Culture ‘Don’t Look Up’ Reminds Us the Rich Will Doom Us All

Netflix’s latest comedy thriller Don’t Look Up serves as a metaphor for the real world crisis that is climate change. It shows us the dangers of allowing the rich to hold too much power.

Atmos (Archive) - December 9, 2021
by, HANNAH ROSE MÉNDEZ

Imagine a world where blind nationalism, political division, science denialism, capitalism, and an obsession with pop culture run rampant—sound familiar? In Don’t Look Up, Netflix’s latest star-studded, irreverent, witty, apocalyptic comedy, audiences come face to face with a parody of our own reality. Directed by Adam McKay, the film follows the trials and tribulations of two astronomers, Dr. Randall Mindy and Dr. Kate Dibiasky (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence) who have discovered a planet-killing comet headed directly toward Earth, and their desperation to communicate its severity to a distracted population.

The movie is a heavy metaphor for the leading crisis we face today: climate change. And while there are many lessons we can take away, one main message echoed throughout the film: It’s time to eat the rich (before it’s too late).

Mindy, a panic-ridden scientist and professor seemingly inspired by the White House’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, is a character many of us might relate to. His incessant nerves reflect the existential doom and climate anxiety of younger generations across the globe. Dibiasky, who Lawrence and DiCaprio have compared to climate activist Greta Thunberg in interviews, is a foul-mouthed and (understandably) emotional Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University who is sick of the government’s inaction and all-around bullshit. The comparison to Thunberg is on point: While outside COP26, the international climate negotiations in Scotland this year, the impassioned 18-year-old Swedish activist famously chanted, “You can shove your climate crisis up your ass!”

Together, Mindy and Dibiasky work with NASA scientist Dr. Clayton “Teddy” Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan) to tell the world the truth about the comet—that it is coming and that, in six short months, it will kill all of humanity. A world which, to no avail, fails to respond appropriately to their message. The film mocks our society’s fixation on the seemingly irrelevant, superficial matters rather than the real issues at hand. DiCaprio confirmed that this was the message the creators wanted to portray following a screening of the film in New York City.

“It’s about holding a mirror on us,” he said. “What we’re distracted by, what we value, and ultimately—how we deal with bad news.”

When the two astronomers make an appearance on live daytime television to announce the world’s impending doom, the show sees few views, clicks, and overall engagement from the audience. Meanwhile, it sees a huge spike in engagement when pop star Riley Bina (Ariana Grande) joins the show to talk about her recent breakup with rapper DJ Chello (Kid Cudi).

1639103243851.png

This is the moment the scientists realize the world is failing to take their cries seriously. (Photograph by Niko Tavernise/Netflix)

The real-life irony is palpable. I found that all the top Google stories for Don’t Look Up were about what Lawrence wore to the movie’s premiere (see screenshot) instead of focusing on its central themes: the climate crisis and capitalism as the usher of our destruction. The film has other parallels to real-life too—from U.S. President Janie Orlean (Meryl Streep) having an uncomfortably inappropriate and nepotistic relationship with her Chief of Staff son Jason Orlean (Jonah Hill) to a tech billionaire’s mission to space.

1639103286292.png

Screenshot courtesy of Google, Dec. 7, 2021

Actor Mark Rylance plays Peter Isherwell, the third-richest man on Earth in the movie, who also happens to be the president’s main funder. His mission to send drones to extract a mineral worth trillions of dollars from the comet is reminiscent of a similar billionaire space race happening among Tesla creator Elon Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Isherwell’s mission is heavily representative of prioritizing capitalist interests over human lives and of the dangers presented when the ultra-rich take charge of leading scientific innovation while ignoring actual scientists.

In the end, we’re shown who really holds the power when we allow greed, wealth, and capital to win.

In terms of the real world, we’re seeing a kindred response from society to the climate crisis. In the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishing its latest report undoubtedly connecting “human activity” to rising temperatures and extreme weather events, world leaders have failed to respond adequately through climate legislation. COP26, where these so-called leaders convened to solve the climate crisis, resulted in very little beyond pledges that still keep us on track to hit at least 2.4 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels.

