A lot of work goes into these videos, if you want to help me make more like them, and get access to exclusive content, please check out my Patreon page: www.patreon.com/LikeStoriesofOld What were your thoughts on Don't Look Up? Let me know below!
This movie is a metaphor for how the pandemic, hoaxers, covid deniers, and blind loyalty to a political party is dangerous and foolish. It has nothing to do with climate change.
@@henrychinaski I don’t think that’s the case. I’m pretty certain it’s about climate change considering the film was “Produced by Hyperobject Industries and Bluegrass Films, the film was announced in *November 2019*” If it was announced in 2019 then we hadn’t all gone through the pandemic. The general consensus is that it is almost completely about climate change.
@@donnmckee4973 You are both wrong. Its a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority and the continued and deliberate lack of communication/understanding of WHY people think differently about "the science." Its basically yet another passive aggressive and snarky attack against people that the left refuses to understand.
@@donnmckee4973 Not just science, people who deny the truth about reality because science can be bought & paid for to manipulate perception. It's about how most people have their head stuck in group think and are helplessly unable to lift their head from the trough and consume everything that is fed to them.
A lot of the critique of seen lately of this movie comes from the idea that it's a failed metaphor for climate change. However, I (going into the film blind) didn't view it as a direct metaphor for one specific issue, and watched it as a reflection of what dealing with any problem in our current "political climate" feels like. How any issue, no matter how clear and obvious a threat, can be politicized and subverted. In that I found the film highly effective.
I agree that it works on that level, and that’s why it’s kind of upsetting when people say it’s a metaphor for climate change-it’s way to reductive to say this film is “about” climate change and climate denial. It’s not a specific and pointed critique, it’s a general sci fi movie making fun of America’s dystopian inability to address anything in an appropriate and timely manner.
I thought the same. In fact watching this video I thought that while it is very very interesting and insightful, it is going deep into just one possible way of interpreting the message and really doing a disservice to the movie. I thought the movie was a bit too on the nose at some moments, but I really liked it as a message to what we have become when it comes to dealing with important issues, no matter how simple or complex they are. I may be reading too much into it, but I think it even gave ample flaws to the main characters in the story to illustrate that being right and taking the moral high ground on one subject, doesn't make you flawless all across the board.
I also watched this movie blindly yet still don't really like the movie. I mean it's not terrible at all. The actors and actresses are great. It's just that I don't get the style of this movie and how over the top this movie tries to represent "ignorance, stupidity, and greediness". I get the point this movie is trying make but because it's so over the top, it feels too unrealistic. More unrealistic than the premise of the movie: "what if a comet hit the world in 6 months". Again this is all my opinion.
Kinda ironic, because the history of climate change denial actually shows that this "current political climate" has very little to do with that particular problem. It's just made it more visible. We've known about the problem for decades and those in power have continuously refused to address for all that time out of pure greed. The only reason the discussion around climate change has become so polarized now days is because that's the only way those who believe doing something about it will hamper their financial growth can keep us from taking action now with how much evidence we have and how long we've been checking it. Blatantly denying reality is their only recourse.
My favorite quote in the movie was “You guys, the truth is way more depressing. They’re not even smart enough to be as evil as you’re giving them credit for.”
@@nonnobissolum copied directly from a movie quote site directly so... Still I admit that I have never been good at spelling and there is a good chance I would have gotten it wrong. My partner, whose first language is Mandarin Chinese, corrects my spelling pretty often ;)
Yeah it’s a wonderful bit of story telling that is in direct contrast to most traditional stories in that it’s portraying how the world can be messed up beyond that which the heroes can overcome. That the heroes can lose
My older brother said that exact same thing to me several years ago, just after he realized what the greater implications of climate change will be. We are both in our early 80s & don't expect to experience the worst of it, but he has a bunch of kids & grand-kids, and he's a very empathic guy.
*This movie isn't really about climate change - it's about willful ignorance.* You could swap out "climate change" with virtually any other current topic and the movie still applies 100%. Ignorance will end us all.
"Idiocracy" was science fiction of a sort, with something of an elitist lens, while this movie is contemporary and more inclusive satire. It's such accurate satire they could have added a representative set of reviews and other media responses (cough) as the perfect epilogue.
@@queny2 Mike Judge said that the opening that shows "poor people breeding more than rich people" was meant to be a joke and he feels very sorry that it instead it unfortunately came off as an eugenics subtext. However, I gotta say that the future in Idiocracy isn't ALL that bad. It seemed like racism was not a thing anymore, and while dumb as fuck the idiots of the future were still open minded for the most part. Hell, unlike the president in "Don't Look Up", president Dwayne Camacho actually recognized that there were issues like dust storms, dead crops and economy, and when he found out about a man more intelligent than the norm, he wanted him to help them solve the problems instead of ignoring them.
We watched this on a whim without hearing, or knowing anything about it. We assumed that it a satire about the pandemic. And in many ways I feel that it is actually more compelling when viewed from that angle.
I think since it’s a systemic critique it works for the pandemic as well. How market logic & profit trumps good public policy no matter the administration. I have asked right wing friends and family what they thought of and they get it even if they don’t apply it to climate change they understand the broader systemic critique. I think that’s what we need to understand is that there is a broad frustration across the spectrum of money coming before people’s lives.
I'm pretty sure the movie was written before the pandemic, but yeah I think there's definitely overlap between the pandemic and climate change in terms of how we're struggling to face a global danger
@@LikeStoriesofOld Primary production on “Don't Look Up” ran from November 2020 to February 2021, which means it was being made during the pandemic. Screenplays are constantly adjusted and re written as they shoot- as you know. It's a one to one co rellary. The film is about how American handled COVID and magnifies it out to show how it would handle an extinction level event. COVID directly influenced the execution of the material in principle photography.
The issue is that there was an interview in the UK, recently, that went almost exactly like the interview in this movie. "When did meteorologists become so doom and gloom." Edit: UK heatwave GBnews is what you'll want to type in to get the link. TH-cam doesn't let me post links, for whatever reason, nor reply to this page anymore.
But the heatwave WAS overhyped. Should we be concerned about the overall climate trend? Absolutely. Was the heatwave a serious health risk if you didn't act like an idiot and sunbathe all day with no water or something? Absolutely not.
I think the entire movie works better when not tethered to the idea that "it" represents "climate change"---what the movie has to say works better when viewed in the context of how we respond to ANY clear and present danger, climate change only loosely fits that mold
I agree. I didn't take the comet as a metaphor it was a literal possibility that we've been warned about. How people, especially the government responded was both a caricature and reality. Instead of destroying the comet when they had a chance, they delayed because they wanted to make money off of it. Which is actually what our government (especially here in th USA) does with tragedies. Everything is always about money until it's too late. Money doesn't matter if everyone is dead. That's exactly what it showed.
Yeah, I feel like it's silly to write off an entire movie because it's not a literal metaphor for climate change. It works perfectly well as how this current society responds to ANY crisis. Look at what happened with coronavirus. A lot of the things that happened in this movie actually happened in the reaponse to coronavirus. Jennifer Lawrence's meltdown on that morning show ACTUALLY HAPPENED to a female scientist in Brazil. She was going off about coronavirus of course.
@@loryndabenson2118 Imo climate change doesn't fit that mold at all. The phenomenon is not as simplistic as a comet with rare, valuable stuff on it, headed directly towards us with absolute certain destruction and doom. Climate change is a much more nuanced concept. This movie should've instead been an alegory for solely earth-based natural destruction that satirizes standard distaster porn movies like the ones made by Roland Emmerich....and be kept at that only. The further incorporation of something like climate change into that is just poor taste and intellectually insulting.
From my own experience of being a scientist and seeing the way my senior professor gets treated by media/ people that are in higher up gov positions I can attest that the movie is eerily similar to what ive experienced in the real world.
Yup...I am not a scientist, but I have seen that happen with people who I know that are within scientific fields. I wish capitalism would get out of the way of freaking SURVIVAL.
Like the biologists I worked with who had been to the Arctic circle for years on end who challenged the ignorant narrative of sea ice diminishing and polar bears dying. They invited the media and gatekeeping "scientists" to come and see how there is more Arctic ice than ever and look at their firsthand data clearly showing the bears were doing just fine. No one showed up, because the money to be made off the lie is too great a force to combat by 3 people with the truth.
@@ErutaniaRose Like the biologists I worked with who had been to the Arctic circle for years on end who challenged the ignorant narrative of sea ice diminishing and polar bears dying. They invited the media and gatekeeping "scientists" to come and see how there is more Arctic ice than ever and look at their firsthand data clearly showing the bears were doing just fine. No one showed up, because the money to be made off the lie is too great a force to combat by 3 people with the truth.
When I first watched Don't Look Up, I was a little annoyed by the heavy-handedness of it. However, I thought about it and realized that the over-the-top absurd behavior of the various characters is probably how a lot of people who deny or misunderstand issues like climate change appear to experts on those issues, and then I was able to appreciate it a lot more. Like others have said, while it may have been written with climate change in mind, it definitely has a broader message about a society that often ignores warnings it's too late.
Like the biologists I worked with who had been to the Arctic circle for years on end who challenged the ignorant narrative of sea ice diminishing and polar bears dying. They invited the media and gatekeeping "scientists" to come and see how there is more Arctic ice than ever and look at their firsthand data clearly showing the bears were doing just fine. No one showed up, because the money to be made off the lie is too great a force to combat by 3 people with the truth.
The problem with heavy-handedness is that, if done poorly, can ruin your message. Short stories for kids are usually pretty heavy-handed with symbolism because kids have very little in the way of grasping concepts. But also, the things that are heavy-handed in children's stories are usually simple and easy and the heavy-handedness is used more to enforce the idea rather than to explain it. When you have to convince an adult, you have to make them think they came up with the idea. When you are heavy-handed, like this movie is, it comes off as mocking them. The movie isn't made for experts. Nothing that is made for mass consumption is made for experts and should be targeted at experts. If you're trying to convince general audiences, you don't make them feel stupid. You don't belittle them. It literally never works. You have to make them actually understand and come to a conclusion themselves. This is literally the difference between someone telling you that having your child die is awful and having your child actually die. In the first case, you'd feel a little empathy, but you wouldn't really understand it until you actually experience it. And, like LSO said, when you have something so daunting, complex and hard to comprehend even for the said experts, it's all the more vital to make an actual good movie and not something that's best left in the books for 5-year olds.
The point of using a comet as a metaphor is that even if there was a tangible, singular threat, we still would be unable to get our collective shit together enough to do anything about it.
Says who? Humanity has actually fixed a lot of big problems. The hole in the ozone is a good example. The issue is that a lot of problems are more complicated than people give them credit for. So, instead of honestly examining the downsides of their proposed solutions, they just smear anyone who disagrees as stupid and ignorant.
@@oliviastratton2169 We fixed the hole in the ozone when (a) the politicians themselves were less obstructionist and (b) before the ramped up consequences of abolishing the Fair Use doctrine for broadcasting was repealed. The complexity of the issue isn't the core problem. It's the messaging of that complexity that gets bollocks up in our current climate, combined with half our regulators being actively obstructionist. (For the record, I'm not fond of democrats either.) If we still had the Fairness Doctrine AND were in the same political place as the late 1970s/early 80s but their climate change was at the level it is today, I have no doubt Gen Z would have grown up with regulations in place to deal with the worst polluters. The proof? Everyone -- as in conservatives, liberals, independents, etc -- used to acknowledge climate change was real and at least partially man made back then. What's changed? The messaging. I.e. what Don't Look Up addresses.
@@anakaliahaoa2551 Banning CFC was to benefit DuPont which had a patent on a replacement for R-12 refrigerant, and was never a worldwide ban. That hole which is still there because it was natural is still there and being used to ban R-134 a because it's patent is about to expire and DuPont has a new replacement.
It's an interesting quote. It makes me think of the christian basis of our morals. "At least we tried to be good", we can go to Heaven now. The absolution feeling.
@@AH-yg8xb I am an atheist, for me it is a page out of stoicism philosophy on gratitude. In the continuous pursuit of dreams we often take what we already have granted.
@@purumr I am also atheist. For me the quote represents the typical ingrained christian values on Western society of "feeling guilty" and a "sinner" and our need to find balance in that by doing good and gain our absolution. Check the previous video of this channel about the "Banality of Evil". It is a common trend for our culture to feel guilty and having the need of "at least doing something" to feel good with ourselves.
The fact they turned something complex into something simple IS THE POINT. It’s a commentary on how even something so obvious and undeniable can still be treated as an opportunity for profit to the point we do not solve our own problems no matter how pressing they become.
Indeed, I agree with your perspective here. I would argue that the movie also highlights our scientists have done all they can to provide compelling evidence for our current issues, that we are in that phase of the movie where the "comet" isn't visible to the eye yet. Measurements for disease, atmospheric changes, resource depletion, etc, are being treated much like the radio telescope evidence in the movie. If we can't see it, it is not a problem. Yet, the scientists have done all the hard complex work already, and are providing us simple summaries and solution options. Yet we act like the various archetypes in the movie. As interesting as the video's proposed change to the movie would be, it may fall prey to what scientists have encountered already, people tuning out complex messaging surrounding long term existential problems. It would be a unique take on a disaster movie, though, what with an asteroid being brought into orbit and chunks of it falling to Earth causing problems.
Bidens Administration is doing exactly that saying climate crisis is opportunity for profits. But this trashpile of a movie is oh its all those science dining cap wearing dofuses that will doom us
Reducing complex, difficult-to-solve issues to false dichotomies is a really bad idea when you need room to revise (and then sometimes even reverse) scientific consensus. It introduces *absolutes* into the public understanding of science, ultimately undermining confidence in the entire scientific endeavour when our understanding, almost invariably, evolves over time. "Oh, those useless scientists! They're always changing their minds, they don't know anything!" The abuse of science in so-called identity politics/culture wars has badly eroded public trust, as ideologies attempt to twist scientific credibility to their own ends. We saw the results of this in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic and the widespread difficulty in battling pretty blatant falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Ironically enough, this dismissal of _science-as-narrative_ so fashionable among post-modernist thinkers engulfed not only parts of the left but also the right. A key component of science is clear communication. Climate science needs a Feynman or Sagan, someone who can elucidate all the complexity and nuance in an engaging way: the "remarkable nature of nature" as Feynman used to say. Given the stakes involved, it's strange that so few credible educators have emerged.
But what value does that have? The solution lies specifically in the part that was omitted - systemic issues. In my opinion, pointing out the part where change is ripe is very valuable, espegially if it's not understood well - and you're telling me cutting that out was the point? I don't care, then!
I didn't think the movie was meant to criticize a specific problem we are not working to solve, but rather how society values have shifted so much that everything is distorted and trivialized to the point of absurdity to satisfy these new values. It critizes multiple aspects, multiple values throughout.
@@solarmaru49 I don't know what you said because of no punctuation. No offense, just don't understand it. It's literally a movie about scientific facts being politicized for the benefit of the rich. There are also a lot of direct comparisons to the Climate Change situation, which makes sense since it's the oldest, most relevant, example of science being misused for profit. I don't know what self licensing bad decisions means, but if it means misusing science for profit, then yes that's what the movie is about. If not, you are entitled to your opinion but concensus would disagree.
Don't look up is definitely an extremely American movie, which is what makes it so good and creates so much of its flaws. It's like a lot of other people in the comments have said though, I think that this movie was less about climate change and more about the American political climate. How everything is so intense and dividing but at the same time and expression of real meaningful change is seen as radical and alarmist. It's so... Isolating. So seeing it end with loved ones come together after separating themselves further and further throughout the movie was so damn emotional, but also felt too naive.
Americans hate it because it forces them to look in the mirror and realize we are the source of all our problems. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything they'd rather divide themselves into factions and blame the other side whether it be climate change, our endless war mongering, destabilizing countries and entire regions of the world, and diseases. Don't Look Up reminds me a lot of The Day The Earth Stood Still even when an alien civilization gave us the choice to change our ways or face extinction in order to save the planet the first thing we do is shoot the guy out of our own fear.
Yes, America the only country with ignorant people. Yes, I know that is not explicitly what you are saying, but when critics of the ignorance in the world point the blame at the US exclusively and repeatedly, what message does that send? In all seriousness, this is why there is so much division. Americans (particularly right wingers) are mocked and ridiculed constantly; to the point that they have no reason to put their faith in (left wing) scientists because for all they know the whole climate conversation is all just a political talking point to beat them over the head with. If they weren't ridiculed as idiots constantly, maybe they would listen. Additionally, asking the US (or really any WEIRD country) to reduce carbon emissions or any other number of things to reverse climate change, is oddly inefficient. The top carbon emitter is China. If people cared about climate change they would ask China, but they don't. Why?
That's part of it, but as is said in the video, climate change isn't immediately obvious to one's senses. One must put their faith in scientists. And that is where the issue becomes politicized. In America at least, scientists are known to leverage the citizens' faith in scientists to lobby for their favorite political causes. And that is somewhat understandable, but it does mean trust is eroded. Additional some would be hurt more (than others) by reducing carbon emissions. Are we willing to pay that price? Would reversing climate change be worth a miner in India going into poverty and starving?
You're partly correct about that. But In the 1980's I ran around chasing all the alarmist predictions about global warming, etc. Most of the predictions were wrong and most of the science still is sloppy and influenced by businesses and political leaders. And not one party, this is a multi-party problem. So many of us also see the problem includes unproven alarmism. I would love to see more honesty and reasonable debate from all the sides of this topic. (I don't mean everyone become honest. I mean a handful of people from each social, political side that allow scientific inquiry respectful debate and discussion). Seems like our governments won't even allow that. Tech sector definitely doesn't.
@@RealLifeIronMan And consider how an ice age reduces plant and animal life on the planet more than global warming does. Glaciers used to be as far south in the Americas as Pennsylvania. It was the equivalent of far northern Canada in the upper and central USA. That would greatly reduce agriculture, etc. That's the problem with our current unscientific assertion that climate change is consistently bad. Climates always change and it's a set of pros and cons.
Seemingly to me, humanity is great at dealing with a situation when it's looking down the barrel of a gun but when the threat isn't immediate it struggles.
Thats where most of our species problems come from, we cannot truly experience what suffering people have endured unless we put ourselves in their shoes or try to sympathise and understand what they're going through to see why the suffering has happened, thats why you have things like class division, racism, ideological divides, etc. Its something I think is very flawed with our species, we cannot truly know what the person is suffering and try to make things better for them and others, instead we go into our own little bubble and ignore it or completely recognise it and try to do things that are very convenient like donating to charity or peacefully protesting, while they may help, they only give some surface to the problems and in some cases do not make any meaningful change
Good video, however the fact that they chose a comet was irrelevant. The point was to illustrate to the viewer the social, governmental, and corporate gridlock we experience when evidently staring into the face of our own destruction even though we can do something about it. I agree with the premise a comet isn't the best way to illustrate our own contribution to changing this impending doomsday scenario. It was only chosen, because it's a movie and people seemingly have short attention spans. Climate change wouldn't make for a good worldwide disaster film. The Day After Tomorrow's cataclysm doesn't work too well for "Mckayan" satire.
This movie? It was not a Mirror at all. And it’s not the only terriblee Clima-Change-Coverage: Chris Chibnal probably did the Worst ever, as pointed out by Many, including Jay Exci. Meanwhile, epic coverage would be various Science-Channel as well as the 2 Social-Commentary-Channel Hbomberguy and Some More News.
right, because we are all fundamentally good people. All the politicians in the capitals, all the power wielders in global finance, they are all trying to do the right things, they are just..... incompetent?
