In a meeting of global heavyweights, the usually stoic G20 summit devolved into a farcical spectacle, with even the most powerful leaders brought to their knees by the depths of bureaucratic ineptitude. It’s a stark reminder that even the most esteemed presidents can fall prey to the pitfalls of ineptitude – and none more so than the usually fearless and unflappable Viola Davis, who found herself wrestling with the complexities of statecraft during her recent stint as U.S. President.
The G20 Debacle
In G20, every world leader attending the titular diplomatic summit is held hostage by jaded, ex-special forces terrorists, with only the leader of the free world able to stop them. It’s a film molded by its forefathers Air Force One, White House Down, or the Bill Pullman bits of Independence Day, which all try to balance the glee of casting a Hollywood A-lister as the President of the United States with robust if implausible action mechanics.
Wolfgang Petersen and Roland Emmerich may not be the finest composers of small or large-scale action, but they have demonstrated enough of an understanding of scale, pacing, and geography to justify the high concept – the President has a gun, and needs to protect our freedom in a very literal way. G20, on the other hand, is a generic, ugly, and poorly composed piece of Grade A streaming slop, and makes us want to give the likes of Petersen and Emmerich the Medal of Freedom.
A Hollywood A-lister as President: The Concept’s Potential
The concept of casting a Hollywood A-lister as the President of the United States has potential, especially when it comes to balancing action mechanics with the charisma of the actor playing the role. This is evident in films like Air Force One, White House Down, and Independence Day, which all managed to make the high concept work.
Wolfgang Petersen and Roland Emmerich: The Masters of Scale and Pacing
Petersen and Emmerich have demonstrated an understanding of scale, pacing, and geography in their action films, making them ideal candidates to helm a project like G20. Unfortunately, the film falls short of their standards.
G20’s Failure to Deliver: A Generic and Ugly Thriller
G20 fails to deliver on its promising concept, instead becoming a generic and ugly thriller that lacks the charm and charisma of its predecessors. The film’s poor composition and lack of understanding of scale and pacing make it a disappointing watch.
Viola Davis: The Saving Grace
Before we get to its many faults, it’s worth noting G20 gets one part of its concept correct: casting Viola Davis as the President. Getting the vibes right when casting your President is the most important first step when making a film in this subgenre – the audience should lock eyes on an acclaimed, charismatic actor wearing the Presidential pin or standing in the Oval Office and think, “Yeah, I buy that.”
EGOT Winner and Charismatic Actor: Why Davis is Perfect for the Role
Davis, one of three Black women to win the EGOT, has made a career of playing women with rich emotional ranges in impossible situations, and her decades of dependable, often exemplary work has gained her reputation as one of the most talented actors working today.
Rich Emotional Ranges in Impossible Situations: Davis’s Career Highlights
Davis’s career is marked by her ability to play complex, emotionally rich characters in impossible situations. Her talent and charisma make her an ideal candidate to play the President in a film like G20.
A Logical Choice for President: Davis’s Star Power
Casting Davis as a fictional President makes so much sense it borders on unimaginative. Her star power and charisma are undeniable, making her a logical choice for the role.
Incompetence in Thriller Filmmaking
Despite her star’s enthusiasm to broaden her genre horizons, director Patricia Riggen has made an utterly incompetent thriller. Thanks to the efforts of four different writers (we can infer from the three rows of on-screen writing credits that Noah Miller and Logan Miller wrote the original draft, and Caitlin Parrish and Erica Weiss reworked it), G20 falls victim to the most turgid action trends while attempting to approach modern geopolitical issues with jaw-dropping cluelessness.
President Danielle Sutton (Davis) became a national hero when Time snapped a picture of her carrying an Iraqi child to safety during the Battle of Fallujah. Now, she’s days away from proposing a solution to world hunger at the G20 summit in Cape Town when her rebellious teenage daughter Serena (Marsai Martin), who’s also proficient in hacking, breaches security to go on an unsanctioned night out without her security detail.
This is the type of stress President Sutton doesn’t need, as she’s facing stiff opposition to her world hunger proposal – introducing a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency to impoverished African farming communities to help them get a leg up on the economic stage. This is probably the most insane thing a President has proposed doing in a film that wasn’t overtly dystopian or a comedy.
