I viewed the Ariana Grande concert as a demonstration of progressive media being ineffective virtue signaling, rather than making any actual change. The world still ends after all so I’m not sure I agree that the movie is that self-congratulating.
One thing that didn't get mentioned here that was particularly effective for me was that in the post-credit scene when the ship that was supposed to save humanity arrives at our new planet, the only people on it are rich old people who are too old to reproduce.
I happen to disagree about Ariana's concert bit, the movie was self aware when it showed the big concert was ultimately useless, that "raising awareness" was not enough at that point and that it was mostly a self serving exercise. It reminded me of the Live Earth concerts, that while entertaining did little too address the underlying issues. This is a great discussion, keep the great ideas coming Jared!
I disagree that the concert is supposed to be "good" or "productive" art. I saw this also as satire of all these concerts like Live Aid or whatever, which are basically just virtue signaling but don't actually do shit for the cause, it is just a pat on the back for the pop culture stars. It was shown to be as impotent as it really is.
@@ZachBobBob I mean, they may have *believed* they were being sincere, but it was sloganeering and spectacle, not struggle so it was hollow and impotent. I mean, basically every effort in the movie felt either hollow and impotent or insincere and opportunistic. To me the film just showed how irreformable the system is. No one depicted ever really tries to either circumvent or take down the system, and it all feels like a wasted effort when the characters would have been better off with a radical approach instead of a reformist one. Something more confrontational. The concert they do isn't confrontational, it poses no threat to anyone in power or any of the dominant structures in the least.
It’s also a commentary on the nature of people. They can’t get people to care without having a celebrity telling them. It’s ridiculous, and yet it works.
@@Thedarkknight2244 And the way they are cheering for the pop stars when Jen & Leo introduce them, it really makes you think they care more about the celebrities than the cause even at the concert itself.
As a psychiatrist…I would agree with you when discussing FOR PROFIT mental healthcare providers. Even more so the “wellness” industry peddling bandaids for the worried well. Those of us who are treating actual bipolarity, psychosis, and severe depression, etc. as well as trying to help our communities and even countries change to indeed fix the systems that worsen EVERYONE’s mental health would probably take great offense to the broad brush used on our professions. I don’t provide McMindfulness bandaids. I also take a 50% paycut compared to my “for cash” compatriots. This is what pushing back on the capitalist drivers in USA medicine looks like.
Always love your commentary! No loyalty to a stupid political party, just truth seeking and analyzing what the artist has to say. Your comments always make me question my own beliefs, political and philosophical. You're the best Jared
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but what criteria must a movie satisfy in order to be a truly effective criticism of the system? Isn't any movie that accomplishes this simply going to give the viewers the illusory feeling of "doing something" while remaining placated?
@@JaredBauer Be that as it may, does it not still sell people a sense of righteous outrage while continuing to line the pockets of studio executives? I think the other commenter above, Jason Sealy, has a good point that perhaps the medium of filmmaking will always fall short when judged on the basis of being truly revolutionary. The criticism that "the movie wasn't transgressive enough" will forever remain true.
@@JaredBauer Also, are you aware David Sirota co-wrote that film and who David Sirota is? You can say what you will about him, but Hollywood virtue-signalling definitely fails to describe his politics.
I'm so happy you're doing your own thing after wisecrack. This new format is everything that I loved about your time over there just 100 times better. Glad you're staying healthy and I'll talk to you soon. Peace ✌️
Not sure I fully agree here. I think the title itself (Don't Look Up) says it all. The fact that things had gotten so bad in the film to the point where you didn't even need science anymore to prove that something was wrong... you could simply LOOK UP and see the problem for yourself... and yet ppl still refused to do that... I think that was the larger message; the harm that stubborn or fearful way of thinking can bring to the world. Does the movie portray science in a more altruistic & positive light? Sure. Does that imply Adam McKay's biases towards science-based takes over more fundamentalist/conservative view points? Absolutely. But ultimately science failed to solve anything for the world and the main characters ended up praying, despite being non-believers. I don't think a liberal can get anymore open-minded or balanced than that lol. And just because the movie seemed contradictory in its executed messaging doesn't preclude it from having something productive or deep to say about humanity & society. SOMEONE will gleam something from this movie that they hadn't thought about before, something that challenges their world view however slight. And I'd wager it'll stay longer with them than whatever they could take away from Matrix Resurrections.
It all comes down to a saying I heard from my teacher a long time a go. "A person is smart, people are stupid". That has always stuck with me. People as a collective are generally stupid.
It can go the other way too, eg we needed the collective efforts of scientists to develop the atomic bomb. As a group, humans are capable of both unimaginable destruction and groundbreaking advancements at the same time.
Developing the bomb was one of the stupidest things we've ever done. Legit I would rather a million allied soldiers were made casualties taking Japan on the ground. A short term convenience may well have ensured that the next war will be an apocalypse.
I think Don't Look Up is an existential film to me. It reminded me more of films like Arrival and kinda The Day the Earth Stood Still. Where humanities inability to get the fact straight, ignore our personal interest, complacency and us being the Last Man (nietzsche) are a hindrance to facing threats that are possible to wiping us out. Arrival notes that even though the aliens are peaceful we are too quick to judge and tribalistic therefore because we lack poise we are more damaging to ourselves. Don't look up reminds me of how our politicians or people in power are the most inept individuals ever and that not even the world ending wouldn't stop them from being selfish cunts. The pandemic is the perfect example of this. Don't look up kinda makes me want to live as if the world is ending or reminds me that my life is finite and I shouldn't live in death denial and have comfort. I must go and make something for myself. Plus the music in this film slapsss so fucking hard it's crazy. I do appreciate your point though since I never saw it how you did. I do love this film though
A bit of the story was written by David Sirota A journalist who is known very well in left wing circles. So a lot of the critique of capitalism in the movie probably come directly from him.
Great review. At first I thought you were gonna jump on the Hollywood liberal bandwagon but you really came through with a pretty unbiased review. It’s honestly refreshing.
The concert scene to me felt like another issue of the media landscape. It didn't feel like it was saying the concert was "good" or "The solution we need" because the comet still hits. Maybe I'm looking at it from a different perspective but I always think of the Kurt Vonnegut quote: “During the Vietnam War, every respectable artist in this country was against the war. It was like a laser beam. We were all aimed in the same direction. The power of this weapon turns out to be that of a custard pie dropped from a stepladder six feet high.” It doesn't matter that everyone "did the right thing" or "believed in a better solution", the comet is still coming, and no amount of concerts or charity will fix that.
I have to say, I really think you missed the thread towards the end of the analysis. The Ariana Grande concert wasn't, "oh this is good, progressive art." I read it as them saying that this is also not working, because, which you for some reason left out of the review, the comet does come and destroy everyone in the end. The point is that if we lack the capacity to just be able to say things to each other and be able to hear them, then this is how we are all going to die. With a bunch of Hollywood lefties dancing about it to Ariana Grande and a bunch of righties being manipulated into not believing the problem is even real. If anything, this film is utterly fatalistic. None of what we have right now can save us, and we are all probably going to die. So in that sense, yes it's not productive. But for someone like me, who is also utterly fatalistic about our capacity to prevent climate change and biodiversity loss from killing most of us off, it was incredibly cathartic. I would recommend taking a look at how climate scientists are reacting to the film, because they seem to fucking love it. It perfectly exemplifies the frustration they've been feeling for decades. The timeline is obviously very different, but most of them are sitting at that dinner table, waiting for the end to come. I'm perfectly happy to hear other perspectives, and I'm always interested to hear your take, but I really do think you missed the thread in a big way here.
I agree and am glad climate scientists like it. It was really depressing to me and I couldn’t look past all the similarities to reality to find much humor.
I think his criticism is more that climate scientists aren't the ones that we need to like it. It doesn't matter whether climate scientists like it because they are not the people whose minds and actions must be changed. Its kind of a utilitarian reading, sure, but I don't think it denies your reading and its usefulness therein. (e.g. it is cathartic)
@@MarkHWillson But then it beg the question what to do? Say you are a actor with a gazillion fame recognition and you say sponsor a film that shows the idiocy of todays (clickbait) culture, is the message wrong just because some did that had made money based on said culture? Sure the cynical in me agrees that most are just virtue signalling, but DiCaprio for example has been consistently trying to give those scientist a voice no one will listen OTHERWISE. As some one who is active in creating cultural content on a local (and thus much smaller scale) I can tell how frustrating it is to get people that need it the most to come to these things. Do you cheapen it by adding pop trash to appeal the masses or do you stay "real" but then no one see it? I think its better to have some Hollywood celebs make some money and virtue signal then do nothing at all. Sure its not the way I would like it, but unless some one suddenly finds a magic pill that convinces people to watch stuff they dont already like/agree then we're kinda stuck trying to bait people to watch celebrities make a point about society. If it only changes the mind or inspires ONE person, the snowball effect of that is worth it. Change is very difficult and slow unless you impose it on people, and I think we dont really want that.
