Jade Bahr

Spider-Man is my favorite Marvel hero so I'm still kinda okay if that crazy cameo would happen Not that I really believe it but it would be the most epic cameo ever happen in marvel cinema history. Doctor Strange 2: Leonardo DiCaprio Trends After Being Included in 'Leaked' Cast List The leak claims Leo is playing a variant version of Spider-Man. I think we can all agree that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is one of the most theory-driven Marvel films we've had in quite a while and the amount of fan theories and rumors surrounding the Benedict Cumberbatch and Elizabeth Olsen team-up project is insane, to say the least. Now, one crazy rumor is spreading like wildfire across social media and it concerns a certain actor who almost played an iconic Marvel superhero. An alleged end credits crawl recently "leaked" online and it features a jaw-dropping list of actors who are rumored to be involved in the project, including Don't Look Up star Leonardo DiCaprio who is said to be playing a variant Spider-Man. To those unaware, Leo was set to star in James Cameron's scrapped Spidey film from the late '90s, a project that would later spawn Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy starring Tobey Maguire. Other actors included in the list are Hugh Jackman, Chris Evans, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Sophie Turner, Jessica Alba, Ben Stiller, Ben Affleck, and Henry Cavill. Check it out here: Source

Just for the adorableness Source

Death of Gaspard Ulliel: his funeral will take place on January 27 in Paris FUNERAL – The opportunity to pay a last tribute to the French actor. Gaspard Ulliel’s agent announced on Saturday January 22 that the funeral of the actor who died at the age of 37 after a skiing accident, will be scheduled for Thursday January 27 in Paris. His agent, Laurent Grégoire, spoke to AFP to indicate that this ceremony will take place in the Saint-Eustache church, in the 1st arrondissement of the capital. However, it has not yet been specified whether or not this ceremony will be open to the public. The accidental death of Gaspard Ulliel has sparked a multitude of tributes, from the political world to that of the cinema, to a man who had a brilliant career and was very popular in the cinema world. An accident “in fairly simple circumstances” An investigation was entrusted by the Albertville public prosecutor’s office to the CRS Alpes to clarify the circumstances of the fatal collision between Gaspard Ulliel and another skier, which occurred on Tuesday January 18 in the resort of La Rosière, in Bourg-Saint-Maurice. Investigators from the CRS Alpes d’Albertville, this police unit in charge of high mountain resorts, have since been working to “investigate the causes of death” of the 37-year-old actor. And according to their first findings, the investigation is heading towards a dismissal, no responsibility being apparently engaged. “According to these first testimonies and the observations made on the spot, the two skiers were moving side by side and ran into each other”, explains Anne Gaches, the public prosecutor of Albertville. “For the moment, it is difficult to say whether it was the shock or the fall that led to Mr. Ulliel’s death”. In addition, the prosecutor added that there is nothing to ensure that wearing a helmet on the side of the actor would have changed the outcome of the accident. Indeed, if the other skier involved, a man of Lithuanian origin, was wearing a helmet, this was not the case for Gaspard Ulliel. “This accident is very sad but the circumstances are quite simple, there is no particular complexity”, finally concluded Anne Gaches. Source

