sonch Profile picture
5 Jan, 9 tweets, 2 min read
DON’T LOOK UP (2021) was ok. But not as a ‘climate change allegory’. As a quirky character study of the DiCaprio and especially the Jennifer Lawrence character. They were just funny to watch in all those situations.
The movie itself, despite being ‘timely’ and I have no doubt meant as some blunt allegory about ‘climate change’ in our ‘social media’ ‘politicized’ ‘divided’ ‘post truth’ era, comes across as weirdly dated. Felt like something from the late 90s. And just cuz of DEEP IMPACT.
*not just cuz of
Late 90s had all these high profile movies that were ‘political’ and sort of timely and seemed very on-point and of the moment and maybe even got Oscar buzz and/or was culturally touchstoneish when they came out, but then aged so poorly that you never wanted to see them again.
I’ll probably forget some, but:

Primary Colors
Dave
that one with Annette Bening where she was a VP but had some sex scandal thing
Wag The Dog

does anyone ever rewatch any of these?

Don’t Look Up had the same kind of vibe
Not so much because its politicalness is ‘of the moment’ and culturally-touchstoneish *now*, but that it’s the kind of movie someone trying to make a star-driven ‘timely political satire’ would’ve made in 1998
Bulworth
Anyway, Meryl Streep looked like she was having a blast with it.

She was probably in at least one of those late-‘90s things too. Can’t remember. Will never know.
Rereading the above, I think my takeaway is probably that it was less successful as a ‘politics of climate change’ satire than it was as an ‘academic types in the spotlight’ satire.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with sonch

sonch Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @soncharm

5 Jan
Remember to tell everyone you know to ‘up your mask game’. Because that’s a phrase you totally thought of completely by yourself and not something you’re repeating because you saw it on the TV or perhaps a social media posted clip of something on the TV
guys, it's time to step your mask game up

Read 34 tweets
4 Jan
The 2020 debates between Covid-Taliban and ‘floomers’ who argued for less restrictions on grounds that its severity was kinda sorta ‘just the flu’ looks pretty absurd in retrospect now during our current regime of (partial/localized) Covid-Taliban’ing against ‘omicron’, a cold
Maybe it was wrong to minimize Wuhan Classic, and liken it to ‘just the flu’. Maybe the tradeoff/balance weighed in favor of restrictions.

But now we have Wuhan-South Africa, which is uniformly *much less severe*. And still the Covid Taliban *wants to do all the same things*.
Imagine Wuhan Classic hadn’t existed and it had been Wuhan-South Africa that emerged in 2020. You know, a cold that spreads fast and everyone gets, then they’re done.

Would ‘closing schools’, ‘vaccine passports’ in response to it have even been on the table?
Read 4 tweets
2 Jan
Covid restrictions, to the degree that they actually ‘work’, could be increasing severity/death in the US, if their net-effect is to slow down ‘omicron’ from viral-competing away ‘delta’, meaning ‘delta’ remains prevalent longer, to infect more people. Just saying: could be.
For any given uninfected person, whether their next-exposure to a Wuhan-like virus is ‘omicron’ or ‘delta’ is a random variable X. ‘Covid measures’ ‘working’ could mean the omicron wavefront reaches them later, tilting the odds toward X = delta. Which is bad for them.
This effect could actually be material given the reported ability of an omicron infection to provide some immunity to delta; if so it *really matters*, net-outcome-wise, whether your next exposure/infection is one or the other. It’s not symmetric.
Read 4 tweets
2 Jan
There is a good point being made here that is worth thinking about even if identifying ‘western modernity’ and/or ‘capitalism’ as the culprit is a cliche misdiagnosis
Implicitly, there is some deal/tradeoff that has been made, wherein large/more-extended family living situations have been largely switched for nuclear-only

was this deal 100% desired, were all its terms entered with open eyes. Or was some of it inadvertent
One factor comes to mind is how the (all-in) tax burden on a salary nowadays is 40-50%, & a big chunk of what that supposedly buys you is a pension (i.e. paying for your aging parents to live elsewhere). Did we ‘choose’/want this attractor in the social-arrangement state space
Read 4 tweets
31 Dec 21
'vaccine hesitancy=people have lost trust in experts' is question-begging

why can't it be that a given person does not want to take the vaccine because they do not judge the risk vs. benefit ratio of doing so to be in their favor
'but that's exactly my point, it means they Don't Trust Experts'

no it doesn't, because no actual 'Expert' has actually calculated the risk-benefit ratio for that person. which Expert has done that, for that person? Joe Biden?
where the rubber meets the road, most individuals aren't being told to take the vaccine 'by Experts'. they're being told because their Mayor implemented a 'vaccine passport', or because Joe Biden told OSHA to make a workplace rule.

this isn't an Expert judgment happening.
Read 6 tweets
10 Nov 21
A repeated problem I have with the past 2 years of policy is that policies are hastily thrown in place and then reactively ‘defended’ by Smart People who *invoke the possible existence of an argument for them* rather than actually making that argument.
Lockdowns: wait why is this worth it? what justifies any of it? where can I find anyone putting forth something resembling, say, cost-benefit analysis?

Smart People: ‘well surely Lockdowns are justified *in some cases*. are you sure it *wouldn’t* pass a cost-benefit test?’
Vaccine mandates: wait, these vaccines don’t seem to suppress transmission that much, & to have a more-than-normal side-effect risk profile. What’s the argument for surmounting the presumption against forced medication?

Smart People: ‘surely vaccines can be mandated *sometimes*’
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(