@@waynechen852 actually it’s more because assigning malice points to different solutions that won’t necessarily change things. If it’s just malice then changing people in power is the solution rather than questioning how power works in today’s society. If market logic permeates all decisions, how media covers issues, what politicians actually act on, it begins to permeate the public that actual democratic power held by the demos is off limits. The best we are becomes consumers of brands and political parties and not actually wielding any power. The market rules more and more of life and even politicians and CEO’s are prisoners of the system. Change the CEO of Exxon tomorrow to the head of Greenpeace and watch how much changes when internal incentives and forces remain the same. This isn’t an excuse that those CEO’s or politicians don’t deserve serious consequences, it’s just that what needs changed is structural.
@@waynechen852 No, we all have the innate capacity for good. Do you think there are more incompetent people in the world or more actively evil people? Think carefully. And, yes, if you don't believe politicians are incompetent, there is nothing I can do for you lol
Those last 10 minutes describing how everyone is turning inward and existing in increasingly divergent realities really resonated with me and perfectly describes the zeitgeist.
I personally really liked Don't Look Up. The exaggerated nature of it all that created a sense of disassociation and convolution actually fed into the hazy nature of so many different things going on in the world that seem fueled by ignorance and misinformation. While there may have been a single definitive point the director wished to push toward the nature of the message and its application so so many simultaneous chaotic problems elevated my appreciation for it as a whole. The raw, incredibly serious emotional outbursts scattered throughout the otherwise near-slapstick level expressions of ignorance dug deep into me as the struggle we face daily when we check the news and see each day that The Onion is getting closer and closer to legitimate news and nothing seems to be rallying against it.
I know this is late but the video got recommended to me. Which parts were exaggerated? I see people saying its "heavyhanded" and "exaggerated" but I'm pretty sure we've seen the exact same scenes play out with scientists and media, in multiple countries. We've seen the politicization of chocolate, m&ms, masks and anything in between. People saying this movie over the top are tripping, if anything the movie ISNT crazy enough.
Agreed. i think you're not going to enjoy it if you look at something like Trump's presidency and can't acknowledge what an absolute failure it was. I think there's too many people living in literal fantasy worlds currently, totally detached from any factual basis and not really equipped with the tools to critically think properly.
@@danc42421 it's not mundane like the real life and has a background music, in other words we're desensitized to facism and over the top stupidity the real world brings, that's the reason tucker Carlson talking about m&m doesn't seem that absurd and nor America's supreme court unconstitutionally banning abortion.
your very first sentence for not liking the movie is why i enjoyed it lol is that not the real world today?? the ones in power get the people freaked out with exaggeration so as to not lose that power or have people become aware and fight back?
This movie perfectly captures how it's felt to have every issue that comes up be met with people strawmanning, caricaturing, laughing amongst themselves and largely disconnecting from each other. We're humans suddenly fighting a flood of information and connection that has paradoxically pushed us farther apart by giving us so much content and so little together time that we can't process things properly anymore. We're naturally breaking off into tribes of monoculture perspectives that then enforce this socially, and seeing people with different eyes and concerns as threats to our power and stability. Virtue and honor has become subjective even in every-day political topics that should involve communities at a moderate level and be discussable and negotiable. This movie captures the sense of panic one can feel when you look out and see no learned thinkers or skilled orators taking on the necessary task of digesting issues in a way that includes different perspectives and attempts to start the dialog of chewing in the social brain; it captures the lead up to idiocracy where things still feel intelligible, but the understructure has started to erode and people are walking on the bridge laughing while you see some small grains of sand or a pebble dislodge itself when walking in the long forgotten catacombs of dialog. When Leo's character screams out to be terrified, it's not talking about climate change or the asteroid specifically, it's that our culture has venerated the wrong things and we're all looking to medicate problems, detach from uncomfortable things, to avoid each other and to not hear, and to watch this devolution over the last 20 years has been scary. It could be any disaster, it's not about that, it's about how we're all children in adult bodies with adult jobs and bank accounts and our skills at facing our problems and fellow humans is that of children on the playground. Even the scholars are so far up their academic disciplines while watching politically charged nonesense strawman peddlers on mainstream TV. They look down on their neighbors and act like it'd be fine if they all died because their beliefs are wrong and evil. How many times in the last 20 years have we heard "I just don't get how..." blah blah blah insert some position the other has taken. Or if they do understand, it's some patronizing or condescending "that's why they're getting defensive or projecting and I can understand it in those terms but they need to be shown the light, maybe I can reach them" instead of trying to inhabit their hierarchy of societal concerns and see how to negotiate a solution that does them justice. This movie is a preview of society that has completely lost the ability to pay attention and to listen, and to listen well. Do we ask questions or do we dictate. We're all so bigbrained philosophers in our own minds while not stepping out to understand and to speak up for and include those that oppose our solutions. And boy are we tied to solutions and the form things take instead of being dynamic, creative, inquisitive creatures whenever ideology makes us uncomfortable. Anyway, sorry for the rant but I couldn't sit down to watch this without first getting this off my chest, and hopefully I can watch your analysis with more openness, I'm just anxious that this is going to be 40min of missing the point about a movie about missing the point and that would be depressing coming from you. This movie is a mythology that captures our current state of affairs. It does it without pointing the finger from one to the other and creates, or rather finds, intermediate characters that split up the strengths and weaknesses of current people in unusual combinations that challenge us to look at the humanity, not the ideological tribe, giving us something approachable to chew on, truly like stories of old. It does the campfire task of coming together and looking at the meta in a personal and instantiated what-if. Ok, anyway, /rant
I interpreted the "comet in the sky" scene as the too little too late moment. That, by the time climate change will have these big observable consequences that you can glance at and say "yup that's a climate change alright", it would be too late to really do anything about it. That we should try and stop it now while we have the chance and when you need to trust the scientists that know better, rather that wait for your own proof of it.
Yeah but that’s his point ,there most likely will never be some huge climate changing moment, temperature will slowly rise and all the small problems will add up and cause problems , I mean what would a event that is a provable climate change event even look like? Some scene out of day after tmrw? Climate change will be a death by a million cuts
@@neolordie I think you should start paying attention to the news more, now that the time has passed, a bunch of damning information about the injections are coming out now.
@@samuelargyropoulos1249 There are, a while back some information about massive health complications came out and the few places that covered it waved it off and said the health complications were still better than getting covid, which is what we call and excuse, and it is besides the point. If you know ANYTHING about science or history, then you know that scientists and medical professionals only know so much, and hindsight is a bitch. Talk to your parents about how much scientists/medical professionals know, there's a ton of stuff they were lied to about when they grew up simply because scientists/medical professionals didn't know any better.
Your work is infinitely interesting and much appreciated, you impact more people than you know! Keep up the great work and I pray this message finds you well!
@@bryansantanavegas1910 This movie? It was not a Mirror at all. And it’s not the only terriblee Clima-Change-Coverage: Chris Chibnal probably did the Worst ever, as pointed out by Many, including Jay Exci. Meanwhile, epic coverage would be various Science-Channel as well as the 2 Social-Commentary-Channel Hbomberguy and Some More News.
I loved this movie. I don't get why people think it's controversial. It was cathartic in a dark depressing kind of way. I thought the social commentary was spot on and that the people who were pissed off by this film are the people who saw themselves in the characters that were acting badly.
well if your being perfectly portrayed aka a republican then ofcourse its controversial, you were portrayed not as some good guy but as a fool, i saw most people could'nt even finish the movie though i get it, as it did get boring at times, then they complain of social media without finishing the film
While you can think like that, there's actually many people who didn't recognize themselves, and still found faults in the movie. Reality, is, luckily, more complex than your understanding of it
@@charlestonianbuilder344 You're EXACTLY the type of person I thought about when watching the movie. Clearly the president and her followers were meant to portray trump and his followers from the point of view of people like YOU. Calling republicans fools and saying they're "perfectly portrayed". Its hilarious because you're just like them. Blind, ignorant and afraid of opposing views. And anyone that disagrees with you is horrible in your mind. You, are the fool. Its "controversial" because it makes fun of trump, if ANY movie made fun of biden it would be canceled because people would lose their shit. So much hypocrisy. As someone who enjoyed the movie and has a very open minded political mindset, I gotta say the way they portrayed republicans is the SAME way I see both right wing extremists and left wing extremists. You're both bad and you're both annoying. Just itching to throw a jab at the opposing party. Dude, live your life, stop being full of hatred and letting these republicans live in ur head rent free.
Because it feels like Hollywood grabbing you and shaking you, going “GET IT!?! DIVISION BAD! NOW PRAISE US FOR BEING SMART!!!!” Hollywood long ago lost the favor of quite a lot of people. Being heavy handed and borderline propagandistic is not a good way to win them back.
I believe the comet metaphor has a different goal. Perhaps the movie wants to show us that even a much more real, predictable and timely event like a comet impact can be completely ignored in our current society. And that this ignorance and mixture of emotions and political views can lead to our extinction.
When I watched this film, I correlated it more with Covid than Climate Change, for the reasons you mentioned in this video. But, you said it better. It brought me tears.
So far, I am greatly enjoying your videos. You think deeply and put forward well-considered ideas. I don't always agree, but I am enjoying learning more about how you see things. Wonderful job, and thank you!
The point about interpersonal communication completely breaking down, that I see every day. Lord how many times have we all seen our wonderful technology ruin society. Time after time, person by person, scandal by scandal. How many more kids are going to get an iPad shoved into their face instead of a teddy bear before people realize how much spending time matters. My parents are older. I never thought I'd see the day when parents care more about themselves than about the life they begat. I'm not super religious, but lord have mercy on the selfish, they know not what they do. Myself included. You always bring back your videos into something that really makes me think, and I thank you for that. Communication and technology in society are one of the biggest things I would ever consider advocating for.
The way I see it, we all have to make some big sacrifices to help, but not enough will. And because of the unique nature of Climate Change not being an obvious singular threat, the blame will always be shifted. From individual consumers to big corporations, both will pass the blame to each and never make significant enough changes. Humanity has always cared about its present and never about its future.
My first impression of Don't Look Up was that it felt like the current generation's Idiocracy. I honestly didn't make the climate change connection until later (I figured the story could have been about virtually any imminent threat to the Earth and/or humanity and achieved the exact same core-narrative), mainly because I wasn't paying attention to the debate surrounding it. I rarely go on Twitter and follow tweets even less.
@@albusking2966 I don't know, off the top of my head, but I also don't think I'm the person to ask. I was speaking in context of this fictional world though. For purposes of the film's story, I believe any significant enough threat could have potentially worked.
@@albusking2966 Climate change is the imminent threat. I'm no eco nut, but you have to acknowledge that it will probably be what we spend the next 100 years trying to beat.
*current generation* half of the movie was about conservatives being the bad guys how you came to the conclusion that the Gen-Z were the problem in the movie, like Gen-Z is literally painted as the wokest leftist generation of today that do talk about climate change the same way "alarmist" do edit: welp just looked at your subscriptions and that's explains alot on why you think an entire generation is idiot to you and why you subconsciously omitted the cartoonisly exaggerated mockery of conservatives in the film
@@rajeevvaishnav2018 *"How you came to the conclusion that the Gen-Z were the problem in the movie-"* I didn't. My perception was that human idiocy, ignorance, and selfishness in general were the problem, not a specific ideology or party. I didn't interpret it as "Conservatives bad", "Gen-Z bad", "Leftist bad", "Woke bad", or anything like that. I didn't do a head count of which characters were of what affiliation. I did perceive a commentary on how human society & communication were negatively impacted by social media. Again though, I don't view that as Gen-Z's fault (though they definitely haven't helped). I did see the not-so-subtle parallel to Trump, but that's about it. I did see that the film gets political, of course. But I wasn't absorbing the plot through a political lens. When I said "current generation's Idiocracy", I meant that it struck me like a film made in what was then the current year that reminded me of an movie made years ago with a similar theme or vibe. That's all that phrase means to me unless someone specifies otherwise. To elaborate, "the current generation", in my mind, referred to the film existing within a new generation and those living at that time being its audience. No more, no less. There was nothing political intended in that statement. It's no different to me from saying "New Girl feels like Friends for the new generation." This is honestly the first time I've heard someone interpret "current generation's" as you have. It's surprising, because every person I've ever used that wording around when discussing media understands what I mean and didn't feel a need for me to re-word it. Likewise, many people used that wording with me. *"Just looked at your subscriptions-"* I did used to look at subscriptions of people I was debating to get a sense of their views before. And, speaking from experience, that's rarely a reliable way to discern their true views. Assuming someone is Conservative, Liberal, or whatever based on what they watch on TH-cam is just that, an assumption. You may argue that it's a reasonable assumption to make, but I'd disagree in this instance. It would only reasonable if/when you find evidence that the person watching those channels agrees with said channels' views. All "evidence" you believe you have about my views is based on a misinterpretation you made on a comment I wrote about a movie that happens to paint certain groups/demographics in a negative light. To clarify for others who may read this (not that my subscriptions are a secret by any means), like many TH-camrs I've met, I watch channels foremost for entertainment value. I may agree or disagree with them, but I'll still watch them if they entertain me. I listen to people across the political spectrum, and my opinion will depend on the individual issue. I don't subscribe only to people who think like me, nor do I do a head count of their affiliations. *"That explains a lot on why you think an entire generation is idiot to you-"* I don't view Gen-Z as a collective of idiots. There are idiots among every generation, including mine (Millennial). Two of my sisters are Gen-Z, and they're they're two of the sharpest people I know. We don't always agree, especially on politics, but I respect their POV because I don't judge intellect strictly through a political lens either. We're all individuals. Being of a specific generation or other demographic doesn't dictate one's intellect (not saying you said otherwise). *"- And why you subconsciously omitted the cartoonisly exaggerated mockery of conservatives in the film"* I "omitted" nothing, consciously or otherwise. That's another assumption on your part. Few attempts at arguments are more fallacious or potentially arrogant than to presume you know anything about a stranger's unconscious mind, let alone that you know it based off comments & subscriptions. Again, I used to do this. Since then, I've realized that "unconscious bias" is a flawed premise for multiple reasons and most informed people won't likely take you seriously if you cite it (Nobody I know of would likely be impressed by your combative approach to dialogue either). I say this with no malice, disrespect, or condescension intended. Perhaps you'll see at some point in the future how you can benefit from this interaction, just as I benefitted from learning the flaws in my thinking years ago (which is not to say or imply that my mind is now flawless). Also, I'm well aware that the portrayals of everyone (not just Conservatives) were very exaggerated. Almost nobody in the film was portrayed with anywhere near 100% realism in mind, regardless of party or ideology. They weren't all equally cartoonish, but none of them struck me as "real". They were all exaggerations serving a narrative to some extent. We can glean themes from them that are applicable to the real world. But the same is true for what messages + commentary can be taken from Idiocracy, which is also full of cartoonish mockery & caricatures (Admittedly, I'd consider Idiocracy to be significantly more cartoonish by comparison than Don't Look Up). If you have any other questions to clear up, let me know.
"I don't think it was quite able to capture what the actual harm of climate change looks like" That's not what the movie was trying to do. It was trying to show how people react to science that says "something bad is coming we need to act". Some panic, most ignore it or actively campaign against the idea. All while the scientist pull their hair out trying to convey the truth.
Exactly. This movie is a textbook illustration of how the politicization and monetization of science erodes the public trust in scientists themselves, who are supposed to be impartial.
@Hatchback OfNotreDame the average person neither knows how solar orbits work, not is capable of using equipment to find one as it enters our system. Yet we ALL trust when scientists say one could likely impact us. Climate change is not some nebulous science that requires a doctorate to understand. It's basic science and ecology. The problem is everyone wants to argue about the cause, rather than simply deal with the effects.
@@derek96720 The only people "arguing about the cause of climate change" are right wing propagandists and brainwashed conservatives. Everyone else already knows burning fossil fuels is the main cause. It's not complicated bruh.
@@bgoodfella7413 actually there are multiple significant causes. Another is factory farming, ie the cattle industry, which puts out unprecedented amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Another cause is that the Earth is in a natural heating cycle on its own, as it's gone through numerous times in the past. Climate change is going to happen one way or the other, but we're greatly exacerbating and accelerating it.
Those who have been the most vocally outraged by the movie - the corporate media elite, predominantly - were clearly upset about being so mercilessly caricatured, but then their reactions have been so disproportionately over the top that they in effect ended up self-caricaturing, thereby proving the movie's point. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with the film: I think it's great in some respects, and significantly lacking in others. What cannot be denied is the way it has so publicly ruffled the feathers of those it specifically targets, which makes it an undoubted success. It's not a normal movie for normal times, and it did it's job damn well in that respect, even if by normal movie standards it's a mixed bag. What it has done unbelievably well is bait those it critiques for living in insular corrupt bubbles to expose themselves for living in insular corrupt bubbles
I did my report that makes up 15% of my public exam grade on this movie. It just resonates with me so much as a member of the younger generation, sometimes it feels like your fate is in the hands of people who don’t care
Does anybody really though? Even activists don’t actually advocate for decarbonization plans….. There are quite literally thousands of published plans on what to do and how to do it, but yet it seems like the entire general publics climate movement is predicated on the belief that only politicians could ever come up with plans. It’s truly a mind boggling thing to see, when historically over the last 120 years every single major environmental treaty ever ratified started as a scientific study with conclusions of what was recommended to change. From the Vienna Convention to London Convention to MARSPOL to Montreal Protocol etc, but for some reason the modern climate movement just forgot this for some reason. So instead they shout a scream why a bunch geriatric geniuses, who likely didn’t even take classical mechanics in college, don’t have a plan. In the US we have marches on congress to make a plan and take action. Yet you never once hear about any group reference or advocate for any of the hundreds of plans made by the US Department of Energy.
@@brian2440 I’m not talking about climate change. When I first saw this film, it never resonated with me as something about climate change at first. It is something that resonated with me because of the political situation of my own home country, not America or Europe
@@brian2440 film and literature are often up to people’s interpretations and I think general human ignorance and the criticism of self serving leaders are themes of the movie whether it’s about climate change or not. Those themes are what hit me when I first watched it and I did the report on my personal perspective so yeah
The Big Short is a great film. This doesn't have much to do with this video, but I want to add that it gets (at least) two major components wrong about the crisis ("wrong" might be a bit inflammatory). 1 - in the blackjack scene with Selena Gomez and Richard Thaler, the movie describes how the crisis was multiplied due to large, but wholly independent side bets. In other words, A makes a bet with B, C makes a bet with D, E makes a bet with F, and so on. This isn't a problem. The real problem was that these side bets were not independent, and created debt cycles: A bets with B, B hedges by betting with C, C hedges by betting with A; none of them know that they're in a cycle, so when B goes bankrupt, C can't pay A anymore and everyone loses. 2 - the film fails to mention that bad math was fueling the heart of the crisis-the incorrect pricing and risk evaluation of mortgage-backed securities. Margin Call correctly makes the discovery of this bad math the driving engine of the film.
Would it be fair to say that the point 2 is wrong because it wasn't about math but greed? There's a scene in the movie where they say something along the lines of "Who cares man... they want it and they'll pay for it" Almost like... it was hmm greed and and ignorance.. Donno... I bet you guys are smarter than me(not sarcasm)
@@xxChacaronXX I understand the sentiment, but no it wouldn't be fair to say point 2 is wrong. Bad math very literally was the reason the risk assessment of MBS products was so broken, and therefore banks were strongly incentivized to push mortgages to anyone with a pulse However, it would be fair to argue that greed (and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it") prevented the bad math from being corrected before it was way too late. I think this is the common sentiment in the industry
@@utkashdubey8458 Maybe the promise of a big payoff made the bad math more difficult to spot? Our brains are severly biased, and it's a bit dismissive to say the culture of the financial market would be so careful as to not rush into the promise of quick payoffs and recklessly underestimate associated risks?