@@Ketraar Thanks for the thoughtful response. Its a good point - I think the main thing would be: don't be a hypocrite, as that would undermine your message. If you have made money off of clickbait culture and then criticize it, is that hypocrisy or is it an attempt to point out the flaws of the system to those trapped within it? I actually don't know. It basically boils down to an age-old argument about whether meaningful change can/should be done "from the inside" or via "revolution". I read somewhere a while ago a post about DiCaprio specifically and the ways in which he is hypocritical about his environmental stuff. The gist of the argument is that he uses waaaay more resources than necessary for one individual - private jets and other such extravagances. Idk if you can comment on that but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. I don't know the answer but hey at least we are talking about it! :D
@@MarkHWillson Yes I agree, I too dont like hypocrisy and agree everyone should be called out on it (until they change that is, dont believe in eternal damnation). This is a catch 22 case, you need to have a big enough following for people to listen to you, but you only gain said following by adhering to the rules of the culture. Say Greta Thunberg for example, she tried to start a revolution, by doing a protest in her school and then lead to her becoming a global activist being blamed for seeking the attention of the media. Then the whole conversation shifts to discuss the merits of teh protest, what she should have done differently or said differently and no one really LISTENS to what she is saying (well some obviously do, but many more dont really). And here we are again, at the start. Revolutions are not soft and gradual, they hurt because it means some people will have to adjust and more often then not that adjustment comes with pain and loss. You cannot expect a deep social or cultural change where everyone is better off, that's naïve. Especially social changes mean that some one better off will have to give up on at least a portion of their comfort, there is no way around that and that is why non violent change is practically impossible. Doesn't mean we should stop trying, but maybe we need to focus our attention more on what matters and maybe it requires us to lose some portion of our "purity" to get the message out, aka allowing rich hypocrites to tell us our society is borked and needs fixing.
First of all, from one immigrant to this beautiful nation to another: Tervetuloa Suomi. I think you read that "Arianna concert" scene slightly wrong. It was clearly poking fun at the liberal side of media and at the film itself. My own interpretation of the film's main theme goes beyond criticism of capitalism (even though the influence of Capitalist Realism is palpable) and it goes deeper to our inability to take action as a society because we are paralyzed by interests that go beyond human necessity. Be it corporate interest, media circus, partisan ideology or straight up nihilism, we seem unable to reach a concensus in how to deal with the biggest threats to our civilization in this post-truth world of ours. Far from a subtle masterpiece, this is an obvious and blunt film but the urgency of the message makes it proper. I see a lot of comments about the "hypocrisy" of criticizing capitalism while making a profit, but what I don't understand is why you need to equate things like "Corporate lobbying" with "free markets". You can be critical of the excess of Capitalism without being a Communist. That's exactly the type of nuanced conversations that the film laments that we are unable to have.
Thanks fro a very thoughtful and open minded crit. My take on the Ariadne Grandi was slightly different. I think it was set up to look tacky and I’m sure I remember Jennifer Lawrence’s character saying something like - look at them, they’ve only come to hear her sing.
I appreciated this analysis, but I don’t necessarily think movies being made by studios or actors makes its criticisms inherently invalid. I also don’t think something that’s a reflection of our reality needs to offer a solution, or how that wouldn’t come off as much MORE preachy. The way we responded to the pandemic made it pretty clear that this is how we’ll be reacting to threats from now on; I think it’s helpful to find the humor at this reality when we can…
I don’t think it points at conservatives too much. Making the president a woman makes the President embody Trump and Clinton. People on both size have their issues with authority despite evidence being right in front of them. People in charge are only concerned with their own long term careers. The people on the ground become divided because their struggling to grapple with something so horrifying (denial, panic, despair, etc. much like the stages of grief)
Been going through my own mental conundrums, and many of my allys have advised seeking medication in response, which has frustrated me given how little a chance that has of actually improving how content I am. Out of many takes seen, this film's pleased me.
I’m in agreement with a lot of commenters who say they read the concert as being ironic to a degree. It’s intercut with the presidents rally, two scenes that look identical to each other showing just how similar these displays are. At that point, the comet becomes a culture war issue. You either acknowledge the comet is coming or you don’t. Neither side offers an alternative, thus reacting the same way to the situation, and I think McKay knows that. Sure, some of the lines in the song are annoyingly liberal and self-serving, but I think that was intentional to an extent. You can’t say you haven’t heard those same lyrics said out loud over the past year or two. Edit: I wanted to come back and agree that the film doesn’t necessarily offer an alternative to the system in which we live and I can understand why that would be irksome and come off as self-aggrandizing, but it did what I wanted to do and that’s laugh at the people who are running us into the ground, celebrities included. For me it’s kind of funny on a meta level as well, in that regard.
Beyond climate change, beyond capitalism ... our avoidance of death itself (by any means) and our refusal to accept that there is no alternative to it.
I feel like this movie didn't really work for me post-covid. We've just lived through 2 years of politicians putting big-business over public health. If the purpose of satire is to hold a mirror up to society, this film doesn't expose anything that hasn't been made abundantly clear during the pandemic. I've heard this movie compared a lot to John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, but at least that show generally offers solutions to the problems it points out. This movie just points out flaws we all know about and then says there's nothing we can do about it.
Not big businesses, businesses in general. This includes family businesses which were the most affected by the restrictive measures that you defend, don't forget that. It's not big businesses vs public health. It's the ability to make a living vs the threat of a low mortality virus.
@@ak-naton7731 5.48 Million deaths in 2 years disagree with that "low mortality virus". Millions more than the usual dying rate by other diseases and accidents. Think about that.
Oliver didn't propose solutions during Trump and often used the chaos he caused to sell his show. Its actually kind of morbid that so many people benefited from the outrage Trump caused. Now all his videos are less interesting because there's no reason to panic daily.
Well I think it points out flaws many people actually DON'T know about and how that needlessly complicates an otherwise simple to understand solution and turns it into a complete cluster%#!k. And then the solution the film offers is one of awareness (to the viewers) and how that might hopefully bring about a change in ourselves in ways we didn't realize we needed should another global threat arise that requires all of us to work together.
I was about to ask why I don't see u on wisecrack any more and then I saw u have a 2 hour video on that topic, so I'll have to watch that. Glad this popped up in my feed, good to hear u break shit down again
I like how the song sums it up: subtlety doesn't work. It even stars Jennifer Lawrence from "mother!" which was, according to the writer/director, about climate change. But nobody got it.
@@Hack_The_Planet_ it was both. Lawrence and Bardem’s characters represent Mother Earth and God, respectively & the characters that visit the house are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, followed by regular people burning the house down ie destroying earth
the chris evan scene hit me hard as a satire to those 'privileged moderate'. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.' ~RIP Desmond Tutu.~
I still remember the promotion of 'Mother' where Jennifer Lawrence traveled around in a private jet lecturing the interviewers on how we needed to take better care of our earth. Immanuel Kant said that the biggest sin one could commit was making an exception for yourself - What is an impossible ask of us not to do (or at least for most of us). It would however be nice with a more introspective approach just once in a while. We are all to blame for this mess - but not equally. What can I/we do to make the world a slightly better place. If everybody replicated these actions, would they suffice.
i mean we cant change shit. even if we adapt a emission free lifestyle, its not on us. its on the powerfull and wealthy to change their lifestyles, on the big companys to stop usind plastic and chenicals and so on. so what i am saying is there cant be climate justice with capitalism
it's hard for me to comment on it because of how it relates to so many aspects fundamental to human nature and social organization. one sample aspect i think is particularly useful is how behaviors on the level of the joe schmo trickle upwards to the most powerful. for example, the wisecracked video on attack on titan/naziism, and the principle that people can be united through common hatred: my ex-boss literally said that, explicitly, to me!!! at lunch she was asking me which clients i hate, and said that shared hatred is a good way to bond. and these are these ubiquitous behaviors-- the air that we breathe, socially speaking-- that are still pernicious, but seen as relatively inconsequential at the level of the community. but *all* communities consist of such behaviors. and consider that in politics, there is no clear boundary, if any, between the roles of upper class socialization and legislation. (is it relevant that my ex-boss is chummy with the ex-mayor?) the rich and powerful are bound by the fetters of their social context, just as we all are-- perhaps even moreso than the average person, given that their success in business, and by extension, life in general, is dependent on their lubricated relationships with others in their echelon. in general, on the individual level, it's virtually impossible to change people's minds about consequential, fraught issues, in a short term context. and getting into technical discussions on controversial issues (they don't even have to be controversial. they can be merely technical to have the following effect), rather than just agreeing with the people around you, is a great way to become socially outcast. how often does one change their own opinions? it took me years of various modes of reflection and divorcement from my community to get to the point where i eschewed the notion of god, and many other aspects of judaism. i could really go on and on and on, because i disagree vehemently with the popular binary paradigms of capitalism vs communism, religious vs secular, and other symptoms of ideological quantization. i do want to briefly mention, though, that i disagree with the common interpretation of the matrix/redpilling. i'm not sure exactly how it relates to the allegory of the cave, or if my interpretation is even possible to infer as canon, but; the redpill is recursive. there is no way to know that you have truly entered into the light. usually at best, people find a new answer that blows their previous understandings out of the water, and they fall in love. they drop their guard and are bluepilled into the new explanation. i think this might be what the matrix' chosen one concept was about-- that a small percentage wouldn't be satisfied with the illusion, and would need the experience to break free to accomplish spiritual satisfaction, even though that redpilling was itself an illusion. for the epistemically concerned, there is no sturdy ground. there is no point where we can, in all realism, be conclusively satisfied with our understanding of the answers. i guess it's the basic epistemic premise of inception-- how can you know that, epistemically speaking, you're not dreaming? you are not graced with the benefit of a totem. it's an uncomfortable realization, and practicing this can be unpleasant and untenable for a variety of reasons. the only reason i can do this whole exercise is because i don't really have friends.