Leonardo DiCaprio puts a nine-year ‘ticking clock’ on climate crisis- is he right? The actor and environmentalist highlighted the importance of keeping global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius Leonardo DiCaprio has a warning for humanity, not unlike his scientist character in the Netflix film Don’t Look Up: something dangerous is hurtling imminently towards us, and we don’t have much time left to change things. However instead of the film’s massive comet, it’s the climate crisis he wants us to pay attention to in the real world. “I’ve had two great passions in my life. That has been acting, and the protection of the natural world and getting the message out about the climate crisis,” the Oscar winner told Deadline this week. “I think there’s a worldwide sense of anxiety about the fact that the powers that be, the private sector, governments, are not making the transition fast enough. We literally have a nine-year window.” It’s not the first time DiCaprio has spoken about the dire state of the climate. The actor is a United Nations climate ambassador and philanthropist who has spent tens of millions of dollars on environmental protections. (Though critics would note he also loves flying in private jets and partying on gas-guzzling mega-yachts.) “Climate change is real, it is happening right now,” he told a global audience during his 2016 Oscars acceptance speech for Best Actor in The Revenant. “It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating.” Don’t Look Up, a thinly-veiled climate allegory with a single-week record of 152 million viewing hours on Netflix, has also provided the actor with a platform to advocate for global climate action. DiCaprio warned this week of the serious global heating impacts beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, the most ambitious temperature threshold outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement among all nations. “If we reach this 1.5-degree threshold, where we hit that certain point in nature, there’s all kinds of lightning-rod points with methane and the tundra and warming of our oceans, the acidification of our oceans,” he told Deadline. He argued that the US has a special obligation to lead on climate because Americans are both disproportionately rich and disproportionately big polluters. Does Leo have a point? Are we really screwed unless everything changes in nine years? We decided to ask some climate experts. First things first, the 1.Celsius (C) bit. That number comes from the Paris deal and represents the aspirational target of the global agreement which seeks to hold warming below 2C. Estimates vary, but the scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s foremost authority on the crisis, suggest we could hit 1.5 C by the early 2030s. The World Meteorological Organization also found that there’s a 40 per cent chance of hitting the threshold within the next five years. Even if the average global temperature is held to around 1.5C (above preindustrial times), humanity will continue to experience severe impacts including deadly heatwaves, flash floods and more powerful hurricanes. “With every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger,” the IPCC stated last year. It’s just a matter of severity. At 2C, there is the threat of twice the sea-level rise compared to at 1.5C, and three times as many people around the world facing severe heatwaves. These climate benchmarks are important but shouldn’t obscure the fact that the crisis is already well underway, says Kristie Ebi, a professor of global health at the University of Washington who studies climate impacts. “We’re already on track. We’re already seeing far too many people suffer and die in heat waves,” she told The Independent, recounting the horrors of 2021’s brutal “heat dome” in the Pacific Northwest which killed an estimated 600 people and more than 1 billion marine animals. The oppressive heatwave caused a 69-fold increase in people seeking hospital care, she said, as well as crop failure and the decimation of coastal shellfish populations important to Native American tribes in the region. Each incremental increase in climate change will cause further harm, she says, and it’s important to remember that they will not be shared equally. The most vulnerable will be hit the hardest. “The Earth is going to be fine,” she said. “The question is what’s going to happen to us. The Earth will pull through and eventually ecosystems will evolve into different kinds of ecosystems. It’s really what we are doing to ourselves.” Noah Diffenbaugh, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University, agrees. People need only to look at decreasing snowpacks, unprecedented weather events, and numerous other signs to see the climate crisis affecting them now - not in nine years. The Earth is a dynamic system, he says. Global climate policy, climate change, and its impacts interact with each other elliptically. Further, climate features like permafrost, polar ice sheets, and snow melt have non-linear properties. In other words, once pushed to certain tipping points, they will start producing exponentially more dangerous climate impacts in a negative feedback loop. “The question of how much time do we have is really a question of how do we supply the global energy needs for the world population, for the energy that’s necessary for wellbeing, while reducing emissions and reaching net zero, while also adapting to the climate change that’s already happened and the further climate change that will happen along the way,” he says. “Each one of those is a grand challenge in and of itself. Doing all three simultaneously is what is required to manage the accelerating risks of global warming.” Hard lines and targets matter less than doing everything in our power to become more sustainable, as soon as possible. “There are no bright lines in terms of global temperature,” he said. “Even if we hold warming to 1.5 or 2C, that’s more than we already have. That’s more climate change, and we can expect more impacts than we already have, which highlights the role of both mitigation and adaptation.” Trying to communicate the complexity of this can be a challenge, he added, and he empathized with DiCaprio’s character, Dr Randall Mindy, in Don’t Look Up. “I recognize a lot of the challenges in communicating both what is understood and what is uncertain,” Diffenbaugh said. But no matter if you’re a climate researcher or a world-famous actor, the science is clear. We need to act now. We don’t have nine years to waste. Source

‘Leonardo DiCaprio has no ego’: Himesh Patel He was portrait of humility, claims Patel who worked with DiCaprio on ‘Don’t Look Up’ Getting to work with Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio has been a dream for many. Cambridgeshire-born Indian-origin actor Himesh Patel got lucky with Netflix’s recently-released ‘Don’t Look Up’, in which he shared screen space not only with DiCaprio but also with Jennifer Lawrence. In an interview with ANI, Himesh reminisced about working with the stalwarts of the industry in the sci-fi drama. “Leonardo and Jennifer are lovely people. I am still pinching myself thinking that I worked with them. They are generous. Also, it was wonderful to see actors of that level to remain humble and hardworking every time. Leonardo and Jennifer never brought any sort of ego to the sets in that way (despite their stardom)... and that’s what makes them such great actors,” he said. Directed by Academy Award winner Adam McKay, ‘Don’t Look Up’ is a satire about climate change. The film centrally revolves around the story of two astronomers who discover that a comet is approaching Earth and would lead to the destruction of life as we know it. While talking more about the film, Patel could not resist heaping praises on McKay. “I think when you’re working with a filmmaker like Adam, you do what you need to do within the truth of the scene. And filmmaker like Adam will know exactly what he’s doing, and how it all fits together...you can really put your trust in a filmmaker like that. So, I was just doing what needed to be done and trusting Adam to steer the ship,” he added. Source

Haha I kinda wish. I mean imagine how beautiful that young man would be 🤩Don't know why I picture a son, but it came straight to my mind while reading your post lol Probably because of DLU.

I've also read something was going on with Virginie Ledoyen in Thailand. Once again I don't know if it was just a rumor.

I've read somewhere back then he had to re-shoot those scenes with Cameron because of lack of chemistry plus they seemed more like brother and sister on screen than lovers according to some early test audience lol Don't know if that was really true.

