Western interest in Ebola has been eradicated; the disease itself has not:
The chances are there will be a new wave at some point, some
months or years down the line; by
which time, the beast may have mutated. And this, in ways that might make it more fearsome, or
less.
For: Ebola,
like any pathogen, doesn’t really want
to harm us: we are, after all,
their playground, their womb. They’d
like us to remain alive as long as possible, so that they can frolic in our
rich system. Their only purpose in
what viruses call “life”, is to reproduce, and reproduce, and reproduce some
more. (Actually, they sound like
teenagers; although these only
wish to practice the preliminaries of
reproduction, and not actually change diapers.) One way of expanding their reach is to invent new
pathways of transmission (the dreaded “airborne” route); but another is simply to learn to live
with the host, which many many organisms have (over the eons) learned to do.
Who knows? By
the time that ebolavirus has settled into a merely commensal relation with
ourselves, it might confer such advantages as immunity to the dreaded Stuxnet worm, which by then (having escaped the confines of the thumb-drives) will have
evolved into epizoötic forms, and be decimating the planet.
So, while awaiting the release of “Ebola III”, here are some
suggestions for summer viewing and reading.
~
As a rule, I avoid disaster flix; and shun movies about diseases ‘like the plague’. Thus, a fortiori, disease-disaster
flix.
But out of interest in the psychological dimensions of
global climate change, I did watch “Take Shelter” -- which, to my
delighted surprise, turned out only to pretend
to be a meteorological disaster flick, but in reality is a psychological thriller. At least, that was my take on it, in an
intricate essay here.
And now ebola, elbowing much else off the front page these
days.
* “The Andromeda Strain” (novel: 1969;
movie: 1971)
Michael Crichton’s novel is differently focussed from the
works that follow, being about big science and extraterristrial organisms and
spooky military stuff. And
it has no psychology whatsoever, just a workmanlike plot laid out in a wooden style, interrupted
from time to time by edifying mini-lectures in biology (Crichton began as a
physician).
* “The
Cassandra Crossing”.()
The opening scene, in which terrorists insinuate themselves
into the World Health Organization in Geneva (our own WDJ headquarters are just
down the street, as it happens), and one of them gets infected in a secret lab,
is a masterpiece of economy and timing. The fact that the rest of it takes place on a train,
is also to the good; trains go
with movies like peanut-butter with jelly. And the collateral-damage/government-conspiracy plot
towards the end, is even more plausible now than when the movie came out.
So, a fun watch;
but no real food for thought.
* “12 Monkeys”.
* “Contagion”
(2011)
This one I really looked forward to, since it comes highly
praised by critics, and is from the director of the excellent “Traffic”
(2000); but it turns out to
be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. That being so, there’s no point in even listing its
demerits. Just skip it.
Leaving the best till last.
* “Outbreak” (1995)
Early on, purportedly at Fort Detrick (a site not far from
where some friends of mine live), there is a useful review of the different
levels of bio-hazard.
While still in the Level-3 room, she casually takes off her
mask; and walks out, leaving the
door open behind her.
Now: As a cinephile,
you ask yourself:
(a) Is this meant to be a foretoken
of some horrible events that follow from this negligence?
or is it
(b) just some stupid movie
sloppiness that banks on the inattentiveness of viewers to overlook? (Hitchcock
famously defended this latter view.)
Having seen the movie, I can report: (b).
OK, so, the movie is sometimes cinematically sloppy, much as
that researcher was sloppy. But
over all, it repays what you spent on the popcorn.
The film has extended sequences at what purports to be the CDC. These days, that is roughly the equivalent, in terms of
tense attention, as the CTC of “24”.
Dustin Hoffman is excellent in this, at least when not
bogged down in an uninteresting human-interest subplot about an ex-wife and
some freaking dogs. (Whereas Matt
Damon was wasted -- in both senses -- in the wretched “Contagion”).
Donald Sutherland and Morgan Freeman are suitably icy in
chilly roles. (Sutherland even
manages to look like ice.)
The monkey is wonderful. This must surely rank in cinematic history among the all-time
greatest performances by a capuchin.
The movie then slides off into a whiz-bang finale, basically
reprising Crichton’s plot-device of a secret government plan -- there called,
aptly, “Cautery” -- to simply incinerate any area harboring the otherwise
unstoppable infection. In the
novel, that eventuality is avoided by a ridiculous turn of events, whereby all
the virions simultaneously, in the
lab and outside of it, suddenly ‘evolve’ to a non-virulent form. In “Outbreak”, some stab is made at
verisimilitude, as the immune monkey’s blood provides material for a
serum. In practice, it would be
quite some time before such a serum could be developed, tested, manufactured in
quantity, and distributed: by that time, everyone you had seen on the screen
would have died. But whatever.
It goes back, arguably, to 1950’s “Panic in the Streets,” in
which heroic doctor Richard Widmark saves New Orleans from an outbreak of
pneumonic plague carried by Jack Palance and Zero Mostel.
.jpg)