The criticisms you’re giving, while totally valid, seem to be rooted in an idea that this movie is trying to present some sort of a message or trying to teach something. I didn’t see that at all. I thought this movie was wallowing in defeatism. I thought the message of this movie was, “We’re all fucked, here’s some jokes.” Even with Adam McKay likening his art to the art of the Ariana Grande character says the same thing. Her message was also, “Hey everyone, we’re all gonna die and it’s all our fault, here’s a pretty song.”
I really like your all of your analysis. I don’t know if I agree about the concert, it made me think of the live 8 in 2005, all those artist feeling good about them selves but without really accomplishing anything. It kind of reflects what this movie is, although not sure it that was intentional or not
Great analysis! I thoroughly enjoyed the movie as well but the whole thing felt off and counterproductive like you said. I don’t know if it’s possible to make a truly anti-capitalist critique that also has to generate revenue for a studio
Thanks for that Jared. I thought that it felt like the movie and the concert showed that both were just in the same arena and neither were any .better than the other. Enjoyed your analysis very much.
Watch it again in 10 years, Jared. I think, well, I hope you come to it from a slightly different viewpoint and enjoy it a bit more. I don’t see it as a critique on capitalism. I see it as a roast on us, on all of us.
I fell asleep watching it the first time so I rewatched it and it's actually really good. Little tad bit depressing due to our current climate of our world and country here in the United States but all together I give it four stars
Excellent insight. The left and right tend to talk right past each other, instead arguing against each other's strawman caricatures. Add to the fact that so many people get their news from the media outlet that is most likely to agree with their own views. What we get is deadlock, tension, and the complete lack of willingness for either side to have a meaningful conversation on topics such as climate change or COVID.
I swear everything can be labeled as ADHD nowadays. Its silly how medical scapegoating is always preferable to getting to the bottom of a bad habit and correcting it.
I interpreted the movie as an over-the-top caricature of society rather than an incisive satire. Everything in the movie was so over the top to the point that I did catch myself having to suspend my disbelief. It was an enjoyable movie for what it was but I agree that it probably won't age well.
I agree some parts were "over-the-top" but I think a lot of stuff was spot on, like how the media chooses what stories to run based on engagement, not on the importance of the story. I also loved how the tech billionaire character revolted to being called a businessman, insisting he was some sort of grand servant to mankind, I thought that was spot on to how people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezoz see themselves.
That's a funny comment because, as I was watching the movie, I could point to a real life equivalent situation like every time. I follow the DC news a lot and, for a moment, I thought, "is it satire if you're just writing down what's actually happened? Perhaps it's the synthesis of putting all these events from the last 6 years into a 2 hour movie is what makes it satire." Of course, all this barring the actual meteor.
Lukas Tonnerman Hyperbole is often used in satire. I haven’t seen it yet but it seems to be part parody, too, parodying disaster movies as a vehicle for its satire.
It's comforting that a populist narcissist whose hunger for power is so great that they will happily lie to the public about doomsday events if it can help them hold power never could become the US president in real life.
I think a few fan edits could make Don't Look Up! more of a satire film. Rule #1: Edit out the "heartwarming" moments (rework or remove the final dinner scene, make Kate's and Yule's relationship purely sexual, etc.) Rule #2: Remove Dr. Mindy's redemption arc Rule #3: Remove Brie Evantee's deeper dialogue (the French quote, etc.) and emphasis her more brutal superficiality Rule #4: Emphasis Riley Bina's superficiality and lampoon the lyrics to the song she sings at the concert, using cut-scenes, etc. Rule #5: Make the narrative generally more futile from a liberal's perspective, emphasizing the cultural satire in the first half of the film over the later character arcs of the "good guys" I don't know if this would still be a complete film if all these edits were to occur, but I think it would make the film less cringey, particularly in its final act. Also, if there's scenes that were left on the editors floor, I'd like to see them. I would assume Adam McKay had many different takes or even whole scenes that could be reincorporated into the film to make it more satirical as a whole.
Very disagree your Arianna take. It was mocking it. The movie was mocking the absurdity of it all and that we're doomed regardless. Even the "good doctors" were complicit to the degree.
It’s great to see that Diego Ruzzarin has a very different view of the movie. He doesn’t believe in “the middle point”. Would love to hear both of you debate about this.
It's strange that this movie seems to be praised a lot as a film - plot, cinematography, performances, etc. but everyone I've talked to says the same thing as Jared; it's essentially Joanna Lumley lecturing us about climate change while simultaneously having a great time traveling the world to make pretentious travel documentaries. And yet, The Matrix Resurrections is slated for it's qualitative aspects but still clearly holds it's hands up and says 'look at this crap - as if this could ever make any kind of meaningful change'. It just goes to show how much we value movie's appearance over it's substance.
Personally I didn't think the film lectured me. It sort of put a spotlight on the things that have been happening over the past couple of years about the systems at be in a more satirical fashion. I think there is a difference between appearance and execution of a film/presentation. The Matrix Ressurection execution was very poor even for its own standards. But if you're willing to go down the rabbit hole we know the film has substance. While Don't Look Up presentation is good in my opinion and it does have substance. I didn't know it was an allegory for climate change till Jared said and after I watched a couple of interviews. I will say that Don't Look Up inspired me more than the Matrix Resurrection to do something. Matrix Resurrection lacked that punch, agency or beneficial idea about how to confront the capitalist machine or shut down the matrix. Whilst Don't Look Up made me want to live life to the fullest and fight to the end (even if they fail) for my ideals of physically trying to change my world; even if its small.
When the movie is balancing tragedy and comedy it can take one out of their suspension of disbelief. What the movie has done, most importantly, is it has caused folks to think and talk about it’s harrowing themes
The Mark Fisher quote describes this movie perfectly, and the whole climate crisis. Systemically, capitalism mode of production depends on the impossible premise of infinite growth in a finite planet. That and the magical remedy of externalization. This is what will end up killing most of the poor souls that will be around when we are long forgotten. That's my solace: I won't be around for the truly gnarly shit. That said, I agree mostly, this accomplishes nothing of value, save for driving revenue.
I liked the movie. I like how within the first 5 minutes they identify the threat, confirm it's potential for destruction, and run it up the chain of command to the top levels of government. Everything works as it'd supposed to until actual action is required
Good take. Listened to a climate activist and a film reviewer debate this film recently. Film reviewer took similar position to you, ie film is smug and self congratulatory... the climate activist took the view that in 20 years advocating for awareness, this is the first time the topic has broken through to a mass audience and that is heartening... Personally, I think the huge Netflix numbers have little to do with the subject matter or people's growing fears around climate and much more to do with an all star A list cast and a solid comedic scripts that works as a movie. It's just another piece of entertainment to be consumed and forgotten. The studio, production team, actors and Netflix get "climate cred" and cash in, we get a couple more hours of escapism before we drive to McDonald's in our huge SUV to each cheeseburgers.
I agree with most of what you said. I thought the film had an odd pace for a satire. It is awesome to see you back, talking at depth about films. Thank you for sharing your insights. Lots of admiration from Mexico.
It's simple. We're fucked for the next fifty+ years. Don't over think any of that shit in the movie. You can't age poorly when there is negative time left. Everything is currently in a negative feedback loop. It's not political. It's just is. Welcome to the post-information dark ages.