Agree with that 💯 She's also very much his type. Tall, curvy, blonde, beautiful and back in 2013 under 25 lmao

^what makes you think he had a crush on JLaw? Just wondering ☺️ Kate, Margot I agree. I would say def Claire Danes too (but couldn't handle it at all back then).

Why Camila Morrone doesn’t care about her 23-year age gap with Leonardo DiCaprio When Camila Morrone, 24, and Academy Award-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio, 47, first went public with their relationship back in 2017, both she and DiCaprio were met with plenty of criticism. Many believed that these two celebs should find someone their own age seeing as their 23-year age gap was simply too hard to ignore. But flash forward to today, and the couple is still going strong despite the huge age difference. What’s the secret to making this relationship work? Well, it may have everything to do with Morrone, herself, not caring about age. Camila Morrone and Leonardo DiCaprio In 2019, Camila Morrone came forward with a statement following the overflow of disapproval about her pairing with Leonardo DiCaprio. “There’s so many relationships in Hollywood — and in the history of the world — where people have large age gaps,” the actress said at the time. “I just think anyone should be able to date who they want to date.” So it looks like Morrone is fine with the age gap simply because it’s not uncommon and she wants to be with whoever her heard desires. And that’s pretty fair. While a few people seemed to agree with Morrone’s sentiment, however, many simply couldn’t overlook the fact that this wasn’t her boyfriend’s first rodeo dating someone much younger. During his relationship with Gossip Girl actress Blake Lively in 2011, DiCaprio was 36 years old while Lively was 23. It was a similar situation for his previous brief flings with Bar Refaeli, Erin Heatherton, Toni Garrn and Nina Agdal, all of whom were at least 10 years younger than DiCaprio when they were with him but were no older than 25 when he broke it off with them. This is why many (sort of) joke about his refusal to date anyone older than 25 years old. In knowing his past, it’s hard for people to not feel strongly about their opinion towards Morrone and DiCaprio’s age gap, seeing it as something that could end badly for Morrone once she hits a certain age. But the actress seemingly understands all the chatter, as she stated, “I probably would be curious about it too.” Nevertheless, the two have continued with their relationship and seem to be nearing the endgame. But even if they aren’t, Morrone wishes for her identity to be more than “the super young person who dated Leonardo DiCaprio.” “I feel like there should always be an identity besides who you’re dating,” she expressed. “I understand the association, but I’m confident that will continue to slip away and be less of a conversation.” Source

Was this interview posted? Working With Jennifer Lawrence A Dream Come True For Leonardo DiCaprio Though it was released in 2021, Don’t Look Up continues to be 2022’s most buzzed-about film so far. Although a lot of that buzz is coming from the film’s topical plot, it certainly doesn’t hurt that it’s got a pair of Oscar winners in its lead roles. Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio star in the movie, and it’s the first time these highly acclaimed actors have shared a screen together. For DiCaprio, the experience was definitely worth the wait, and he talked to us about why he enjoyed it so much. (Click on the media bar below to hear Leonardo DiCaprio) https://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/2022/01/19/working-with-jennifer-lawrence-a-dream-come-true-for-leonardo-dicaprio/

^honestly that's a thought I had already too about him. And I mean if so he's right. More people doesn't help to save the planet at all.

^whatever makes him happy and in those last vacation pics with Cami (some said with Lukas lol) he seemed very happy so it's all fine I guess.

^I really really wonder at which point in his life Leo decided to want not having kids. Because I heard him literally a dozen of times speaking about having a family "one day" and I don't think he said such things just to satisfied the press. He also seems so natural with children. When I see the beach pics of him and Camila surrounded by their parents, playing with kids, and dogs... it all screams "family" to me. He kinda seemed like the guy who would love to have this big italian famiglia (loud and wild and happy) but on the other hand he seems sometimes like this big alpha wolf who never really found his own cozy spot to rest. I mean he has many people he's deeply connected with for years but still... I don't know. It's a little mysterium to me.

^Toni Garrn talked a bit about her relationship with Leo in some german podcast, too. Same for Erin Heatherton. This is why I actually don't believe in the whole contract thing.

