This blog post takes a deep dive into modern society’s ignorance, conflicts, and the role of social media through the lens of the film Don’t Look Up.
Directed by Adam McKay, ‘Don’t Look Up’ uses the imminent threat of a comet colliding with Earth as a backdrop to explore human nature, social commentary, and myriad philosophical themes. It also uses the complex issues of modern society’s politics, media, and citizens as material, symbolically projecting a cross-section of our society through satire and criticism. Its message is relatively clear, and I believe it succeeds to some extent in penetrating modern society through satire, criticism, self-mockery, and ridicule directed at our society. Building on this, I aim to examine the image of modern society caught in ‘ignorance’ and ‘conflict’ – as I personally felt while watching the film – from the perspectives of ‘cinema’ and ‘social media’.
While the film tackles diverse themes, it particularly emphasizes the confusion and conflict arising from the process of conveying social messages. The debate over whether films must deliver societal messages or function solely as artistic expression has persisted for a long time. This film stands at the forefront of this discussion, directly posing these questions to its audience. However, what is impressive is that it doesn’t merely pose questions; it focuses on the process of guiding audiences to find the answers themselves. The questions this film raises don’t simply remain within the film; they are also recurring problems in our actual reality.
First, regarding the film itself, the interview scene with the director who made the film about ‘conflict within the film’ in the latter part presents audiences with meaningful contemplation about the process of conveying social messages through film. The interview scene depicts a society where a film, despite scientifically depicting a meteor strike, delivers a simplistic message of “let’s not fight each other” and receives acclaim. Yet, the audience, having followed the film through the protagonist’s perspective, knows such films offer no real solutions, and it’s only natural that this portrayal feels frustrating. But what do we truly know about reality? The question of what form cinema should take in situations where answers and visions are as unclear as reality is difficult to answer. Therefore, I believe the interview scene in the film represents those films that pretend to be art or enlightened without knowing the truth, and the audience that consumes such films while pretending to understand. This then leads to the question: in a situation where we don’t truly understand and are merely caught in conflict, what form should ‘film’ take, and how should we view it? To state the conclusion first, audiences who receive film, as Benjamin said, “the distracted masses allow the work of art to sink into them,” can create some abstract normativity through habit and familiarity. However, I believe we need an attitude that goes beyond habit, actively embracing certain images or signals within this ‘distraction’ to create normative value.
Should film be evaluated solely from an aesthetic or artistic perspective? I don’t think so. It can simultaneously fulfill the roles of ‘conveying a message’ and ‘serving as an escape from a chaotic society.’ That is, it can actively carry political dogma or social messages, prompting audiences to change or be influenced, while also existing purely to satisfy audiences aesthetically. Art can also serve as a mirror that seeks truth through diverse techniques and perspectives, opposing the acceptance of falsehoods amidst political polarization and social issues. Furthermore, whether it’s protest art, political satire, or a call for social transformation, film can simultaneously function as a platform for open dialogue and discourse while motivating individual action. But does film truly possess the power to change anything? The tendency to dismiss the primary pleasures and appeal of action and martial arts as lowbrow while consuming films with social messages and so-called ‘prestigious films’ – isn’t this just a farce played out by ‘films that are all show’ and ‘audiences without substance’? In truth, the questions “Why do we create art?” and “Why do we consume art?” are not unique to film; they apply universally, from traditional painting to contemporary art. Yet even works that seem to dissect reality may, from the audience’s perspective, merely rehash things already known. If this artistic world persists, accumulated fatigue and a sense of futility can set in, making a skeptical view of art, in a way, inevitable.
The messages conveyed in the film transcend simple satire or criticism, sparking profound discussions about the role of art in contemporary society. The diverse visual and narrative techniques chosen by the director to deliver these messages enhance the film’s completeness while offering audiences fresh perspectives. This goes beyond merely conveying a social message; it prompts viewers to reflect anew on themselves and society through the film.
Next, from the perspective of ‘social media,’ social media has emerged as a powerful platform igniting social and political movements—from the Arab Spring to the BLM movement—shaping public opinion and mobilizing and amplifying previously marginalized voices. Individuals’ information and stories, catalyzed by media platforms, can now transcend demographic boundaries to influence powerful messages and public opinion formation. But are individuals today wise enough to fully harness social media?
What we think we know may itself be manipulated. The film demonstrates how truth is manipulated and public opinion swayed to serve the interests of a select few, even regarding imminent disasters. Moreover, in a world saturated with misinformation and manipulated facts, it questions art and the very structures of society and politics. Yet, the media and social platforms not only fail to adequately counter the propaganda driven by colluding, obtuse political powers and self-serving capitalists—they seem to welcome this conflict. It also depicts a social atmosphere that ignores and mocks those warning of the need to prepare for an asteroid impact, along with the role of social media and demagoguery. This, I felt, reveals a tendency to seek out sensational information and content over scientific truth and research findings, willingly retreating into the fog of ignorance. In this process, the spread of ‘Don’t Look Up’ and ‘Look Up’ like a challenge satirizes the resulting social conflict and the surrounding political, media, and citizen responses, raising the question of what would be an appropriate stance. Furthermore, the way Kate’s expression while tearfully pleading, “We’re going to die, the probability is 100%,” is consumed as a meme, found funny, highlights meme culture, evoking the characteristics of modern society and especially social media. This scene reveals how, even when based on undeniable facts, we in modern society tend to consume absurd phenomena without caution, treating them as mere humor and fleeting stimulation. The film’s portrayal of this absurdity rendered comically, I believe, painfully highlights the nature of modern social media.
“Don’t Look Up” is a film that poses philosophical questions about modern society, encompassing the above facets, and provides an opportunity for renewed contemplation. Moreover, it prompts reflection not only on itself but also on the meaning of cinema within contemporary society through the film-within-a-film device. It particularly emphasizes the reality that, amidst social media’s rapid information flow and endless content, we increasingly lack the time and space to properly contemplate genuine crises and the philosophical concerns they raise. It forces us to reexamine our perception of reality and our values, compelling us to reconsider our roles as consumers of art or participants in media.
