Maybe I’m wrong because I don’t really follow them, but I don’t think McKay or Sirota believed this movie was saying something new or that it would change the world. From their account of the inspiration for the script, they were just feeling frustrated like everyone else with how unserious the establishment is being about climate change so they made a satire about that feeling of frustration and helplessness. I’m sure they want it to help raise urgency, but I don’t think they have the pretense that the movie is something more important than another piece of propaganda to urge people to act.

But the thing I find weird about the criticism is not that I think the movie is perfect, it’s really that the movie itself seems unimportant and that is like a big theme of the movie. We live in a culture that has hypernormalized the slow walk to the apocalypse, and we keep existing in this surreal hellscape of frivolity and grifting around that fact. It’s like everybody is either in a hypnotic state of coping or they’re just delusional due to helplessness, and it’s because the whole structure of society just can’t abide such a massive existential crisis. It is too inconvenient to the ruling class, so they try to spin it into anything from a good thing, to something that can’t be happening, or to something that we’re just watching on NatGeo as though we are aliens observing our own “natural” death.

So I can see why McKay and Sirota keep seeming to respond to criticism by talking about climate change, which keeps pissing off critics who call it deflection or condescension. Don’t Look Up is just a movie, but it’s a movie ABOUT the actually existing, really happening climate apocalypse and the feeling of helplessness it inspires for average people. Putting emphasis in some article or essay on how it’s boring, or not subtle enough, or not new enough feels insane. We’re in the process of condemning billions of people to death and disaster, in this case the medium of film as mass entertainment is just one of the few means of communicating about it. Its quality as “art” or “entertainment” is the kind of frivolity we are forced by the machinery of hegemonic capitalist culture to bury our heads in to not face the really happening disaster. The absurdity of the fact this is one of our only ways to communicate is in the film. It just feels bizarre that the movie is basically like “isn’t it psychotic that we can’t talk about the end of the world without ‘media training’” and then some big criticism of the movie is that it wasn’t artistic/subtle enough.

But this isn’t to say you have to like the movie, I could see it just being boring to someone. It’s more the group that are spending time criticizing the movie. I dunno, just feels perverse. Like who gives a shit about the movie, if it weren’t for climate change this would just be a parody of disaster movies. The reason people are scared while watching it is because it’s really happening and we all know it.

    • Woly [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      It sounds like it suffers from Bo Burnham syndrome: accurately assessing the problems that exist in society but refusing to go any further and actually try to prescribe a solution, and providing this sort of unhealthy catharsis where everyone gets to say "oh yeah that's so true" and then shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives

      • p_sharikov [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Initially, I thought they were going to keep the president's party ambiguous because she had a bunch of pictures with Bill Clinton and people like that in her office, but then she goes full MAGA and I was a little disappointed

        • TheModerateTankie [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I thought they were pulling traits from both parties for the president, because when you get past the PR they're reacting the crisis in the same way on behalf of the same people. The US can't maintain hegemony without the oil economy.

      • johnbrown1917 [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I felt it was a bit of a combo. Trump's personality, but the whole dem thing about not doing anything because "but muh midterms".

      • WELCOMETHRILLHO [comrade/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I think the reason it has to be Trump though is because no democratic administration would be able to (or even want to) do anything more than the republicans would. And the democrats in the movie eat shit in the midterms, so it's not like they didn't have a chance*. If the democrats can't win an election, how can they stop a comet? Hell, in real life the democrats can't even defeat the parliamentarian.

        *I know the timelines for elections make this wonky, but it's a movie. Even if they won, people wouldn't be seated in time.

    • Tofu_Lewis [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think it (unintentionally?) shows that libs are so impotent that they couldn't even fathom that possibility - which is super bleak.