Leonardo DiCaprio ‘Distancing’ From Camila Morrone Before She Turns 25 Leonardo DiCaprio’s current girlfriend, an actress and model Camila Morrone, turning 25 years old this summer, does this spell doom for the pair’s four-year relationship? That’s what one tabloid reports this week. Leonardo DiCaprio ‘Tiring’ Of Camila Morrone? Life & StyleThis week’s question: “Is Leo Tiring of Camila?”According to tabloids, Leonardo DiCaprio’s career as an actor has been characterized by a reputation for being a “regular guy” over the past 20 years. “perpetual bachelor” thanks to the fact that he hasn’t publicly dated anyone over the age of 25. Since Camila Morrone, DiCaprio’s girlfriend of four years, is turning 25 in June this year, the outlet and its sources aren’t too optimistic about the couple’s future together. “They really have had a great relationship,”Insisted on a source. “He’s the perpetual bachelor, though, and can’t seem to shake that mentality.” Morrone hasn’t even turned the big two-five yet, but the relationship is allegedly already cooling off, the source continues. These are the Two Reasons Why ‘Cooling Off’ “Leo has been distancing himself from Camila and spending more time partying with his boys,”The snitch comments, adding: “Friends see the same clues he always shows before dumping a girl!” What’s the cause of this sudden shift? The source has answers, but we aren’t too certain those answers are trustworthy. Apparently, Morrone’s rising star and recent successes as an actress are to blame for the couple’s relationship woes. Until fairly recently, Morrone’s biggest role was as the lead in the 2019 indie film Mickey and the Bear, but she’s been cast in a main role in Amazon’s new original series Daisy Jones & The SixThis is what has catapulted her career even further. “Leo seems to lose interest when his partner becomes more successful,”The source claims. “No one in his inner circle is exactly why, but it could just be because it means more time apart.” Despite the fact that DiCaprio and Morrone were recently spotted vacationing with friends in St. Barts, the source seems convinced that the end is nigh for the two’s relationship. “Camila is sweet, very positive and super low-maintenance. Leo could end up regretting it if he lets her go.” Though the source appears to think of Morrone and DiCaprio’s split as a forgone conclusion, we’re not so certain. Gossip Cop has its own take on the matter First of all, it’s ridiculous that this source and tabloid claim Leonardo DiCaprio drops his lady loves as soon as their star begins to rise. He dated Blake Lively in 2011, who was at the height of her career after four years of leading Teen Drama. Gossip Girl. He also dated one of the world’s most famous supermodels, Giselle Bündchen, from 1999 to 2004. It would appear that success is not a factor in DiCaprio’s break ups since he’s consistently dated some of the most successful women in Hollywood and beyond. It’s also too early to tell if Camila Morrone’s upcoming birthday will spell doom or signal a new era in DiCaprio’s dating life. It’s true that DiCaprio’s previous partners’ ages topped off at 25, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Morrone’s on her way out the door. She’s only 24 years old. She still has a little over a year before turning 26, which would mark a historic milestone in DiCaprio’s dating career. It doesn’t help L&S’s case that we’ve caught them spreading misinformation about DiCaprio’s relationship with Morrone multiple times in the past. In the past two years, the outlet has flipped between claiming DiCaprio was ready and not ready to propose and claiming they were at the breaking point and ready to leave each other. Neither story had any truth to it, which is why we can’t help but view anything the tabloid publishes on the subject with a healthy amount of skepticism. Source

Not sure if I get that list completely but I think it's the top 10 of most watched movies over christmas (in the US?). Nielsen's movie streaming chart over Christmas week 1. Elf (Hulu), 782 million minutes viewed 2. Home Alone (Disney), 700 million minutes 3. Being the Ricardos* (Amazon), 604 million 4. Don’t Look Up* (Netflix), 521 million 5. How the Grinch Who Stole Christmas (Netflix), 453 million 6. It’s a Wonderful Life (Amazon), 435 million 7. Encanto (Disney+), 407 million 8. Home Alone 2: Lost in New New York (Disney+), 399 million 9. The Christmas Chronicles* (Netflix), 391 million 10. The Santa Claus (Netflix), 356 million (...) Netflix and Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up, which is competing with Being the Ricardos in this year’s awards race, also popped up on Nielsen’s top 10 chart for the week with 521 million minutes viewed. However, Don’t Look Up didn’t begin streaming until Christmas Eve, making comparisons with Being the Ricardos difficult. Additionally, Nielsen will release revised viewership numbers for Don’t Look Up‘s first two days because of a glitch. Either way, both films attracted strong numbers as the year-end holidays got underway in earnest. Nielsen’s streaming ratings, which are delayed by four weeks, cover viewing on TV sets and don’t include content watched on computers or mobile devices. And they apply to the U.S. only. Separately, Netflix numbers — which are more current and count hours instead of minutes — show that Don’t Look Up (350 million hours) is the streamer’s most viewed movie ever on its service in its first 28 days behind Red Notice (364 million hours). Full article

^When my best friend texted me like a maniac in the middle of the frickin night I thought for a horrible second something happened to a family member or Leo (who's basically family lol). What a terrible day. I'm exhausted. Sometimes I think I'm the silliest person ever being devistated over a strangers dead. But yeah it hurts and I will miss him forever. Sry for spamming you, guys. I will stop now. Thx for listening/reading

Guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuys, I'm so crushed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yesterday we lost a great human being and I think he would be ok when I call him a big Leo fan: French actor Gaspard Ulliel (37) died after a tragic skiing accident 😪 He worked with Marty on this Blue de Chanel commercial: He talked several times about his admiration for Leo as an actor (even though he could be a bit critical lol): In a completely different register, we find you this back to school in the advertising film for Bleu de Chanel perfume, directed by Martin Scorsese. How did you live this experience? I worked with him for five days in New York. He took part in the project 100%, by sending visual references and a very detailed synopsis: photos of the young Stones or Bob Dylan, night images taken from his films with a slightly bluish grain... The brand of the big ones, it is this precision. He shoots few takes, he speaks very quickly, with 40,000 ideas per second... He's a real conductor, whom everyone follows to the note. There was an incredible energy on set, it was very lively. How was your first interview? I arrived several days before the shooting and his schedule was so full that the meeting had to be rescheduled three or four times. I met him in his office one evening and it was amazing to see all his films piled up on the shelves! He even showed me a preview of Shutter Island in his screening room. There is a real sweetness in his eyes and his way of expressing himself. What's your favorite Scorsese movie? Taxi Driver remains a strong memory. It was the first film of his that I saw, on VHS tape, in a hotel in New York, during one of the first trips I made alone. Recently, I discovered After Hours , one of his only commissioned feature films but which corresponds to his cinema with all the paranoia of the main character. And your favorite character? The interpretations of Robert de Niro obviously amazed me, but also those of Leonardo DiCaprio, who brought something new to Scorsese's cinema. I had a little trouble with his image of a twink from the beginning, at the time of The Beach and Titanic . He knew how to evolve by the rigor of his choices and a subtle game. Source He was at Leos Foundation Gala in 2016. Source (Sadly no pics of him and Leo together). He left behind his longtime girlfriend model Gaëlle Piétri and their little son Orso (7). 💔 I know he wasn't that famous, but good god I had the biggest crush on him back in 2007 when he played young Hannibal Lecter in "Hannibal Rising". 😍 Critics didn't really like his performance but I think he was just brilliant (with only 22 he managed to fill the big footsteps of Anthony Hokins quite well in a foreign language in one scene he even sings in german). Not gonna lie I even traveled to Paris with a friend to meet him Didn't happen and now it will never happen omg. 😰 His most beautiful movie is probably the french period drama "A Very Long Engagement" next to Audrey Tautou, Marion Cotillard and Jodie Foster. Gaspards own thread here in the forum is kinda dead -yeah not funny sry - and I just wanted to give him the little tribute/last recognition he deserved. We lost a gifted young actor, truly beautiful inside and outside (I don't think I ever heard one single bad thing about him in all those years) and this whole tragedy is so fucking sad, senseless and heartbreaking I just wanna cry forever Source Au revoir, Gaspard.

I'm heartbroken 🥺💔

Have to post this because it's another proof the internet is full of shit and every moron is just buying it No wonder we are doomed. Here's A Brief Explainer Debunking A Viral Story About Leonardo DiCaprio Taking His Girlfriend Camila Morrone On The "Worst Date Of My Life" Not to be confused with the very real story of him making Jonah Hill watch "The Mandalorian." Leonardo DiCaprio is a huge Star Wars nerd — new information to me, but I feel that it checks out. However, with that said, he did not, in fact, make his girlfriend sit through the entire franchise's movies, prompting her to call the experience the "worst date of my life." Let me backtrack a little: Last night, a satire page on Twitter with the handle @LeCinephiles tweeted a fake breaking news story about the Don't Look Up star. It read, "BREAKING: Leonardo DiCaprio’s ex-girlfriend, Camila Morrone details the 'worst date of my life' with the actor." The tweet was accompanied by a fake quote: "He rented out a whole cinema, and made me watch every single Star Wars movie while he ran around with his lightsaber pretending to fight bad guys." First, the 47-year-old A-lister is still presumably dating 24-year-old actor and model Camila Morrone. They were first romantically linked back in 2017. Second, in case you don't want to take me at my word, the page has reaffirmed multiple times that it's a satirical account. For example, it once tweeted about a new James Corden variant called "Cordiant" that "has unique symptoms, including the necessity to be unfunny, and the need to appear in every single Hollywood production." Now, as far as celebs being absolute weirdos go, this is certainly not high on the list, and I can totally see why people would take it at face value. Also, objectively, picturing Leo running around a dark, empty theater making lightsaber noises is so hilarious, I desperately wish it were true. And let's not forget, there's somewhat of a precedent: Jonah Hill recently revealed (in an actual interview with an actual magazine, namely W Mag) that his costar made him watch The Mandalorian while filming the Adam McKay satire. "And it was like, Baby Yoda was so cute, but I just didn't give a fuck because I didn't know anything that it was about," Jonah said, adding that he previously had a rule about not watching fantasy series because he would often "lose focus." After the initial tweet from @LeCinephiles went viral, the account asked journalists to interview the star about the viral phenomenon. By the looks of it on Twitter, both the real and fake Star Wars-themed stories seem to have elevated Leo's star status, as fans proclaimed their readiness for a marathon date. But tell me, if Leo HAD rented out a movie theater and made you watch Star Wars (yes, I'm talking all 12 films), how would you feel about the date? Source