@@anthonymartensen3164 I remember the time I spent the first few stages of grief. I thought things would get better if we just chose the right politicians or followed the right tech-bro billionaires. Unfortunately since that little time, I'm seeing the collapse of our healthcare system, the education system, our government institutions, and our social contacts; and that is only the first three weeks of this year. We still have high pressure heat-domes, polar vortexes, floods, year-round tornado season, year-round fire season, and the introduction of Cat 6 and F-6 Hurricanes and tornadoes to go. I wish I was pessimistic. God I WISH. I'm just being realistic. r/collapse r/nursing r/teachers r/antiwork
If a comet actually does come close, I expect this movie would become popular again. I can imagine, as the comet hurtles towards our doom, critics would be concerned about the movie's divisiveness ...
I agree with your criticism about the movie being a bit elitist ("masses are dumb") and lacking self awareness sometimes. However, as many people pointed out, I also viewed Ariana's concert as satire rather than the filmmakers saying "this is good art and it's useful". To me it's actually the most self aware moment of the movie. It's quite satiric how the first part (and most of) the song is either cookie cutter meaningless lyrics or about Ariana's character reconciling with her boyfriend, which given how dire the situation is, should be something that has lost all importance by then. Then at the end, the way Ariana delivers this preachy message combining blunt language ("listen to the fucking scientists") with that cheesy radio friendly R&B melody, all of that in the context of that larger than life stage setup, it's so funny in how ridiculous it is. Hard for me to read something so intentionally absurd as anything else than satire and as the filmmakers saying (again, a bit elitist): "the 'fake woke' audience attending this show is just as clueless and dumb"
Hey, I watched your previous video with Diego and I noticed a similar train of thought on capitalist critiques. I understand that in this case, holier than thou hollywood messages aren't in great taste. More generally, though, do you think capitalist critiques in film have to be aimed at an overhaul of capitalism to be interesting? I ask more out of interest from a creative standpoint - if it was true, that for example, all that was need to fix a lot of people's problems were new economic policies - is it possible to make a movie interesting if something, relatively mundane, is the message at its core? Also, as a book/podcast recommendation for you - do have a look at Martin Sandbu's the Economics of Belonging and Mark Blyth's rhodes centre podcasts. The former is a book trying to identify a new politics in new economic policies. Mark Blyth is a Brown professor who grew up on a council estate in Dundee, Scotland - he interviews many different academics and is really good at making these academics' ideas more accessible to someone without an academic background.
I think it is pretty obvious that the target of MacKay’s satire is an establishment and economic system that includes both parties, liberals and conservatives. Climate change is certainly a bipartisan issue with bipartisan causes. Likewise the media behaviors the movie criticizes aren’t isolated to one party. Beyond what is evident on the screen, anyone familiar with Sirota’s work knows that he , while overtly progressive, is a severe critic of both parties, the abuses of unrestrained capitalism and the limited worldview permitted by all mainstream news media. Whether the film’s satire succeeds is subjective, but claiming it is primarily aimed at conservatives seems like a projection.
Re the commentary around the 17 minute mark: I don't see an inherent contradiction. You correctly point out a PR-ification of scientific communication, but posit that pointing to people as gullible when they inevitably doubt science is a contradiction as a result. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I don't see why it can't be both. As you said, the contradictions of capitalism exist, I don't think anybody ( or almost anybody on the right) will acknowledge that, or view the problem as a structural problem with capitalism. They might posit that there are bad *individuals* within the system, or even that some aspects of the system could be tweaked, but never that the problem is that the system of capitalism inevitably produces these problems. Additionally, there are huge financial interests in maintaining the fossil fuel industry/ financial sector and the reliance on energy. These interests will invest in thinktanks, media outlets, politicians, etc.... who in turn channel a message of either denial, downplaying, or market based "solutions". Perhaps you might not like the connotation of gullible, but certainly willfully mislead by those with political and economic power. Perhaps this is what you're getting at? I also don't understand your follow up point in relation to the point dropped at the 17 minute mark; that the problem is that Adam McCay can only criticize the system so long as it doesn't threaten the system. I agree that it's a big problem, but you're also not going to be able to convince the segment of the population whose ideological presupposition is that the system is fine and ought not be changed/ ought be returned to an equally if not more unsustainable past. I don't see how you can reconcile that the system critique absent a call for radical change is a problem, while also pushing for greater compromise with those whose ideological goal is to maintain the system/ return to a status quo ante.
I wanted to write exactly this but then I saw your comment. You said it very well. I second that. Another interesting thing that came to my mind was the demographic of the gullible/idiots and how they are very different in different countries. Idiots are everywhere but in some places they are just that - idiots who are marginalized and don't really affect things in the end regardless of their idiocy whereas in other places like USA as Jarrod mentioned they are a genuine demographic who are mainstream and affect things and hence a need to bring everyone on the same page as Jarrod mentioned in the end. But in societies of the first kind, there is no such need.
Agreed. How do you speak reasonably to people stuck on their own fantasy worlds that believe capitalism is the greatest thing ever and have heard it their whole lives. Also people who’s actions are determined by their religion? I don’t think there’s ever going to be a reasoning with them and honestly, I don’t know how it’s possible to bring anyone together.
this movie stirred me into action and outrage, part of good political satire is that it checks all boxes, even entertainment, i feel like this guy is just trying to get views by criticizing something right wingers dont like
As a European watching this movie I never felt like there was a political message about the left of the right being dumb and gullible. I only felt like it was a criticism on our daily lives and unableness to make good decisions for ourselves without contemplating how it affects our image ae were trying to trick the world into, our facade became more important that our actual lives. And a second message was how gullible we are all in the face of people with implied political power(the president) media power (the news network) or financial power (tech industry). At one point in the movie Leo confronts the President and the Steven Jobs character and he brings up how the scientific community has been silenced by the 3 powers because their messages weren't to the 3 power's narrative. It is the betrayal of science and discussion that is responsible for fate of humanity and the breakdown of society.
You should do a review and Analysis with Diego Ruzzarin, you two had an appealing energy when you were sharing ideas about the main premise and the philosophical interpretation of Matrix, I love learning from other perspectives.
I came here the following day after I watched wisecast's talk about the movie. This review is way deeper, way better. Less focused on covertly feeling offended and outraged by a hearnest depiction of human nature and the beyond-truth era we are living in.
I viewed the Ariana Grande concert as a demonstration of progressive media being ineffective virtue signaling, rather than making any actual change. The world still ends after all so I’m not sure I agree that the movie is that self-congratulating.
Thank you, that's exactly what I got out of the scene
doesnt matter what you guys get out of it it's a documentary
That's how I saw it too. Its was pretty hilarious. Lets have a concert while a life-ending meteor is hurtling right at us (and sing about it!)
the movie make everything in extremes to look like idiots, everyone who is not in extremes will find it very funny.
Thank you, yes!
One thing that didn't get mentioned here that was particularly effective for me was that in the post-credit scene when the ship that was supposed to save humanity arrives at our new planet, the only people on it are rich old people who are too old to reproduce.
And they get eaten by aliens. That's hinted at in the prior scene.
I thought the same thing
I happen to disagree about Ariana's concert bit, the movie was self aware when it showed the big concert was ultimately useless, that "raising awareness" was not enough at that point and that it was mostly a self serving exercise. It reminded me of the Live Earth concerts, that while entertaining did little too address the underlying issues.
This is a great discussion, keep the great ideas coming Jared!
totally agree!
I disagree that the concert is supposed to be "good" or "productive" art. I saw this also as satire of all these concerts like Live Aid or whatever, which are basically just virtue signaling but don't actually do shit for the cause, it is just a pat on the back for the pop culture stars. It was shown to be as impotent as it really is.
Yeah totally agree with this. I didn't see the concert as being sincere just seemed like the other side of people cashing in on the comet
@@ZachBobBob I mean, they may have *believed* they were being sincere, but it was sloganeering and spectacle, not struggle so it was hollow and impotent. I mean, basically every effort in the movie felt either hollow and impotent or insincere and opportunistic. To me the film just showed how irreformable the system is. No one depicted ever really tries to either circumvent or take down the system, and it all feels like a wasted effort when the characters would have been better off with a radical approach instead of a reformist one. Something more confrontational. The concert they do isn't confrontational, it poses no threat to anyone in power or any of the dominant structures in the least.
Yeah it’s very obvious a critique It’s mocking the event. 30 days left and they are having a concert Listen to the lyrics
It’s also a commentary on the nature of people. They can’t get people to care without having a celebrity telling them. It’s ridiculous, and yet it works.
@@Thedarkknight2244 And the way they are cheering for the pop stars when Jen & Leo introduce them, it really makes you think they care more about the celebrities than the cause even at the concert itself.
As a psychiatrist…I would agree with you when discussing FOR PROFIT mental healthcare providers. Even more so the “wellness” industry peddling bandaids for the worried well.
Those of us who are treating actual bipolarity, psychosis, and severe depression, etc. as well as trying to help our communities and even countries change to indeed fix the systems that worsen EVERYONE’s mental health would probably take great offense to the broad brush used on our professions. I don’t provide McMindfulness bandaids. I also take a 50% paycut compared to my “for cash” compatriots. This is what pushing back on the capitalist drivers in USA medicine looks like.