I took it as not necessarily a metaphor for climate change, but science denialism in general. Made me think of covid more than climate change, but that's probably just recency bias because my anti-vax sister was here. I saw in other comments that the script was written before the pandemic. But naturally, the point of metaphor is that the specific "thing" doesn't really matter, it's more about the effects and causes and behaviors around it. As always you got right to the heart of the matter in a way that I wish everyone could hear.
@breyzh2jahkady Science is about specific things. Narrative allegory isn't. That's why they used a comet instead of just making a movie about climate change. There's no appeal to authority when the experts themselves are showing the evidence and showing their work, and people still refuse to listen. That's what happens in the movie, and IRL with climate change. If anyone cries "appeal to authority," it's purely out of ignorance, and they were never going to listen anyway.
@@neofromthewarnerbrothersic145 Right, but the allegory sort of falls flat when your movie is ABOUT science and complex policies that affect millions of lives. Dumbing issues down this much makes it fail at representing them, imo.
Lol. Your sister was the smart one, but you probably know that by now. Science? Science was corrupted by politics and an agenda, as you should have recognized by silencing of real scientists and the heavy-handed measures to force jabs.
Just found your channel - and the quality, not only in terms of picture/clip choices, but the sound and narrative setup is extraordinary. Thank you for making these videos.
Asides That thing the Big Short does is called an Aside, it's borrowed from theater drama. Where the character directly states something to the audience for dramatic irony
"Uhm, I couldn't really think of a smart segue, but this video is sponsored by" _thank you_ . whenever something a creator was saying turns out to be a "smart segue" I roll my eyes, so the sincerity here actually made me smile. also I'm glad your work has been supported, because it's really good and deserving.
I liked the 2016 Godzilla movie more. We see how bureaucracy, lack of communication and outdated strategies prevent the government of Japan from fighting Godzilla. It's only when the young people come up with new ideas, that they manage to defeat the monster. I liked the movie more because the problems they had seemed like problems we have as well and the characters felt real, despite being in a Godzilla movie. But in "Don't look up" felt cartoonish in comparison. The characters were exaggeratedly dumbed down to the point I no longer felt bad for them being hit by the comet.
My favorite aspect of 'Dont Look Up' were the Scientists fight with the (fluff) news channel to explain the situation to the public. You explained yourself that our changing climate and everything that's connected to it.. it's difficult to put to words. I think this fictional film did a stellar job conveying that message. Overall I did appreciate your review and I'll add, 'The Big Short" to my films-to-watch queue.
Too bad a "scientist" doesn't really mean anything anymore. They are more like pseudo prophets. People believe in "science" - whatever that means, but it is actually pseudo religion. Believing in a scientific process is completely different thing. Science itself is political. Science of the unknown is about consensus that may or may not be correct. It is not science in the true meaning of the word, but it is presented as one. Climate change is a dogma that must not be questioned and the new profits from this change are not to be questioned either. If I do not believe in climate change I am a heretic.
Expect the big short to blow your mind. It's legit a million times better than Don't Look Up. It's crazy that it comes from the same director honestly.
The reason it's about America is because it's a response to America pulling out of the Paris accords. As Latour says, a response not to the left and right but the "out of this world." It's not about the world's response, but those who ran away from the problem -- the best embodied by the US. It was meant to acknowledge and show the elephant in the room... that some countries are bigger players than others and each of these must work together (including the US) if we want to succeed. I think more a UN or EU focused would muddy the waters of these points. It has been awhile since I saw a film lean so far into an exclusive American audience -- using a lot of American cultural narratives and slang.
@@fingernecklace4817 The numbers clearly show the US did more to reduce carbon emissions than others. Are you unaware of this? the only thing staying in would have done is cost the US a lot of money.
Don't Look Up - for me at least, was about far more than climate change. As a former conservative republican, it spoke to the mindset I used to have and I've been trying to understand that mindset ever since. To understand how I became so misguided. This movie captures that feeling of frustration and awe better than any other piece of art I've seen. 🙏
I really like your closing thoughts about us people only wanting to build our own paradise. I think that one of the greatest problems of our society is the ever growing divide between us. Which is pretty ironic if you think about how connected we all are these days. And I really think that one of the reasons for that is how superficial our world has become. So it's truely important to actually talk, and think about a topic and actually go deep in my opinion. This is also a reason why I love your detailed movie analyses! So I hope you can keep making them for a long time :)
The uncomfortable truth is that we routinely get hit by meteors, and i actually found the movie to be a very on point critique of todays society. Its like the documentary step before the events of the movie "Idiocracy". In other words, how serious the planet would take an extenction level threat makes this the second installment of an unofficial trilogy: Deep Impact, Dont look up and Idiocracy.
Idiocracy is a mediocre film and extremely misanthropic. The picture it paints of a future has themes supporting euthanasia of stupid people or we’re all screwed. It’s the fan-fiction of a 13 year old girl with a Hermione complex.
@@sbraypaynt You're right, but the movie knows, its exaggerated for the sake of humour, it doesn't want to be the groundbreaking eyeopener that Don't Look Up aspires to be. Not all movies are made to change the world. I don't even think Idiocracy is THAT fun but it is at times exactly because it doesn't take its premise seriously at all.
@@edoardoruini199 bwahahaha Dont Look Up is not aspiring to be a "groundbreaking eye opener". What a silly thought. It knows its exaggerating and plays on it. It's about how people react to scientist saying "we have something coming and need to act". Some panic but most ignore it or actively campaign against the idea. If you truly came away thinking this movie was trying to be groundbreaking then I'm sorry for your diminishing intellect. Theres nothing groundbreaking or eye opening about people ignoring science. They just made it satire and a meteor instead of the current problems we have. You are the first person I've heard say it was aspiring to be groundbreaking and eye opening. Wow
For me, the real point of this movie was the tragedy of human stupidity and greed. I actually got choked up when that pop star was singing that song near the end. If only we all weren't so stupid and selfish. Imagine what we could accomplish.
I definitely think it's a much more scathing, albeit unwitting condemnation of the national and international Covid response. It works more as a commentary about society in a crisis in general more than it works as a direct allegory for any specific issue. It gets a bit on the nose at some points, but it also kind of redeems itself because it actually manages to be funny in places while also not really being one-sided about a multifaceted scenario. Basically everyone is responsible to one extent or another for ruining the party, and no individual or group is free from the satirical lense. I mostly enjoyed it, but my biggest issue is that I feel like it didn't quite know what it was trying to be because of how it wafted back and forth between obvious satire and serious drama. It would've worked much better if it just went hard into the absurd. As far as the kind of satirical story it was trying to be is concerned, while I appreciate this movie on an entertainment level, Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb did it better (although to be fair, saying a Stanley Kubrick film did anything better than most other movies is like saying water is wet, so that's not saying all that much). The worst thing the people behind this movie could have done was to say "this is what the movie is about" and try to make it an obvious 1:1 allegory, because that immediately made it a reductionist, one-dimensional understanding of the issue they're talking about, and it hurts broader conversation about it, at least in my opinion, because it has more interesting and thought provoking things to say about media manipulation, exploitative corporate greed and political interests, and how even regular people abuse the discussion of real issues just to virtue signal score tribal points, all without actually having honest, serious and empathetic conversations about the issues at hand, whatever it may be, be it a climate crisis or literally anything else.
I think you’re missing out on one of the more obvious mistakes that the filmmakers made, specifically, that unlike the comet, the processes and systems that led to the accumulation of co2 actually have a significantly beneficial purpose to society. It’s not just about making rich people richer; the quality of life for almost everyone in the West has increased dramatically since the Industrialization. Any mitigations against climate change will have to be offset from these unprecedented benefits, particularly when it comes to those parts of the world who are seeking to gain similar benefits. I also find it odd that you critique the film for being too US-centric while at the same time ignoring the trend of major contributors to atmospheric co2. The West has curbed its growth of co2, and is likely to continue this deceleration into the future, whereas the big drivers of growth come from the “global south”, especially China, India and Indonesia. If climate activists want to be heard, they can start by addressing these legitimate concerns by skeptics.
That bit about the "trend of major contributors to atmospheric co2" is misleading. While China and India etc are CURRENTLY emitting more, if you look at it over time, they're simply catching up to the West's totals... because they're having their "industrial revolutions" later. To finger-wag at them is not only unproductive, it's hypocritical. Plus, the US still accounts for massive amounts of emissions, handily beating the "global South" when speaking per capita. Overall, your talking points are hardly "legitimate concerns" when weighed against the evidence of the detrimental effects of climate change. Edit: Funnily enough he addresses both of your points quite eloquently later in the video, both in his discussion of the "global South" and his own meteor metaphor later. So not sure what you're talking about by "ignoring."
I think you disregard the fact that relieving third world countries of poverty might just be the most effective way of reducing their carbon footprint. There seem to be many preconceived solutions pushed by a green wave with very little to back such policies (the anti nuclear wave none the least). An anticapitalist anti growth development is included in it too with evidence pointing in the opposite direction. The problems and effects of policies are also hoplessly hard to evaualte too as because of the complexity pointed out. I also think that the point about the often pointless effect local policy on a global problem cant be empisized enough. It can and should most certainly protect the local environemnt but the general CO2-e emissons is to a large extent pointless policy on the grander scale for smaller countries like my own (sweden).
Precisely the problem, every attempt to do meaningful infraestructure or mining projects in my country are painted by a political sector as a climate threat so nothing to better the material live of people can be done. Buildings roads-climate change. Build Hospital-clinate change. Mining proyect approved and reviewed by international independent scoentist-climate change
This lends towards the conservatives of certain countries calling bullshit on climate change, even if they may be incorrect, because many sort of progress can be wrapped in the shroud of climate change bureaucratic papertape. Its complex, this issue.
My biggest problem with this movie is that it critiques the sedation of the public through media and Hollywood. Yet the movie itself is bloated with A-List celebrities who probably made more from this than most people will see in their lifetimes. Any sense of irony from Adam Mckay is misplaced.
Are you sure is not your political ideology getting in your way of thinking? I mean now they can't express themselves bcs they are rich and part of the film industry? What happen about, freedom of speech? Yes they can talk and if we belive its stupid and pointless we point it out and we collectively decided is a flawed argument. You're simply throwing a theory based on political ideology and forgetting that everyone is allowed a voice, that's the similar thinking the SWJ have over republican speakers, you're that so now you're not really worthy of my time........ your thought is a pile of hypocrisy, waiting to explode on your face the moment you decide to open your eyes, or give a minute to philosophically question your form of thinking.
@@xingincool9672 Leonardo DiCaprio took a private jet to accept the environmental award. It's not about freedom of speech or policial but being a hypocrite.
@@timon20061995 Is Leo a hypocrite? Yes, he has a private plane, but that's one case of ignorance, for some reason, the human species held this people so high in standars that they can't make a mistake "Not on my watch" you can make some, but not on my watch. I understand your argument, but you're clearly bias and ignoring the fact that there are multiple people who do care and by dismissing "The Hollywood" (which are a few) you get to cry over why you're so right and they're wrong. But you're not right, you're delusional ego keeps you from seeing the truth, like an agenda.
@Jake That was the fucking point!!!!!!! The excess in America has gone to the heads of people, your value depends on what you own, not in who you are, for christ sake she's making fun of people's stupidity from her bathtub, but you won't get the point, because is hate them first instead of acknowledging the fact that our society has clearly drawn the lines of wealth and self worth.
@Jake and how is she an oligarch when she doesn't even own a single company lol, oligarchs are people who own multiple assets and pay governments, for example Elon Musk Jeff bezzos Bill gates Mark Cuban
Look, the movie went out of its way to have Chalamet's character literally come to Faith, while enthralled in end-of-days romance with a scientist. And he wasn't chastised for it as being willfully ignorant, just embraced as a possible answer to the human condition. I thought that was wonderful. And we can't forget that DiCaprio IS in fact, the DILF. I want to thank the movie for that.
You almost lost me with this one. As I watched, I was getting increasingly frustrated by your analysis of how imperfect the metaphor was. But then you you got me back with how you ended your essay. To me it doesn't matter whether it's a comet, climate change or the pandemic, it's about how comprehensively McKay elicits both hilarity and horror by showing us how we, as a species, behave. And just so we don't feel too hopeless, he also shows us what's best about humanity. I love, without qualification, all three McKay films you featured. True, I was often the only person in the theater laughing out loud during "Vice," but isn't that what McKay is so good at: Pinpointing those things that either make us laugh or weep? Or both at the same time? To me they are cathartic without being prosaic because you can't watch them without seeing the heartbreaking, mind-bending complexity of it all.
I've seen several critiques of Don't Look Up, and I think they all miss the point -- including this one. Obviously this movie doesn't make sense if the comet is read as a direct metaphor for climate change. I don't think that's what was intended. Rather, the film is using a more obvious, simple, and extreme threat in order to say: if we live in a world that would be incapable of responding effectively to THAT kind of threat, how much worse will be our response to other, more complex, less obvious threats -- such as climate change? The movie is saying we've lost the ability to deal with ANY serious threat. And it depicts in a hyperbolic and humorous way exactly how we are incapable of dealing with serious problems. But most commentators think it's all about climate change. In my view, though Don't Look Up doesn't say it explicitly, the underlying problem with all the manifestations of avoidance and incompetence and arrogance shown in this film is one thing: capitalism. It all comes down to money. The politicians don't dare challenge the masters of business, and the people in media and pop culture all keep their eye on the short-term profit -- which means, it's absolutely forbidden to address any issue honestly and directly. And the mass promotion of denialism and conspiracy theories always means someone is making money off it. That's the world of this film. It's our world too. I suspect most of what LSOO describes in the latter part of this video is also basically a function of capitalism -- I kept waiting for him to mention it, to at least acknowledge that capitalism plays a major role in the phenomena he talks about ... but it wasn't mentioned. Oh well. For god's sake, people, lets try communism.
Its been tried and lead to 100 000000 deaths at least. No thanks. No thanks to crony capitalism and no thanks to communism. But you should read history.
I really love how this movie sorta accurately portrays how society acts nowadays and does make you think how the world, especially in our society would react if a world ending event happened
Fantastic video. I agree that Don't Look Up was most interesting when it talked about how the world we've created makes it so hard to talk to each other, rather than the apocalypse beats it tells.
I think the comet metaphor is more accurate that we give it credit.the point is that when its close enough to be seen in the sky its way late to do anything about it,as with climate change,when we will personally see it's consequences its way to late to do anything. I do grant that orbital mechanics is child's play compared to climate models.
I think he makes the point that we may not see climate changes’ effects drastically in the US and other first world countries, but other third world countries and impoverished communities are already feeling the drastic changes.
@@Dina8485 exactly. The effects are already being seen but not equally. Hell they are already even becoming more common in the United States. The pacific northwest just had a major heat wave over the summer that was unprecedented in my lifetime.
Great analysis; the absurdity of "don't look up" is exactly on point, very much is the vein of "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" Similar level of lunacy :D
I don't know why so many still think the movie is a failed satire or it's like the big short or vice, it's none of those things, it's a warning to us if we continue our way of life, if we continue to be ignorant and not empowered everyone we will not have the incentive needed to deal a problem as big as climate change.
Yeah, but see everyone gets that the movie is supposed to be a warning. That's kind of the problem. It's incredibly on the nose, and true change and progression through art is brought about by something that challenges people by working on many levels. Look up didn't, and so no one's actually challenged. It's just weak art with flaccid engagement potential (and I say this as someone who's both seen the movie and who also agrees with the message of it entirely).
@@BolioSati Well if you don't understand the movie, then the art failed if it didn't convey the message it was trying to send. Art is supposed to send ideas and emotion. So if you feel sad about it and understand why you feel sad, then it did what it's supposed to do. You know a lot of art of this extremist caliber is pretty obvious. Nobody ever thought Big Brother in 1984 was the good guy. But everyone interpreted it similarly that totalitarian governments are bad.
The Big Short and Vice are not particularly useful analogies for exploring how well the Don't Look Up film maker decided to take on the ongoing problems of climate policy, social media impact, and the deterioration of civic involvement. The earlier movies were retrospectively examining an event or period of time. The film makers had the luxury of knowing the ending of their story and could then focus on finding the most insightful, nuanced, and entertaining way to explain that bit of history. Don't Look Up is something completely different; as a political/social satire it purposefully exaggerates the vices and fecklessness of those in power as a way of revealing that cynical and petty motivations are usually behind ideas and actions that are sold with some moral or virtuous purpose. The best satire will get the viewer to see their own motivations and actions aren't always lofty and can be just a venal as those of the famous, rich, and powerful. Satire is not meant to be a dispassionate, factual interpretation of an historical event. Rather it's an attempt to balance a society's perception of an event by using humor to bring down the powerful to the level of those they are supposed to lead. Don't Look Up is much better compared to Dr. Strangelove in which the self-interest, paranoia, and sociopathy of military leadership is revealed as the reason for development of world-ending weapons; it's not a battle of good versus evil but a struggle for personnel power by those with their fingers on the buttons. You may not believe Don't Look Up is good satire, you may not particularly like satire as an art form, you may not believe satire is the most effective means of critiquing or explaining failure or corruption. But it doesn't make sense to say Don't Look Up would be better satire if it was a nuanced and entertaining history. That's like saying a dog would be a better dog if it was a really good cat, instead.
I agree and Don't Look Up is damn good satire imo. I think it's hard for people to see the absurdity of our present situation so accurately depicted through the lens of a satirical film. The irony is palpable.
@@TylerRein But making it a satire can easily lead to the whole topic not being taking serious because satires focus on people, not societal problems. You can't make fun of "climate change", you can only make fun of people dealing with it but how helpful is that? It's the same problem a movie like Idiocracy has, it ends up being rather misanthropie / hostile and doesn't actually explore the real core of the problem. Instead it plays right into the hand of climate change deniers because the whole allegory doesn't work due to the obvious and immediate nature of the event compared to climate change, not to mention that climate change won't end human society. Human society will be okay even in the worst case but it will come at a huge cost in lives and enormous economic damages in the long run.
For me i feel that dont look up just cant decide how realistic or parodic to be, some things are too outlandish or science fiction to be taken seriously and others are very serious and realistic and they dont quite mash up
Yeah exactly. The outlandish stuff made the regular stuff unbelievable. Like the Bash mission to capture the comet was pure Sci fi, and having that made more regular things, such as Dicaprio being corrupted or the apathy of the media also being outlandish. Also Meryl Streep's president character was way over the top. She was like Trump times 10 and that just made her seem like a clown rather than portraying the ways real politicians can be corrupt.
@@sryan9547 To be fair, this is probably because of something the writers said; when the pandemic hit and the social absurdity of the media was at its all time peak, they kept one-upping it so that it could still remain in the realm of parody, which probably pushed it too far at some point
I feel that the realism is nigh irrelevant; I was very slightly bothered by it, but the plot of the comet only served to illustrate the characters and society in the film (which, of course, are meant to be satire on our current society). If it was a character drama or sci-fi action sort of movie rather than satire, I would have been much more bothered
Speaking of the Big Short, there were many people that were paying rent EVERY MONTH to landlords that owned then homes but were defaulting and not paying the mortgages but TAKING the rent and NOT NOTIFYING the tenants. The tenants who were all paid up on the rent would find out when the police arrived for the eviction. This should be a crime.
You remain my absolute favourite creator on this platform. And you’ve made me cry on the train home. It’s so nice that you’re putting a bit more of yourself into these, too. I feel like I’m getting to know a friend I always would’ve liked to meet personally.
This video is another maaterpiece from you. I agree with you that our past world that have everything is ending. I already have anxiety abouth the world is ending, but thankfully this video give insight that that our "naive" worldview that is ending and not the world itself. Thank you for making this video.
