Satire is supposed to highlight the idiocies, hypocrisies and flaws of those in power using comedy, often with comedic exaggeration, to make these points and when done well, can be a powerful force in shaping public opinion. How did this film shape public opinion? It is hard to say, especially from 2025, but the Cold War did not end in nuclear armageddon, so there’s that. Moreover, any reference to nuclear weapons and nuclear war will trigger the absurdity of Dr. Strangelove in the minds of those in the audience. Politicians who wanted to increase the nuclear arsenal of America to add a few more thousand warheads would be confronted with pushback influenced by Dr. Strangelove.

Satire To Bring About Change

Don’t Look Up is a comedy written and directed by Adam McKay in which scientists discover a planet-destroying asteroid is heading towards Earth, and their struggles to be heard and when they are heard, for action to be taken. The film is shot through with criticism of the media – who at first treat the impending disaster as some kind of puff piece; incompetence in government with the president played by Meryl Streep portrayed as an idiotic, vain and selfish leader; and tech billionaires with Mark Rylance playing such a figure who wants to manipulate the situation for his own benefit and is utterly consumed by arrogance and hubris. The film is very clearly about climate change; it is not especially subtle, but it doesn’t seem like McKay was trying to be. Part of the problem of Don’t Look Up is the idea that despite the fact that the danger has been pointed out and more or less understood and accepted, nothing is being done, the message has not motivated change, and how will the film do that? Part of McKay’s solution to this seems to be simply abandoning being subtle. Did Don’t Look Up shape public opinion? This seems mixed; it was very successful but likely preaching to the converted, but one thing it did perhaps achieve by its intentional lack of subtlety was to try and drive home the drastic nature of the climate change problem.

Satire To Learn From The Past

Death of Stalin is a film by one of Britain’s greatest comedy writers and political satirists, Armando Iannucci, who has been involved in The Day Today, Alan Partridge, The Friday Night Armistice, The Thick Of It, In The Loop and Veep. The film is based on a comic loosely based on the death of Joseph Stalin and the turmoil that followed as various people tried to scheme their way to power. The Death of Stalin is not exactly trying to satirise Stalin and his government, after all he’s been dead for 70 years, but rather show the ridiculousness of power and tyranny. How the genuinely terrifying dictators are also stupid people who did stupid things. In the film, Stalin lies for hours after having a stroke with no medical assistance, despite people hearing him collapse, as they are all too scared to enter his office. And even when the other soviet leaders find him, they want to be quorate before they vote on calling a doctor, and even then…most of the medical establishment was caught in Stalin’s purges. It also shows how the seemingly invincible can be brought down spectacularly quickly. Beria, as head of the security services, was poised to take over, but instead was arrested and shot within minutes.

Satire To Bring Down The Powerful

A recent Oscar contender was The Apprentice, a satire about Donald Trump, but not President Trump, the much younger real estate businessman being mentored by right-wing demagogue Roy Cohn. Presumably, the film is a contest about who can be the most objectionable person in America. It has often been said that Trump is beyond satire, and perhaps this is why this satire didn’t focus on his recent political career but on his earlier business career. Is Trump’s political career unsuitable for satire? After all, this was a person whose right-hand man organised a press conference about how the election was “stolen” at Four Seasons Total Landscaping opposite an adult book store rather than the Four Seasons hotel. That is beyond Spinal Tap levels of ridiculous incompetence, and perhaps how every music documentary since This Is Spinal Tap has had to make sure they didn’t have a Spinal Tap moment, every filmmaker wanting to make a satire about Trump with have to wrestle with the problem of using comedic exaggeration against a man who long ago passed any imagined exaggeration. How did it shape public opinion? It will be very interesting to see how/if it does. Most people are in very definitive camps regarding Trump, but it is possible this film could successfully change how Trump’s business career is seen. His supporters will often say he is a billionaire businessman, obviously, he knows what he is doing, could this undermine the foundations of his supposed brilliance?

The post Why Political Satire Remains Crucial in 2025 appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Looking and Leaving

Don’t Look Up follows a group of scientists trying to warn everyone about a comet that will destroy the world. Only to find that American media is too interested in distracting the public, politicians are too willing to delay acting so that they can eventually use the situation to favour them electorally and billionaires use the situation to test hastily created tech which hasn’t been peer-reviewed. All of which eventually results in the world ending.