Thank you for putting people above profit.
Always love your commentary! No loyalty to a stupid political party, just truth seeking and analyzing what the artist has to say. Your comments always make me question my own beliefs, political and philosophical. You're the best Jared
Jared is the best. Im so happy he started his own channel.
Protect this man at all costs ;-)
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but what criteria must a movie satisfy in order to be a truly effective criticism of the system? Isn't any movie that accomplishes this simply going to give the viewers the illusory feeling of "doing something" while remaining placated?
Yeah like V for Vendetta only blew up a fascist parliament in the film, it couldn't literally shake the foundation of real world governments lol
Art that changes things is art that inspires people to change their lifestyle, not a lecture everyone's already heard.
Network (1976) at least goes “all the way up the chain” in criticizing “corporate cosmology”
@@JaredBauer Be that as it may, does it not still sell people a sense of righteous outrage while continuing to line the pockets of studio executives?
I think the other commenter above, Jason Sealy, has a good point that perhaps the medium of filmmaking will always fall short when judged on the basis of being truly revolutionary. The criticism that "the movie wasn't transgressive enough" will forever remain true.
@@JaredBauer Also, are you aware David Sirota co-wrote that film and who David Sirota is? You can say what you will about him, but Hollywood virtue-signalling definitely fails to describe his politics.
I'm so happy you're doing your own thing after wisecrack. This new format is everything that I loved about your time over there just 100 times better. Glad you're staying healthy and I'll talk to you soon. Peace ✌️
Not sure I fully agree here. I think the title itself (Don't Look Up) says it all. The fact that things had gotten so bad in the film to the point where you didn't even need science anymore to prove that something was wrong... you could simply LOOK UP and see the problem for yourself... and yet ppl still refused to do that... I think that was the larger message; the harm that stubborn or fearful way of thinking can bring to the world. Does the movie portray science in a more altruistic & positive light? Sure. Does that imply Adam McKay's biases towards science-based takes over more fundamentalist/conservative view points? Absolutely. But ultimately science failed to solve anything for the world and the main characters ended up praying, despite being non-believers. I don't think a liberal can get anymore open-minded or balanced than that lol.
And just because the movie seemed contradictory in its executed messaging doesn't preclude it from having something productive or deep to say about humanity & society. SOMEONE will gleam something from this movie that they hadn't thought about before, something that challenges their world view however slight. And I'd wager it'll stay longer with them than whatever they could take away from Matrix Resurrections.
It all comes down to a saying I heard from my teacher a long time a go. "A person is smart, people are stupid". That has always stuck with me. People as a collective are generally stupid.
Same thing is said in Men In Black
It can go the other way too, eg we needed the collective efforts of scientists to develop the atomic bomb. As a group, humans are capable of both unimaginable destruction and groundbreaking advancements at the same time.
Developing the bomb was one of the stupidest things we've ever done.
Legit I would rather a million allied soldiers were made casualties taking Japan on the ground. A short term convenience may well have ensured that the next war will be an apocalypse.
@Anthony Gordon Was your teacher, by any chance, called Margaret Thatcher? Ronald Reagan, perhaps? ;)
The anesthesiologist was a political appointee not an astronomer.
I think Don't Look Up is an existential film to me. It reminded me more of films like Arrival and kinda The Day the Earth Stood Still. Where humanities inability to get the fact straight, ignore our personal interest, complacency and us being the Last Man (nietzsche) are a hindrance to facing threats that are possible to wiping us out.
Arrival notes that even though the aliens are peaceful we are too quick to judge and tribalistic therefore because we lack poise we are more damaging to ourselves.
Don't look up reminds me of how our politicians or people in power are the most inept individuals ever and that not even the world ending wouldn't stop them from being selfish cunts. The pandemic is the perfect example of this.
Don't look up kinda makes me want to live as if the world is ending or reminds me that my life is finite and I shouldn't live in death denial and have comfort. I must go and make something for myself.
Plus the music in this film slapsss so fucking hard it's crazy.
I do appreciate your point though since I never saw it how you did. I do love this film though
A bit of the story was written by David Sirota A journalist who is known very well in left wing circles. So a lot of the critique of capitalism in the movie probably come directly from him.
Great review. At first I thought you were gonna jump on the Hollywood liberal bandwagon but you really came through with a pretty unbiased review. It’s honestly refreshing.
The concert scene to me felt like another issue of the media landscape. It didn't feel like it was saying the concert was "good" or "The solution we need" because the comet still hits. Maybe I'm looking at it from a different perspective but I always think of the Kurt Vonnegut quote: “During the Vietnam War, every respectable artist in this country was against the war. It was like a laser beam. We were all aimed in the same direction. The power of this weapon turns out to be that of a custard pie dropped from a stepladder six feet high.” It doesn't matter that everyone "did the right thing" or "believed in a better solution", the comet is still coming, and no amount of concerts or charity will fix that.
Have a like for quoting Mr. Vonnegut.
The South Park fan in me can only think of "OH NOT A FIN-RIN" at every mention of Finland
I have to say, I really think you missed the thread towards the end of the analysis. The Ariana Grande concert wasn't, "oh this is good, progressive art." I read it as them saying that this is also not working, because, which you for some reason left out of the review, the comet does come and destroy everyone in the end. The point is that if we lack the capacity to just be able to say things to each other and be able to hear them, then this is how we are all going to die. With a bunch of Hollywood lefties dancing about it to Ariana Grande and a bunch of righties being manipulated into not believing the problem is even real. If anything, this film is utterly fatalistic. None of what we have right now can save us, and we are all probably going to die. So in that sense, yes it's not productive. But for someone like me, who is also utterly fatalistic about our capacity to prevent climate change and biodiversity loss from killing most of us off, it was incredibly cathartic. I would recommend taking a look at how climate scientists are reacting to the film, because they seem to fucking love it. It perfectly exemplifies the frustration they've been feeling for decades. The timeline is obviously very different, but most of them are sitting at that dinner table, waiting for the end to come. I'm perfectly happy to hear other perspectives, and I'm always interested to hear your take, but I really do think you missed the thread in a big way here.
I agree and am glad climate scientists like it. It was really depressing to me and I couldn’t look past all the similarities to reality to find much humor.
I think his criticism is more that climate scientists aren't the ones that we need to like it. It doesn't matter whether climate scientists like it because they are not the people whose minds and actions must be changed. Its kind of a utilitarian reading, sure, but I don't think it denies your reading and its usefulness therein. (e.g. it is cathartic)
@@MarkHWillson But then it beg the question what to do? Say you are a actor with a gazillion fame recognition and you say sponsor a film that shows the idiocy of todays (clickbait) culture, is the message wrong just because some did that had made money based on said culture? Sure the cynical in me agrees that most are just virtue signalling, but DiCaprio for example has been consistently trying to give those scientist a voice no one will listen OTHERWISE. As some one who is active in creating cultural content on a local (and thus much smaller scale) I can tell how frustrating it is to get people that need it the most to come to these things. Do you cheapen it by adding pop trash to appeal the masses or do you stay "real" but then no one see it?
I think its better to have some Hollywood celebs make some money and virtue signal then do nothing at all. Sure its not the way I would like it, but unless some one suddenly finds a magic pill that convinces people to watch stuff they dont already like/agree then we're kinda stuck trying to bait people to watch celebrities make a point about society. If it only changes the mind or inspires ONE person, the snowball effect of that is worth it. Change is very difficult and slow unless you impose it on people, and I think we dont really want that.
@@Ketraar Thanks for the thoughtful response. Its a good point - I think the main thing would be: don't be a hypocrite, as that would undermine your message. If you have made money off of clickbait culture and then criticize it, is that hypocrisy or is it an attempt to point out the flaws of the system to those trapped within it? I actually don't know. It basically boils down to an age-old argument about whether meaningful change can/should be done "from the inside" or via "revolution". I read somewhere a while ago a post about DiCaprio specifically and the ways in which he is hypocritical about his environmental stuff. The gist of the argument is that he uses waaaay more resources than necessary for one individual - private jets and other such extravagances. Idk if you can comment on that but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. I don't know the answer but hey at least we are talking about it! :D
@@MarkHWillson Yes I agree, I too dont like hypocrisy and agree everyone should be called out on it (until they change that is, dont believe in eternal damnation). This is a catch 22 case, you need to have a big enough following for people to listen to you, but you only gain said following by adhering to the rules of the culture. Say Greta Thunberg for example, she tried to start a revolution, by doing a protest in her school and then lead to her becoming a global activist being blamed for seeking the attention of the media. Then the whole conversation shifts to discuss the merits of teh protest, what she should have done differently or said differently and no one really LISTENS to what she is saying (well some obviously do, but many more dont really). And here we are again, at the start.
