{"title":"Readapting Pandemic Premediation and Propaganda: Soderbergh’s Contagion amid COVID-19","authors":"K. Moore","doi":"10.3390/arts9040112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Steven Soderbergh’s pandemic thriller Contagion (2011) was trending strongly on streaming services in the US in the early days of COVID-19 restrictions, where the fiction took on an unforeseen afterlife amid a real pandemic. In this new context, many viewers and critics reported that the film seemed “uncanny,” if not prophetic. Frameworks such as Priscilla Wald’s notion of the “outbreak narrative,” as well Richard Grusin’s “premediation,” may help to theorize this affective experience on the part of viewers. Yet the film was also designed as a public health propaganda film to make people fear and better prepare for pandemics, and the present account works to recover this history. Although the film takes liberties with reality, in particular by proposing an unlikely vaccine-development narrative, Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns consulted prominent scientists and policymakers as they wrote the film, in particular Larry Brilliant and Ian Lipkin. These same scientists were consulted again in March 2020, when an effort spearheaded by Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public health reunited the star-studded cast of Contagion, who created at home a series of public health announcement videos that might be thought of as a kind of re-adaptation of the film for the COVID-19 era. These public service announcements touch on key aspects of pandemic experience premediated by the original film, such as social distancing and vaccine development. Yet their very production as “work-from-home” illustrates how the film neglected to address the status of work during a pandemic. Recovering this history via Contagion allows us to rethink the film as a cultural placeholder marking a shift from post-9/11 security politics to the pandemic moment. It also becomes possible to map the cultural meaning of the technologies and practices that have facilitated the pandemic, which shape a new social order dictated by the fears and desires of an emerging work-from-home class.","PeriodicalId":187290,"journal":{"name":"The Artist and Journal of Home Culture","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Artist and Journal of Home Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/arts9040112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Steven Soderbergh’s pandemic thriller Contagion (2011) was trending strongly on streaming services in the US in the early days of COVID-19 restrictions, where the fiction took on an unforeseen afterlife amid a real pandemic. In this new context, many viewers and critics reported that the film seemed “uncanny,” if not prophetic. Frameworks such as Priscilla Wald’s notion of the “outbreak narrative,” as well Richard Grusin’s “premediation,” may help to theorize this affective experience on the part of viewers. Yet the film was also designed as a public health propaganda film to make people fear and better prepare for pandemics, and the present account works to recover this history. Although the film takes liberties with reality, in particular by proposing an unlikely vaccine-development narrative, Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns consulted prominent scientists and policymakers as they wrote the film, in particular Larry Brilliant and Ian Lipkin. These same scientists were consulted again in March 2020, when an effort spearheaded by Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public health reunited the star-studded cast of Contagion, who created at home a series of public health announcement videos that might be thought of as a kind of re-adaptation of the film for the COVID-19 era. These public service announcements touch on key aspects of pandemic experience premediated by the original film, such as social distancing and vaccine development. Yet their very production as “work-from-home” illustrates how the film neglected to address the status of work during a pandemic. Recovering this history via Contagion allows us to rethink the film as a cultural placeholder marking a shift from post-9/11 security politics to the pandemic moment. It also becomes possible to map the cultural meaning of the technologies and practices that have facilitated the pandemic, which shape a new social order dictated by the fears and desires of an emerging work-from-home class.
史蒂文·索德伯格(Steven soderberg)的流行病惊悚片《传染病》(Contagion, 2011)在新冠肺炎疫情限制的早期,在美国的流媒体服务上很受欢迎,在一场真正的流行病中,这部小说出人意料地结束了生命。在这种新的背景下,许多观众和影评人认为这部电影即使不是预言,也显得“不可思议”。普里西拉·沃尔德(Priscilla Wald)的“爆发叙事”概念以及理查德·格鲁辛(Richard Grusin)的“预先调解”等框架,可能有助于将观众的这种情感体验理论化。然而,这部电影也被设计成一部公共卫生宣传片,让人们对流行病感到恐惧,并为之做好更好的准备,而这部电影则是在还原这段历史。尽管电影对现实进行了自由处理,特别是提出了一个不太可能的疫苗开发叙事,但索德伯格和编剧斯科特·z·伯恩斯在写电影时咨询了著名的科学家和政策制定者,尤其是拉里·布里连特和伊恩·利普金。2020年3月,哥伦比亚大学梅尔曼公共卫生学院(Columbia University 's Mailman School of Public health)牵头的一项努力再次征求了这些科学家的意见,当时《传染病》(Contagion)的明星阵容重新聚集在一起,他们在家里制作了一系列公共卫生公告视频,这些视频可能被认为是对2019冠状病毒病时代电影的一种重新改编。这些公共服务公告涉及由原电影预先准备的大流行经验的关键方面,例如社交距离和疫苗开发。然而,他们作为“在家工作”的制作说明了这部电影是如何忽视了在大流行期间的工作状况。通过《传染病》还原这段历史,让我们重新思考这部电影是一个文化占位符,标志着从9/11后的安全政治向流行病时刻的转变。也有可能描绘出促进这种流行病的技术和做法的文化意义,这些技术和做法形成了一种新的社会秩序,这种秩序是由新兴的在家工作阶层的恐惧和愿望所支配的。