Don't Look Up

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
Metaphor


noun
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).

something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
This might help - the movie annihilation starring Natalie Portman is also a metaphor for something else - cancer


Movies are not mystery boxes. There is no “answer” because art isn’t a game or a puzzle to be solved. It’s subjective, so it’s open to interpretation. Great art invites interpretation, not by being needlessly obtuse, but by encouraging the viewers to explore certain ideas and concepts that are presented in a unique way.

Alex Garland’s new sci-fi film, Annihilation, is great art. It’s also a movie that’s bound to frustrate and infuriate some viewers who believed they were getting a sci-fi action movie and instead got Tessa Thompson sprouting leaves and people getting attacked by a bear with human screams. It’s horrifying, but in a specific way. However, like last year’s mother!, Annihilation exists largely in the realm of metaphor. It’s meant to put you in the same dreamlike state of the characters, offering explanations for what’s happening, but also never announcing its themes as it tries to weave subtext into the text.

No one in the movie says, “It’s about cancer,” but it’s clear within the first fifteen minutes that the premise of Garland’s movie is basically, “What if the Earth—that is, the planet itself—got cancer?” And then the movie moves forward from that premise.

So strictly speaking a movie doesn't have to explicitly say what its actual subject matter is.
 

United Gnosis

Jedi Council Member
I'm talking about what was the intent of those who made the movie which those who were involved with it would likely know better than anyone who was not involved in the process of making it. (i.e. you)

Your comment to me originally was unnecessarily rude but instead of apologizing you're going to just double down on why you're right?

I was trying to reconcile an inconsistency. I'm sorry if you perceive it as rude, I perceived it as matter-of-fact. You made a statement about the objective nature of the movie, which is not supported by the objective movie. I sought to underline the nuance. You insisted DeCaprio must know what he's talking about. I replied his opinion of what the team allegedly might have been intending, has no relevance on the actual content of the movie. Now there is no inconsistency anymore. It is resolved.

I stated what the movie contains, what anybody not involved in the process of making it (any of us) can objectively see in the movie. Meanwhile, you are talking about the intent of those involved in the movie. Thanks for recognizing it; that is exactly the point, the sole point of contention I sought to press. That is, the intent of the team, their mindspaces and opinions, do not constitute "the whole point" of the movie. Quite to the contrary, in my opinion, it has at most a minor effect in the audience's reception of the final product.

The proof resides in all of the different interpretations - if the intent of the crew defined the reception of the movie, you wouldn't have such a wide range of responses, especially inside a small and relatively ideologically-coherent group such as ours.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Haven't seen this movie (watched "what about Bob?" instead).
The irony is that when those who work for the PTB say "the truth", for them it means the official truth as in the covid narrative or global warming etc. When sane people hear "truth", they (we) understand something different. So when a movie says "truth is good but people avoid it", it means different things to different people, no surprise there. This is why one doesn't stop a words. When someone talks about freedom for example, one should ask "freedom to do what?", because there is a difference between the freedom of thought and the pursuit of truth for instance, and someone's understanding of the same word as being "freedom to violate others' freewill". The devil is in the details as always.
 

Wandering Star

The Living Force
I remember a session in which the C's are asked something about all that "running" from one place to another preparing for this and that (I am paraphrasing) and they answer something like: "3D".

The powerful in 3D believe they are ready and ...

The ending is super fun.
 

