The debate about "Don't Look Up"

Okay so full disclosure: I haven't seen the movie "Don't Look Up." I don't have much patience for movies; I tend to reduce the whole of a movie to the director's viewpoint, and resent the restrictions upon my imagination imposed by the medium of film (as opposed to print, in which I am obliged to imagine nearly everything depicted).

When the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy first came out in movie theaters, I watched each one with a certain enjoyment while telling myself "okay, here's Peter Jackson's rendition of Gandalf, the Hobbits, the Dwarves, the Elves, the Balrog, Lothlorien, and so on." When movies based on books are released, this is how I read them.

I also sat in judgment upon each of the movies because I could in each instance compare the plots of the movies to the plots of the books. When the director Peter Jackson came out with three movies depicting "The Hobbit," some time after the Lord of the Rings movies came out, I did that also, though I did notice that in the middle movie Jackson was trying extra-hard to overcome Tolkien's boys-club mentality. Apparently Tolkien (the historical individual, born 1892, died 1973) never let go of his boys-club mentality, not even given that he did love his wife Edith, and maybe not even in reflection upon his experiences in World War I. Most of Tolkien's fantasy world is about depictions of men. It's not surprising -- most of written history is about depictions of men. At any rate, Peter Jackson thought something ought to be done about this, insofar as he was going to make movies about all of it. And so he did.

At any rate, my criticisms of movies with books applies to movies without them. Why would I want to sit through a movie when I could get a much more creative experience reading the screenplay?

The most I've committed to any of this, so far, is by reading the reviews, and reading the plot summary on Wikipedia. There has, by the way, been a critique of the critics by Joshua Sperber, which I found on Counterpunch.

And then you have Nathan J. Robinson, who argues even more forcefully in praise of the movie and in criticism of the critics. In his piece in Current Affairs, "Critics of Don't Look Up Are Missing The Entire Point," Robinson tells us some good things about this movie:

1) David Sirota is a co-writer of the screenplay.

2) It criticizes our sold-out mass media, and in many of the right ways.

3) It criticizes our politicians, and in many of the right ways.

4) It criticizes our billionaires, and in many of the right ways.

5) Robinson summarizes:

I can tell that a leftist, rather than a liberal, was behind the storyline for this film, precisely because it does not say what some reviewers think it does. This is not the film Idiocracy, depicting us all as dumb consumerist sheeple. This is a film with great faith in humanity, and cynicism only about the institutions we have built and the particular people who hold power.

These are high praises indeed.

'Course, if you read Counterpunch, you'll catch a full debate on the merits and drawbacks of this movie. The Counterpunch debate includes Kenn Orphan's positive review, with criticisms, and Manuel Garcia Jr.'s positive review, Tony Christini's contextualization of the movie and of its director Adam McKay, and Thom Hartmann, who really liked it and thinks the message needs to be broadened.

On the flip side, there is Jim Driscoll, who argues:

Having worked full-time to limit the ongoing climate catastrophe for the last ten years, I was deeply disappointed in the new movie, “Don’t Look Up!” It is a funny bit of social satire and certainly worth watching if you already pay Netflix to distract you from reality. However, I had been told by other climate activists that this movie would make a difference to our movement. I can’t imagine how.

And you have Michael Donnelly, who argues:

Its scattershot messaging will NOT lead to any major reordering of our carbon-intensive – what Dick Cheney called our – “non-negotiable American Way of Life.” Neither will it change the minds of the Endless Growth advocates; won’t change the rush to extract minerals from and cover over more habitat for electrons; won’t end new Oil Leases or end our tens of billions in subsidies for the billionaires’ “Green” energy scams, rockets and other space junk any more than Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” did.

And here's a very negative review which deals with many of the same issues.

If you want to read about the quotidian critics of this movie, the people who criticized it for stupid reasons, you can find the links in Robinson's piece, and in the Counterpunch pieces I've linked here. The Roger Ebert legacy website critic gave this movie one and a half stars, in a review that can be summarized as "I didn't like it."