Cryptocurrencies are notoriously unstable, and their growth has a direct boost on the tech sector, an industry that depends on the resource stripping, labor exploitation and impoverishment of developing nations in order to accumulate wealth. There is no solving world hunger without dismantling the powers of the tech sector – a number of tech billionaires (like, for example, Jeff Bezos, whose corporation bankrolled G20) could theoretically “end” world hunger on a simple cost front, but the concept of “world hunger” is itself a product of capitalist imperialism, the type of which the President of the United States by definition favors.
Although it’s now perhaps no shock for a U.S. President to push geopolitical solutions that line the pockets of Big Tech, the fact that no-one raises any of the above critiques during G20 is maddening and distracting.
The Plot’s Unrealistic and Problematic Elements
In G20, the plot thickens when President Danielle Sutton proposes a solution to world hunger at the G20 summit in Cape Town. The solution? Introducing a Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency to impoverished African farming communities to help them get a leg up on the economic stage. This proposal is not only unrealistic but also problematic, as it fails to address the root causes of world hunger.
A Bitcoin-like Cryptocurrency to Solve World Hunger: A Flawed Proposal
Cryptocurrencies are notoriously unstable, and their growth has a direct boost on the tech sector, an industry that depends on the resource stripping, labor exploitation, and impoverishment of developing nations in order to accumulate wealth. There is no solving world hunger without dismantling the powers of the tech sector – a number of tech billionaires (like, for example, Jeff Bezos, whose corporation bankrolled G20) could theoretically “end” world hunger on a simple cost front, but the concept of “world hunger” is itself a product of capitalist imperialism, the type of which the President of the United States by definition favors.
Ignoring the Roots of World Hunger: Tech Sector’s Role in Perpetuating Poverty
It is maddening and distracting that no one raises any of the above critiques during G20. The film’s failure to address the real issues perpetuating poverty and hunger is a glaring oversight, especially considering the President’s proposal is meant to be a solution to these very problems.
A President’s Blind Spot: Failing to Address the Real Issues
President Sutton’s proposal is a clear example of a President’s blind spot, failing to address the systemic issues that contribute to world hunger. This lack of understanding is a disservice to the audience and perpetuates a harmful narrative that ignores the complexities of global poverty.
Implications and Takeaways
The failures of G20 extend beyond its poor writing and lack of geopolitical understanding. The film’s inability to address systemic issues has serious implications for the way we approach storytelling in Hollywood.
The Dangers of Ignoring Systemic Issues in Film Storytelling
By ignoring the root causes of world hunger, G20 perpetuates a harmful narrative that ignores the complexities of global poverty. This type of storytelling can have serious consequences, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and reinforcing damaging ideologies.
The Importance of Responsible Representation in Hollywood
It is essential for filmmakers to take responsibility for the stories they tell and the representations they portray. G20’s failure to address systemic issues is a stark reminder of the importance of responsible representation in Hollywood.
G20’s Failure: A Lesson in Incompetent Thriller Filmmaking
G20’s failure serves as a lesson in incompetent thriller filmmaking. The film’s poor writing, lack of geopolitical understanding, and failure to address systemic issues make it a prime example of how not to make a thriller.
Conclusion
In the scathing critique of the G20, one thing is clear: no amount of star power can salvage a fundamentally flawed institution. As Viola Davis’ action president fails to rescue the summit, it becomes increasingly evident that the problems plaguing the G20 run far deeper than a charismatic leader. The article lays bare the organization’s ineptitude, from its lack of representation to its inability to address pressing global issues. Despite the presence of high-profile guests, the summit’s pomp and circumstance cannot distract from its inherent shortcomings.
The implications of this failure are far-reaching. As the global economy continues to shift and power dynamics evolve, the G20’s inability to adapt and effectively address pressing issues leaves a power vacuum that other, more agile institutions may seek to fill. Furthermore, the summit’s shortcomings have serious consequences for those most affected by its decisions – namely, the marginalized communities and developing nations that are consistently left behind. As the G20’s relevance wanes, it is imperative that alternative, more inclusive forums for global cooperation emerge to fill the void.
As the curtains close on this latest iteration of the G20, one thing is clear: the status quo is no longer tenable. It is time for a fundamental rethinking of how we approach global governance, one that prioritizes inclusivity, equity, and meaningful action over empty rhetoric and photo opportunities. As we move forward, one question lingers: what will it take for the leaders of the world to finally put the needs of the many above the interests of the few?