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.
I have no idea how they define themselves but their POV is basically liberal. I watched the movie and I was entirely unsurprised that didn't think of it as satire in any way, shape, or form. I don't think Americans even know what satire is. Satire has to be critical and cutting. Don't Look Up was neither. The movie had an unabashed liberal perspective and I sort of got bored.
It was what I expected - a social commentary and a farce. American politics in its totality and capitalism both escaped criticism. Meryl Streep is the president and she's clearly a republican - even those that word is never, ever said. Her son, Jonah Hill, is also a senior advisor and he's a lampoon of Trump's children and Trumpian nepotism.
Mark Rylance plays a billionaire and he's a fantastic actor but I thought his role and his dialog were limp. He's half-crazy and greedy as fuck. So he's the personification of greed above all else. The system isn't the bad guy. Politics isn't the bad guy. Companies aren't the bad guy. Billionaires aren't the bad guy. He alone is the bad guy.
The president might as well have been a democrat. The story would have been slightly different but if the filmmakers were honest - the world would have still ended anyway. McKay and Sirota would never, ever make that movie even though it is pretty fucking funny that it doesn't matter who is in power.
McKay and Sirota are clearly on the Blue Team so I'd bet my entire life savings that they will have nothing to say about the CDC giving the Biden administration the thumbs up to say "Fuck you workers. Get back to work." This is like their "jobs" gag in the movie except it's happening in real life and people will needlessly die because our system is a slave to capitalism.
As for Biden not actually doing a thing to stop climate chaos - I suppose they'll eventually say they are "disappointed' with him. And then a few years from now they'll probably be reluctant geoengineering proponents because it'll be too late for anything else.
I think the movie, perhaps unintentionally, exemplify how useless libs are. Our scientist protagonists are so libbed up that they don't even think of an alternative. There is a scene the makes it look possible, but then the revolutionary fervor is extinguished and the lib character compromises, completely cowed by state power.
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1476219645757562885
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1476213358416121856
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1476089038436110337
Sirota is a liberal, but at least he's still sort of an "opposition" liberal.
That is true.
One of the things that made me stop paying attention to Bad Faith was when Sirota went on to liberally whine about the problems of the world and conflate "American democracy" with lots of things and was exasperatedly like "I don't know what the solution is... a benevolent king?!" https://youtu.be/7T4PCmj8EkY?t=4271
I never heard his voice before. It's amazing how many podcasts there are. After I commented - I read this article that he co-wrote...
On the surface - it seems like a good article. It's very critical of the democrats. The writers talk about how corporate donors and an army of business lobbyists pervert everything. But they "forgot" to mention how the democrats quickly and gleefully rubber stamp every astronomical military budget.
I wonder what Sirota would define to be an ideal world. Maybe it's the US and the US military overseeing every country transitioning to an American-style democracy.
I think what he wants more than anything else is not to know. If the propaganda operation was that little bit more convincing that he didn't know everything was the CIA transitioning countries to Demokracy with Amerikan Karakteristiks he'd probably be like "yes, socialism is when the government does stuff and we've almost achieved global socialism!"
I'd love to know what Sirota really thinks of the military and the CIA. Is in honest in private with his closest friends? Or even then does he not say everything?