gdpetti

Jedi Council Member
After the various reviews here, I gave it a try and found it boring, which is the kiss of death for any story. Started off ok and went downhill once they went to the White House to present their findings... then the film became a comedy... one not very funny... reminds me of Mars Attacks. After the first hour? I started fast forwarding, trying to skip the repetitive joke sequences... not funny when they keep repeating and repeating.... everything became trivial at best... but in the end, in the words of Gaston from the 1958 musical film Gigi, "It's a bore." But that's just my opinion.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I stated what the movie contains, what anybody not involved in the process of making it (any of us) can objectively see in the movie. Meanwhile, you are talking about the intent of those involved in the movie. Thanks for recognizing it; that is exactly the point, the sole point of contention I sought to press. That is, the intent of the team, their mindspaces and opinions, do not constitute "the whole point" of the movie. Quite to the contrary, in my opinion, it has at most a minor effect in the audience's reception of the final product.
Well, I don't know about that, I don't think anyone here is saying that if one enjoyed the movie one is somehow bad, it's ok to enjoy something, any work of entertainment is designed to be enjoyed. But it is also ok to say that the people involved in a specific project created it with a rather transparent agenda that is visible in their work EVEN IF it's not explicitly stated.

An example comes to mind, Batwoman, was a recent tv series.. that was about Batwoman, a character in the Batman universe of comics, so one could say that the story is about bat woman, nothing else, right? well there's also a lot of ideological and political agendas that the creators implicitly placed on their narratives, and seeing both of those elements is crucial to understand the work being presented to an audience. Think the recent remake of Charlie's Angels for another example, the movie was about whatever it was about, but the agendas of the creators are transparently visible

Another example that comes to mind is history, when one is reading history, it's imperative to keep in mind the intentions, political aspirations and stance of the writers of history, that way one can see the work being presented for what it is, but ALSO understand it within the context of the author.

And a lot of work happens this way, the artists respond to their environment and as such their work reflects their context, there's nothing wrong with recognizing that.

What I think the trouble is, with a lot of recent productions coming out of hollywood, is that their agendas are so desperately plugged into their product, in such a rush and with such little creativity that it suspends the disbelief that one allowed oneself to enter when watching a movie, so one can't help but feel like one is in a lecture about fiction and PC culture, instead of watching a compelling story.

It's like if they served you a blueberry pancake and instead of it being served as a single pancake with blueberries, they just gave you a pancake with a lot of blueberries on top and they told you it was a blueberry pancake.

But I am digressing too much, what I was driving at is that, it's ok to enjoy any work of entertainment, even if one is aware of the agendas behind it, there's nothing wrong with that, but it is also ok to point out that the agenda is transparently present in such work.
 

Avala

The Living Force
Watched it. I can recommend watching. It is not that silly as it is advertised. And it is not about the comet, it's about modern society. Meryl Strip (surprisingly) is president who can be Trump (her son is chief of staff), but there is also picture of her with Bill Clinton. So, she is also Hillary. There is also Bill Gates as her biggest "campaign donor".

On the end Leonardo DiCaprio yells to the TV camera "our leaders are psychopats and lunatics", and Jennifer Lawrence saying to the bunch of skating punk kids who are talking about conspiracy theory something like: "they are not that almighty as you think of them. They want to be evil, but they are stupid even for that."

Only bad thing: could be shorter or faster. Other than that, worth a try.
 

United Gnosis

Jedi Council Member
Well, I don't know about that, I don't think anyone here is saying that if one enjoyed the movie one is somehow bad, it's ok to enjoy something, any work of entertainment is designed to be enjoyed. But it is also ok to say that the people involved in a specific project created it with a rather transparent agenda that is visible in their work EVEN IF it's not explicitly stated.

An example comes to mind, Batwoman, was a recent tv series.. that was about Batwoman, a character in the Batman universe of comics, so one could say that the story is about bat woman, nothing else, right? well there's also a lot of ideological and political agendas that the creators implicitly placed on their narratives, and seeing both of those elements is crucial to understand the work being presented to an audience. Think the recent remake of Charlie's Angels for another example, the movie was about whatever it was about, but the agendas of the creators are transparently visible

Another example that comes to mind is history, when one is reading history, it's imperative to keep in mind the intentions, political aspirations and stance of the writers of history, that way one can see the work being presented for what it is, but ALSO understand it within the context of the author.

And a lot of work happens this way, the artists respond to their environment and as such their work reflects their context, there's nothing wrong with recognizing that.