While the film, which features a majority-white cast, does a good job at communicating this sense of urgency, it ignores the many realities and nuances of climate change and how it will and is affecting us all differently. For one, the film only features one Black scientist—Dr. Oglethorpe—ignoring the varied expertise of scientists of color, especially from the Global South. Then, there’s the comet itself. A fiery hot rock demolishing Earth in a matter of minutes is an oversimplified allegory for climate change, which has been happening over decades. Climate change also disproportionately impacts low-income communities and communities of color whereas, with a comet, all of humanity is equally screwed (that is, except the rich).

Around the world, we all face various levels of the climate crisis. Placing the power of solving said crises in the hands of the rich and famous, most of whom have no idea what frontline communities are experiencing, will prove to be detrimental. In fact, the latest World Inequality Report has stated that the disparity of climate emissions between the rich and poor is just as large as the economic disparity, finding that the top 1% pollute, on average, over 16 times more carbon than the full population in a year. So, what sense does it make to trust those to solve a crisis they created in the first place? A crisis whose unwavering constant is making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Toward the end of the film, a political division breaks out. The scientific community and its supporters encourage the world to look up. That’s all it would take to see the comet barreling straight toward Earth. Meanwhile, President Orlean’s campaign retaliated with the slogan, “Don’t Look Up,” encouraging supporters to keep their heads down, nose to the grindstone, and remain ignorant to their impending doom.

The film is the perfect metaphor for the climate denial that feeds the climate crisis today. While some of us choose to look down and ignore the reality of our world’s ecological collapse, others can’t afford to. For them, the comet has already struck, so to speak.

Leaving us to question: Will you look up?

Don’t Look Up comes out in select theaters on Dec. 10, 2021, and on Netflix Dec. 24, 2021.
 
Another hamfisted propaganda flick! Coupled with the vaxx passports you'd need to even see it in theaters, how is this different than a cold war commie state?
 
Why do the rich propagandize against themselves? Is it pure marketing, or a "don't throw me into the briar patch" sort of thing where they bait people into voting for policies to punish some imaginary fatcat from a 1920s cartoon which in reality bring nothing but benefit to our current elite?
 
The rich that made the film don't see themselves as "rich"

They are the enlightened left, the inner party.
 
Why do the rich propagandize against themselves? Is it pure marketing, or a "don't throw me into the briar patch" sort of thing where they bait people into voting for policies to punish some imaginary fatcat from a 1920s cartoon which in reality bring nothing but benefit to our current elite?
They think that they can create a multi-tiered oppression stack within the wealthy section of society and be able to placate the raging peasants by telling them (should things get French Revolutionary enough) that they don't want to guillotine them, certainly not when THOSE rich people down the road who are just as wealthy but, get this, DON'T DONATE TO BLM! - should go FIRST.

( and while they're doing that, our first group can quickly pack up the royal carriage and head for the airport )

It won't work, if things get bad enough, anyone with an estate will be fair game, but, they're dumb enough to think it will and that's all it takes to get the check-writing hand twitching to fund this garbage.
 
Última edición:
They think that they can created a multi-tiered oppression stack within the wealthy section of society and be able to placate the raging peasants by telling them (should things get French Revolutionary enough) that they don't want to guillotine them, certainly not when THOSE rich people down the road who are just as wealthy but, get this, DON'T DONATE TO BLM! - should go FIRST.

( and while they're doing that, our first group can quickly pack up the royal carriage and head for the airport )

It won't work, if things get bad enough, anyone with an estate will be fair game, but, they're dumb enough to think it will and that's all it takes to get the check-writing hand twitching to fund this garbage.
And you know what's better than sacrificing a scapegoat? Inventing a religion that makes the sacrifice metaphorical. I wonder if that's what all that pulling down of statues and "re-evaluating" dead white men is about, throwing the dead elite under the bus to cover for the living. Could just be the old fashioned "New elite shits on old one to assert dominance", but beating up on dead people to distract from your inability to solve current problems sounds like something Clown World would do.
 
