RXN Paper

San Andreas: A Reaction Paper
by Jennel Ganzas 12-Aphrodite

San Andreas is a disaster film directed by Brad Peyton and stars Dwayne “The
Rock” Johnson (Ray, Alexandra Daddario (Blake), Carla Gaggino (Emma), Hugo
Johnstone-Kurt (Ben) and Art Parkinson (Ollie); With a special participation of Joan
Gruffudd as Daniel Riddick.
San Andreas tells the story of what might happen if the San Andreas fault, the
biggest fault line in the world, were to trigger and cause a devastating earthquake. The
story of the film is told from the perspective of the three main characters: Ray Gaines, a
rescuer who works at the Los Angeles Fire and Rescue Department, Blake Gaines the
daughter of Ray who have been trapped at the city of San Francisco and tries to survive
together with her friend Ben and his brother Ollie and Dr. Lawrence Hayes a
seismologist that had figured out a way to predict earthquakes and does all he can to
warn people of the upcoming disaster.
I like stories that have these kind of storytelling because it gives this effect of a
bigger scale that is perfect for stories that have a large setting such as fantasy stories
such as The Lord of the Rings. But, in my opinion, this movie didn’t utilize this tool to
its purpose. Had the story only had two perspectives, specifically that of Blake’s and
Ray’s, the movie would’ve been better. A story about parents trying to save their
daughter amidst a terrifying disaster Earth has brought to them, would’ve been a more
personal, intimate and better movie overall. That would’ve let the theme, or at least
that’s what the film was trying to present, of family into the foreground. I didn’t even
know that there’s a plot point in this film about the parents trying to forget the tragedy of
their first daughter’s death until I saw the film for a second time.
But Hollywood needs to sell this film to the masses. So they opted for the safer
option of this traditional formula that is exploited almost to death now by countless B-
grade disaster films. They’ve needed more starpower so they put in some characters that
serve only as exposition speakers or eye-candy. There’s this two guys from the first
scene of the movie that’s introduced to as supporting characters to the main character
Ray. But after that rescue mission, the film just forgets about them and moves on. The
professor character and his perspective of the film is for me irrelevant to the overall
narrative of the film. He just serves as exposition as to why and how this earthquake is
happening and how dangerous it is. On second thought, he is not even a character at all.
He’s a plot device. Take his character and arc off from the movie and the movie will still
be the same.
Unlike the narrative elements of this film, the visual effects were good. The
devastated San Francisco looked good. With all its wrecked buildings, tsunamis and just
the destruction of the city, it really looked like a disaster. I don’t know if it was really
realistic as it could be, because I haven’t really experienced any major earthquakes but I
think that some of it was. I say that because the other scenes of the movie, feels kind of
cartoonish. I am talking about that scene where Ray has to maneuver his boat around an
oncoming freight ship where his dodging its propeller blades and cargoes. I’m not
saying that this as a flaw of the film because I liked this aspect of the film. It made the
film way more enjoyable.
I know that this film is just supposed to be another blockbuster that’s meant to be
a turn your brain off movie that’s made to be watch and enjoyed for the awesome
sequences that it shows you. But movies like this could’ve been something more
meaningful. A movie about tragedies like this should be about the resiliency of the
people. A movie like this should be a story about surviving through the disaster against
all odds. A story like this should be more about fun, pretty actors and actresses doing
cool stuffs. A story like this should be more than the spectacle that it shows on the screen
A movie like this should not be superficial.
Because for me a surface-level disaster movie is criminal, to say the worst and
dumb in its best. Criminal because it misses the chance of telling a more compelling
story of humanity and survival but instead chooses to take advantage of the disaster that
it shows in order to make money. Its like spitting on the face of the victims of these
tragedies. Dumb because they’re just trying to replicate what countless films of its kind
had done before.
I think that we should stop or avoid watching movies like these. I think that we
should watch movies that are more respectful and actually takes this kinds of
phenomenon more serious than what movies like this did. Because if we keep
patronizing these studios and just take whatever they offer us at fave value, then they’ll
just keep doing it and wouldn’t even think of changing for the better. If big film studios
that showcases their film to the masses regularly, doesn’t take this kind of matters
seriously, that would definitely affect and influence the thinking of the masses about
these matters. We should never let that happen.

RXN Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RXN Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RXN Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Andreas: A Reaction Paper

by Jennel Ganzas 12-Aphrodite

You might also like