The review has good points, especially regarding the section on the Big Short (great film). Although I think that most people don't take the metaphor as literally as I do. It is not about gradual climate change, it is about abrupt climate change which will occur with the same immediacy as the comet. For example, when the ice is mostly gone over the Arctic Ocean, the entire surface of the ocean will be exposed to 24 hour sunlight during the summer. Of course, dark surfaces absorb short-wave radiation whereas white surfaces such as snow and ice reflect that radiation out to space (more or less). That will be a tremendous amount of energy being absorbed into what was once surface covered with reflective ice. There are huge stores of methane in the shallow continental shelves in the form of frozen clathrates which will be destabilized by the increasing heat of the ocean - in normal situations that methane is absorbed by methane eating organisms. However, the shallowness of the ocean depth and the amount of methane being destabilized will cause large blooms of this gas entering the atmosphere. There was a mass-extinction event that happened 252 million years ago theoretically due to this phenomena (the end-Permian extinction). So, yea, it will occur and human extinction will occur over a short period of time. I think this movie is referring to something of this nature which will only be perceived at the time of its occurrence. And the metaphor also works regarding the search for wealth, as that is also what is occurring in the Arctic - as the ice sheet recedes, there is a rush for access to perceived mineral and oil resources. Regarding the commenter, below, who says that the movie doesn't show the benefit people receive from using fossil-fuel powered technology, I think that person is correct, although I see he clearly does not see the utter danger ahead. Cheers.
damn, this is bleak, especially considering that companies/countries in the north actually WANT the arctic to melt so they can have quicker trade routes
@@yeussean The big thing to think of is the temporal scale. In short, the drastic change in climate over the last 200 years is unprecedented and directly linked to global industrialization. The fact that we came out of an ice age approx. 10 thousand years ago is almost irrelevant.
@@yeussean Most scientists agree that climate change is a fact, so there shouldnt be political bias in scientific books regarding climate change. Maybe you are from the USA but in Germany climate change is an accepted fact by all the political parties(even the conservaties). I cant recommend you any books, because I havent read any. It would be for me like reading a book about why the earth is a sphere (it could be interesting to know the facts behind the roundness of the Earth, but I think is easier to just as google it if i need to do some fact checking) Also at school in Germany we talked throughly about it. It also depends what you consider unbiased, I believe in scientists. If you go to climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus you will find 18 american scientific associations that state that climate change is happening and is a result of humans, go further below and you will find 200 other scientific associations around the world that state the same. I think if you google how does climate change works or why fossil fuels contribuite to climate change you will find all the answers to your questions. (this comment is already long enough)
I appreciate the brilliance of your analysis in this video! Your educational background and capacity for detailed, critical analysis gives your listeners a fully realized portrayal of the complex issues involved in mobilizing a critical mass of people around the climate crisis as opposed to a comet heading for earth. i am thankful that you present these arguments on TH-cam where your audience is so much wider than that in a classroom at university or to a conference of academics. Please keep on keeping on!
Let me first say that I really enjoy your work and your thoughts/critiques on many films has totally changed the way I view cinema. The last part where you explain something great is coming to an end I tend to agree with. However, while I think movies can carry a different metaphor depending on who is watching it and where they are in their own lives, I certainly lean towards the story teller having a specific message. If it's about climate change, ok I can see that. I took something different away from it though. The movie opens with a quote from Jack Handey “I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.” After doing a minor amount of research on Jack I assumed, because of his age, that his grandfather was either a pilot or just an ordinary man from a time that was shrouded in hardships unparalleled in today's modern society. Most notably two world wars. This is especially true for the U.S. which has never had to experience the devastation that much of Europe, Russia and Japan did during WW2. As others have posited he also may have fallen asleep at the wheel causing a fatal car accident for not himself but for those he was driving. To me this was the underlying message. In those days death was at the forefront of many people's lives. If his grandfather was indeed in WW2 he most likely experienced/witnessed death regularly. Which brought to mind this exchange in Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. CALPHURNIA When beggars die there are no comets in the sky. The heavens only announce the deaths of princes. CAESAR Cowards die many times before their deaths. The brave experience death only once. Of all the strange things I’ve ever heard, it seems most strange to me that men fear death, given that death, which can’t be avoided, will come whenever it wants. So with that I'll end my take with have no fear and beware the ides of March.
I am so glad you brought up the big short because I appreciated so many of the decisions the movie took to portraying it's premise. Don't look up I feel in my mind came up short in ways that I think are minute because I think like stated it served its purpose in brining up the topic to strat up conversation. A bit of of an anecdotal story: I remember sitting in a biology class sometime before 2017 when we were talking about virology. we had a conversation about a world wide pandemic and my teacher literally stated in most possible scenarios world governments operate too slowly and retard the process of a quick response to an actual pandemic not to mention how many people would actually agree to a proper response to one. And what happened about 3 years later? Well. I certainly think these things are worth taking about nuances, sincerity and empathy I feel are all important. All of which you eloquently pointed out. 10/10 video
Thank you for pointing out that this IS a prisoners dilemma! I kind of always SAW the situation, but my brain did not click into connecting it to that phrase!
The issue with climate change is that it's not just something you can look up and see. Predictions about it have been needlessly alarmist, and painfully, ridiculously wrong, giving those that would deny it ample ammunition. Because despite the "well researched status" the research wasn't all conclusively pointing in a single direction, apart from "it's happening".
I felt the same way after watching the movie. There are so many fascinating sociological critiques to be made about climate change but Don’t Look Up settles for surface-level outrage and frustration about climate inaction, which means the true depth of the problem is being missed.
I like the very relevant comparison with the Big Short: I agree the strength of its social critique inheres in its treatment of many of the characters sympathetically. Don’t Look Up fails here by making everyone unlikeable-either greedily asinine or cloyingly sentimental and uncomprehending. The charge that criticism of DLU equates with failure to appreciate the gravity of the message of systematic failure is itself a failure to cope with criticism. The fatalistic thanksgiving dinner hand-holding finale was nauseating.
With all that being said, I completely agree with your final analysis, how the solutios and the causes are different and how we were seduced by values that are not taken us far
Thank you for doing your best to explain a very nuanced position by looking at all different angles before casting judgement. I feel like this is something I should have done when I was seriously opposed to a certain political figure before - Its like I was the majority of kids in class when we were given that activity where the first instruction was to read all the instructions before beginning. I went around quacking like a duck and wondering why my introverted friend hadn't started yet. Wasn't until the end that I realized that I was the one making a fool of myself.
I really wish they had just not said anything about it being an allegory, said "this is a movie" and left people to their own devices. Watching it on its own basis as a story about a collision made it much more enjoyable. Having the idea that this was a critique about how we deal with a much more complicated issue would have taken away a lot of my enjoyment of its finer critiques of the media aparatus.
😂 Oh god, if people can't figure out it is allegory. We are all going to die. And if people are upset it is an allegory because they just want to "watch a movie," we are all going to die. Like that was the point of the movie, 🤦🏿♀ and we are just here doing the thing that the movie was trying to warn us of.
Now I understand why JRR Tolkien said « I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers »
Having just watched the movie I really didn't find it to be overly preachy or heavy handed. The global warming thing is just kind of in the background but it never felt like a partisan political speech. In fact it mainly takes aim at "elites" like the sociopathic President played by Meryl Streep (who could be either party), clueless mainstream media, a messianic tech billionaire and the like. To the extent that it mocks the average person, it mainly makes fun of social media culture. It's really not woke or politically preachy, and as someone who is severely allergic to both in films by this point I can honesty say I loved this film. It's really funny, the main cast is great, and some parts are genuinely poignant. Give it a watch.
A very insightful and thought-provoking video. I keep coming back to the part where you spoke how about every generation now living in the West only experienced a period of prosperity, and we are taking it for granted; it is strange to have been raised from a country that was so scarred by ww2 and the subsequent soviet rule, and yet myself being born in a time of peace and unprecedented growth and progress. You do, truly, take it for granted. I realised that when the Ukrainian War Part Two started, and it felt like a cruel awakening. This too could happen here, hm? It's like my family's stories of old. Who am I, with my little life, and little smartphone and little flat, in the face of that? From September shooting practice and battlefield first aid is going to be mandatory in schools here and this feels like a surreal dream. And on the other hand, this is exactly what my parents had, whooping four decades ago, and I should not be so shook. And yet.
If you don’t mind my asking, in what area of the world has shooting practice and battlefield first aid become a part of schooling again? Presumably Eastern Europe?
My takeaway from Don't Look Up is pretty much: You can't just sit back and wait for the government, companies, or activist groups to save everyone. You have to do your best with the resources/skills/influence you have, and it isn't a simple guilt vs. innocence moral issue or something that depends only on individual behavior. When I talk to right-wing friends or family about systemic problems using that type of framing or explanation, they actually get it.
It's true that we all have a part to play in controlling what we can when it comes to existential threats. However, part of doing what we can does entail mobilizing vast systems of bureaucracy to generate a coordinated response to said threats. And in order to achieve maximum functionality of society these bureaucratic systems need to be occupied by people who have a base-line understanding of the threats and the severity of the threats. My biggest problem with republicans and democrats is that they tend to vote for people who purposefully ignore societal problems in order to generate a profit for themselves and their friends and family. This is understandable to some degree, but we don't have time to indulge these behaviors. Republicans are especially egregious when it comes to electing the willfully ignorant and they get away with it because Democrats are guilty of corruption too. It just seems that, you can have all the personal responsibility you want, but if there is not a systematic approach to the betterment of these situations, then there really isn't a point to "doing your part". It's better than doing nothing, but if you don't have the means to do much than not much gets done. That's why it's imperative that those with bureaucratic power take proportional action. And although it is scary because, people with that type of power tend to abuse it. It's also necessary if you're actually trying to combat something like climate change or the pandemic or systematic racism and incarceration. These are large complex problems that require large complex, robust solutions and just collecting rainwater for instance or heating your house with natural gas or buying a Tesla or having a green house or installing solar panels or wearing a mask in public or all of the above doesn't necessarily address some of the most urgent problems that we face when dealing with these issues. They are helpful and good things to do, but (taking climate change for example) they don't reduce the problem of over-fishing or natural habitat destruction that leads to climate change in the first place. So there has to be a national and/or international mandate that incentives the changes needed to actually combat global warming. Or take the pandemic, wearing a mask in public is a good thing to do, but it doesn't address the fact that you're 41% less likely to transmit the virus if you're vaccinated and have the booster shot. I mean you name a complex problem and there is a government solution that should be implemented but won't be even if we continue to think and act in a personally responsible way, because what's fantastic for one person can often be detrimental for another. As someone with a very conservative family I commend you for your effort to inform and reach a common ground, however being responsible doesn't end at personal responsibility. There also has to be accountability. That's one thing that Republicans are much better at then Democrats, however it seems like the Republican ethic falls short in almost every metric when it comes to national and now even local oversight. Sorry this response is so long, but it's a complex issue and I felt it required robust consideration.
@@bohansenboh I agree with you. I think also that the movie's main limitation is that, realistically, you need a large bureaucracy filled with competent people to deal with systemic problems. Systemic problems tend to have a disparate impact based on economic class, gender, race, disability, etc., and the asteroid metaphor doesn't adequately capture all that even though it's a better place to start than "wokescolding" everyone you talk to. People often talk about systemic marginalization in a way that's far too abstract or theoretical and only confuses people.
@@KarlWinterling Woke scolding I like that I've never heard anybody say that, that's super funny. I mean I get what you're saying and I definitely think you're right about disproportional impact of climate change or covid and obviously incarceration. Sometimes I just like to piss into people's ear buds on the internet, there's like 10 billion people on the planet you just happen to be the one that I picked. Cheers dude
@@KarlWinterling Women, non-whites, and ethnic and sexual minorities in societies established by straight, cisgender, Christian (especially Protestant), white males are the most privileged whiners on the face of the planet.
I really liked your restructering of Don't Look Up. It would have made a lot more sense and made a better comment on the power dynamics in our current society
The major turn-off for me was the fact that its clear the filmmakers share the same contempt for their ideological enemies that they're trying to satirize.
Your insight into how we are (mistakenly) taking our privileges for granted really shed light onto my troubled mind. For years I have been living with the feeling that something is coming to an end in our society, and until now, I thought that we are just going to perish. But after pondering your words, I am starting to understand that what is coming to an end is the illusion. Thank you for your work!
Let’s make sure that illusion is not replaced with another illusion then. Unfortunately, that’s what usually happens though. In fact, illusion is such an interesting phenomena. We all like to live and breath our own type of illusion and it only becomes annoying when someone else wants to impose their version of illusion upon us, isn’t it? Are we sure that our thoughts and values are absolutely free of illusions? Do we really have anything that we can hold as an illusion-free mark of reference in life? Isn’t it all just a make-belief reality we live in? Conflicts arise when illusions seems to contradict each other. Some illusions we hold dear and some other we reject. Our anger arise due to a righteous belief that our own illusions are under threat, isn’t it? “How dare someone threaten my own dear illusions?” We will then go on a long journey of righteous soul searching to find reasons why our own make-belief stories are more true that others. After that we will try to find a platform from whence we can proclaim our version of illusion to be the superior one. Then we start a political movement. After that we are so engrossed in own creation that everything else in life becomes unimportant and a veritable threat to us, we think. Isn’t virtuous intention a far more useful factor to improve upon in our lives than trying to pick and choose among a myriad of illusions that we think suits us the best? Isn’t a genuine care for the lives and happiness of others a far better illusion than any other personalized illusion we can come up with?
Society just like anything else is cyclical. The west doesn’t view civilization through this lens (due to late stage capitalism) but we’re on the decline in the west and will shortly see the US lose its unipolar standing.
@@Gettothegone Good comment. Anyone studying nature knows that nothing is permanent. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to do our best in whatever endeavor we’re engaged in. I don’t think you believe that either, right?
Amazing video essay! The ending especially. I didn't see this film as a metaphor for climate change however, but rather how dysfunctional and divided American society has become in facing any kind of collective problem at all. Also, it highlights the extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of high tech billionaires, a phenomenon that has been aptly named techno-feudalism. In that way, I think the film was very successful. It certainly didn't go for subtlety but exaggerated satire, which also made it very funny for me. It seemed in some ways like a spiritual successor to Idiocracy.
I always like your reviews a lot, but had to force myself through most of this one. Good to know you are a student of climate change. That said, it seems that attachment to the subject hindered your critique in the artistic angle. It's a satire, a caricature. It implies exaggeration and oversimplification. 22:10 "capture the appropriate nuance". No It doesn't. Because doesn't go for that in the first place.
Film has funny jokes but loses you once you realize it is telling you that mass media over-simplifies everything for entertainment value while doing exactly the same thing.
I think the comet is narrative omen symbolizing the “end times”. By the time the comet was scene by the naked eye, the world was over. The heroes lost and had already admitted defeat. By the time it becomes apparent to everyone in nakedly plain terms the tragedy is too late to avoid. The last part of the movie is just the antagonist winning and the hero’s trying their best to live out their remaining days.
I think the problem with the allegory in this film is that is distant enough from the issue of climate change that some people can walk away without realizing that climate change is the issue it really wanted to address. When I saw this movie, I thought it was a heavy handed allegory for COVID. While this wasn’t the case and that should have been clear to me just based on how long it takes to make a movie that it couldn’t really be about the pandemic. This film explores so many things at the same time while allegory works best when it is exploring one simple concept. The theme that I found most striking throughout the movie was its depiction of anti-intellectualism and I think they could have made a whole movie about the problems that come from this anti-intellectual attitude
When you proposed a slightly improved scenario... that hit so close to home. Wish they had made this film like this. Initially I didn't even get that the movie was about climate change!
I generally agree with most points on LSoD videos, but I couldn`t in this one. The novelty of the experience for me was the always present tension between a serious issue that needed to be dealt with scientifically and the new modus operandi of some important people in this era that we live in which pose personal opinion and the natural consensus of a group as scientific fact. I feel like most suggestions in this video would be detrimental to this central experience. But I guess that disagreeing eventually with someone is inevitable! haha
Just like I was critical to The Big Short than Margin Call, you don't have to who profited and why, you have to describe how the chain reaction starts. That is the tension point of the whole drama but The Big Short lacks every single one of it. If Don't Look Up is all about climate change, it surely has no tension and seriousness even compared to Greenland…
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? [โกงไหมครับ ep.88 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
A lot of work goes into these videos, if you want to help me make more like them, and get access to exclusive content, please check out my Patreon page: www.patreon.com/LikeStoriesofOld
What were your thoughts on Don't Look Up? Let me know below!
This movie is a metaphor for how the pandemic, hoaxers, covid deniers, and blind loyalty to a political party is dangerous and foolish. It has nothing to do with climate change.
@@henrychinaski I don’t think that’s the case. I’m pretty certain it’s about climate change considering the film was “Produced by Hyperobject Industries and Bluegrass Films, the film was announced in *November 2019*”
If it was announced in 2019 then we hadn’t all gone through the pandemic.
The general consensus is that it is almost completely about climate change.
You're both right. It's a metaphor for people who deny science and the struggle scientist have conveying important discoveries
@@donnmckee4973 You are both wrong. Its a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority and the continued and deliberate lack of communication/understanding of WHY people think differently about "the science." Its basically yet another passive aggressive and snarky attack against people that the left refuses to understand.
@@donnmckee4973 Not just science, people who deny the truth about reality because science can be bought & paid for to manipulate perception. It's about how most people have their head stuck in group think and are helplessly unable to lift their head from the trough and consume everything that is fed to them.
A lot of the critique of seen lately of this movie comes from the idea that it's a failed metaphor for climate change. However, I (going into the film blind) didn't view it as a direct metaphor for one specific issue, and watched it as a reflection of what dealing with any problem in our current "political climate" feels like. How any issue, no matter how clear and obvious a threat, can be politicized and subverted. In that I found the film highly effective.
Exactly. This movie was written before the pandemic and yet it described the politicization of the Covid so well.
I agree that it works on that level, and that’s why it’s kind of upsetting when people say it’s a metaphor for climate change-it’s way to reductive to say this film is “about” climate change and climate denial. It’s not a specific and pointed critique, it’s a general sci fi movie making fun of America’s dystopian inability to address anything in an appropriate and timely manner.
I thought the same. In fact watching this video I thought that while it is very very interesting and insightful, it is going deep into just one possible way of interpreting the message and really doing a disservice to the movie. I thought the movie was a bit too on the nose at some moments, but I really liked it as a message to what we have become when it comes to dealing with important issues, no matter how simple or complex they are. I may be reading too much into it, but I think it even gave ample flaws to the main characters in the story to illustrate that being right and taking the moral high ground on one subject, doesn't make you flawless all across the board.
I also watched this movie blindly yet still don't really like the movie. I mean it's not terrible at all. The actors and actresses are great. It's just that I don't get the style of this movie and how over the top this movie tries to represent "ignorance, stupidity, and greediness". I get the point this movie is trying make but because it's so over the top, it feels too unrealistic. More unrealistic than the premise of the movie: "what if a comet hit the world in 6 months". Again this is all my opinion.
Kinda ironic, because the history of climate change denial actually shows that this "current political climate" has very little to do with that particular problem. It's just made it more visible. We've known about the problem for decades and those in power have continuously refused to address for all that time out of pure greed. The only reason the discussion around climate change has become so polarized now days is because that's the only way those who believe doing something about it will hamper their financial growth can keep us from taking action now with how much evidence we have and how long we've been checking it. Blatantly denying reality is their only recourse.
My favorite quote in the movie was “You guys, the truth is way more depressing. They’re not even smart enough to be as evil as you’re giving them credit for.”
The irony of smugly talking about "smart" but using the wrong they're...
@@nonnobissolum We’re not even smart enough to handle English grammar, you think we can defeat the world?