Última edición:
Why do the rich propagandize against themselves? Is it pure marketing, or a "don't throw me into the briar patch" sort of thing where they bait people into voting for policies to punish some imaginary fatcat from a 1920s cartoon which in reality bring nothing but benefit to our current elite?
It's all a bunch of playing pretend. They want to look like they're caring individuals aligned with the interests of the lower class while still being upper class.

That being said I hope the movie bombs and that Jennifer Lawrence breaks a leg.
 
Comets are huge chunks of ice not “ A fiery hot rock”. The author of this article is a retard and can be ignored.
 
Just one more "movie" I'll ignore. Gumby, The Three Stooges, and The Little Rascals make more sense than the vast majority of the horseshit that passes for entertainment today.
 
While the film, which features a majority-white cast, does a good job at communicating this sense of urgency, it ignores the many realities and nuances of climate change and how it will and is affecting us all differently. For one, the film only features one Black scientist—Dr. Oglethorpe—ignoring the varied expertise of scientists of color, especially from the Global South. Then, there’s the comet itself. A fiery hot rock demolishing Earth in a matter of minutes is an oversimplified allegory for climate change, which has been happening over decades. Climate change also disproportionately impacts low-income communities and communities of color whereas, with a comet, all of humanity is equally screwed (that is, except the rich).

Around the world, we all face various levels of the climate crisis. Placing the power of solving said crises in the hands of the rich and famous, most of whom have no idea what frontline communities are experiencing, will prove to be detrimental. In fact, the latest World Inequality Report has stated that the disparity of climate emissions between the rich and poor is just as large as the economic disparity, finding that the top 1% pollute, on average, over 16 times more carbon than the full population in a year. So, what sense does it make to trust those to solve a crisis they created in the first place? A crisis whose unwavering constant is making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
"Which is why China and India and the Global South need to stay impoverished, by force if necessary."

Oh, wait, that wasn't supposed to be your point was it?
 
The first act or two of this movie felt like a live action episode of South Park, perhaps because it's the kind of thing South Park used to parody. The foul-mouthed kid and her nervous father figure could be one of the kids and Randy or Gerald, the POTUS is the goofball mayor, and a weird autist inventing social media as a self-soothing technology is pretty good satire. But then the movie gets so dreadfully earnest, and DiCaprio's f-bomb laden rant just bashes you over the head with how important this is (and how the writer had recently seen Network). It makes you wish the comet would hurry up and genocide everyone. Eventually it does, and there's another South Park-esque scene with a bunch of naked white survivors landing on a new planet where they are eaten by aliens.

What the article gets wrong is this isn't a critique of capitalism. Not a coherent critique, anyway. The world is doomed because they discover rare earth minerals in the comet and they are convinced they can use these to end poverty. The weird social media autist who comes up with the plan is explicitly doing it for human "evolution," i.e. progress. Dibiasky tells people it was an attempt by the rich to get richer, but the audience knows the truth. Utopian altruism doomed the planet. The reactionary, racist war hero "from another generation" who tried to nuke the comet was right all along.

(There is a funny subplot about a lieutenant general who takes free snacks from the White House break room and sells them to unwitting guests, and Dibiasky's inability to understand or get over that. It's possible the writer thought this was a depiction of capitalism.)
 
Funny that Leo starred in a climate change film that probably involves releasing a lot of carbon emissions into the ozone layer to make.

The entertainment industry is known for releasing lots of carbon dioxide into the air.
 
just watched it
they really didn't bother to pretend it's not a propaganda piece
the good guys are the underdog, Democrat-types scientists who simply believe logic and science, love their families even if they have a sexual mis-step here and there but it's ok because their spouse also cheated on them
the bad guys are the Trump-esque president figure (including a throwback to Trumps comment about his daughter) who doesnt care about impending doom and only takes it "seriously" to drown out the news of his harrasment history, and stupid MAGA rednecks who get played by evil billionaires who rejecet THE TRUTH to a point that they refuse to see it with their own eyes even tho it's there, and the right-wing biased media nad public who are brainwashed sheep who believe everything they are told
Also the bad, billioare caste who survive are all old White people, but they get a gruesome end as well

all in all it's the arcstory stolen form ealier movies that did it better and in a less preachy manner, like "Wag the dog"
1640738344548.png
 
Atrás
Top Abajo