Now that's a story I didn't know I need in my life

Of course Leos movie is "the years most talked one" The Real Message of Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up” The year’s most talked about movie focuses as much on cultural decline as climate change and signals the death of satire. Released just before Christmas on Netflix, Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up” instantly became the most talked about movie of 2021. The professional film critics immediately weighed in, mostly with unfavorable reviews. By the following week, the reviews were being reviewed. “Don’t Look Up” had taken on the status of an event rather than a piece of entertainment or a work of art. The reason for this curious phenomenon, similar to what occurred for the movie “Bonnie and Clyde” 55 years ago, lies in the fact that, while capturing the mood of an epoch focused on the very real possibility of the collapse of civilization, as a work of art, the movie is visibly flawed in a number of ways that no professional critic could ignore. Given McKay’s track record and the star power he brought together in the case, the critics felt that the film failed to live up to its advertised promise. When the viewership statistics began appearing, the disconnect between critical assessment and the public’s appreciation became flagrant. “Don’t Look Up” broke the record for Netflix viewership for a new release. The gap in judgment between the critics and the public itself became a topic for discussion in the media. Some may see this as a demonstration of the inexorable loss of prestige of movie reviewers in the era of social media. Once respected pillars of popular journalism, most consumers now see cinema critics as irrelevant. This has something to do with the ambiguity of cinema itself. Traditionally consumed in a dark movie theater as a collective experience amid a responsive audience, most people now watch their movies at home on television. The distinction between movies and TV has become increasingly blurred. Getting Talked About No one doubts that audiences were drawn to the film principally through the appeal of the star-studded cast featuring, among others, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Ariana Grande and Cate Blanchett. But there may be another cultural factor that complements the roster of stars: the power of the traditional and non-traditional news media. That includes the uncountable bevy of pundits on social media. Commentary on the news has become another form of entertainment, thanks in part to its much lower production costs than Hollywood movies. Once the critics had done their job, most outlets in the US treated the film’s release and reception as a news story in and of itself. The media began talking about the movie, no longer in terms of its artistic success or failure, but as a kind of psy-op designed to sensitize the public to the urgency of combating climate change. Anyone with access to Netflix felt obliged to watch it. By becoming not only a much-viewed work of entertainment but more significantly an object of endless discussion in the media, the movie achieved the director’s real goal: getting talked about. The attention the media is still giving “Don’t Look Up,” weeks after its Netflix release, reveals more about the state of US culture than it does about the movie itself. It highlights the paradox, specifically targeted in the movie’s satire, of the public’s addiction to the media’s blather and its growing distrust of all institutions, including the very media to which the public is addicted. Were the Critics Right? In the case of “Bonnie and Clyde,” released in 1967, Newsweek’s Joe Morgenstern “initially panned [the movie], only to come back and proclaim it (wisely) a great movie,” according to David Ansen (a later Newsweek critic and a friend of mine). He penned a second review celebrating Penn’s accomplishment. I’m not sure I agree with David about it being a great movie, but “Bonnie and Clyde” became such a popular success that Morgenstern had to sit down and rethink the cultural conditions that made it, if not a great movie, then at least a movie for its time. And what a time it was! 1967 is remembered as the year of the “summer of love,” a propitious moment for any cultural artifact that could be perceived as being “for its time.” More significantly, “Bonnie and Clyde” became a trend-setter for the next generation of filmmakers. Can we compare our era with the ebullition of the sixties? Can “Don’t Look Up” pretend to be the “Bonnie and Clyde” of the 21st century? Because of COVID-19 and Donald Trump, 2020 and 2021 may be remembered by future generations as two years as significant 1967, 1968 (assassinations of MLK and RFK, “mai 68”) or 1969 (Woodstock). Then again, future generations may simply remember these two years as a period of gradual but certain decline marked by a debilitating indifference to the impending crisis that “Don’t Look Up” wants us to respond to. McKay intended “Don’t Look Up” to be a satire. The mood of the movie is clearly satirical, but some critics noticed that the plot and characterization easily broke the mood, slipping dangerously at times into parody. True satire treats a serious subject seriously before introducing the elements of ironic perspective that subtly or unsubtly undermine the characters’ pretention of seriousness. For a director, this means controlling both the timing and the gap between the sober and the comic. Hollywood satire, which always employs humor, has traditionally fallen into two broad categories: dramatic and comic. The Marx Brothers were specialized in comic satire. It achieved its effects through immediate exaggeration of recognizable social behaviors, almost always including the relationship between a woman from the American upper class (Margaret Dumont) and an upstart male gold digger (Groucho) and a penniless southern European immigrant trying to make it in WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) America (Chico). In this Marxian (rather than Marxist) world, the three brothers in real life represented three different types of cultural marginality. Chico’s character comprised both Italians and Jews; the mute Harpo represented an extreme form of marginality, combining the handicapped and the poet (and natural musician). He even had his place in the poor black community (Harpo’s “Who dat man?” in “A Day at the Races”). All three of the Marx Brothers embodied, in contrasting ways, characters bent on destabilizing a self-satisfied majority that could neither understand them nor integrate them into their putative order. The very existence of the three non-conformists challenged the legitimacy of the institutions they interacted with. Comic vs. Dramatic Satire The Marx Brothers’ may have produced raucous comedy intended to provoke non-stop laughter, but their humor was built on a foundation of social satire. Audiences didn’t necessarily think about it in that way. They didn’t exit the movie theater reflecting deeply on the presumption, injustice and cluelessness of the ruling class. But the worlds and situations the Marx Brothers interacted with skewered a range of institutional targets: political and military (“Duck Soup”), academic (“Horsefeathers”), the arts (“A Night at the Opera”) or even medical (“A Day at the Races”). In so doing, they subtly altered the audience’s perception of the class system in the US and some of its most prestigious institutions. All of these movies appeared during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Like Jonathan Swift in “Gulliver’s Travels,” the Marx Brothers created parallel worlds, clearly differentiated from our own, in which recognizable social and transactional behavior became exaggerated to the point of producing immediate comic effects that highlighted the illogic and even injustice of the real world. Like the Marx Brothers, Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields and Laurel and Hardy produced variants on the same principle of comic satire. Each created and gave life to distinctive marginal personalities, at odds with respectable society and usually defeated by it. Dramatic satire has in common with comic satire the aim of making its points by producing laughter. But it follows a radically different set of rules. Instead of throwing absurdity straight in the face of the audience by staging wildly exaggerated behavior designed to challenge and upset the veneer of seriousness attributed to what is presented as “normal society,” dramatic satire first takes the time to create the audience’s belief in a realistic situation that will later be challenged by an unexpected event or external force. It turns around the eruption of an anomaly erupts that will inevitably provoke reactions from a range of characters unprepared for the surprise. In other words, dramatic satire gives deadpan seriousness a head start. It is the gap between the nature of the anomalous event and the quality of the characters’ reaction that produces what comes across not as the pretext for a joke, but as unintentional humor. In the history of cinema, the most perfect example of dramatic satire — and the most appropriate to compare with “Don’t Look Up” — is Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, “Dr. Strangelove” or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” the archetypal doomsday satire. McKay was acutely aware of that when he made “Don’t Look Up.” Kubrick’s drama literally turns around the plot device of a Soviet “doomsday machine” that, if triggered, will destroy human life on the surface of the earth. The plot begins in total seriousness, like any dramatic movie. The key to its brilliance as satire is the gradual pace at which the exaggerated behavior of some of the characters unfolds. Playing their designated roles to the hilt, the politicians and generals become overtly comic when they go one step (and sometimes two or three) beyond what is reasonable. There are several points in the first third of the movie where it becomes apparent to the viewer that they are watching a comedy. But this happens gradually and only through significant, but credible details in the dialogue, such as Brigadier General Ripper’s obsession with “purity of essence.” As the plot develops, at key moments, the comedy can erupt at the highest level of absurdity, as when President Muffley interjects: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room.” Such absurdly comic moments emerge logically, without ever undermining the fundamentally dramatic plot structure as it builds toward a final crescendo that will be followed by an instantaneous release. Adam McKay’s Compromise McKay’s script attempts to respect the same principle of dramatic satire as “Dr. Strangelove.” The initial scenes reveal the introverted scientist (DiCaprio) and his research student (Lawrence) making the disquieting discovery of a comet certain to strike the earth within half a year. The impending catastrophe is fully confirmed before the audience can get a reasonable feeling for the characters. That is the movie’s first glaring flaw. The apparent tension seems unjustified. The audience doesn’t yet care enough about the characters to start seriously worrying about whether they or the earth they (and we) stand on will survive the comet’s assault. A quick transition leads us to the corridors of the White House in Washington, DC. We spend some time with the troubled scientists who are kept waiting before meeting President Orlean (Meryl Streep). She turns out to be a clever composite of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. There’s even a gratuitous hint of a link to Barack Obama, the secret smoker. The characters in “Dr. Strangelove” are each given the time to appear as reasonable, conscientious, professionally competent human beings. Their irrationality and moral failure only appear as they attempt to deal with the impending threat. In contrast, “Don’t Look Up’s” president and colleagues are simply the embodiments of the algorithm that now dominates US politics, aimed at winning elections. This is where the mood of the movie moves from satire to parody. We then move to New York where a serious news bureau modeled after The New York Times and a daytime TV interview show demonstrate the same algorithmic principle predicated this time essentially on optimizing ratings. At this point, the spectacle of increasingly trivial behavior by all the establishment parties definitively takes over. What follows is a dynamically edited series of acts and scenes that riff on the gap between the serious intentions of the scientists and the endless venality and psychological triviality of politicians, entertainers and techno-capitalists. The specific