@@nonnobissolum copied directly from a movie quote site directly so... Still I admit that I have never been good at spelling and there is a good chance I would have gotten it wrong. My partner, whose first language is Mandarin Chinese, corrects my spelling pretty often ;)
@@MarvinRoman It’s all good. Just struck me as funny🙂
not a competition, "we really did have everything, didn't we" has to be the best line.
the line "we really did have everything, didn't we?" really got me and still does
Yeah it’s a wonderful bit of story telling that is in direct contrast to most traditional stories in that it’s portraying how the world can be messed up beyond that which the heroes can overcome. That the heroes can lose
My older brother said that exact same thing to me several years ago, just after he realized what the greater implications of climate change will be.
We are both in our early 80s & don't expect to experience the worst of it, but he has a bunch of kids & grand-kids, and he's a very empathic guy.
Grass is always greener on the other side. That's why the solution is to keep hopping sides throughout our lives.
Yeah, that was my dad's favorite line
He improvised the line. 🙂
*This movie isn't really about climate change - it's about willful ignorance.* You could swap out "climate change" with virtually any other current topic and the movie still applies 100%. Ignorance will end us all.
And apathy too!
"Idiocracy" was science fiction of a sort, with something of an elitist lens, while this movie is contemporary and more inclusive satire. It's such accurate satire they could have added a representative set of reviews and other media responses (cough) as the perfect epilogue.
The movie isn’t about climate change. It’s about an asteroid wiping out the Earth.
@@DoctorSess You basic.
@@queny2 Mike Judge said that the opening that shows "poor people breeding more than rich people" was meant to be a joke and he feels very sorry that it instead it unfortunately came off as an eugenics subtext.
However, I gotta say that the future in Idiocracy isn't ALL that bad.
It seemed like racism was not a thing anymore, and while dumb as fuck the idiots of the future were still open minded for the most part.
Hell, unlike the president in "Don't Look Up", president Dwayne Camacho actually recognized that there were issues like dust storms, dead crops and economy, and when he found out about a man more intelligent than the norm, he wanted him to help them solve the problems instead of ignoring them.
We watched this on a whim without hearing, or knowing anything about it. We assumed that it a satire about the pandemic. And in many ways I feel that it is actually more compelling when viewed from that angle.
I think since it’s a systemic critique it works for the pandemic as well. How market logic & profit trumps good public policy no matter the administration. I have asked right wing friends and family what they thought of and they get it even if they don’t apply it to climate change they understand the broader systemic critique. I think that’s what we need to understand is that there is a broad frustration across the spectrum of money coming before people’s lives.
I'm pretty sure the movie was written before the pandemic, but yeah I think there's definitely overlap between the pandemic and climate change in terms of how we're struggling to face a global danger
I saw an interview with the director who advised it was written before the pandemic. Somehow, that makes the film even more frightening.
@@LikeStoriesofOld Primary production on “Don't Look Up” ran from November 2020 to February 2021, which means it was being made during the pandemic. Screenplays are constantly adjusted and re written as they shoot- as you know. It's a one to one co rellary. The film is about how American handled COVID and magnifies it out to show how it would handle an extinction level event. COVID directly influenced the execution of the material in principle photography.
Same here, didn't really think about climate change when watching it.
The issue is that there was an interview in the UK, recently, that went almost exactly like the interview in this movie. "When did meteorologists become so doom and gloom."
Edit: UK heatwave GBnews is what you'll want to type in to get the link. TH-cam doesn't let me post links, for whatever reason, nor reply to this page anymore.
Can you put down a link please?
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 th-cam.com/video/bk6YLxxStVk/w-d-xo.html
Link?
TH-cam loves censorship
But the heatwave WAS overhyped. Should we be concerned about the overall climate trend? Absolutely. Was the heatwave a serious health risk if you didn't act like an idiot and sunbathe all day with no water or something? Absolutely not.
I think the entire movie works better when not tethered to the idea that "it" represents "climate change"---what the movie has to say works better when viewed in the context of how we respond to ANY clear and present danger, climate change only loosely fits that mold
I agree. I didn't take the comet as a metaphor it was a literal possibility that we've been warned about. How people, especially the government responded was both a caricature and reality. Instead of destroying the comet when they had a chance, they delayed because they wanted to make money off of it. Which is actually what our government (especially here in th USA) does with tragedies. Everything is always about money until it's too late. Money doesn't matter if everyone is dead. That's exactly what it showed.
My critique to his critique of the movie is like this: it's very bad because it's not a movie critique.
Yeah, I feel like it's silly to write off an entire movie because it's not a literal metaphor for climate change.
It works perfectly well as how this current society responds to ANY crisis. Look at what happened with coronavirus. A lot of the things that happened in this movie actually happened in the reaponse to coronavirus. Jennifer Lawrence's meltdown on that morning show ACTUALLY HAPPENED to a female scientist in Brazil. She was going off about coronavirus of course.
Same. I kinda forced myself to view it that way and I found it very well done in that regard, despite some lingering shortcomings here and there.
@@loryndabenson2118 Imo climate change doesn't fit that mold at all. The phenomenon is not as simplistic as a comet with rare, valuable stuff on it, headed directly towards us with absolute certain destruction and doom. Climate change is a much more nuanced concept. This movie should've instead been an alegory for solely earth-based natural destruction that satirizes standard distaster porn movies like the ones made by Roland Emmerich....and be kept at that only. The further incorporation of something like climate change into that is just poor taste and intellectually insulting.
From my own experience of being a scientist and seeing the way my senior professor gets treated by media/ people that are in higher up gov positions I can attest that the movie is eerily similar to what ive experienced in the real world.
Yup...I am not a scientist, but I have seen that happen with people who I know that are within scientific fields. I wish capitalism would get out of the way of freaking SURVIVAL.
Like the biologists I worked with who had been to the Arctic circle for years on end who challenged the ignorant narrative of sea ice diminishing and polar bears dying. They invited the media and gatekeeping "scientists" to come and see how there is more Arctic ice than ever and look at their firsthand data clearly showing the bears were doing just fine. No one showed up, because the money to be made off the lie is too great a force to combat by 3 people with the truth.
@@ErutaniaRose Like the biologists I worked with who had been to the Arctic circle for years on end who challenged the ignorant narrative of sea ice diminishing and polar bears dying. They invited the media and gatekeeping "scientists" to come and see how there is more Arctic ice than ever and look at their firsthand data clearly showing the bears were doing just fine. No one showed up, because the money to be made off the lie is too great a force to combat by 3 people with the truth.
@@ErutaniaRose Capitalism is human nature
Sure.... mr. Scientist...
When I first watched Don't Look Up, I was a little annoyed by the heavy-handedness of it. However, I thought about it and realized that the over-the-top absurd behavior of the various characters is probably how a lot of people who deny or misunderstand issues like climate change appear to experts on those issues, and then I was able to appreciate it a lot more. Like others have said, while it may have been written with climate change in mind, it definitely has a broader message about a society that often ignores warnings it's too late.
Or, that ALL of "climate change" became irrelevant. The realization of having "climate change" put down to it's actual threat level was refreshing.
As I'd paraphrase from Scarlett Johansson from Lucy (2011): "Ignorance brings Chaos."
Like the biologists I worked with who had been to the Arctic circle for years on end who challenged the ignorant narrative of sea ice diminishing and polar bears dying. They invited the media and gatekeeping "scientists" to come and see how there is more Arctic ice than ever and look at their firsthand data clearly showing the bears were doing just fine. No one showed up, because the money to be made off the lie is too great a force to combat by 3 people with the truth.
This movie is like Starship Troopers. It looks like a bad movie on the surface, but it's a very good satire.
The problem with heavy-handedness is that, if done poorly, can ruin your message. Short stories for kids are usually pretty heavy-handed with symbolism because kids have very little in the way of grasping concepts. But also, the things that are heavy-handed in children's stories are usually simple and easy and the heavy-handedness is used more to enforce the idea rather than to explain it.
When you have to convince an adult, you have to make them think they came up with the idea. When you are heavy-handed, like this movie is, it comes off as mocking them. The movie isn't made for experts. Nothing that is made for mass consumption is made for experts and should be targeted at experts. If you're trying to convince general audiences, you don't make them feel stupid. You don't belittle them. It literally never works. You have to make them actually understand and come to a conclusion themselves. This is literally the difference between someone telling you that having your child die is awful and having your child actually die. In the first case, you'd feel a little empathy, but you wouldn't really understand it until you actually experience it. And, like LSO said, when you have something so daunting, complex and hard to comprehend even for the said experts, it's all the more vital to make an actual good movie and not something that's best left in the books for 5-year olds.
The point of using a comet as a metaphor is that even if there was a tangible, singular threat, we still would be unable to get our collective shit together enough to do anything about it.
Exactly!
Says who? Humanity has actually fixed a lot of big problems. The hole in the ozone is a good example.
The issue is that a lot of problems are more complicated than people give them credit for.
So, instead of honestly examining the downsides of their proposed solutions, they just smear anyone who disagrees as stupid and ignorant.
@@oliviastratton2169 We fixed the hole in the ozone when (a) the politicians themselves were less obstructionist and (b) before the ramped up consequences of abolishing the Fair Use doctrine for broadcasting was repealed. The complexity of the issue isn't the core problem. It's the messaging of that complexity that gets bollocks up in our current climate, combined with half our regulators being actively obstructionist. (For the record, I'm not fond of democrats either.)
If we still had the Fairness Doctrine AND were in the same political place as the late 1970s/early 80s but their climate change was at the level it is today, I have no doubt Gen Z would have grown up with regulations in place to deal with the worst polluters. The proof? Everyone -- as in conservatives, liberals, independents, etc -- used to acknowledge climate change was real and at least partially man made back then. What's changed? The messaging. I.e. what Don't Look Up addresses.
@@anakaliahaoa2551 Banning CFC was to benefit DuPont which had a patent on a replacement for R-12 refrigerant, and was never a worldwide ban. That hole which is still there because it was natural is still there and being used to ban R-134 a because it's patent is about to expire and DuPont has a new replacement.
@@thecommentator9181 Wow, you really didn't understand that part of the movie at all.
"We really did have everything, didn't we? I mean, when you think about it." It became one of my favourite quote.
Mine too
It's an interesting quote. It makes me think of the christian basis of our morals. "At least we tried to be good", we can go to Heaven now. The absolution feeling.
@@AH-yg8xb I am an atheist, for me it is a page out of stoicism philosophy on gratitude. In the continuous pursuit of dreams we often take what we already have granted.
@@purumr I am also atheist. For me the quote represents the typical ingrained christian values on Western society of "feeling guilty" and a "sinner" and our need to find balance in that by doing good and gain our absolution. Check the previous video of this channel about the "Banality of Evil". It is a common trend for our culture to feel guilty and having the need of "at least doing something" to feel good with ourselves.
My favourite quote was the prayer for Stuff. So appropriate for how Christians really are.
The fact they turned something complex into something simple IS THE POINT. It’s a commentary on how even something so obvious and undeniable can still be treated as an opportunity for profit to the point we do not solve our own problems no matter how pressing they become.
Indeed, I agree with your perspective here. I would argue that the movie also highlights our scientists have done all they can to provide compelling evidence for our current issues, that we are in that phase of the movie where the "comet" isn't visible to the eye yet. Measurements for disease, atmospheric changes, resource depletion, etc, are being treated much like the radio telescope evidence in the movie. If we can't see it, it is not a problem. Yet, the scientists have done all the hard complex work already, and are providing us simple summaries and solution options. Yet we act like the various archetypes in the movie.
As interesting as the video's proposed change to the movie would be, it may fall prey to what scientists have encountered already, people tuning out complex messaging surrounding long term existential problems. It would be a unique take on a disaster movie, though, what with an asteroid being brought into orbit and chunks of it falling to Earth causing problems.
It's a bad point to make. You can make any argument sound reasonable when you oversimplify things so much that you'd have to be evil to disagree,
Bidens Administration is doing exactly that saying climate crisis is opportunity for profits. But this trashpile of a movie is oh its all those science dining cap wearing dofuses that will doom us
Reducing complex, difficult-to-solve issues to false dichotomies is a really bad idea when you need room to revise (and then sometimes even reverse) scientific consensus.
It introduces *absolutes* into the public understanding of science, ultimately undermining confidence in the entire scientific endeavour when our understanding, almost invariably, evolves over time.
"Oh, those useless scientists! They're always changing their minds, they don't know anything!"
The abuse of science in so-called identity politics/culture wars has badly eroded public trust, as ideologies attempt to twist scientific credibility to their own ends. We saw the results of this in vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic and the widespread difficulty in battling pretty blatant falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Ironically enough, this dismissal of _science-as-narrative_ so fashionable among post-modernist thinkers engulfed not only parts of the left but also the right.
A key component of science is clear communication. Climate science needs a Feynman or Sagan, someone who can elucidate all the complexity and nuance in an engaging way: the "remarkable nature of nature" as Feynman used to say. Given the stakes involved, it's strange that so few credible educators have emerged.
But what value does that have? The solution lies specifically in the part that was omitted - systemic issues. In my opinion, pointing out the part where change is ripe is very valuable, espegially if it's not understood well - and you're telling me cutting that out was the point? I don't care, then!
I didn't think the movie was meant to criticize a specific problem we are not working to solve, but rather how society values have shifted so much that everything is distorted and trivialized to the point of absurdity to satisfy these new values. It critizes multiple aspects, multiple values throughout.
I mean it's art so it's up to interpretation, but they came out and said it's about climate change. That was the intention.
It's Hollywood's shallow interpretation of what's really going on in the world.
@@dogleggedhades0 have to stop excusing poor decision making from self licensing bad interpretations is literally the point of this film.
@@solarmaru49 I don't know what you said because of no punctuation. No offense, just don't understand it. It's literally a movie about scientific facts being politicized for the benefit of the rich. There are also a lot of direct comparisons to the Climate Change situation, which makes sense since it's the oldest, most relevant, example of science being misused for profit. I don't know what self licensing bad decisions means, but if it means misusing science for profit, then yes that's what the movie is about. If not, you are entitled to your opinion but concensus would disagree.
@@stellviahohenheim I'd say spot on honestly.
Don't look up is definitely an extremely American movie, which is what makes it so good and creates so much of its flaws. It's like a lot of other people in the comments have said though, I think that this movie was less about climate change and more about the American political climate. How everything is so intense and dividing but at the same time and expression of real meaningful change is seen as radical and alarmist. It's so... Isolating. So seeing it end with loved ones come together after separating themselves further and further throughout the movie was so damn emotional, but also felt too naive.
Americans hate it because it forces them to look in the mirror and realize we are the source of all our problems. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything they'd rather divide themselves into factions and blame the other side whether it be climate change, our endless war mongering, destabilizing countries and entire regions of the world, and diseases. Don't Look Up reminds me a lot of The Day The Earth Stood Still even when an alien civilization gave us the choice to change our ways or face extinction in order to save the planet the first thing we do is shoot the guy out of our own fear.
Yes, America the only country with ignorant people. Yes, I know that is not explicitly what you are saying, but when critics of the ignorance in the world point the blame at the US exclusively and repeatedly, what message does that send? In all seriousness, this is why there is so much division. Americans (particularly right wingers) are mocked and ridiculed constantly; to the point that they have no reason to put their faith in (left wing) scientists because for all they know the whole climate conversation is all just a political talking point to beat them over the head with. If they weren't ridiculed as idiots constantly, maybe they would listen.
Additionally, asking the US (or really any WEIRD country) to reduce carbon emissions or any other number of things to reverse climate change, is oddly inefficient. The top carbon emitter is China. If people cared about climate change they would ask China, but they don't. Why?
Wow
I mean they did all die, I think we can at least reasonably hope that people will come together at their death beds
MAGA, covid, and anything else that might happen or has already happened recently. Look at the Don’t Look Up rally, looks just like a Trump rally.
The real problem is that people won't really care for something unless it affects them imediatly.
That's part of it, but as is said in the video, climate change isn't immediately obvious to one's senses. One must put their faith in scientists. And that is where the issue becomes politicized. In America at least, scientists are known to leverage the citizens' faith in scientists to lobby for their favorite political causes. And that is somewhat understandable, but it does mean trust is eroded.
Additional some would be hurt more (than others) by reducing carbon emissions. Are we willing to pay that price? Would reversing climate change be worth a miner in India going into poverty and starving?
You're partly correct about that.
But In the 1980's I ran around chasing all the alarmist predictions about global warming, etc. Most of the predictions were wrong and most of the science still is sloppy and influenced by businesses and political leaders. And not one party, this is a multi-party problem. So many of us also see the problem includes unproven alarmism.
I would love to see more honesty and reasonable debate from all the sides of this topic. (I don't mean everyone become honest. I mean a handful of people from each social, political side that allow scientific inquiry respectful debate and discussion). Seems like our governments won't even allow that. Tech sector definitely doesn't.
@@RealLifeIronMan And consider how an ice age reduces plant and animal life on the planet more than global warming does.
Glaciers used to be as far south in the Americas as Pennsylvania. It was the equivalent of far northern Canada in the upper and central USA. That would greatly reduce agriculture, etc.
That's the problem with our current unscientific assertion that climate change is consistently bad. Climates always change and it's a set of pros and cons.
Seemingly to me, humanity is great at dealing with a situation when it's looking down the barrel of a gun but when the threat isn't immediate it struggles.
Thats where most of our species problems come from, we cannot truly experience what suffering people have endured unless we put ourselves in their shoes or try to sympathise and understand what they're going through to see why the suffering has happened, thats why you have things like class division, racism, ideological divides, etc. Its something I think is very flawed with our species, we cannot truly know what the person is suffering and try to make things better for them and others, instead we go into our own little bubble and ignore it or completely recognise it and try to do things that are very convenient like donating to charity or peacefully protesting, while they may help, they only give some surface to the problems and in some cases do not make any meaningful change
Good video, however the fact that they chose a comet was irrelevant. The point was to illustrate to the viewer the social, governmental, and corporate gridlock we experience when evidently staring into the face of our own destruction even though we can do something about it.
I agree with the premise a comet isn't the best way to illustrate our own contribution to changing this impending doomsday scenario. It was only chosen, because it's a movie and people seemingly have short attention spans. Climate change wouldn't make for a good worldwide disaster film. The Day After Tomorrow's cataclysm doesn't work too well for "Mckayan" satire.
This movie?
It was not a Mirror at all.
And it’s not the only terriblee Clima-Change-Coverage: Chris Chibnal probably did the Worst ever, as pointed out by Many, including Jay Exci.
Meanwhile, epic coverage would be various Science-Channel as well as the 2 Social-Commentary-Channel Hbomberguy and Some More News.
@@loturzelrestaurant what?
He says that lmao wtf are you on?
@@Nevouti.x Loturzel restaurant says... that? What does that mean? Am I having a stroke or are you?
@@helloitsjay38 no the guy making the video both of you commented on, seems like you are
"Never assign malice where ignorance will suffice."
right, because we are all fundamentally good people. All the politicians in the capitals, all the power wielders in global finance, they are all trying to do the right things, they are just..... incompetent?
Never assign ignorance where intent to control is observable by your lying eyes.
@@waynechen852 actually it’s more because assigning malice points to different solutions that won’t necessarily change things. If it’s just malice then changing people in power is the solution rather than questioning how power works in today’s society. If market logic permeates all decisions, how media covers issues, what politicians actually act on, it begins to permeate the public that actual democratic power held by the demos is off limits. The best we are becomes consumers of brands and political parties and not actually wielding any power. The market rules more and more of life and even politicians and CEO’s are prisoners of the system. Change the CEO of Exxon tomorrow to the head of Greenpeace and watch how much changes when internal incentives and forces remain the same. This isn’t an excuse that those CEO’s or politicians don’t deserve serious consequences, it’s just that what needs changed is structural.
Or general apathy.
@@waynechen852 No, we all have the innate capacity for good. Do you think there are more incompetent people in the world or more actively evil people? Think carefully. And, yes, if you don't believe politicians are incompetent, there is nothing I can do for you lol
Those last 10 minutes describing how everyone is turning inward and existing in increasingly divergent realities really resonated with me and perfectly describes the zeitgeist.