Leave The World Behind sees a family escaping the city for the country when strange things start happening. They witness an oil tanker running aground, the internet going out, the TV not picking up signals and the father and daughter who supposedly own the house (though they don’t have ID) turn up at the door. All of which puts them on edge as they try to navigate what is going on. By the end, we are not sure if the US is being invaded, if this was down to hackers, a satellite fault or all or none of the above. The only certainty is that humanity has been decimated physically and mentally by the technology we rely on.

As of April 28th this year both films are among Netflix’s most popular English-language films.

Where Fiction Meets Reality

Despite their differences, both films have several common themes. They talk about how little the world is prepared for disaster. They mistrust how pivotal modern technology is to our lives, particularly those fronted by high-profile self-obsessed billionaires. While also acting as critiques of American policy (both domestic and overseas).

And given many recent events like Western politicians continually backtracking on climate pledges despite much of the world already feeling its effects, the disasters brought about by products owned by high-profile people like Elon Musk, US politicians pushing policies and rhetoric that can put their constituencies at risk and facilitating imperialist actions like backing the alleged genocide in Gaza, it’s easy to see why the films would continue to speak to audiences.

But both these films also showcase something else, apathy. 

Apathy in Film and Politics

Don’t Look Up mainly focuses on the apathy of politicians, who are portrayed as only caring about serving people when the situation can benefit them. Meanwhile, Leave The World Behind reflects the apathy of general people (or at least a subsection who can afford to get away at the drop of a hat) towards politics. The film’s central family only becomes concerned with the wider world when events and people intrude on their lives. Never recognising that for other communities (like people of colour) politics is something that affects them all the time.

Recently stories like the US President finally paying attention to the tragedy that happened in East Palestine due to it now being an election year and the marginally shifting rhetoric from some politicians regarding Gaza because of threats to their job security, among many others, have shown the clear apathy of politicians to people’s safety. Plus the move to neuter trade union activity and the bids to demonise Palestine marches helps to further insulate people privileged enough to be apathetic about the state of the world. Both films hit the nail on the head when it comes to capturing political apathy in a way reflective of real life and given the stake so many people have in politics its easy for many to see their fears laid out plainly in these narratives, which could be a factor in their success.

Conclusion

Don’t Look Up and Leave The World Behind speak about many big political fears today. But the theme that underpins both stories is the lack of care for how political decisions impact others. And given how reflective they seem of real-world attitudes it’s easy to see why they remain popular.

Also Read: ‘American Psycho’ to ‘The L Word’: Guinevere Turner Details Her Transformative Storytelling

The post Fiction Mirroring Reality: Modern Cinema, Politics and Apathy appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

A Brief History of Cinema Novo

Although the term ‘Cinema Novo’ has been used since the 60s, it is more of a retrospective term. The filmmakers of the time did not actively create films to fit into the description of Cinema Novo. It was an open practice which evolved naturally alongside the political and cultural changes of the time.

In the 1950s, Brazil mostly produced comedic musicals called chanchadas in the style of Old Hollywood. However, at the end of the decade, Brazilian films began to focus more on topics of social justice. This was as the country faced political upheaval as it entered the eras of Brazilian Presidents Juscelino Kubitschek and João Goulart. Cinema Novo did not have a defined style, but it picked inspiration from European film movements like French New Wave and Italian Neorealism.

The French New Wave saw the popularisation of the ‘auteur’ theory, which views the director as the creative lead of a film and therefore its author. Italian Neorealism was a style of politically-driven filmmaking in Italy following the 1943 Italian Spring. It explored topics like poverty and injustice, and Cinema Novo followed in this regard. The onset of Cinema Novo was also the first time Brazilian film began to receive international critical acclaim.

