Kathy Sheridan: Don’t Look Up opens odd new flank in the culture wars

Have you seen Don’t Look Up? Surely you’ve watched that hilarious work of biting satire studded with earthly stars such as Streep and di Caprio as Trumpish gargoyles, grinning cable news idiots, billionaire tech narcissists and everything else that stands between the common man and his understanding of man-made apocalypses – or in this case, a gigantic asteroid plunging towards earth as metaphor for climate change?

Or perhaps you remember the movie as that two-and-a-half-hours you can never retrieve, the clunker in which the targets are set up like a coconut shy whose in-your-face demolition will astonish absolutely no-one familiar with the culture wars and the cesspits of Fox News over the past 20 years?

Nothing about Don’t Look Up is surprising or thought-provoking beyond raising the question about whether a single one of them deserves to be saved from the apocalypse. And yes, that’s partially the point. Characters are set up to be sneered at and despised, most of them plotting their own survival at the hoi polloi’s expense of course.

Somewhere in between were the knotty issues of whether anyone should be looking for laughs from such serious-minded art in the first place

But it’s just a movie in the end, so stands or falls on its merits – right ? Nope.

Kathy Sheridan: Finland’s clubbing PM would not last long in Ireland

---

Kathy Sheridan: Wallace and Daly are a national embarrassment

---

Kathy Sheridan: Complaints over vaccine queues a sad reflection on entitled, negative public

---

Kathy Sheridan: Can’t stand Garth Brooks? The best cure is to just let it go

---

For a few days over Christmas, Don’t Look Up became another grenade rolling around the Christmas slippers, opening up an odd new flank in the culture wars. There was Us (after bingeing on the extraordinary, genuinely eye-opening Dopesick) anticipating the promised laughs wrapped in some hard-hitting satire about an extinction-level event, performed by a glittering assembly of Hollywood A-listers.

And there was Them who possibly anticipated something similar but mistook the movie for the gospel on climate change, the definitive doctrine that would finally force people to sit up and care.

Somewhere in between were the knotty issues of whether anyone should be looking for laughs from such serious-minded art in the first place and whether it was actually as funny as publicised. Those who thought it extremely funny (as some did) also tended to take it extremely seriously as socio-political commentary.

Will it open up a single recalcitrant mind to the money-grubbing, short-sighted, instant gratification culture speeding us to our destruction?

Movie critics who heartily disliked it for the most part were accused of panning it because it attacked their kind, who could only have been the TV presenter clowns masquerading as journalists. Or maybe they panned it, someone suggested, because it made them feel “uncomfortable”. Clearly, the accusers had never met an actual movie critic or stumbled over some of their frankly weird and depressing viewing (apologies to Donald Clarke).

Trumpier than Trump

Then again, it’s satire, much of which comprises gross caricature and decent mimicry but not a lot of laughs. Some viewers enjoyed the movie in an uncomplicated way – how often do you get to see Meryl Streep as Trumpier than Trump? – while others were maddened by the waste of that remarkable array of talent and a worthy theme.

Will it open up a single recalcitrant mind to the money-grubbing, short-sighted, instant gratification culture speeding us to our destruction? The people depicted as regular folks – the parents of a distraught scientist – refuse to let their daughter in the house without first informing her that they are “in favour of the jobs the comet will create”. It’s stupidly funny of course but what are the chances they will recognise their stupidity in a movie and undergo an epiphany? Are climate scientists giving it standing ovations, just grateful that someone cares enough to satirise their frustration?

Art is subjective by definition and thrives on opinion and commentary. What distinguishes this one however is the binary attitude of some fans: that the artist’s intention is all that matters, not the art. That if you agree with the worthy points made in the movie – and you will because you’ve chewed on them for years – you must also believe in the greatness of the movie itself. To do otherwise is to be a useful idiot or enabler in the climate denial industrial complex. In short, as one commentator put it, never before had he seen such a response to a film where those who didn’t think it was great were assumed to have missed the point by many who did. Quite ironic, he added, given one of the themes in the film.

The frustrating aspect of the Us vs Them skirmish is the futility of it. It could be a metaphor for all the time and energy squandered on tiny, bad-tempered battles, snarky comments and offensiveness just for the hell of it. As is often the case, they are probably on the same side in the things that matter (assuming it’s not all about personal brand-building). All the rest is self-sabotage.