I personally really liked Don't Look Up. The exaggerated nature of it all that created a sense of disassociation and convolution actually fed into the hazy nature of so many different things going on in the world that seem fueled by ignorance and misinformation. While there may have been a single definitive point the director wished to push toward the nature of the message and its application so so many simultaneous chaotic problems elevated my appreciation for it as a whole. The raw, incredibly serious emotional outbursts scattered throughout the otherwise near-slapstick level expressions of ignorance dug deep into me as the struggle we face daily when we check the news and see each day that The Onion is getting closer and closer to legitimate news and nothing seems to be rallying against it.
Same here! I thought it was a fun movie with a good message. It wasnt exact sharp or subtle but it didn’t have to be
I know this is late but the video got recommended to me. Which parts were exaggerated? I see people saying its "heavyhanded" and "exaggerated" but I'm pretty sure we've seen the exact same scenes play out with scientists and media, in multiple countries. We've seen the politicization of chocolate, m&ms, masks and anything in between. People saying this movie over the top are tripping, if anything the movie ISNT crazy enough.
Agreed. i think you're not going to enjoy it if you look at something like Trump's presidency and can't acknowledge what an absolute failure it was. I think there's too many people living in literal fantasy worlds currently, totally detached from any factual basis and not really equipped with the tools to critically think properly.
@@danc42421 it's not mundane like the real life and has a background music, in other words we're desensitized to facism and over the top stupidity the real world brings, that's the reason tucker Carlson talking about m&m doesn't seem that absurd and nor America's supreme court unconstitutionally banning abortion.
your very first sentence for not liking the movie is why i enjoyed it lol is that not the real world today?? the ones in power get the people freaked out with exaggeration so as to not lose that power or have people become aware and fight back?
This movie perfectly captures how it's felt to have every issue that comes up be met with people strawmanning, caricaturing, laughing amongst themselves and largely disconnecting from each other. We're humans suddenly fighting a flood of information and connection that has paradoxically pushed us farther apart by giving us so much content and so little together time that we can't process things properly anymore. We're naturally breaking off into tribes of monoculture perspectives that then enforce this socially, and seeing people with different eyes and concerns as threats to our power and stability. Virtue and honor has become subjective even in every-day political topics that should involve communities at a moderate level and be discussable and negotiable.
This movie captures the sense of panic one can feel when you look out and see no learned thinkers or skilled orators taking on the necessary task of digesting issues in a way that includes different perspectives and attempts to start the dialog of chewing in the social brain; it captures the lead up to idiocracy where things still feel intelligible, but the understructure has started to erode and people are walking on the bridge laughing while you see some small grains of sand or a pebble dislodge itself when walking in the long forgotten catacombs of dialog.
When Leo's character screams out to be terrified, it's not talking about climate change or the asteroid specifically, it's that our culture has venerated the wrong things and we're all looking to medicate problems, detach from uncomfortable things, to avoid each other and to not hear, and to watch this devolution over the last 20 years has been scary. It could be any disaster, it's not about that, it's about how we're all children in adult bodies with adult jobs and bank accounts and our skills at facing our problems and fellow humans is that of children on the playground. Even the scholars are so far up their academic disciplines while watching politically charged nonesense strawman peddlers on mainstream TV. They look down on their neighbors and act like it'd be fine if they all died because their beliefs are wrong and evil. How many times in the last 20 years have we heard "I just don't get how..." blah blah blah insert some position the other has taken. Or if they do understand, it's some patronizing or condescending "that's why they're getting defensive or projecting and I can understand it in those terms but they need to be shown the light, maybe I can reach them" instead of trying to inhabit their hierarchy of societal concerns and see how to negotiate a solution that does them justice.
This movie is a preview of society that has completely lost the ability to pay attention and to listen, and to listen well. Do we ask questions or do we dictate. We're all so bigbrained philosophers in our own minds while not stepping out to understand and to speak up for and include those that oppose our solutions. And boy are we tied to solutions and the form things take instead of being dynamic, creative, inquisitive creatures whenever ideology makes us uncomfortable.
Anyway, sorry for the rant but I couldn't sit down to watch this without first getting this off my chest, and hopefully I can watch your analysis with more openness, I'm just anxious that this is going to be 40min of missing the point about a movie about missing the point and that would be depressing coming from you. This movie is a mythology that captures our current state of affairs. It does it without pointing the finger from one to the other and creates, or rather finds, intermediate characters that split up the strengths and weaknesses of current people in unusual combinations that challenge us to look at the humanity, not the ideological tribe, giving us something approachable to chew on, truly like stories of old. It does the campfire task of coming together and looking at the meta in a personal and instantiated what-if. Ok, anyway, /rant
Thank you for this commentary!
Bingo
It is a fair assessment.
Poetry
I appreciate your rant, and although I don’t comment on things often, I did want to say thank you. To me, the movie felt very human.
I interpreted the "comet in the sky" scene as the too little too late moment. That, by the time climate change will have these big observable consequences that you can glance at and say "yup that's a climate change alright", it would be too late to really do anything about it. That we should try and stop it now while we have the chance and when you need to trust the scientists that know better, rather that wait for your own proof of it.
Yeah but that’s his point ,there most likely will never be some huge climate changing moment, temperature will slowly rise and all the small problems will add up and cause problems , I mean what would a event that is a provable climate change event even look like? Some scene out of day after tmrw? Climate change will be a death by a million cuts
@@eastbrecht 1 no it wasn't
2 stop drinking kool aid
@@neolordie I think you should start paying attention to the news more, now that the time has passed, a bunch of damning information about the injections are coming out now.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 There really aren't
@@samuelargyropoulos1249 There are, a while back some information about massive health complications came out and the few places that covered it waved it off and said the health complications were still better than getting covid, which is what we call and excuse, and it is besides the point.
If you know ANYTHING about science or history, then you know that scientists and medical professionals only know so much, and hindsight is a bitch. Talk to your parents about how much scientists/medical professionals know, there's a ton of stuff they were lied to about when they grew up simply because scientists/medical professionals didn't know any better.
Your work is infinitely interesting and much appreciated, you impact more people than you know! Keep up the great work and I pray this message finds you well!
Ye, not really, look at that views/likes ratio
@@bryansantanavegas1910 This movie?
It was not a Mirror at all.
And it’s not the only terriblee Clima-Change-Coverage: Chris Chibnal probably did the Worst ever, as pointed out by Many, including Jay Exci.
Meanwhile, epic coverage would be various Science-Channel as well as the 2 Social-Commentary-Channel Hbomberguy and Some More News.
I loved this movie. I don't get why people think it's controversial. It was cathartic in a dark depressing kind of way. I thought the social commentary was spot on and that the people who were pissed off by this film are the people who saw themselves in the characters that were acting badly.
Yes!
well if your being perfectly portrayed aka a republican then ofcourse its controversial, you were portrayed not as some good guy but as a fool, i saw most people could'nt even finish the movie though i get it, as it did get boring at times, then they complain of social media without finishing the film
While you can think like that, there's actually many people who didn't recognize themselves, and still found faults in the movie. Reality, is, luckily, more complex than your understanding of it
@@charlestonianbuilder344 You're EXACTLY the type of person I thought about when watching the movie. Clearly the president and her followers were meant to portray trump and his followers from the point of view of people like YOU. Calling republicans fools and saying they're "perfectly portrayed". Its hilarious because you're just like them. Blind, ignorant and afraid of opposing views. And anyone that disagrees with you is horrible in your mind. You, are the fool. Its "controversial" because it makes fun of trump, if ANY movie made fun of biden it would be canceled because people would lose their shit. So much hypocrisy. As someone who enjoyed the movie and has a very open minded political mindset, I gotta say the way they portrayed republicans is the SAME way I see both right wing extremists and left wing extremists. You're both bad and you're both annoying. Just itching to throw a jab at the opposing party. Dude, live your life, stop being full of hatred and letting these republicans live in ur head rent free.
Because it feels like Hollywood grabbing you and shaking you, going “GET IT!?! DIVISION BAD! NOW PRAISE US FOR BEING SMART!!!!”
Hollywood long ago lost the favor of quite a lot of people. Being heavy handed and borderline propagandistic is not a good way to win them back.
I believe the comet metaphor has a different goal. Perhaps the movie wants to show us that even a much more real, predictable and timely event like a comet impact can be completely ignored in our current society. And that this ignorance and mixture of emotions and political views can lead to our extinction.
Love your videos!!! It's funny how a movie about how the world is so divide that we can't save it is itself divisive.
There's no common ground with people who have no respect for God's creation.
@@jesuschristislord77733 there’s also no common ground with religious people
Lol these 2 guys just proved your point 😂
@@sbraypaynt there's no common ground with unenlightened maya mon.keys of Clown-Yuga who literally groom children and call it virtue.
Maybe because the film is really just pretending one side of the divide is all that the problem is
When I watched this film, I correlated it more with Covid than Climate Change, for the reasons you mentioned in this video. But, you said it better. It brought me tears.
So far, I am greatly enjoying your videos. You think deeply and put forward well-considered ideas. I don't always agree, but I am enjoying learning more about how you see things. Wonderful job, and thank you!
The point about interpersonal communication completely breaking down, that I see every day. Lord how many times have we all seen our wonderful technology ruin society. Time after time, person by person, scandal by scandal. How many more kids are going to get an iPad shoved into their face instead of a teddy bear before people realize how much spending time matters. My parents are older. I never thought I'd see the day when parents care more about themselves than about the life they begat. I'm not super religious, but lord have mercy on the selfish, they know not what they do. Myself included.
You always bring back your videos into something that really makes me think, and I thank you for that. Communication and technology in society are one of the biggest things I would ever consider advocating for.
The way I see it, we all have to make some big sacrifices to help, but not enough will. And because of the unique nature of Climate Change not being an obvious singular threat, the blame will always be shifted. From individual consumers to big corporations, both will pass the blame to each and never make significant enough changes.
Humanity has always cared about its present and never about its future.
Maybe because the same people telling us about climate change like gore and Obama also buy beach front property while they cry about rising sea levels
@@thirtythree504 I'm sure they have also done way more to do something productive than the average person though.
@@anthonymartensen3164 like what?
@@thirtythree504 hypocrisy runs deep among the left. Their staunch stance against nuclear reveals everything.
Well global warming definitely is primarily the fault of corporations, not individuals.
My first impression of Don't Look Up was that it felt like the current generation's Idiocracy. I honestly didn't make the climate change connection until later (I figured the story could have been about virtually any imminent threat to the Earth and/or humanity and achieved the exact same core-narrative), mainly because I wasn't paying attention to the debate surrounding it. I rarely go on Twitter and follow tweets even less.
except for nuclear war, are there any imminent threats to humanity that are approaching?
@@albusking2966 I don't know, off the top of my head, but I also don't think I'm the person to ask. I was speaking in context of this fictional world though. For purposes of the film's story, I believe any significant enough threat could have potentially worked.
@@albusking2966 Climate change is the imminent threat. I'm no eco nut, but you have to acknowledge that it will probably be what we spend the next 100 years trying to beat.
*current generation*
half of the movie was about conservatives being the bad guys how you came to the conclusion that the Gen-Z were the problem in the movie, like Gen-Z is literally painted as the wokest leftist generation of today that do talk about climate change the same way "alarmist" do
edit: welp just looked at your subscriptions and that's explains alot on why you think an entire generation is idiot to you and why you subconsciously omitted the cartoonisly exaggerated mockery of conservatives in the film
@@rajeevvaishnav2018 *"How you came to the conclusion that the Gen-Z were the problem in the movie-"*
I didn't. My perception was that human idiocy, ignorance, and selfishness in general were the problem, not a specific ideology or party. I didn't interpret it as "Conservatives bad", "Gen-Z bad", "Leftist bad", "Woke bad", or anything like that. I didn't do a head count of which characters were of what affiliation.
I did perceive a commentary on how human society & communication were negatively impacted by social media. Again though, I don't view that as Gen-Z's fault (though they definitely haven't helped). I did see the not-so-subtle parallel to Trump, but that's about it. I did see that the film gets political, of course.
But I wasn't absorbing the plot through a political lens. When I said "current generation's Idiocracy", I meant that it struck me like a film made in what was then the current year that reminded me of an movie made years ago with a similar theme or vibe. That's all that phrase means to me unless someone specifies otherwise.
To elaborate, "the current generation", in my mind, referred to the film existing within a new generation and those living at that time being its audience. No more, no less. There was nothing political intended in that statement. It's no different to me from saying "New Girl feels like Friends for the new generation."
This is honestly the first time I've heard someone interpret "current generation's" as you have. It's surprising, because every person I've ever used that wording around when discussing media understands what I mean and didn't feel a need for me to re-word it. Likewise, many people used that wording with me.
*"Just looked at your subscriptions-"*
I did used to look at subscriptions of people I was debating to get a sense of their views before. And, speaking from experience, that's rarely a reliable way to discern their true views. Assuming someone is Conservative, Liberal, or whatever based on what they watch on TH-cam is just that, an assumption.
You may argue that it's a reasonable assumption to make, but I'd disagree in this instance. It would only reasonable if/when you find evidence that the person watching those channels agrees with said channels' views. All "evidence" you believe you have about my views is based on a misinterpretation you made on a comment I wrote about a movie that happens to paint certain groups/demographics in a negative light.
To clarify for others who may read this (not that my subscriptions are a secret by any means), like many TH-camrs I've met, I watch channels foremost for entertainment value. I may agree or disagree with them, but I'll still watch them if they entertain me. I listen to people across the political spectrum, and my opinion will depend on the individual issue. I don't subscribe only to people who think like me, nor do I do a head count of their affiliations.
*"That explains a lot on why you think an entire generation is idiot to you-"*
I don't view Gen-Z as a collective of idiots. There are idiots among every generation, including mine (Millennial). Two of my sisters are Gen-Z, and they're they're two of the sharpest people I know. We don't always agree, especially on politics, but I respect their POV because I don't judge intellect strictly through a political lens either. We're all individuals. Being of a specific generation or other demographic doesn't dictate one's intellect (not saying you said otherwise).
*"- And why you subconsciously omitted the cartoonisly exaggerated mockery of conservatives in the film"*
I "omitted" nothing, consciously or otherwise. That's another assumption on your part. Few attempts at arguments are more fallacious or potentially arrogant than to presume you know anything about a stranger's unconscious mind, let alone that you know it based off comments & subscriptions. Again, I used to do this.
Since then, I've realized that "unconscious bias" is a flawed premise for multiple reasons and most informed people won't likely take you seriously if you cite it (Nobody I know of would likely be impressed by your combative approach to dialogue either). I say this with no malice, disrespect, or condescension intended.
Perhaps you'll see at some point in the future how you can benefit from this interaction, just as I benefitted from learning the flaws in my thinking years ago (which is not to say or imply that my mind is now flawless). Also, I'm well aware that the portrayals of everyone (not just Conservatives) were very exaggerated.
Almost nobody in the film was portrayed with anywhere near 100% realism in mind, regardless of party or ideology. They weren't all equally cartoonish, but none of them struck me as "real". They were all exaggerations serving a narrative to some extent. We can glean themes from them that are applicable to the real world.
But the same is true for what messages + commentary can be taken from Idiocracy, which is also full of cartoonish mockery & caricatures (Admittedly, I'd consider Idiocracy to be significantly more cartoonish by comparison than Don't Look Up). If you have any other questions to clear up, let me know.
"I don't think it was quite able to capture what the actual harm of climate change looks like"
That's not what the movie was trying to do. It was trying to show how people react to science that says "something bad is coming we need to act". Some panic, most ignore it or actively campaign against the idea. All while the scientist pull their hair out trying to convey the truth.
Exactly. This movie is a textbook illustration of how the politicization and monetization of science erodes the public trust in scientists themselves, who are supposed to be impartial.
@Hatchback OfNotreDame the average person neither knows how solar orbits work, not is capable of using equipment to find one as it enters our system. Yet we ALL trust when scientists say one could likely impact us. Climate change is not some nebulous science that requires a doctorate to understand. It's basic science and ecology. The problem is everyone wants to argue about the cause, rather than simply deal with the effects.
@@derek96720 The only people "arguing about the cause of climate change" are right wing propagandists and brainwashed conservatives. Everyone else already knows burning fossil fuels is the main cause. It's not complicated bruh.
@@bgoodfella7413 actually there are multiple significant causes. Another is factory farming, ie the cattle industry, which puts out unprecedented amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Another cause is that the Earth is in a natural heating cycle on its own, as it's gone through numerous times in the past. Climate change is going to happen one way or the other, but we're greatly exacerbating and accelerating it.
@@derek96720 Agreed. Plus it is a self reinforcing loop. The problems grow exponentially as oceans get all fucked up.
Those who have been the most vocally outraged by the movie - the corporate media elite, predominantly - were clearly upset about being so mercilessly caricatured, but then their reactions have been so disproportionately over the top that they in effect ended up self-caricaturing, thereby proving the movie's point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with the film: I think it's great in some respects, and significantly lacking in others. What cannot be denied is the way it has so publicly ruffled the feathers of those it specifically targets, which makes it an undoubted success. It's not a normal movie for normal times, and it did it's job damn well in that respect, even if by normal movie standards it's a mixed bag. What it has done unbelievably well is bait those it critiques for living in insular corrupt bubbles to expose themselves for living in insular corrupt bubbles
my thoughts exactly
Every American lives in "insular corrupt bubbles". It's called your head.
I did my report that makes up 15% of my public exam grade on this movie. It just resonates with me so much as a member of the younger generation, sometimes it feels like your fate is in the hands of people who don’t care
Does anybody really though?
Even activists don’t actually advocate for decarbonization plans…..
There are quite literally thousands of published plans on what to do and how to do it, but yet it seems like the entire general publics climate movement is predicated on the belief that only politicians could ever come up with plans.
It’s truly a mind boggling thing to see, when historically over the last 120 years every single major environmental treaty ever ratified started as a scientific study with conclusions of what was recommended to change. From the Vienna Convention to London Convention to MARSPOL to Montreal Protocol etc, but for some reason the modern climate movement just forgot this for some reason. So instead they shout a scream why a bunch geriatric geniuses, who likely didn’t even take classical mechanics in college, don’t have a plan.
In the US we have marches on congress to make a plan and take action. Yet you never once hear about any group reference or advocate for any of the hundreds of plans made by the US Department of Energy.
@@brian2440 I’m not talking about climate change. When I first saw this film, it never resonated with me as something about climate change at first. It is something that resonated with me because of the political situation of my own home country, not America or Europe
@@karan.kk.h fair enough but the director of the film point blank said it’s about climate change, but to each their own
@@brian2440 film and literature are often up to people’s interpretations and I think general human ignorance and the criticism of self serving leaders are themes of the movie whether it’s about climate change or not. Those themes are what hit me when I first watched it and I did the report on my personal perspective so yeah
The Big Short is a great film. This doesn't have much to do with this video, but I want to add that it gets (at least) two major components wrong about the crisis ("wrong" might be a bit inflammatory).
1 - in the blackjack scene with Selena Gomez and Richard Thaler, the movie describes how the crisis was multiplied due to large, but wholly independent side bets. In other words, A makes a bet with B, C makes a bet with D, E makes a bet with F, and so on. This isn't a problem. The real problem was that these side bets were not independent, and created debt cycles: A bets with B, B hedges by betting with C, C hedges by betting with A; none of them know that they're in a cycle, so when B goes bankrupt, C can't pay A anymore and everyone loses.
2 - the film fails to mention that bad math was fueling the heart of the crisis-the incorrect pricing and risk evaluation of mortgage-backed securities. Margin Call correctly makes the discovery of this bad math the driving engine of the film.