Cinema Novo is often divided into three phases:

Phase One (1960-1964)

The beginning of the movement focused on political themes like poverty, racism and social inequality. Violence was a common denominator which reflected the frustration of the society of the time. Films were often shot in black and white as a stylistic choice that deviated from the more polished Hollywood-esque style. The economic instability of Brazil was reflected in the lowered technical precision since filmmakers lacked the funds for higher-quality equipment. Glauber Rocha, who released the cinematic classic Black God, White Devil in 1964, was one of the notable directors of this phase.

Phase Two (1964-1968)

This phase was a reaction to the overthrow of the popular President João Goulart. The population faced disillusionment as many of his progressive changes were rolled back after the military coup. The pro-democracy ideals of the first phase began to seem unrealistic, and filmmakers began to move towards commercialization. The ‘aesthetic of hunger’ which was popular in the first phase gave way to a concentration on middle-class protagonists. This was a bid to create films more relatable to a larger audience. There was also a move from black and white to colour. This was first seen in Leon Hirzshman’s Garota de Ipanema (The Girl from Ipanema) (1967), one of the quintessential films of this time.

Phase Three (1968-1972)

The last phase of the movement is sometimes referred to as the cannibal-tropicalist phase. Its tropical nature refers to the return to colourful aesthetics reflecting the Brazilian jungle. These had been popular before Cinema Novo. Cannibalism, in this case, was both literal and metaphorical. The best example of this is Rocha’s black comedy Como Era Gostoso o Meu Francês (How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman) (1971). The film involved the literal cannibalism of a Frenchman, to represent how necessary violence is in enacting social change.

Impact

Cinema Novo had a definite end in the 70s with Brazilian film moving towards more commercial projects and government-backed film under the Embrafilme company. In spite of this, it has had a lasting impact. Cinema Novo is considered the beginning of the Third Cinema, a wave of socio-political cinema that popped up all across the globe. From Hong Kong to Australia and everywhere in between, the movement of socially conscious films changed how we view cinema. Eryk Rocha, the son of Glauber Rocha, paid homage to the movement through the documentary Cinema Nova (2014) at the Cannes Film Festival.

Also Read: Global Cinema Spotlight: Lollywood

Also Read: Interview: City of God’s Alexandre Rodrigues Discusses The Film’s Impact 20 Years Later

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Global Cinema Spotlight: Cinema Novo appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Wait, What’s the WGA?

The Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) is used to refer to the joint operations of two affiliated labour unions founded in 1954; Writer’s Guild of America, East (WGAE) and Writer’s Guild of America West (WGAW). These two labour unions represent writers in television, film, radio and online media in America. They have headquarters in New York City and Los Angeles respectively, each administering its respective side of the United States. Although they are separate entities, they share certain functions like hosting The Writers Guild of America Awards, negotiating contracts and launching strikes.

So Why Are They Striking?

There is a common misconception that everyone in the film industry is rolling in money. It’s understandable, considering that Hollywood is often depicted as the land of glitz and glamour with films and TV shows raking in billions.

The thing is, not much of that actually goes to writers.

Of course, there are a select few screenwriters out there making big bucks but many of the brains behind your favourite shows are living paycheque to paycheque. This hasn’t always been the case, though. Writers simply aren’t being paid as much as they are used to.

One of the main reasons is the disappearance of residuals in the era of streaming. Residuals are a percentage of the profit received when media a person works on is syndicated, re-run or re-released. For decades, residuals have been an important part of a writer’s long-term income. However, the laws that governed residuals applied to traditional TV, not streaming. With most TV shows moving to streaming and studios grinding the minimum payments down to the ground, writers are making close to nothing. Writer Valentina Garza recently shared a tweet in which she received a residual cheque of only three cents (yes, three cents!) for her work on the hit show Jane The Virgin.

Another sticking point is the emergence of mini-rooms as opposed to fully-staffed writers’ rooms. Basically, many studios are hiring almost half the number of writers they used to on a short-term basis to bang out the structure of TV shows. Fewer and fewer writers are retained on long-term payrolls, and it’s making screenwriting as an industry shift from a full-time career to almost exclusively gig work.

Bottom line; the average Hollywood screenwriter can win an Emmy but still not know when next month’s rent is coming from. All of this is going on as studio execs are making increasingly obscene salaries. The strike is a direct result of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) aka the union of America’s biggest movie studios, refusing to meet WGA’s reasonable conditions during negotiations.