critique of institutions and the media is usually on target. But it too often appears to be an exercise of making fun of what is visible every day in our media simply by duplicating its most consistent behaviors. The Difficulty of Satirizing Hyperreality In other words, McKay’s parody suffers from the already hyperreal nature of what it seeks to critique. The culture it puts on display, already accessible in today’s media, is too recognizable and predictable, in a certain sense, too true to (hyperreal) life. It may be a thankless task to try for comic effect by further exaggerating anything in the real world that is already so exaggerated in its triviality and cynical efficiency that on its own it tends to be laughable. McKay ends up faithfully reproducing a world that, through its media, endlessly parodies itself. That may be what made the critics feel uncomfortable. The actors do their best to parody what it already a parody. The movie rarely achieves the sense of queasy discomfort satire normally seeks to inspire. “Dr. Strangelove” does so by slowly building that discomfort to a fever pitch. Kubrick shows his characters thinking, strategizing, trying to adapt to an unusual situation. McKay’s characters too often appear to be reading from a script. We never get the impression that they are grappling with anything. Instead, they are playing out their algorithmically determined roles. Perhaps the real lesson, worth being talked about, from “Don’t Look Up” is that in a world so dominated by the hyperreality projected not just by our media but also by our politicians, technology gurus and even academics, true satire is no longer possible. When the media reaches the level of superficiality and sheer venality that it has achieved today, as revealed in every scene of “Don’t Look Up,” the link to reality in today’s culture is too tenuous for effective political satire to be produced. Hollywood Satire and Contemporary History Over the past century, Hollywood has produced many successful and indeed unforgettable satires. They fall into a variety of styles and with a wide range of comic techniques. “Duck Soup” (Marx Brothers), “Blazing Saddles” (Mel Brooks), “M*A*S*H”(Robert Altman), “Mulholland Drive” (David Lynch) and many others stand as great Hollywood satires that achieved their effect by creating largely unbelievable frameworks that become believable by virtue of the director’s control of exaggeration, coupled with the capacity to build a coherent intricacy of contrasts and conflicts in the plotting. “Don’t Look Up” never quite makes up its mind about whether it wishes to embrace “Dr. Strangelove’s” focused drama or the liberated wackiness of Mel Brooks. That may be why the critics found it to be an unsatisfying hybrid. In its defense, however, we should recognize — and future generations should note — that it does stand as an effective parody of the most predictable behavior of public figures incapable of responding to an existential crisis because they have been programmed according to a different set of algorithmic rules. For that reason, the film should be considered a resounding success. It has raised in the public forum the most serious facet of the climate crisis: that even our awareness of it cannot serve to find a solution. The system we are trying to save is built to resist anyone’s saving it. For all its cinematic quality, brilliant humor and critical success, “Dr. Strangelove” had no immediate impact on the arms race. Still, it is worth noting that when Ronald Reagan was elected president, sixteen years after the movie’s release, as he was making the rounds of the federal government’s installations, upon visiting the Pentagon he “asked the chief of staff to show him the war room of Dr. Strangelove.” The Hollywood actor, who had spent plenty of time in his earlier career in sound studios, believed Kubrick’s set was real. Reagan’s public anti-communist philosophy was not radically different from Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper’s as detailed in “Dr. Strangelove.” The man who, before his election, “had argued that the United States was falling behind the Soviets in the nuclear competition” personally initiated the negotiations that led to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), “the first treaty that required U.S. and Soviet/Russian reductions of strategic nuclear weapons.” Could it have been Reagan’s memory of the lessons of “Dr. Strangelove” that ultimately guided him towards that decision? A Tale of Two Cold Wars The original Cold War nuclear arms race Kubrick denounced in his movie is still going on to this day. Perhaps more than ever it can be triggered in a heartbeat. In contrast, climate change promises a slow agony, whose groans may already be discernible. America’s current president, Joe Biden, says he wants to rein it in but seems incapable of exercising any real leadership to achieve that goal. At the time Kubrick was shooting “Dr. Strangelove,” John F. Kennedy was still president. In his first year of office, JFK called for the abolition of nuclear weapons “before they abolish us.” In the summer of 1963, he initiated the first nuclear test ban treaty. Four months later, he was successfully “abolished” himself in the streets of Dallas. It appears clear now that, willingly or unwillingly, President Biden will accomplish little to limit the effects of climate change. Seeking to raise the stakes of the US rivalry with China and increasing the pressure on Russia over Ukraine in a spirit that sometimes resembles a new cold war, he has also made it abundantly clear that he has no intention of banishing nuclear weapons. In the first week of 2022, the White House affirmed the principle that “nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.” The first cold war ended in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. The lesson of “Dr. Strangelove” no longer lives in any president’s memory. But can we suppose or perhaps even hope that a future president who happened to watch “Don’t Look Up” at the end of 2021 will, like Reagan, remember its message and dare, even decades later, to take some kind of serious action to address it? That seems unlikely. As President Orlean pointed out, unless the end of the world is scheduled to take place before the next presidential or midterm election, there are more important things to attend to. Source