Revolutions are not soft and gradual, they hurt because it means some people will have to adjust and more often then not that adjustment comes with pain and loss. You cannot expect a deep social or cultural change where everyone is better off, that's naïve. Especially social changes mean that some one better off will have to give up on at least a portion of their comfort, there is no way around that and that is why non violent change is practically impossible. Doesn't mean we should stop trying, but maybe we need to focus our attention more on what matters and maybe it requires us to lose some portion of our "purity" to get the message out, aka allowing rich hypocrites to tell us our society is borked and needs fixing.
First of all, from one immigrant to this beautiful nation to another: Tervetuloa Suomi. I think you read that "Arianna concert" scene slightly wrong. It was clearly poking fun at the liberal side of media and at the film itself. My own interpretation of the film's main theme goes beyond criticism of capitalism (even though the influence of Capitalist Realism is palpable) and it goes deeper to our inability to take action as a society because we are paralyzed by interests that go beyond human necessity. Be it corporate interest, media circus, partisan ideology or straight up nihilism, we seem unable to reach a concensus in how to deal with the biggest threats to our civilization in this post-truth world of ours. Far from a subtle masterpiece, this is an obvious and blunt film but the urgency of the message makes it proper.
I see a lot of comments about the "hypocrisy" of criticizing capitalism while making a profit, but what I don't understand is why you need to equate things like "Corporate lobbying" with "free markets". You can be critical of the excess of Capitalism without being a Communist. That's exactly the type of nuanced conversations that the film laments that we are unable to have.
Thanks fro a very thoughtful and open minded crit. My take on the Ariadne Grandi was slightly different. I think it was set up to look tacky and I’m sure I remember Jennifer Lawrence’s character saying something like - look at them, they’ve only come to hear her sing.
I appreciated this analysis, but I don’t necessarily think movies being made by studios or actors makes its criticisms inherently invalid. I also don’t think something that’s a reflection of our reality needs to offer a solution, or how that wouldn’t come off as much MORE preachy. The way we responded to the pandemic made it pretty clear that this is how we’ll be reacting to threats from now on; I think it’s helpful to find the humor at this reality when we can…
I don’t think it points at conservatives too much. Making the president a woman makes the President embody Trump and Clinton. People on both size have their issues with authority despite evidence being right in front of them. People in charge are only concerned with their own long term careers. The people on the ground become divided because their struggling to grapple with something so horrifying (denial, panic, despair, etc. much like the stages of grief)
Been going through my own mental conundrums, and many of my allys have advised seeking medication in response, which has frustrated me given how little a chance that has of actually improving how content I am. Out of many takes seen, this film's pleased me.
Thanks for the review. I'm excited to see you and Diego play Elden Ring! Diego seems like a great guy.
I’m in agreement with a lot of commenters who say they read the concert as being ironic to a degree. It’s intercut with the presidents rally, two scenes that look identical to each other showing just how similar these displays are. At that point, the comet becomes a culture war issue. You either acknowledge the comet is coming or you don’t. Neither side offers an alternative, thus reacting the same way to the situation, and I think McKay knows that. Sure, some of the lines in the song are annoyingly liberal and self-serving, but I think that was intentional to an extent. You can’t say you haven’t heard those same lyrics said out loud over the past year or two.
Edit: I wanted to come back and agree that the film doesn’t necessarily offer an alternative to the system in which we live and I can understand why that would be irksome and come off as self-aggrandizing, but it did what I wanted to do and that’s laugh at the people who are running us into the ground, celebrities included. For me it’s kind of funny on a meta level as well, in that regard.
Beyond climate change, beyond capitalism ... our avoidance of death itself (by any means) and our refusal to accept that there is no alternative to it.
I feel like this movie didn't really work for me post-covid. We've just lived through 2 years of politicians putting big-business over public health. If the purpose of satire is to hold a mirror up to society, this film doesn't expose anything that hasn't been made abundantly clear during the pandemic.
I've heard this movie compared a lot to John Oliver's Last Week Tonight, but at least that show generally offers solutions to the problems it points out. This movie just points out flaws we all know about and then says there's nothing we can do about it.
Not big businesses, businesses in general. This includes family businesses which were the most affected by the restrictive measures that you defend, don't forget that. It's not big businesses vs public health. It's the ability to make a living vs the threat of a low mortality virus.
@@ak-naton7731 5.48 Million deaths in 2 years disagree with that "low mortality virus". Millions more than the usual dying rate by other diseases and accidents. Think about that.
@@chikitronrx0 "usual dying rate": excluding car accidents, cancer, heart attack, etc...
Oliver didn't propose solutions during Trump and often used the chaos he caused to sell his show. Its actually kind of morbid that so many people benefited from the outrage Trump caused. Now all his videos are less interesting because there's no reason to panic daily.
Well I think it points out flaws many people actually DON'T know about and how that needlessly complicates an otherwise simple to understand solution and turns it into a complete cluster%#!k. And then the solution the film offers is one of awareness (to the viewers) and how that might hopefully bring about a change in ourselves in ways we didn't realize we needed should another global threat arise that requires all of us to work together.
Jared Bauer im so happy you still active for us
Thanks for the upload! Please keep the videos coming, I really appreciate and enjoy them mate
Hey Jared, awesome analysis and critique of this film - can't wait to see your Elden ring footage
I was about to ask why I don't see u on wisecrack any more and then I saw u have a 2 hour video on that topic, so I'll have to watch that. Glad this popped up in my feed, good to hear u break shit down again
I like how the song sums it up: subtlety doesn't work.
It even stars Jennifer Lawrence from "mother!" which was, according to the writer/director, about climate change. But nobody got it.
I thought it was just a shitty interpretation of the Bible? Climate????
@@Hack_The_Planet_ it was both. Lawrence and Bardem’s characters represent Mother Earth and God, respectively & the characters that visit the house are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, followed by regular people burning the house down ie destroying earth
I mean, I got "Mother!", but still hated it. You can do both.
the chris evan scene hit me hard as a satire to those 'privileged moderate'.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.' ~RIP Desmond Tutu.~
I still remember the promotion of 'Mother' where Jennifer Lawrence traveled around in a private jet lecturing the interviewers on how we needed to take better care of our earth.
Immanuel Kant said that the biggest sin one could commit was making an exception for yourself - What is an impossible ask of us not to do (or at least for most of us). It would however be nice with a more introspective approach just once in a while.
We are all to blame for this mess - but not equally. What can I/we do to make the world a slightly better place. If everybody replicated these actions, would they suffice.
“A celebrity did something hypothetical, therefore I won’t do anything about climate change”
@@ianj705 You apparently didn't read the last lines. Try again friend.
i mean we cant change shit. even if we adapt a emission free lifestyle, its not on us. its on the powerfull and wealthy to change their lifestyles, on the big companys to stop usind plastic and chenicals and so on. so what i am saying is there cant be climate justice with capitalism
@@maschae4500 Maybe so, but what is your precisely outlined alternate to Capitalism?
@@117Industries yeah maybe we start to ban people from being billionaires and multi millionaires as a first step
it's hard for me to comment on it because of how it relates to so many aspects fundamental to human nature and social organization. one sample aspect i think is particularly useful is how behaviors on the level of the joe schmo trickle upwards to the most powerful. for example, the wisecracked video on attack on titan/naziism, and the principle that people can be united through common hatred: my ex-boss literally said that, explicitly, to me!!! at lunch she was asking me which clients i hate, and said that shared hatred is a good way to bond. and these are these ubiquitous behaviors-- the air that we breathe, socially speaking-- that are still pernicious, but seen as relatively inconsequential at the level of the community. but *all* communities consist of such behaviors. and consider that in politics, there is no clear boundary, if any, between the roles of upper class socialization and legislation. (is it relevant that my ex-boss is chummy with the ex-mayor?) the rich and powerful are bound by the fetters of their social context, just as we all are-- perhaps even moreso than the average person, given that their success in business, and by extension, life in general, is dependent on their lubricated relationships with others in their echelon. in general, on the individual level, it's virtually impossible to change people's minds about consequential, fraught issues, in a short term context. and getting into technical discussions on controversial issues (they don't even have to be controversial. they can be merely technical to have the following effect), rather than just agreeing with the people around you, is a great way to become socially outcast. how often does one change their own opinions? it took me years of various modes of reflection and divorcement from my community to get to the point where i eschewed the notion of god, and many other aspects of judaism.
i could really go on and on and on, because i disagree vehemently with the popular binary paradigms of capitalism vs communism, religious vs secular, and other symptoms of ideological quantization. i do want to briefly mention, though, that i disagree with the common interpretation of the matrix/redpilling. i'm not sure exactly how it relates to the allegory of the cave, or if my interpretation is even possible to infer as canon, but;
the redpill is recursive. there is no way to know that you have truly entered into the light. usually at best, people find a new answer that blows their previous understandings out of the water, and they fall in love. they drop their guard and are bluepilled into the new explanation. i think this might be what the matrix' chosen one concept was about-- that a small percentage wouldn't be satisfied with the illusion, and would need the experience to break free to accomplish spiritual satisfaction, even though that redpilling was itself an illusion. for the epistemically concerned, there is no sturdy ground. there is no point where we can, in all realism, be conclusively satisfied with our understanding of the answers. i guess it's the basic epistemic premise of inception-- how can you know that, epistemically speaking, you're not dreaming? you are not graced with the benefit of a totem. it's an uncomfortable realization, and practicing this can be unpleasant and untenable for a variety of reasons. the only reason i can do this whole exercise is because i don't really have friends.