What Does the Future Hold?

We can already see the immediate effects of the strike. Several productions have completely shut down as writers lay down their pens. This isn’t the first time a strike has interrupted Hollywood productions; the 2007 strike had Conan O’Brien spinning his wedding ring on The Tonight Show to fill airtime. A great deal of the Californian economy also relies on these shows to keep running.

But the short-term losses have potential for positive results for both writers and viewers. Not only will it give writers some semblance of financial stability to writers, but it will also probably lead to better TV. With fully-staffed writers’ rooms and regulations to curb use of AI to write scripts, we could see a drastic improvement in the quality of the TV shows produced. We’re all tired of dozens of Netflix shows that are cancelled after one season and look like they were written in the dark.

Want to Help?

Follow the hashtag #WGAStrong or join the picketing.

Also Read: Equal Writes: Why We Need More Female Writers

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post WGA Strike and the Future of Television appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Film is a growing factor in shaping the public perception of refugees. Documentaries and biographical films have become a powerful way to raise awareness and foster empathy for displaced individuals. Let’s analyse two films that have shaped this reality.

Three Songs for Benazir (2021)

Three Songs for Benazir is a short documentary film made by Elizabeth and Gulistan Mirzaei. It won 13 awards and was nominated for the 94th Academy Awards. It follows the story of Shaista and Benazir, a newly married young couple living in a camp for internally displaced people in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Rather than an abstract depiction of war, the film takes us into refugees’ everyday lives. We see Shaista pursue his dream to join the national army and struggle to find direction in a place with so few options. The camp is filled with hundreds of displaced people living in mud houses. And yet, there is love. Children laugh and play outside, young men gather to dance, and Shaista sings to Benazir. In the midst of all their struggles, he serenades her with love songs as she shyly giggles behind her headscarf.

This documentary is, first and foremost, a love story. It shows us the humanity of displaced people beyond the statistics and impersonal clips we see on TV. Unlike most observational documentarians, Elizabeth and Gulistan do not take the fly-on-the-wall approach. Although they did not appear in the film themselves, they were close friends with Shaista and Benazir for three years before they ever started filming.

In a 2022 interview with Ms. Magazine, Elizabeth Mirzae stated; “Our films come out of friendship. But I think that you do have to, as a filmmaker, always self-interrogate and have these ethical audits.” This is a refreshing departure from the dozens of exploitative documentaries that frame refugees as one-dimensional caricatures of suffering.

Even though the film centres on the interpersonal experiences of refugees, it still subtly keeps you aware of the very real danger of war. In several scenes, you can see a US surveillance balloon ominously suspended in the sky above the camp. The filmmakers are aware of the risks of this pursuit, but they believe it is one worth taking. Despite the difficulty of filming in these circumstances, the Mirzaes succeeded in telling a beautifully nuanced and humane story.

The Swimmers (2022)

The Swimmers is a biographical film directed by Sally El Hosaini who co-wrote it with Jack Thorne. It is based on the real-life experiences of Syrian sisters Sarah and Yusra Mardini. The teenage sisters were competitive swimmers before they escaped the Syrian civil war in 2015, and fled to Greece on a battered overcrowded dinghy. In the middle of the Aegean Sea, the motor stopped. The sisters got off, strapped themselves to the leaking dinghy and swam until they reached the Greek shore. They made the rest of their journey to Germany over land while facing discrimination, sexual assault and endless bureaucracy. Yusra fights to continue her swimming career in Germany and competes in the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Most of the film is factually accurate due to the close collaboration with the sisters. Heavy research was made before storyboarding the scenes and careful casting was done to ensure authenticity. Real-life Lebanese sisters Nathalie and Manal Issa played the Mardine sisters. Several of the supporting cast were refugees, some of whom had made the Aegean crossing themselves.

It was a powerful choice to not centre the film on only Yusra who made headlines at the Rio Olympics. We learn about Sarah, who chose not to compete, and their male cousin Nizar who was their chaperone on their journey. Not everyone can be an Olympian, but every individual refugee has a unique story worth hearing. The scenes of urban Syrian teens dancing in clubs and hanging out with their friends before the war broke the monolithic stereotype of the Arab refugee.