To summarize: "Don't Look Up" is a blockbuster movie. People will do what they do when they watch and discuss blockbuster movies. So here's my suggestion: perhaps for his next movie Adam McKay could do a social critique of the Nice Liberals with Big Egos. Those who remember my diaries of 2020 remember this phrase. It should be the center of Adam McKay's next movie.

The Nice Liberals with Big Egos make the most sense in the context of the American electoral system. They think that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is a difference between life and death. That's fine -- this is a free country, believe what you want. They also, however, believe that the key to this difference, the salvation that lies for us if we elect a government without Republicans, lies with them. It doesn't. The American electoral system decides (D) or (R), one way or another, by counting the votes of that segment of the American public which frets by telling itself: "gee, Democrat or Republican, which one should I vote for, I just don't know!" Those are the SWING VOTERS, and it is THEY, and NOT the LEFT, nor the LIBERALS, who decide American elections. (This is of course true insofar as there is something to be decided -- there are those who argue, with some amount of credibility, that it really doesn't matter if you vote (D) or (R), you'll get the same result anyway.) Yet the Nice Liberals with Big Egos continue to believe that it is THEY who make the big difference in American politics. They don't.

The movie, by which I mean the future Adam McKay movie I'm proposing here, will be about the American two-party system, and the fact that the best it could do last year was to get Joe Biden elected President. (Meanwhile, the Nice Liberals with Big Egos were getting ready to either blame the Left for Biden's defeat or praise the Left for his victory, when it was clear that the Left would have had no part in either outcome.)

It will also be about the Nice Liberals with Big Egos, who spend their time arguing the merits and drawbacks of blockbuster movies when the real effort is to be found with those who are busy creating an alternative to the two-party system. Let's do it before our world dies.

Share
up
16 users have voted.

Comments

reviews without watching the movie?

My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'd advise watching it and then give us your take.

up
11 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Cassiodorus's picture

@Fishtroller 02 on Counterpunch about this movie, and given the speed with which I can read all of it and wrote this diary, I think my choice was justified. Can you suggest a way of getting Netflix for free?

up
6 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

snoopydawg's picture

@Cassiodorus

of the movie instead of making your own which you devote a lot of time accusing Jackson of doing to Toilken's work. I could be wrong tho.

up
5 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Cassiodorus's picture

@snoopydawg about my opinion on a movie! One common thread I found among those who liked it and those who didn't like it was that neither side assumed that "Don't Look Up" was about itself, nor did either side assume that "Don't Look Up" was about its proclaimed topic, that some imagined comet would strike the Earth.

Rather, both sides assumed the movie was about something else and that the purpose of that movie was to draw your attention to that something else. Maybe the quotidian critics who panned the movie didn't think that, but who cares what they think. I agree, and would like to begin a greater discussion about that something else.

up
8 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

@Cassiodorus

Wish I could help you with the Netflix cost issue.

Have a good new year.

up
1 user has voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Lookout's picture

and thought provoking. What will you do in the end times? The comet makes the end times more immediate, but here they come ready or not. Worth a thought. As I suggested to NYCVG, it confirms my "treasure every day" philosophy.

Don't really give a damn about the critics, I try to do my own thinking.

Moore's movie created more debate because of direct criticism of the corporate approach to greenness.

up
12 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Dawn's Meta's picture

different hit.

It seemed to me to be a satire on the world governments approach to Sars Cov 2.

I thought it showed great courage and knowledge of how things work.

Regardless with the current way things are going and the way we are experiencing our lives this is an insider fable.

up
13 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

Pricknick's picture

@Dawn's Meta
Perchance you have another calling.

up
5 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

mimi's picture

@Dawn's Meta

Do you watch sometimes the material of the TV channel ARTE ? I think they have excellent programs, especially for documentaries, but I am always so annoyed that they don't offer all their material in English as well.

I think it would be great if they did., just to enhance the understanding between the potential American viewers and the French/German ones.