What I think the trouble is, with a lot of recent productions coming out of hollywood, is that their agendas are so desperately plugged into their product, in such a rush and with such little creativity that it suspends the disbelief that one allowed oneself to enter when watching a movie, so one can't help but feel like one is in a lecture about fiction and PC culture, instead of watching a compelling story.

It's like if they served you a blueberry pancake and instead of it being served as a single pancake with blueberries, they just gave you a pancake with a lot of blueberries on top and they told you it was a blueberry pancake.

But I am digressing too much, what I was driving at is that, it's ok to enjoy any work of entertainment, even if one is aware of the agendas behind it, there's nothing wrong with that, but it is also ok to point out that the agenda is transparently present in such work.

And I'm saying it's absolutely fine to think the movie was bad, but to say "the entire point of the movie" is about climate change doesn't make sense, when that is literally impossible to know without considering context external to the movie. You mention movies that were warped in their direction by the cast's ideology. You could feel it even by looking at a few clips, I mean, I don't think I've seen over a minute of batwoman footage and I get what you mean.

But Don't Look Up? There's a huge comet coming, and that can obviously be a metaphor for a global black swan, but the movie doesn't hint beyond the metaphor. That's left to the watcher.

If you were to look at hints that the movie suggests by its own content, the unforeseen black swan might seem to be the corruption of TPTB and their dysfunctional responses towards reality, as illustrated by the depraved character of the Chief-of-Staff over and over, illustrated by everybody in power, really. The content of the movie was straightforward if not crude, in the spirit of This Is The End (2013, also with Jonah Hill), so it didn't feel like there was a heavy message, an ideological burden. There wasn't even room for one, really. It was all about comet facing humanity and the failure of the response.

If you want to say that the crew carried an intent, hoped for a specific message, of course, I'll acknowledge what you/they're saying. All I'm saying is the content of the movie doesn't suggest it. The comet reveals the critical dysfunction of TPTB, and the movie hints that corruption of character is the ultimate cause of that dysfunction. If you want to look beyond that, you are free to make your own associations, they are as valid as the external opinions of the crew, in that they do not alter the content of the movie, only interpret it.

Also, even not knowing the intentions of the crew before watching the movie, I'd think anybody slightly aware of the zeitgeist could assume the crew might have intended a straight metaphor for climate change, but because a large majority of people have been gaslit into anthropocentric climate alarmism, and even more of them in Hollywood. Sure. That'd be a possible meaning.

But if you argue the comet portrayed as a comet for the entire movie is actually climate change, then saying that the comet is the Wave or a magnetic flip or the next virus or whatever is just as valid. That's the point I was trying to drive. The climate change angle is just another external interpretation. It's not in the movie.
 
Last edited:

fifty_five

Padawan Learner
i'm not a leftist or a rightist. but i found the film very funny and meaningful. in fact, both the left and the right claim "authentic interpretation" of it. psycorium, folks. we're inside the psycorium centrifuge. my 2 cents, this film is useful for normal people: comedy tips on mass formation. and it's not that i'm a particular a fan of desmet or malone: i refer you to sott. net, and the circulation of elites.
 

jess

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Last night I saw this movie, I was motivated by the comments here, and thank you !!!, I found it quite funny, I thought it was a pretty intelligent black humor about the subject. It seemed to me that it was a mixture of being a Hollywood movie and B-movie style.

The most shocking thing for me, of the whole movie, was the inability of people to believe the truth, even just to listen to it, it seemed to me that it could be an example of how people can be so asleep or hypnotized by the media and the authority (government).
Something that I found interesting as a whole was how everyone individually within their possibilities chooses to act in critical situations of stress, then you have those who decide to steal or follow the crime within the chaos, or those who seek to get out of the situation at any cost without caring about anything else but themselves (as government-elites) and others who seek to share with others and share human love in unity. And at the end of the day we are all in the same boat, planet earth.
 
Top Bottom