Would it be fair to say that the point 2 is wrong because it wasn't about math but greed? There's a scene in the movie where they say something along the lines of "Who cares man... they want it and they'll pay for it" Almost like... it was hmm greed and and ignorance.. Donno... I bet you guys are smarter than me(not sarcasm)
@@xxChacaronXX I understand the sentiment, but no it wouldn't be fair to say point 2 is wrong. Bad math very literally was the reason the risk assessment of MBS products was so broken, and therefore banks were strongly incentivized to push mortgages to anyone with a pulse
However, it would be fair to argue that greed (and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it") prevented the bad math from being corrected before it was way too late. I think this is the common sentiment in the industry
@@utkashdubey8458 Maybe the promise of a big payoff made the bad math more difficult to spot? Our brains are severly biased, and it's a bit dismissive to say the culture of the financial market would be so careful as to not rush into the promise of quick payoffs and recklessly underestimate associated risks?
I took it as not necessarily a metaphor for climate change, but science denialism in general. Made me think of covid more than climate change, but that's probably just recency bias because my anti-vax sister was here. I saw in other comments that the script was written before the pandemic.
But naturally, the point of metaphor is that the specific "thing" doesn't really matter, it's more about the effects and causes and behaviors around it. As always you got right to the heart of the matter in a way that I wish everyone could hear.
But the specific thing does matter, science is about specific things. Otherwise it's just a general sense of appeal to authority.
@breyzh2jahkady Science is about specific things. Narrative allegory isn't. That's why they used a comet instead of just making a movie about climate change.
There's no appeal to authority when the experts themselves are showing the evidence and showing their work, and people still refuse to listen. That's what happens in the movie, and IRL with climate change. If anyone cries "appeal to authority," it's purely out of ignorance, and they were never going to listen anyway.
@@neofromthewarnerbrothersic145 Right, but the allegory sort of falls flat when your movie is ABOUT science and complex policies that affect millions of lives. Dumbing issues down this much makes it fail at representing them, imo.
Lol. Your sister was the smart one, but you probably know that by now. Science? Science was corrupted by politics and an agenda, as you should have recognized by silencing of real scientists and the heavy-handed measures to force jabs.
Just found your channel - and the quality, not only in terms of picture/clip choices, but the sound and narrative setup is extraordinary. Thank you for making these videos.
Asides
That thing the Big Short does is called an Aside, it's borrowed from theater drama. Where the character directly states something to the audience for dramatic irony
"Uhm, I couldn't really think of a smart segue, but this video is sponsored by" _thank you_ . whenever something a creator was saying turns out to be a "smart segue" I roll my eyes, so the sincerity here actually made me smile. also I'm glad your work has been supported, because it's really good and deserving.
I liked the 2016 Godzilla movie more. We see how bureaucracy, lack of communication and outdated strategies prevent the government of Japan from fighting Godzilla. It's only when the young people come up with new ideas, that they manage to defeat the monster.
I liked the movie more because the problems they had seemed like problems we have as well and the characters felt real, despite being in a Godzilla movie. But in "Don't look up" felt cartoonish in comparison. The characters were exaggeratedly dumbed down to the point I no longer felt bad for them being hit by the comet.
Watching Don't Look Up tonight and I feel the exact same way.
The real question is: Why did the general charge for the snacks?
My favorite aspect of 'Dont Look Up' were the Scientists fight with the (fluff) news channel to explain the situation to the public. You explained yourself that our changing climate and everything that's connected to it.. it's difficult to put to words. I think this fictional film did a stellar job conveying that message.
Overall I did appreciate your review and I'll add, 'The Big Short" to my films-to-watch queue.
Too bad a "scientist" doesn't really mean anything anymore. They are more like pseudo prophets. People believe in "science" - whatever that means, but it is actually pseudo religion. Believing in a scientific process is completely different thing. Science itself is political. Science of the unknown is about consensus that may or may not be correct. It is not science in the true meaning of the word, but it is presented as one. Climate change is a dogma that must not be questioned and the new profits from this change are not to be questioned either. If I do not believe in climate change I am a heretic.
Expect the big short to blow your mind. It's legit a million times better than Don't Look Up. It's crazy that it comes from the same director honestly.
@@Arlae_Nova I'll add it to my watch list, thanks
The movie to me is a perfect metaphor for how humanity doesn’t give a shit even though the future of life is in our hands
The reason it's about America is because it's a response to America pulling out of the Paris accords. As Latour says, a response not to the left and right but the "out of this world." It's not about the world's response, but those who ran away from the problem -- the best embodied by the US. It was meant to acknowledge and show the elephant in the room... that some countries are bigger players than others and each of these must work together (including the US) if we want to succeed. I think more a UN or EU focused would muddy the waters of these points.
It has been awhile since I saw a film lean so far into an exclusive American audience -- using a lot of American cultural narratives and slang.
America was the only country doing anything about the climate. Thats why we pulled out
@@thirtythree504 do... do you really believe this?
@@fingernecklace4817 The numbers clearly show the US did more to reduce carbon emissions than others. Are you unaware of this? the only thing staying in would have done is cost the US a lot of money.
Don't Look Up - for me at least, was about far more than climate change. As a former conservative republican, it spoke to the mindset I used to have and I've been trying to understand that mindset ever since. To understand how I became so misguided. This movie captures that feeling of frustration and awe better than any other piece of art I've seen. 🙏
I really like your closing thoughts about us people only wanting to build our own paradise. I think that one of the greatest problems of our society is the ever growing divide between us. Which is pretty ironic if you think about how connected we all are these days. And I really think that one of the reasons for that is how superficial our world has become. So it's truely important to actually talk, and think about a topic and actually go deep in my opinion. This is also a reason why I love your detailed movie analyses! So I hope you can keep making them for a long time :)
The uncomfortable truth is that we routinely get hit by meteors, and i actually found the movie to be a very on point critique of todays society. Its like the documentary step before the events of the movie "Idiocracy". In other words, how serious the planet would take an extenction level threat makes this the second installment of an unofficial trilogy: Deep Impact, Dont look up and Idiocracy.
Idiocracy is a mediocre film and extremely misanthropic. The picture it paints of a future has themes supporting euthanasia of stupid people or we’re all screwed. It’s the fan-fiction of a 13 year old girl with a Hermione complex.
@@sbraypaynt You're right, but the movie knows, its exaggerated for the sake of humour, it doesn't want to be the groundbreaking eyeopener that Don't Look Up aspires to be. Not all movies are made to change the world. I don't even think Idiocracy is THAT fun but it is at times exactly because it doesn't take its premise seriously at all.
@@edoardoruini199 bwahahaha Dont Look Up is not aspiring to be a "groundbreaking eye opener". What a silly thought. It knows its exaggerating and plays on it. It's about how people react to scientist saying "we have something coming and need to act". Some panic but most ignore it or actively campaign against the idea. If you truly came away thinking this movie was trying to be groundbreaking then I'm sorry for your diminishing intellect. Theres nothing groundbreaking or eye opening about people ignoring science. They just made it satire and a meteor instead of the current problems we have. You are the first person I've heard say it was aspiring to be groundbreaking and eye opening. Wow
I thought about Idiocracy too watchin DLU
Idiocracy is one of the most underrated movie ever..
Possibly the best video on YouTu - oh look Kanye just changed his name to Ye
For me, the real point of this movie was the tragedy of human stupidity and greed. I actually got choked up when that pop star was singing that song near the end. If only we all weren't so stupid and selfish. Imagine what we could accomplish.
Look back 100 years ago and you ll realise we ve acomplished quite a fucking LOT !
I definitely think it's a much more scathing, albeit unwitting condemnation of the national and international Covid response. It works more as a commentary about society in a crisis in general more than it works as a direct allegory for any specific issue. It gets a bit on the nose at some points, but it also kind of redeems itself because it actually manages to be funny in places while also not really being one-sided about a multifaceted scenario. Basically everyone is responsible to one extent or another for ruining the party, and no individual or group is free from the satirical lense. I mostly enjoyed it, but my biggest issue is that I feel like it didn't quite know what it was trying to be because of how it wafted back and forth between obvious satire and serious drama. It would've worked much better if it just went hard into the absurd. As far as the kind of satirical story it was trying to be is concerned, while I appreciate this movie on an entertainment level, Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb did it better (although to be fair, saying a Stanley Kubrick film did anything better than most other movies is like saying water is wet, so that's not saying all that much). The worst thing the people behind this movie could have done was to say "this is what the movie is about" and try to make it an obvious 1:1 allegory, because that immediately made it a reductionist, one-dimensional understanding of the issue they're talking about, and it hurts broader conversation about it, at least in my opinion, because it has more interesting and thought provoking things to say about media manipulation, exploitative corporate greed and political interests, and how even regular people abuse the discussion of real issues just to virtue signal score tribal points, all without actually having honest, serious and empathetic conversations about the issues at hand, whatever it may be, be it a climate crisis or literally anything else.
I think you’re missing out on one of the more obvious mistakes that the filmmakers made, specifically, that unlike the comet, the processes and systems that led to the accumulation of co2 actually have a significantly beneficial purpose to society. It’s not just about making rich people richer; the quality of life for almost everyone in the West has increased dramatically since the Industrialization. Any mitigations against climate change will have to be offset from these unprecedented benefits, particularly when it comes to those parts of the world who are seeking to gain similar benefits.
I also find it odd that you critique the film for being too US-centric while at the same time ignoring the trend of major contributors to atmospheric co2. The West has curbed its growth of co2, and is likely to continue this deceleration into the future, whereas the big drivers of growth come from the “global south”, especially China, India and Indonesia.
If climate activists want to be heard, they can start by addressing these legitimate concerns by skeptics.
That bit about the "trend of major contributors to atmospheric co2" is misleading. While China and India etc are CURRENTLY emitting more, if you look at it over time, they're simply catching up to the West's totals... because they're having their "industrial revolutions" later. To finger-wag at them is not only unproductive, it's hypocritical. Plus, the US still accounts for massive amounts of emissions, handily beating the "global South" when speaking per capita. Overall, your talking points are hardly "legitimate concerns" when weighed against the evidence of the detrimental effects of climate change.
Edit: Funnily enough he addresses both of your points quite eloquently later in the video, both in his discussion of the "global South" and his own meteor metaphor later. So not sure what you're talking about by "ignoring."
@@aw11348 Fine, keep doing what you’re doing and remain mystified why there remains opposition to the Green policies being proposed.
dude the ending speech is fantastic... almost made me cry tbh
I think you disregard the fact that relieving third world countries of poverty might just be the most effective way of reducing their carbon footprint. There seem to be many preconceived solutions pushed by a green wave with very little to back such policies (the anti nuclear wave none the least). An anticapitalist anti growth development is included in it too with evidence pointing in the opposite direction. The problems and effects of policies are also hoplessly hard to evaualte too as because of the complexity pointed out. I also think that the point about the often pointless effect local policy on a global problem cant be empisized enough. It can and should most certainly protect the local environemnt but the general CO2-e emissons is to a large extent pointless policy on the grander scale for smaller countries like my own (sweden).
THIS.
Precisely the problem, every attempt to do meaningful infraestructure or mining projects in my country are painted by a political sector as a climate threat so nothing to better the material live of people can be done. Buildings roads-climate change. Build Hospital-clinate change. Mining proyect approved and reviewed by international independent scoentist-climate change
This lends towards the conservatives of certain countries calling bullshit on climate change, even if they may be incorrect, because many sort of progress can be wrapped in the shroud of climate change bureaucratic papertape.
Its complex, this issue.
My biggest problem with this movie is that it critiques the sedation of the public through media and Hollywood. Yet the movie itself is bloated with A-List celebrities who probably made more from this than most people will see in their lifetimes. Any sense of irony from Adam Mckay is misplaced.
Are you sure is not your political ideology getting in your way of thinking? I mean now they can't express themselves bcs they are rich and part of the film industry? What happen about, freedom of speech? Yes they can talk and if we belive its stupid and pointless we point it out and we collectively decided is a flawed argument. You're simply throwing a theory based on political ideology and forgetting that everyone is allowed a voice, that's the similar thinking the SWJ have over republican speakers, you're that so now you're not really worthy of my time........ your thought is a pile of hypocrisy, waiting to explode on your face the moment you decide to open your eyes, or give a minute to philosophically question your form of thinking.
@@xingincool9672 Leonardo DiCaprio took a private jet to accept the environmental award. It's not about freedom of speech or policial but being a hypocrite.
@@timon20061995 Is Leo a hypocrite? Yes, he has a private plane, but that's one case of ignorance, for some reason, the human species held this people so high in standars that they can't make a mistake "Not on my watch" you can make some, but not on my watch.
I understand your argument, but you're clearly bias and ignoring the fact that there are multiple people who do care and by dismissing "The Hollywood" (which are a few) you get to cry over why you're so right and they're wrong. But you're not right, you're delusional ego keeps you from seeing the truth, like an agenda.
@Jake That was the fucking point!!!!!!! The excess in America has gone to the heads of people, your value depends on what you own, not in who you are, for christ sake she's making fun of people's stupidity from her bathtub, but you won't get the point, because is hate them first instead of acknowledging the fact that our society has clearly drawn the lines of wealth and self worth.
@Jake and how is she an oligarch when she doesn't even own a single company lol, oligarchs are people who own multiple assets and pay governments, for example
Elon Musk
Jeff bezzos
Bill gates
Mark Cuban
Look, the movie went out of its way to have Chalamet's character literally come to Faith, while enthralled in end-of-days romance with a scientist. And he wasn't chastised for it as being willfully ignorant, just embraced as a possible answer to the human condition. I thought that was wonderful. And we can't forget that DiCaprio IS in fact, the DILF. I want to thank the movie for that.
You almost lost me with this one. As I watched, I was getting increasingly frustrated by your analysis of how imperfect the metaphor was. But then you you got me back with how you ended your essay. To me it doesn't matter whether it's a comet, climate change or the pandemic, it's about how comprehensively McKay elicits both hilarity and horror by showing us how we, as a species, behave. And just so we don't feel too hopeless, he also shows us what's best about humanity. I love, without qualification, all three McKay films you featured. True, I was often the only person in the theater laughing out loud during "Vice," but isn't that what McKay is so good at: Pinpointing those things that either make us laugh or weep? Or both at the same time? To me they are cathartic without being prosaic because you can't watch them without seeing the heartbreaking, mind-bending complexity of it all.
I've seen several critiques of Don't Look Up, and I think they all miss the point -- including this one. Obviously this movie doesn't make sense if the comet is read as a direct metaphor for climate change. I don't think that's what was intended. Rather, the film is using a more obvious, simple, and extreme threat in order to say: if we live in a world that would be incapable of responding effectively to THAT kind of threat, how much worse will be our response to other, more complex, less obvious threats -- such as climate change? The movie is saying we've lost the ability to deal with ANY serious threat. And it depicts in a hyperbolic and humorous way exactly how we are incapable of dealing with serious problems.
But most commentators think it's all about climate change.
In my view, though Don't Look Up doesn't say it explicitly, the underlying problem with all the manifestations of avoidance and incompetence and arrogance shown in this film is one thing: capitalism. It all comes down to money. The politicians don't dare challenge the masters of business, and the people in media and pop culture all keep their eye on the short-term profit -- which means, it's absolutely forbidden to address any issue honestly and directly. And the mass promotion of denialism and conspiracy theories always means someone is making money off it.
That's the world of this film. It's our world too. I suspect most of what LSOO describes in the latter part of this video is also basically a function of capitalism -- I kept waiting for him to mention it, to at least acknowledge that capitalism plays a major role in the phenomena he talks about ... but it wasn't mentioned. Oh well.
For god's sake, people, lets try communism.
Its been tried and lead to 100 000000 deaths at least. No thanks. No thanks to crony capitalism and no thanks to communism. But you should read history.
@@paulatreides0777 What you call "crony capitalism" is in fact capitalism with its humane mask shed.
Then they should have done a better movie. Don't Look Up is a mess.
I really love how this movie sorta accurately portrays how society acts nowadays and does make you think how the world, especially in our society would react if a world ending event happened
Fantastic video. I agree that Don't Look Up was most interesting when it talked about how the world we've created makes it so hard to talk to each other, rather than the apocalypse beats it tells.
I think the comet metaphor is more accurate that we give it credit.the point is that when its close enough to be seen in the sky its way late to do anything about it,as with climate change,when we will personally see it's consequences its way to late to do anything.
I do grant that orbital mechanics is child's play compared to climate models.
I think he makes the point that we may not see climate changes’ effects drastically in the US and other first world countries, but other third world countries and impoverished communities are already feeling the drastic changes.
@@Dina8485 The earth has gone through worse, mankind has gone through worse. This will break nations but its not the end of the world.
@@Dina8485 exactly. The effects are already being seen but not equally. Hell they are already even becoming more common in the United States. The pacific northwest just had a major heat wave over the summer that was unprecedented in my lifetime.
Great analysis; the absurdity of "don't look up" is exactly on point, very much is the vein of "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" Similar level of lunacy :D
I don't know why so many still think the movie is a failed satire or it's like the big short or vice, it's none of those things, it's a warning to us if we continue our way of life, if we continue to be ignorant and not empowered everyone we will not have the incentive needed to deal a problem as big as climate change.
It must push some buttons on these kind of critics
I just feel like it’s not that deep, but acts like it’s that deep, which mehhhhhhh is meh
Yeah, but see everyone gets that the movie is supposed to be a warning. That's kind of the problem. It's incredibly on the nose, and true change and progression through art is brought about by something that challenges people by working on many levels. Look up didn't, and so no one's actually challenged. It's just weak art with flaccid engagement potential (and I say this as someone who's both seen the movie and who also agrees with the message of it entirely).
@@dufflitplaysgames
It was such a lazy movie. Meh is the best response to it.
@@BolioSati Well if you don't understand the movie, then the art failed if it didn't convey the message it was trying to send. Art is supposed to send ideas and emotion. So if you feel sad about it and understand why you feel sad, then it did what it's supposed to do. You know a lot of art of this extremist caliber is pretty obvious. Nobody ever thought Big Brother in 1984 was the good guy. But everyone interpreted it similarly that totalitarian governments are bad.
Your videos and breakdown are awesome, would love to see your take on 3:10 to Yuma with Russel Crowe and Chritian Bale
Amazing work, the analysis of film and society is really eye opening. Glad i found your channel!
The Big Short and Vice are not particularly useful analogies for exploring how well the Don't Look Up film maker decided to take on the ongoing problems of climate policy, social media impact, and the deterioration of civic involvement. The earlier movies were retrospectively examining an event or period of time. The film makers had the luxury of knowing the ending of their story and could then focus on finding the most insightful, nuanced, and entertaining way to explain that bit of history. Don't Look Up is something completely different; as a political/social satire it purposefully exaggerates the vices and fecklessness of those in power as a way of revealing that cynical and petty motivations are usually behind ideas and actions that are sold with some moral or virtuous purpose. The best satire will get the viewer to see their own motivations and actions aren't always lofty and can be just a venal as those of the famous, rich, and powerful. Satire is not meant to be a dispassionate, factual interpretation of an historical event. Rather it's an attempt to balance a society's perception of an event by using humor to bring down the powerful to the level of those they are supposed to lead. Don't Look Up is much better compared to Dr. Strangelove in which the self-interest, paranoia, and sociopathy of military leadership is revealed as the reason for development of world-ending weapons; it's not a battle of good versus evil but a struggle for personnel power by those with their fingers on the buttons. You may not believe Don't Look Up is good satire, you may not particularly like satire as an art form, you may not believe satire is the most effective means of critiquing or explaining failure or corruption. But it doesn't make sense to say Don't Look Up would be better satire if it was a nuanced and entertaining history. That's like saying a dog would be a better dog if it was a really good cat, instead.