I saw the German version of this film tonight and thought it was excellent. 1918-1939 : Les rêves brisés de l’entre-deux-guerres.

I would like to email bomb the Arte channel with the demand to translate more of their documentaries into English. Too bad that I don't know how to translate 'Les rêves brisés' appropriately. (Broken Dreams ?)

What do you think?

up
3 users have voted.

And I watched it not knowing what it was about beforehand.

up
9 users have voted.

type of movie, and for me it was definitely the latter experience. Took me two sittings over 2 nites to finish it off, culminating in what I see as a gratuitous mass nudity scene at the end, and bizarrely, a main character being devoured. Huh? The style didn't work for me -- herky-jerky camera, with thousands of ADD-level micro-edits.

I suppose I'm also not a big fan of satire movies, the exception being Strangelove. This one had little by way of LOL comedy, perhaps bc it had an overripe and often overwrought Lenny DeCaprio and Meryl Streep trying to make funny, rather than a comedy genius like Peter Sellers.

Also not a fan of blatant Western Union movies. This one will have difficulty making it to Wichita. And if one key message was to Trust Scientific Authorities, then the current Covid crisis puts that idea into serious doubt.

up
9 users have voted.
usefewersyllables's picture

The filmmakers weren’t trying to remake Dr. Strangelove, to my way of thinking: it is more likely that they were trying to remake The President’s Analyst.

The hate from the people who didn’t like it is pretty palpable, though. I have one right wing acquaintance who thought that *not* letting Meryl Streep’s character run the recovery of the human race was absolutely criminal. I guess that we just disagree…

up
6 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

Dawn's Meta's picture

@usefewersyllables I was a cord board operator when it came out. Loved it.

up
1 user has voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

earthling1's picture

but since I have free Netflix (Thru my son's sub.) I'll check it out, maybe tonite.
Did watch PBS "Earth Emergency" last night and found it to be very good at explaining the climate crisis involving feedback loops and tipping points. I definitely recommend it.
However, the mere mention of "Dr. Strangelove" brings back fond memories and now I'm going to see if I can find it on Netflix, utube, or Hulu. A great movie for New Years Eve.
Thanks Cass for the post.

up
6 users have voted.

Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.

I'm looking forward to watching this movie but already I have one thought: a comet can't be stopped. Climate change can.
The catastrophe in the movie should be avertable too or the analogy misses the mark.

up
5 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Battle of Blair Mountain If there were an element of fantasy in "Don't Look Up." Americans are doubtless inured, at this point, to having large doses of fantasy mixed in with their science fiction. Star Trek, for instance, is imagined as science fiction, yet is completely a fantasy. Transporters and faster-than-light travel are impossible on the levels they are projected in Star Trek.

In one of his critical essays, science fiction author Samuel Delany once said "Science fiction is not really about the future." I wish I remembered where he said that.

up
4 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

@Battle of Blair Mountain that a comet can't be stopped, afaik. Two approaches could work if current technology is improved sufficiently: 1) direct nuke on the comet out in space, but the downside is it would result in many smaller fragments still impacting earth, with the same disastrous results. 2) a nuke-nudge of the comet out in space but at a proper distance to adjust its path slightly from the massive shock wave to avoid impacting our planet. Probably the smartest way but most difficult to achieve. Would likely need cooperation from the best technical minds on the planet.

On the comet vs other concern, it's my understanding from the backstory of this film that the comet angle was intended as a metaphor or stand-in for the climate change crisis and the inability of our world leaders to honestly deal with it. Sounds about right, as there is currently no great concern or large organized movement out there dealing with any concerns about impacts of near-earth objects, although, imo, there should be if we consider the dangerous Apophis asteroid, due to come very close to impacting Earth in 2029, then an even greater danger when it comes back again in 2036.