By striving for accuracy and painting a full picture instead of zeroing in on a media heroine, these filmmakers showed us a side of the Syrian war that is often missed.

Ultimately,

Filmmaking is an art as much as it is a political and social expression. With enough patience, resources, and skill, filmmakers can craft brilliant stories that amplify the voices of displaced people.

Also Read: Sustainability Is Never a Boring Topic, See How Chinese Young Filmmaker Hong Ning Perceives ‘Global Sustainability’ Through Images

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Behind the Headlines: Films That Capture the Heart and Reality of Refugee Experiences appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

To answer this first we will briefly look at the genre’s history and what made it popular. We will then look at the modern western landscape and analyse the possible reasons for the genre’s resurgence.

The Old West

While popular in the silent era after 1939’s Stagecoach westerns became something more. The genre of heroic gunslingers, like John Wayne, and the lawless wilderness became a film fixture for decades. But westerns were also popular because their iconography is part of America’s identity. And early westerns presented America as a mythologized place of civilization, possibility, and freedom (mostly for white men). Which comforted audiences.

However, the genre’s ubiquity and ability to be made cheaply provided a great vehicle for critiquing American culture. For example, The Ox-Bow Incident used genre conventions to criticise capital punishment. Self-conscious genre critiques really took hold with the 1960s and 70s Revisionist and Spaghetti Westerns. Directors like Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah made the heroic cowboy figure more morally ambiguous. They subverted older stars’ images and created new anti-heroic stars like Clint Eastwood. And they spotlighted America’s ugly history of violence, mirroring American violence in Vietnam. The genre’s image of promoting “American values” during this tumultuous time coupled with competition from big-budget blockbusters led to decreasing appeal. With the genre mostly dying after Heaven’s Gate flopped.

When westerns sparsely re-emerged in the 90s and 2000s it retained star power. With stars like Clint Eastwood and Kevin Costner leading Unforgiven and Dances with Wolves. But elements of deconstruction became central. Whether critiquing the idolization of murderous figures (Unforgiven), the genocide of Native American peoples (Dances with Wolves), or showing the futility of western heroics in a post 9/11 world (No Country for Old Men). Modern westerns (both contemporary and period pieces) no longer projected the US’s mythic image. They explored modern issues and were atoning for the past.

The New Frontier

Modern westerns still attract big stars e.g. Leonardo DiCaprio and Denzel Washington. And those stars’ films rank among the genre’s highest grossers (Django Unchained and Magnificent Seven (2016)). That said other star vehicles have failed spectacularly (The Lone Ranger (2013)). So if returns are unpredictable and star power does not guarantee success why make a western? The answer seemingly lies in their ability to comment on America through its own iconography.

For example, Power of the Dog reframes the western as a place of toxic masculinity and misogyny. Something which reflects the concerns of many in the age of the #MeToo movement. Neo-western The Rider uses the cowboy image to focus on the loss of opportunity in America, which no doubt hits home after events like the housing crash. And The Harder They Fall sought to reclaim the stories of old west figures of colour. A much-needed move after the push for more stories from people of colour that came during the BLM movement.

But along with providing commentary, westerns now give space for diverse new voices. Cheaper productions have allowed a number of independent creatives to have a voice. Where once primarily focused on the white male view (though Spaghetti westerns gave international viewpoints) women are now giving their perspective on genre stories (Meek’s Cutoff, The Rider and Crossing the Line). International talent also continues to be involved (Power of The Dog). Additionally, big westerns are now led by more diverse casts (The Magnificent Seven (2016), The Hateful Eight). And creators of colour are realising their western visions on big scales (The Harder They Fall). Westerns are now a genre showcasing a diverse perspective on America and helping people to reclaim their stories.

A Fistful of Westerns

The western is not what it was, but it is now populated by more diverse voices showing new perspectives on the American experience. The previously exclusionary genre now provides space for evaluation, reflection, and progress which is not bound by budget or financial success. It’s finally a space where all can be seen.

Also Read: Review: The Harder They Fall

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post The New Frontier of the Western appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.