The criticisms you’re giving, while totally valid, seem to be rooted in an idea that this movie is trying to present some sort of a message or trying to teach something. I didn’t see that at all. I thought this movie was wallowing in defeatism. I thought the message of this movie was, “We’re all fucked, here’s some jokes.” Even with Adam McKay likening his art to the art of the Ariana Grande character says the same thing. Her message was also, “Hey everyone, we’re all gonna die and it’s all our fault, here’s a pretty song.”
A great analysis of the film. I love your photo wall; my question whose is the woman in the photo in the middle row bottom left.
I really like your all of your analysis. I don’t know if I agree about the concert, it made me think of the live 8 in 2005, all those artist feeling good about them selves but without really accomplishing anything. It kind of reflects what this movie is, although not sure it that was intentional or not
thanks for the video! It's nice to really see your personality shine through on this channel:)
love your photos. my 3 favorites are probably kubrick, carlin, and trey/matt
Every time I hear you say "peace" I immediately think you're ending a wisecrack video. Thanks for still making all this content
Toxic positivity. Thank you for giving language to something that has been driving mad for decades now.
Great analysis! I thoroughly enjoyed the movie as well but the whole thing felt off and counterproductive like you said. I don’t know if it’s possible to make a truly anti-capitalist critique that also has to generate revenue for a studio
Awesome video!! Congrats!! 👏🏽
Thanks for that Jared. I thought that it felt like the movie and the concert showed that both were just in the same arena and neither were any .better than the other. Enjoyed your analysis very much.
Why had no one told me you were still active on YT, man. It's gonna be great weekend watching your videos
Watch it again in 10 years, Jared. I think, well, I hope you come to it from a slightly different viewpoint and enjoy it a bit more. I don’t see it as a critique on capitalism. I see it as a roast on us, on all of us.
It is also a critique on Capitalism. We are Capitalism in fact.
I fell asleep watching it the first time so I rewatched it and it's actually really good. Little tad bit depressing due to our current climate of our world and country here in the United States but all together I give it four stars
Excellent insight. The left and right tend to talk right past each other, instead arguing against each other's strawman caricatures. Add to the fact that so many people get their news from the media outlet that is most likely to agree with their own views. What we get is deadlock, tension, and the complete lack of willingness for either side to have a meaningful conversation on topics such as climate change or COVID.
i mean one side just literally does not believe in climate change and sometimes covid. how do you speak with them about those topics?
I swear everything can be labeled as ADHD nowadays. Its silly how medical scapegoating is always preferable to getting to the bottom of a bad habit and correcting it.
I interpreted the movie as an over-the-top caricature of society rather than an incisive satire. Everything in the movie was so over the top to the point that I did catch myself having to suspend my disbelief. It was an enjoyable movie for what it was but I agree that it probably won't age well.
I agree some parts were "over-the-top" but I think a lot of stuff was spot on, like how the media chooses what stories to run based on engagement, not on the importance of the story. I also loved how the tech billionaire character revolted to being called a businessman, insisting he was some sort of grand servant to mankind, I thought that was spot on to how people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezoz see themselves.
That's a funny comment because, as I was watching the movie, I could point to a real life equivalent situation like every time. I follow the DC news a lot and, for a moment, I thought, "is it satire if you're just writing down what's actually happened? Perhaps it's the synthesis of putting all these events from the last 6 years into a 2 hour movie is what makes it satire." Of course, all this barring the actual meteor.
that movie was spot on how the media is. Obviously some scenes were over the top simply to get the message across and of course for entertainment.
Lukas Tonnerman Hyperbole is often used in satire. I haven’t seen it yet but it seems to be part parody, too, parodying disaster movies as a vehicle for its satire.
It's comforting that a populist narcissist whose hunger for power is so great that they will happily lie to the public about doomsday events if it can help them hold power never could become the US president in real life.
I think a few fan edits could make Don't Look Up! more of a satire film.
Rule #1: Edit out the "heartwarming" moments (rework or remove the final dinner scene, make Kate's and Yule's relationship purely sexual, etc.)
Rule #2: Remove Dr. Mindy's redemption arc
Rule #3: Remove Brie Evantee's deeper dialogue (the French quote, etc.) and emphasis her more brutal superficiality
Rule #4: Emphasis Riley Bina's superficiality and lampoon the lyrics to the song she sings at the concert, using cut-scenes, etc.
Rule #5: Make the narrative generally more futile from a liberal's perspective, emphasizing the cultural satire in the first half of the film over the later character arcs of the "good guys"
I don't know if this would still be a complete film if all these edits were to occur, but I think it would make the film less cringey, particularly in its final act.
Also, if there's scenes that were left on the editors floor, I'd like to see them. I would assume Adam McKay had many different takes or even whole scenes that could be reincorporated into the film to make it more satirical as a whole.
Love the channel Jared, can you upload these videos on a podcast format? I use Spotify while I do my deliveries. Take care
use Vance if on android, tough luck if on iphone
Jared. Fix your Beethoven frame; it's crooked!
Agreed that the bipolar comment was the best moment of criticism in the film.
Also this might be mean but was there any difference between Ariana Grande in the film and what she's actually like? Lol.
Loving all your content!
Love your hair dude!
Very disagree your Arianna take. It was mocking it. The movie was mocking the absurdity of it all and that we're doomed regardless.
Even the "good doctors" were complicit to the degree.
I’d love to one day see you review the Borat sequel
The only way we can change the system is by commenting for the RUclips Algo ;)
It’s great to see that Diego Ruzzarin has a very different view of the movie. He doesn’t believe in “the middle point”.
Would love to hear both of you debate about this.
So the main issues is how both political parties didn't get along? Where have you be....oh that's right not in the US anymore.
It's strange that this movie seems to be praised a lot as a film - plot, cinematography, performances, etc. but everyone I've talked to says the same thing as Jared; it's essentially Joanna Lumley lecturing us about climate change while simultaneously having a great time traveling the world to make pretentious travel documentaries. And yet, The Matrix Resurrections is slated for it's qualitative aspects but still clearly holds it's hands up and says 'look at this crap - as if this could ever make any kind of meaningful change'. It just goes to show how much we value movie's appearance over it's substance.
Personally I didn't think the film lectured me. It sort of put a spotlight on the things that have been happening over the past couple of years about the systems at be in a more satirical fashion.
I think there is a difference between appearance and execution of a film/presentation. The Matrix Ressurection execution was very poor even for its own standards. But if you're willing to go down the rabbit hole we know the film has substance. While Don't Look Up presentation is good in my opinion and it does have substance.
I didn't know it was an allegory for climate change till Jared said and after I watched a couple of interviews.
I will say that Don't Look Up inspired me more than the Matrix Resurrection to do something. Matrix Resurrection lacked that punch, agency or beneficial idea about how to confront the capitalist machine or shut down the matrix. Whilst Don't Look Up made me want to live life to the fullest and fight to the end (even if they fail) for my ideals of physically trying to change my world; even if its small.
I'd say it's in the genre of Idiocracy, but I'd say it's way better than Idiocracy.
see I thought the Chris Evens movie wasn't contrasting the Ariana Concert but complimenting it. showing they are the same. but I'm probably wrong
sorry I just read the other comments
When the movie is balancing tragedy and comedy it can take one out of their suspension of disbelief. What the movie has done, most importantly, is it has caused folks to think and talk about it’s harrowing themes
The Mark Fisher quote describes this movie perfectly, and the whole climate crisis. Systemically, capitalism mode of production depends on the impossible premise of infinite growth in a finite planet. That and the magical remedy of externalization. This is what will end up killing most of the poor souls that will be around when we are long forgotten. That's my solace: I won't be around for the truly gnarly shit.
That said, I agree mostly, this accomplishes nothing of value, save for driving revenue.
Why I won’t bring kids into this world.
I liked the movie. I like how within the first 5 minutes they identify the threat, confirm it's potential for destruction, and run it up the chain of command to the top levels of government. Everything works as it'd supposed to until actual action is required
Beautiful! Just beautiful!