I agree and Don't Look Up is damn good satire imo. I think it's hard for people to see the absurdity of our present situation so accurately depicted through the lens of a satirical film. The irony is palpable.
@@TylerRein But making it a satire can easily lead to the whole topic not being taking serious because satires focus on people, not societal problems. You can't make fun of "climate change", you can only make fun of people dealing with it but how helpful is that?
It's the same problem a movie like Idiocracy has, it ends up being rather misanthropie / hostile and doesn't actually explore the real core of the problem.
Instead it plays right into the hand of climate change deniers because the whole allegory doesn't work due to the obvious and immediate nature of the event compared to climate change, not to mention that climate change won't end human society. Human society will be okay even in the worst case but it will come at a huge cost in lives and enormous economic damages in the long run.
For me i feel that dont look up just cant decide how realistic or parodic to be, some things are too outlandish or science fiction to be taken seriously and others are very serious and realistic and they dont quite mash up
Then you may just understand it best.
Yeah exactly. The outlandish stuff made the regular stuff unbelievable. Like the Bash mission to capture the comet was pure Sci fi, and having that made more regular things, such as Dicaprio being corrupted or the apathy of the media also being outlandish. Also Meryl Streep's president character was way over the top. She was like Trump times 10 and that just made her seem like a clown rather than portraying the ways real politicians can be corrupt.
@@sryan9547 To be fair, this is probably because of something the writers said; when the pandemic hit and the social absurdity of the media was at its all time peak, they kept one-upping it so that it could still remain in the realm of parody, which probably pushed it too far at some point
I feel that the realism is nigh irrelevant; I was very slightly bothered by it, but the plot of the comet only served to illustrate the characters and society in the film (which, of course, are meant to be satire on our current society). If it was a character drama or sci-fi action sort of movie rather than satire, I would have been much more bothered
Speaking of the Big Short, there were many people that were paying rent EVERY MONTH to landlords that owned then homes but were defaulting and not paying the mortgages but TAKING the rent and NOT NOTIFYING the tenants. The tenants who were all paid up on the rent would find out when the police arrived for the eviction. This should be a crime.
You at your desk is up there with Margo in a bubble bath.
You remain my absolute favourite creator on this platform. And you’ve made me cry on the train home.
It’s so nice that you’re putting a bit more of yourself into these, too. I feel like I’m getting to know a friend I always would’ve liked to meet personally.
Climate change reminds me of the story of icarus. Flew to close to the sun and now we're frying, getting ready for the fall
This video is another maaterpiece from you. I agree with you that our past world that have everything is ending. I already have anxiety abouth the world is ending, but thankfully this video give insight that that our "naive" worldview that is ending and not the world itself. Thank you for making this video.
That's a good summary of it!
The review has good points, especially regarding the section on the Big Short (great film). Although I think that most people don't take the metaphor as literally as I do. It is not about gradual climate change, it is about abrupt climate change which will occur with the same immediacy as the comet. For example, when the ice is mostly gone over the Arctic Ocean, the entire surface of the ocean will be exposed to 24 hour sunlight during the summer. Of course, dark surfaces absorb short-wave radiation whereas white surfaces such as snow and ice reflect that radiation out to space (more or less). That will be a tremendous amount of energy being absorbed into what was once surface covered with reflective ice. There are huge stores of methane in the shallow continental shelves in the form of frozen clathrates which will be destabilized by the increasing heat of the ocean - in normal situations that methane is absorbed by methane eating organisms. However, the shallowness of the ocean depth and the amount of methane being destabilized will cause large blooms of this gas entering the atmosphere. There was a mass-extinction event that happened 252 million years ago theoretically due to this phenomena (the end-Permian extinction). So, yea, it will occur and human extinction will occur over a short period of time. I think this movie is referring to something of this nature which will only be perceived at the time of its occurrence. And the metaphor also works regarding the search for wealth, as that is also what is occurring in the Arctic - as the ice sheet recedes, there is a rush for access to perceived mineral and oil resources. Regarding the commenter, below, who says that the movie doesn't show the benefit people receive from using fossil-fuel powered technology, I think that person is correct, although I see he clearly does not see the utter danger ahead. Cheers.
damn, this is bleak, especially considering that companies/countries in the north actually WANT the arctic to melt so they can have quicker trade routes
@@yeussean The big thing to think of is the temporal scale. In short, the drastic change in climate over the last 200 years is unprecedented and directly linked to global industrialization. The fact that we came out of an ice age approx. 10 thousand years ago is almost irrelevant.
@@talus9663 both of those points are wrong. greenland ice cores and medieval warming period.
@@yeussean Most scientists agree that climate change is a fact, so there shouldnt be political bias in scientific books regarding climate change. Maybe you are from the USA but in Germany climate change is an accepted fact by all the political parties(even the conservaties). I cant recommend you any books, because I havent read any. It would be for me like reading a book about why the earth is a sphere (it could be interesting to know the facts behind the roundness of the Earth, but I think is easier to just as google it if i need to do some fact checking) Also at school in Germany we talked throughly about it.
It also depends what you consider unbiased, I believe in scientists. If you go to climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus you will find 18 american scientific associations that state that climate change is happening and is a result of humans, go further below and you will find 200 other scientific associations around the world that state the same.
I think if you google how does climate change works or why fossil fuels contribuite to climate change you will find all the answers to your questions. (this comment is already long enough)
@@talus9663 There has not been a dramatic change in the climate over 200 years. The change is not unprecedented.
I appreciate the brilliance of your analysis in this video! Your educational background and capacity for detailed, critical analysis gives your listeners a fully realized portrayal of the complex issues involved in mobilizing a critical mass of people around the climate crisis as opposed to a comet heading for earth. i am thankful that you present these arguments on TH-cam where your audience is so much wider than that in a classroom at university or to a conference of academics. Please keep on keeping on!
Let me first say that I really enjoy your work and your thoughts/critiques on many films has totally changed the way I view cinema.
The last part where you explain something great is coming to an end I tend to agree with. However, while I think movies can carry a different metaphor depending on who is watching it and where they are in their own lives, I certainly lean towards the story teller having a specific message. If it's about climate change, ok I can see that. I took something different away from it though.
The movie opens with a quote from Jack Handey “I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.”
After doing a minor amount of research on Jack I assumed, because of his age, that his grandfather was either a pilot or just an ordinary man from a time that was shrouded in hardships unparalleled in today's modern society. Most notably two world wars. This is especially true for the U.S. which has never had to experience the devastation that much of Europe, Russia and Japan did during WW2. As others have posited he also may have fallen asleep at the wheel causing a fatal car accident for not himself but for those he was driving. To me this was the underlying message. In those days death was at the forefront of many people's lives. If his grandfather was indeed in WW2 he most likely experienced/witnessed death regularly. Which brought to mind this exchange in Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.
CALPHURNIA
When beggars die there are no comets in the sky. The heavens only announce the deaths of princes.
CAESAR
Cowards die many times before their deaths. The brave experience death only once. Of all the strange things I’ve ever heard, it seems most strange to me that men fear death, given that death, which can’t be avoided, will come whenever it wants.
So with that I'll end my take with have no fear and beware the ides of March.
lovely take, thanks
I am so glad you brought up the big short because I appreciated so many of the decisions the movie took to portraying it's premise. Don't look up I feel in my mind came up short in ways that I think are minute because I think like stated it served its purpose in brining up the topic to strat up conversation. A bit of of an anecdotal story: I remember sitting in a biology class sometime before 2017 when we were talking about virology. we had a conversation about a world wide pandemic and my teacher literally stated in most possible scenarios world governments operate too slowly and retard the process of a quick response to an actual pandemic not to mention how many people would actually agree to a proper response to one. And what happened about 3 years later? Well. I certainly think these things are worth taking about nuances, sincerity and empathy I feel are all important. All of which you eloquently pointed out. 10/10 video
I always end up crying with your essays.
Thank you for pointing out that this IS a prisoners dilemma! I kind of always SAW the situation, but my brain did not click into connecting it to that phrase!
The issue with climate change is that it's not just something you can look up and see. Predictions about it have been needlessly alarmist, and painfully, ridiculously wrong, giving those that would deny it ample ammunition. Because despite the "well researched status" the research wasn't all conclusively pointing in a single direction, apart from "it's happening".
Like Stories of Old: Congratulations on half-a-MILLION Subscribers! :D
I felt the same way after watching the movie. There are so many fascinating sociological critiques to be made about climate change but Don’t Look Up settles for surface-level outrage and frustration about climate inaction, which means the true depth of the problem is being missed.
I like the very relevant comparison with the Big Short: I agree the strength of its social critique inheres in its treatment of many of the characters sympathetically. Don’t Look Up fails here by making everyone unlikeable-either greedily asinine or cloyingly sentimental and uncomprehending. The charge that criticism of DLU equates with failure to appreciate the gravity of the message of systematic failure is itself a failure to cope with criticism. The fatalistic thanksgiving dinner hand-holding finale was nauseating.
With all that being said, I completely agree with your final analysis, how the solutios and the causes are different and how we were seduced by values that are not taken us far
Thank you for doing your best to explain a very nuanced position by looking at all different angles before casting judgement. I feel like this is something I should have done when I was seriously opposed to a certain political figure before - Its like I was the majority of kids in class when we were given that activity where the first instruction was to read all the instructions before beginning. I went around quacking like a duck and wondering why my introverted friend hadn't started yet. Wasn't until the end that I realized that I was the one making a fool of myself.
I really wish they had just not said anything about it being an allegory, said "this is a movie" and left people to their own devices. Watching it on its own basis as a story about a collision made it much more enjoyable. Having the idea that this was a critique about how we deal with a much more complicated issue would have taken away a lot of my enjoyment of its finer critiques of the media aparatus.
People would’ve assumed it’s about the pandemic, even though it does apply. I don’t think the film is trying to be subtle tbh
😂 Oh god, if people can't figure out it is allegory. We are all going to die. And if people are upset it is an allegory because they just want to "watch a movie," we are all going to die. Like that was the point of the movie, 🤦🏿♀ and we are just here doing the thing that the movie was trying to warn us of.
Now I understand why JRR Tolkien said
« I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers »
@@TheMPExperience 'oh no its satire reflecting of our current real life situation, its bad since its showing me that the world is bad!'
@@TheMPExperience Hey, be happy at least. We will die knowing we were right if that is ever the right way to feel.
Having just watched the movie I really didn't find it to be overly preachy or heavy handed. The global warming thing is just kind of in the background but it never felt like a partisan political speech. In fact it mainly takes aim at "elites" like the sociopathic President played by Meryl Streep (who could be either party), clueless mainstream media, a messianic tech billionaire and the like. To the extent that it mocks the average person, it mainly makes fun of social media culture.
It's really not woke or politically preachy, and as someone who is severely allergic to both in films by this point I can honesty say I loved this film. It's really funny, the main cast is great, and some parts are genuinely poignant. Give it a watch.
A very insightful and thought-provoking video. I keep coming back to the part where you spoke how about every generation now living in the West only experienced a period of prosperity, and we are taking it for granted; it is strange to have been raised from a country that was so scarred by ww2 and the subsequent soviet rule, and yet myself being born in a time of peace and unprecedented growth and progress. You do, truly, take it for granted. I realised that when the Ukrainian War Part Two started, and it felt like a cruel awakening. This too could happen here, hm? It's like my family's stories of old. Who am I, with my little life, and little smartphone and little flat, in the face of that? From September shooting practice and battlefield first aid is going to be mandatory in schools here and this feels like a surreal dream. And on the other hand, this is exactly what my parents had, whooping four decades ago, and I should not be so shook. And yet.
If you don’t mind my asking, in what area of the world has shooting practice and battlefield first aid become a part of schooling again? Presumably Eastern Europe?
My takeaway from Don't Look Up is pretty much: You can't just sit back and wait for the government, companies, or activist groups to save everyone. You have to do your best with the resources/skills/influence you have, and it isn't a simple guilt vs. innocence moral issue or something that depends only on individual behavior.
When I talk to right-wing friends or family about systemic problems using that type of framing or explanation, they actually get it.
Systemic systems of institutional racism
It's true that we all have a part to play in controlling what we can when it comes to existential threats. However, part of doing what we can does entail mobilizing vast systems of bureaucracy to generate a coordinated response to said threats. And in order to achieve maximum functionality of society these bureaucratic systems need to be occupied by people who have a base-line understanding of the threats and the severity of the threats. My biggest problem with republicans and democrats is that they tend to vote for people who purposefully ignore societal problems in order to generate a profit for themselves and their friends and family. This is understandable to some degree, but we don't have time to indulge these behaviors. Republicans are especially egregious when it comes to electing the willfully ignorant and they get away with it because Democrats are guilty of corruption too. It just seems that, you can have all the personal responsibility you want, but if there is not a systematic approach to the betterment of these situations, then there really isn't a point to "doing your part". It's better than doing nothing, but if you don't have the means to do much than not much gets done. That's why it's imperative that those with bureaucratic power take proportional action. And although it is scary because, people with that type of power tend to abuse it. It's also necessary if you're actually trying to combat something like climate change or the pandemic or systematic racism and incarceration. These are large complex problems that require large complex, robust solutions and just collecting rainwater for instance or heating your house with natural gas or buying a Tesla or having a green house or installing solar panels or wearing a mask in public or all of the above doesn't necessarily address some of the most urgent problems that we face when dealing with these issues. They are helpful and good things to do, but (taking climate change for example) they don't reduce the problem of over-fishing or natural habitat destruction that leads to climate change in the first place. So there has to be a national and/or international mandate that incentives the changes needed to actually combat global warming. Or take the pandemic, wearing a mask in public is a good thing to do, but it doesn't address the fact that you're 41% less likely to transmit the virus if you're vaccinated and have the booster shot. I mean you name a complex problem and there is a government solution that should be implemented but won't be even if we continue to think and act in a personally responsible way, because what's fantastic for one person can often be detrimental for another.
As someone with a very conservative family I commend you for your effort to inform and reach a common ground, however being responsible doesn't end at personal responsibility. There also has to be accountability. That's one thing that Republicans are much better at then Democrats, however it seems like the Republican ethic falls short in almost every metric when it comes to national and now even local oversight.
Sorry this response is so long, but it's a complex issue and I felt it required robust consideration.
@@bohansenboh I agree with you.
I think also that the movie's main limitation is that, realistically, you need a large bureaucracy filled with competent people to deal with systemic problems. Systemic problems tend to have a disparate impact based on economic class, gender, race, disability, etc., and the asteroid metaphor doesn't adequately capture all that even though it's a better place to start than "wokescolding" everyone you talk to. People often talk about systemic marginalization in a way that's far too abstract or theoretical and only confuses people.
@@KarlWinterling Woke scolding I like that I've never heard anybody say that, that's super funny. I mean I get what you're saying and I definitely think you're right about disproportional impact of climate change or covid and obviously incarceration. Sometimes I just like to piss into people's ear buds on the internet, there's like 10 billion people on the planet you just happen to be the one that I picked. Cheers dude
@@KarlWinterling Women, non-whites, and ethnic and sexual minorities in societies established by straight, cisgender, Christian (especially Protestant), white males are the most privileged whiners on the face of the planet.
I really liked your restructering of Don't Look Up. It would have made a lot more sense and made a better comment on the power dynamics in our current society
The major turn-off for me was the fact that its clear the filmmakers share the same contempt for their ideological enemies that they're trying to satirize.
totally agree
Your insight into how we are (mistakenly) taking our privileges for granted really shed light onto my troubled mind. For years I have been living with the feeling that something is coming to an end in our society, and until now, I thought that we are just going to perish. But after pondering your words, I am starting to understand that what is coming to an end is the illusion. Thank you for your work!
Let’s make sure that illusion is not replaced with another illusion then. Unfortunately, that’s what usually happens though. In fact, illusion is such an interesting phenomena. We all like to live and breath our own type of illusion and it only becomes annoying when someone else wants to impose their version of illusion upon us, isn’t it? Are we sure that our thoughts and values are absolutely free of illusions? Do we really have anything that we can hold as an illusion-free mark of reference in life? Isn’t it all just a make-belief reality we live in?
Conflicts arise when illusions seems to contradict each other. Some illusions we hold dear and some other we reject. Our anger arise due to a righteous belief that our own illusions are under threat, isn’t it? “How dare someone threaten my own dear illusions?” We will then go on a long journey of righteous soul searching to find reasons why our own make-belief stories are more true that others. After that we will try to find a platform from whence we can proclaim our version of illusion to be the superior one. Then we start a political movement. After that we are so engrossed in own creation that everything else in life becomes unimportant and a veritable threat to us, we think.
Isn’t virtuous intention a far more useful factor to improve upon in our lives than trying to pick and choose among a myriad of illusions that we think suits us the best? Isn’t a genuine care for the lives and happiness of others a far better illusion than any other personalized illusion we can come up with?
Society just like anything else is cyclical. The west doesn’t view civilization through this lens (due to late stage capitalism) but we’re on the decline in the west and will shortly see the US lose its unipolar standing.
@@Gettothegone Good comment. Anyone studying nature knows that nothing is permanent. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to do our best in whatever endeavor we’re engaged in. I don’t think you believe that either, right?
you know it's gonna be a good essay when bro pulls out the diploma
Amazing video essay! The ending especially. I didn't see this film as a metaphor for climate change however, but rather how dysfunctional and divided American society has become in facing any kind of collective problem at all. Also, it highlights the extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of high tech billionaires, a phenomenon that has been aptly named techno-feudalism. In that way, I think the film was very successful. It certainly didn't go for subtlety but exaggerated satire, which also made it very funny for me. It seemed in some ways like a spiritual successor to Idiocracy.
I always like your reviews a lot, but had to force myself through most of this one.
Good to know you are a student of climate change. That said, it seems that attachment to the subject hindered your critique in the artistic angle.
It's a satire, a caricature. It implies exaggeration and oversimplification.
22:10 "capture the appropriate nuance". No It doesn't. Because doesn't go for that in the first place.
There's nothing exaggerated about this movie. People are that dumb. People are that greedy.
This analysis is as beautiful as the actual movie. Thank you.
Film has funny jokes but loses you once you realize it is telling you that mass media over-simplifies everything for entertainment value while doing exactly the same thing.
I think the comet is narrative omen symbolizing the “end times”. By the time the comet was scene by the naked eye, the world was over. The heroes lost and had already admitted defeat. By the time it becomes apparent to everyone in nakedly plain terms the tragedy is too late to avoid. The last part of the movie is just the antagonist winning and the hero’s trying their best to live out their remaining days.
I think the problem with the allegory in this film is that is distant enough from the issue of climate change that some people can walk away without realizing that climate change is the issue it really wanted to address. When I saw this movie, I thought it was a heavy handed allegory for COVID. While this wasn’t the case and that should have been clear to me just based on how long it takes to make a movie that it couldn’t really be about the pandemic. This film explores so many things at the same time while allegory works best when it is exploring one simple concept. The theme that I found most striking throughout the movie was its depiction of anti-intellectualism and I think they could have made a whole movie about the problems that come from this anti-intellectual attitude
When you proposed a slightly improved scenario... that hit so close to home. Wish they had made this film like this. Initially I didn't even get that the movie was about climate change!
I generally agree with most points on LSoD videos, but I couldn`t in this one.
The novelty of the experience for me was the always present tension between a serious issue that needed to be dealt with scientifically and the new modus operandi of some important people in this era that we live in which pose personal opinion and the natural consensus of a group as scientific fact.
I feel like most suggestions in this video would be detrimental to this central experience.
But I guess that disagreeing eventually with someone is inevitable! haha
Just like I was critical to The Big Short than Margin Call, you don't have to who profited and why, you have to describe how the chain reaction starts. That is the tension point of the whole drama but The Big Short lacks every single one of it. If Don't Look Up is all about climate change, it surely has no tension and seriousness even compared to Greenland…