Netflix satire moves environmental message

By Clara Ferreira Marques

Director Adam McKay’s environmental satiredon’t look up” is not exactly subtle. Characters hog the screen, parody is obvious, targeted attacks are plentiful, and an all-star cast competes for space. Oh, and the planet is about to explode.

The whole is a monument to anger and frustration, which explains why the film excites environmental scientists more than film critics. Whether due to the missteps of the protagonists or those of the filmmaker, the film also offers a valuable lesson on the challenges – which are very real – of spreading the word about the urgency of global action against climate change.

The story of this acid comedy from Netflix Inc. is simple. A doctoral student (Jennifer Lawrence) and a shy astronomy professor (Leonardo DiCaprio) discover a giant comet that will crash into Earth in about six months and wipe out all life.

However, they fail to convince anyone, least of all the American president – a populist and heavy smoker played by Meryl Streep— that you take the right steps. The media is distracted and everyone else just wants to make money when the asteroid is found to contain rare earths and minerals.

The film represents some important things well. It captures the difficulty of expressing a message so overwhelming to our limited imaginations that it usually doesn’t provoke action, but rather indifference or despair. The exasperation, palpable throughout the film, is a daily reality for those working on environmental policy.

People really only hear what they want to hear, like when the President of the United States (Streep) clings to the certainty that the comet will hit the Earth is just under 100% —”let’s say it’s 70% and move on”—and ignores the scientists in front of him. The film portrays the siren song of technology with its thought “win-win” unproven and the toxicity of the false balance. As in real life, the struggle between researchers and political and economic interests is asymmetrical.

There’s also a lot to criticize for a movie that spends so much time on outrage. For one thing, the metaphor is too simple. Global warming is not simply a single comet hurtling toward Earth without human cause. The threat of global warming is diffuse and worrying due to its own unpredictability; furthermore, entire industries are accelerating it.

In terms of environmental messages, the protagonists fall into many traps. At one point, the film suggests that scientists’ unnerving on a light TV show is proof of society’s ignorance—but it’s also a matter of understanding the audience and human prejudice.

Nobody refuses to accept climate change because they are too worried about some celebrity breakup, as is the case in the film. We struggle to understand climate realities that feel distant in time or space, or are simply impossible to imagine in the context of our experiences.

Overcoming that cognitive hurdle does not necessarily mean simply following the advice given to the scientist represented by DiCaprio, “without much math”, but to make the message relevant and spread it through a trusted familiar voice and framed in local terms.

We know that local communication is crucial, and there is ample evidence that trusted messengers, whether they are community leaders or meteorologists connecting extreme weather to global warming, can change people’s minds. However, those who try to get the message across in this film fall short.

The film also does not empower the general population, or even other nations. People respond better when they feel they can influence, and if solutions are available. When it comes to global warming, it means describing the problem but then telling the audience that they have a role to play—as consumers, for example, and, more importantly, as voters. So awareness becomes action.

“don’t look up” will not convince anyone who was undecided, especially because of the lack of empathy. With its clear villains, the story treats naysayers and skeptics with disdain, whether it’s the masses distracted by social media, click-hungry journalists, or Lawrence’s parents in Michigan who claim to be “in favor of the jobs that the comet will create”, but there is no compassion or explanation. Bullying is rarely effective when the goal is to change the opinions of others.

But that wasn’t really the point. There is certainly something absurd in the nature of the reaction to global warming. As a result, people are becoming interested in the film, and that’s important, as Tom Brookes of the Council for Global Strategic Communications, a network of public relations experts focused on the environment, told me. It may only take its toll on those who are already concerned, but as Brookes pointed out, right now it’s the overwhelming majority of the world’s population—and a vast and varied group that needs to be galvanized.

There is much better climate fiction. There is better satire and better comedy, some of them directed by McKay himself. But this movie has gotten millions talking about global warming and is now the most watched on Netflix in dozens of countries.

Can Hollywood’s biggest stars be reliable messengers and bridge the gap between awareness and action? That is a totally separate question.