Attention, this article reveals key elements on the end of the film … and the end of the century.
A fiction which unfortunately recalls reality? The film Don’t Look Up: Cosmic Denial has been available since December 24 on Netflix. It tells the story of the discovery, by two scientists (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence) of a comet heading straight for our planet and whose collision will cause the extinction of life. He then describes the inaction of politicians and society in the face of this alert. A substantiated scientific observation, a global threat, control strategies that are slow to be put in place … All of this quickly echoed the climate crisis. The director himself noted this obvious connection: “Remember, after watching Don’t Look Up, that we have the science to solve the climate crisis “, exclaimed Adam McKay on Twitter (in English). So does the film work as a metaphor for climate inaction? Franceinfo takes a tour of several subjects covered in the feature film with specialists.
On the comet as a metaphor for climate change
In the film, the discovered comet poses a threat to humanity. Just like climate change which, according to the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), causes a “change in extremes like heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts and tropical cyclones”, and this in all regions of the world, as shown in its atlas of the consequences of the phenomenon. “This metaphor teaches us that the end of the world is not because of the meteorite. We could have gotten rid of it! The end of the world is caused by the dysfunction of our institutions”, notes Jean-Paul Vanderlinden, professor of environmental studies at the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. And the IPCC report dated August clearly underlined: the human influence on climate change, through greenhouse gas emissions, is “unequivocal”. “There, the metaphor almost works”, adds the researcher.
“Almost”because it adds limits. “A metaphor which does not free itself from the context it passes through loses its force, because the characteristic of a metaphor is its universality”, he notes, citing as an example the American president (played by Meryl Streep) and her supporters, a clear reference to the “Trumpism”. “The spectator will look at many things and his judgment on this unacceptable situation will be deflected towards microsituations”, he regrets. He adds that a comet that hits Earth and wipes out humanity poses a different threat.
“For the first, we erase brutally, the level of suffering is quite low. In the film, people deny and then suffer for a few days or a few hours. But climate change will impose a lot of pain for a long time. People will lose their crops. , will have to move … It’s another form of existential risk. “
Jean-Paul Vanderlinden, professor of environmental studiesto franceinfo
The responsibility at the origin of the phenomenon is also simplified: if no one is responsible for the arrival of a comet, “climate change is due to human influence, but with a different historical responsibility depending on the country”, notes Valérie Masson-Delmotte, co-president of the IPCC.
On the media treatment of the crisis
A television show that begins with celebrity news rather than a threat to humanity, a treatment that is meant to be “fun and light”, a denigration of scientific personalities … In the film, the media evoke the alert, however supported by evidence, in a superficial way. “It reminds me of over ten years ago when a famous journalist told me that the problem with climate change was that it was not funny and entertaining enough,” noted on Twitter (in English) Naomi Oreskes, science historian and author of The Merchants of Doubt. Climatologist Valérie Masson-Delmotte also deplores that “During television debates, we do not always look for the time to explain, but the little phrase that will make people react”.
The media treatment is however not so caricature, nuance Jean-Baptiste Comby, researcher in social sciences at the University of Paris 2, who worked on the media treatment of the climate issue. “The scientific word remains, in a large majority of the media, a word of authority, considered. The various alerts occupy a non-negligible place”, he believes. We are therefore far from “fun and light”. He specifies, however, that the relationship with scientists is not the same “between the written press, radio and television” and “the media logics staged in the film correspond more to those of the United States than to those of France, which are appreciably different”.
On the reactions of the political class
The references to reality are obvious. “The mother-son relationship parodies Donald Trump’s father-daughter relationship”, remarks Jean-Paul Vanderlinden. Valérie Masson-Delmotte underlines another visible aspect in Don’t Look Up : ignorance of the subject by decision-makers. “I was struck to see the few leaders who had read the last report of the IPCC”, she exposes.
The “political gains” who can motivate executive action are also well represented. While she does not wish to solve the problem, the American president suddenly takes an interest in it when it is of interest for her popularity rating. Excluding fiction too, “the action often depends on the opportunities of the political calendar and is useful when it is necessary to gain points”, says Lola Vallejo, director of the climate program at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (Iddri). “The fight against climate change follows back and forth movements: France was put forward on the international scene when Donald Trump was in withdrawal. And there, during this presidential campaign, the subject was hardly discussed. ” Still, the film is essentially about the American political class.
“There is not a single stage in international negotiations. The UN is transparent, the European continent invisible. We do not see any developing country.”
Lola Vallejo, director of the climate program at IDDRIto franceinfo
In Don’t Look Up, neither is there any mention of the Chambers of Parliament, of an opposition or of militant circles … “Everything that makes it possible to act in reality is absent”, regrets Valérie Masson-Delmotte. “It gives very little to see democratic life. How is an action strategy debated? Discussing together is however central on the climate …”
On the technology proposed as a solution
In the film, the strategy put in place to deviate the comet’s trajectory is destroyed by the greed of a billionaire (Mark Rylance). He designs a second plan, on the basis of a technology that has not been demonstrated, but from which he would derive the benefits. “This leads to procrastination and failure. It is a parable of one of the discourses of inaction today: technological optimism”, describes Valérie Masson-Delmotte.
Geo-engineering, “green” planes, carbon capture … So many technologies sometimes presented as miracle solutions, just like the robots of the multinational Bash in the film. The feature film “just aim” with this technophile character who has the ear of the political elites, estimates Lola Vallejo. “We are confronted every day with this discourse on opportunities, on these sources for economic growth before even talking about the risks”, adds the specialist in climate negotiations. She cites the example of Bill Gates, who “advocates solutions linked to technologies when we should rather question our model of production, consumption”.
On the experience of scientists
Since its release, several climatologists have applauded the film. “As a climatologist doing all I can to raise awareness and prevent the destruction of the planet, this is the fairest film I have seen on the lack of response from society in the face of climate degradation. “, commented to the Guardian the American climatologist Peter Kalmus. “This film is undoubtedly a powerful metaphor for the ongoing climate crisis”, commented to the World another scientist from across the Atlantic, Michael E. Mann.
Just like the heroes of the film, “we weren’t listened to at the beginning”, replies the climatologist Jean Jouzel. “In France, we have suffered a lot from the climate-skepticism of part of the scientific community itself, like Claude Allègre, who did everything to deny the reality of global warming and human responsibility in this phenomenon”, he exhibits at HuffPost. For Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Don’t Look Up echoed his own experience: “I sensed some of the difficulties that film scientists go through. Speaking out in the scientific community does not prepare to speak clearly in the media or in front of power circles.”, she reports. A testimony that recalls the lessons of communication (the media training) mentioned in Don’t Look Up.