Good take. Listened to a climate activist and a film reviewer debate this film recently. Film reviewer took similar position to you, ie film is smug and self congratulatory... the climate activist took the view that in 20 years advocating for awareness, this is the first time the topic has broken through to a mass audience and that is heartening...
Personally, I think the huge Netflix numbers have little to do with the subject matter or people's growing fears around climate and much more to do with an all star A list cast and a solid comedic scripts that works as a movie. It's just another piece of entertainment to be consumed and forgotten. The studio, production team, actors and Netflix get "climate cred" and cash in, we get a couple more hours of escapism before we drive to McDonald's in our huge SUV to each cheeseburgers.
The concert symbolizes how it takes a celebrity to get people to listen. A scientist can't just come out and say the problem and get us to mobilize.
I like how there's a picture of Charlie Chapman next to Mike Jones.
I think you are wrong about this movie, watch it again.
so did he break down and leave wisecrack or was he fired? they've kind of gone downhill afterwards, hope ur mental health is better J
I agree with most of what you said. I thought the film had an odd pace for a satire. It is awesome to see you back, talking at depth about films. Thank you for sharing your insights. Lots of admiration from Mexico.
It's simple. We're fucked for the next fifty+ years. Don't over think any of that shit in the movie. You can't age poorly when there is negative time left. Everything is currently in a negative feedback loop. It's not political. It's just is. Welcome to the post-information dark ages.
I choose to not be so pessimistic.
@@anthonymartensen3164 I remember the time I spent the first few stages of grief. I thought things would get better if we just chose the right politicians or followed the right tech-bro billionaires. Unfortunately since that little time, I'm seeing the collapse of our healthcare system, the education system, our government institutions, and our social contacts; and that is only the first three weeks of this year. We still have high pressure heat-domes, polar vortexes, floods, year-round tornado season, year-round fire season, and the introduction of Cat 6 and F-6 Hurricanes and tornadoes to go. I wish I was pessimistic. God I WISH. I'm just being realistic. r/collapse r/nursing r/teachers r/antiwork
@@NobleXenon54 can't give up.
Hope you are doing well, Jared
There are 2 types of people, those who liked don't look up and those who the movie is calling out
happy new year jared, would love to see another tier video from you and austin on actresses, meryl streep is obviously S tier
If a comet actually does come close, I expect this movie would become popular again. I can imagine, as the comet hurtles towards our doom, critics would be concerned about the movie's divisiveness ...
I agree with your criticism about the movie being a bit elitist ("masses are dumb") and lacking self awareness sometimes. However, as many people pointed out, I also viewed Ariana's concert as satire rather than the filmmakers saying "this is good art and it's useful". To me it's actually the most self aware moment of the movie. It's quite satiric how the first part (and most of) the song is either cookie cutter meaningless lyrics or about Ariana's character reconciling with her boyfriend, which given how dire the situation is, should be something that has lost all importance by then. Then at the end, the way Ariana delivers this preachy message combining blunt language ("listen to the fucking scientists") with that cheesy radio friendly R&B melody, all of that in the context of that larger than life stage setup, it's so funny in how ridiculous it is. Hard for me to read something so intentionally absurd as anything else than satire and as the filmmakers saying (again, a bit elitist): "the 'fake woke' audience attending this show is just as clueless and dumb"
Glad your back Jared! Happy new year
I was caught off guard to see Jean-Paul Sartre and Mike Jones on the same wall 🤯😂
is beethoven hanging at an angle for a reason? i mean i'd get it. it'd show a love for detail. but did you do that on purpose?
Hey, I watched your previous video with Diego and I noticed a similar train of thought on capitalist critiques.
I understand that in this case, holier than thou hollywood messages aren't in great taste.
More generally, though, do you think capitalist critiques in film have to be aimed at an overhaul of capitalism to be interesting? I ask more out of interest from a creative standpoint - if it was true, that for example, all that was need to fix a lot of people's problems were new economic policies - is it possible to make a movie interesting if something, relatively mundane, is the message at its core?
Also, as a book/podcast recommendation for you - do have a look at Martin Sandbu's the Economics of Belonging and Mark Blyth's rhodes centre podcasts. The former is a book trying to identify a new politics in new economic policies.
Mark Blyth is a Brown professor who grew up on a council estate in Dundee, Scotland - he interviews many different academics and is really good at making these academics' ideas more accessible to someone without an academic background.
I think it is pretty obvious that the target of MacKay’s satire is an establishment and economic system that includes both parties, liberals and conservatives. Climate change is certainly a bipartisan issue with bipartisan causes. Likewise the media behaviors the movie criticizes aren’t isolated to one party. Beyond what is evident on the screen, anyone familiar with Sirota’s work knows that he , while overtly progressive, is a severe critic of both parties, the abuses of unrestrained capitalism and the limited worldview permitted by all mainstream news media. Whether the film’s satire succeeds is subjective, but claiming it is primarily aimed at conservatives seems like a projection.
straight facts
Who’s saying it’s primarily aimed at conservatives. Sincerely Confused.
@@MrArtificialbrain the mf who made the video?
@@dirt420 time stamp?
@@MrArtificialbrain 0:00
Re the commentary around the 17 minute mark:
I don't see an inherent contradiction. You correctly point out a PR-ification of scientific communication, but posit that pointing to people as gullible when they inevitably doubt science is a contradiction as a result. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I don't see why it can't be both.
As you said, the contradictions of capitalism exist, I don't think anybody ( or almost anybody on the right) will acknowledge that, or view the problem as a structural problem with capitalism. They might posit that there are bad *individuals* within the system, or even that some aspects of the system could be tweaked, but never that the problem is that the system of capitalism inevitably produces these problems.
Additionally, there are huge financial interests in maintaining the fossil fuel industry/ financial sector and the reliance on energy. These interests will invest in thinktanks, media outlets, politicians, etc.... who in turn channel a message of either denial, downplaying, or market based "solutions". Perhaps you might not like the connotation of gullible, but certainly willfully mislead by those with political and economic power. Perhaps this is what you're getting at?
I also don't understand your follow up point in relation to the point dropped at the 17 minute mark; that the problem is that Adam McCay can only criticize the system so long as it doesn't threaten the system. I agree that it's a big problem, but you're also not going to be able to convince the segment of the population whose ideological presupposition is that the system is fine and ought not be changed/ ought be returned to an equally if not more unsustainable past. I don't see how you can reconcile that the system critique absent a call for radical change is a problem, while also pushing for greater compromise with those whose ideological goal is to maintain the system/ return to a status quo ante.
I wanted to write exactly this but then I saw your comment. You said it very well. I second that.
Another interesting thing that came to my mind was the demographic of the gullible/idiots and how they are very different in different countries. Idiots are everywhere but in some places they are just that - idiots who are marginalized and don't really affect things in the end regardless of their idiocy whereas in other places like USA as Jarrod mentioned they are a genuine demographic who are mainstream and affect things and hence a need to bring everyone on the same page as Jarrod mentioned in the end. But in societies of the first kind, there is no such need.
Agreed. How do you speak reasonably to people stuck on their own fantasy worlds that believe capitalism is the greatest thing ever and have heard it their whole lives. Also people who’s actions are determined by their religion? I don’t think there’s ever going to be a reasoning with them and honestly, I don’t know how it’s possible to bring anyone together.
Not right, not left, forward. Andrew Yang’s Forward Party?
I had something against this movie but I was not able to say what. Thank you for letting me verbalize and realize what was wrong
Solid review Jared
I like post-Wisecrack Jared.
this movie stirred me into action and outrage, part of good political satire is that it checks all boxes, even entertainment, i feel like this guy is just trying to get views by criticizing something right wingers dont like
I don't agree on the gullibility and part on the part on Arana Grande.
Jared, I would love to know your thoughts on communism.
As a European watching this movie I never felt like there was a political message about the left of the right being dumb and gullible. I only felt like it was a criticism on our daily lives and unableness to make good decisions for ourselves without contemplating how it affects our image ae were trying to trick the world into, our facade became more important that our actual lives.
And a second message was how gullible we are all in the face of people with implied political power(the president) media power (the news network) or financial power (tech industry). At one point in the movie Leo confronts the President and the Steven Jobs character and he brings up how the scientific community has been silenced by the 3 powers because their messages weren't to the 3 power's narrative. It is the betrayal of science and discussion that is responsible for fate of humanity and the breakdown of society.
Long time💕💕💕
Does anyone else TOC got triggered by that Beethoven frame in the back ?, I just want to fix it!!! 😆
You should do a review and Analysis with Diego Ruzzarin, you two had an appealing energy when you were sharing ideas about the main premise and the philosophical interpretation of Matrix, I love learning from other perspectives.
I came here the following day after I watched wisecast's talk about the movie. This review is way deeper, way better. Less focused on covertly feeling offended and outraged by a hearnest depiction of human nature and the beyond-truth era we are living in.
Can you fix Beethoven
Dude! The Beethoven picture!