up
4 users have voted.
dystopian's picture

I would just like to remind people that the critics royally panned Frank Zappa, Led Zeppelin III, Physical Graffiti and Exile on Main St. when they came out. Wink

up
7 users have voted.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein

usefewersyllables's picture

@dystopian

I find that critical panning is a good indicator that I will actually like a particular work- like all the music mentioned there, The President’s Analyst, and a whole bunch of restaurants…

Too many critics already picked a pile to jump onto WRT watching/listening/eating prior to actually doing so. This is no different, other than perhaps being an indicator/confirmer of political leanings. One stark difference between members of our two political teams is in what they find humorous. I, for example, laughed out loud when the Trump-equivalent got eaten by Big Bird. What could possibly be funnier than that? You can tell which team I’m on…

However, having said that: the movie “Cats” did, in fact, suck rocks through a straw. So even a stopped clock is right twice a day…
[video:https://youtu.be/acI12jO0HSQ width:200 height:200]

up
4 users have voted.

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

and are usually fodder for confirmation-bias saturated positions which boil down to “liking” or “not liking”.

When there is a clear and present need for change in the human behaviors which destroy the essential reciprocal actions that power the clockwork of life on this planet, shouldn’t the value of creative enterprises be measured by their ability to engender positive changes in behaviors rather than suggesting which “team” to identify with?

The illusory satisfactions of belonging to a “side” mutes the impulse and commitment to change. What we call entertainment tends to “pours from the empty into the void” far more reliably than it inspires meaningful transformations of our individual behaviors.

up
8 users have voted.

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes

Cassiodorus's picture

@ovals49

shouldn’t the value of creative enterprises be measured by their ability to engender positive changes in behaviors rather than suggesting which “team” to identify with?

After reading the reviews, I gathered that that was what the real debate about "Don't Look Up" was about.

up
3 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

to discuss things we have not seen or read or have knowledge of.

My question is why we would want to do so.

up
2 users have voted.

NYCVG

Cassiodorus's picture

@NYCVG contains the verbal equivalent of what WWE writers used to call the "People's Elbow."

Take for instance this review of the critics by Catherine Bennett of The Guardian, which contains this choice passage:

Implicit in the professional objections to this film – it is “angry”, “smug”, “sad”, “shrill”, “condescending”, “scattergun”, “disastrous”, “insensitive”, “unfunny”, “depressing”, “heavy handed” but also “toothless” – is the proposal that, if McKay wanted to jolt disengaged people into noticing, even talking about, collective complacency on global warming, some sort of gentler, more immersive approach could have been more effective.

How would that work? Maybe imagine Swift’s A Modest Proposal if he’d cut all the heavy-handed sarcasm, stopped droning on about mirrors and considered how baby-eating made vegans feel. Or something akin to political cartoons minus any dung, pigs or insensitive face/body caricature.

I really hope those words leave a mark.

Oh, and as regards the People's Elbow (for those who do not get the cultural reference):

up
1 user has voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

zed2's picture

not have enough energy to divert the path of a comet large enough to destroy Earth enough to move it into a different trajectory. Also, this nuke would have to (to ensure optimum energy transfer) penetrate deeply enough into the comet to give the explosion enough bite because it would need to propel enough mass in the opposite direction as the desired movement. A nuke by itself if it radiates power in an isotropic pattern (equal in all directions, simply outward, in a spherical manner) A nuke basically may carry a lot of force outward but I am not aware of them being controllable much as far as direction. Which is what you would need to move a comet..

So basically, bomb needs to penetrate comet deeply before exploding at the precise optimum moment.. Missile needs to have substantial mass, and a fuse that times the detonation to be delayed in a precise manner to be after the maximum penetration has been achieved as possible. Of course there is a danger of detonating too soon, that would mean not enough energy would be transferred... And detonating too late, the actual bomb would already have been destroyed by the impact so might not work. It has to be just at the exact moment.

These are the same engineering challenges faced when military forces are trying to destroy an underground bunker with a non-nuclear high explosive device. (such as the US military's MOAB device)

Official name, GBU-43

up
2 users have voted.