deviation of human society and the out-of-control political system. This is more thought-provoking than presenting the simplistic brutality of natural disasters. After all, the spirit of disaster thrillers lies in its role as the outlet of release and cure before rebuilding humanitarianism and rational civilization, rather than simply creating horrifying visual spectacles.

But I Don’t Like It

Although "Nowhere" is well-made, I still don't like it. I believe there are two main reasons for this dislike.

One is Mia's remarkable yet unrealistic perseverance as a mother. Her mental fortitude is impressive, but what truly astonishes and bewilders me is her physical endurance. She's like a superhero, effortlessly bouncing around like a ball in a rolling container without any harm. Giving birth in dirty seawater, eating her own placenta when starving, and even stitching up a deep and long wound with an iron wire after being cut by a sharp iron hatch, she exhibits a level of strength that is unimaginable. These experiences used to inspire and exhilarate me, but to someone who has been infected with COVID-19 twice, they now seem unbelievable, filling me with despair and helplessness. The survival instinct and sense of strength that Mia possesses feel unattainable for me. I used to believe that I could escape like the protagonist in a movie, but now I finally realize that I am not the main character. The saying "Man's will, not Heaven, decides" only exists in movies, in stories of the strong. As for the majority of ordinary people and me, the reality is that we are very likely to fall in the first wave of gunfire.

The other reason is that the film keeps emphasizing that Mia's strength derives from her maternal instinct, highlighting the potential that children awaken in their mothers. However, the film fails to portray this point beyond the mother’s lines. Instead, Mia's status as a pregnant lady has always concerned me - not because of the tension typical of the disaster thriller genre, but due to a lingering fear long after the story ends well and both the mother and baby are saved. The film gives me the impression that without this child, or if the mother were not pregnant, she would live a better life and have a greater chance of survival. Ultimately, I find it hard to believe that a mother could accomplish such a daunting task. This may be influenced by the impact the COVID-19 pandemic have on me, but more importantly, the film lacks sufficient persuasive evidence. In other words, although it is a disaster thriller that focuses on women, particularly a pregnant woman as the main character, it does not delve deeply into exploring the unique characteristics of women or the potentiality brought about by the narrative construction and progression of being pregnant.

So, both of the above points result in the same problem: an excessive confidence in human reasoning and abilities.

I remember when the pandemic was just ending (its impact is still ongoing, what I mean is the end of the massive outbreak), everyone loved watching various virus-related movies and survival movies, seemingly seeking solace in being a lucky survivor. But now, the hype is dying down and everyone starts realizing the aftermath of the pandemic is endless. The physical consequences that cannot be ignored is one thing, and the following psychological ones is another, the fact is that everyone is no longer as optimistic as before.

There is a saying that we used to say often, but now I realize that we are actually speaking from the perspective of survivors every time we say it, with a mentality of observing painlessly from the other side: when disaster strikes, it eliminates those who are less intelligent and weak. However, isn't this a mindset reflecting a form of elitist arrogance and ignorance of the meritocratic?