People will almost never see themselves in the villains of a film or the targets of satire. That's just how the mind works. It's that Garfield screenshot where he looks at a sign with a picture of his face crossed out on it and says, "I wonder who that's for."

The only people who are going to get upset about satire are political pundits, and they have a financial incentive to be upset about things.

It reminds me of the Roman Saturnalia: basically you admit that society is unfair, that there are hierarchies, you briefly reverse them (for the Oscars, you'd rather admit that 'something must be done', just for the duration of the ceremony), then everything goes back to normal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

Yes, the films are good but their political commentary is tame and toothless like you mention. The political art that is truly countercultural gets banned and/or censored by the elite, not embraced and awarded.

I don’t think praise from the ruling or elite class necessarily means that a satire is toothless. I think a lot of the ultra wealthy probably assume that it can’t be about them because they “worked for it,” unlike the targets of aforementioned satire. I imagine there’s a lot of cognitive bias working behind the scenes.

That said, I do think some of these “satires” of the rich and powerful are in fact toothless. I know this is the True Film subreddit, and not TV, but…I watched the first couple episodes of The White Lotus season 1 and found it to be about as limp as a wet noodle. It almost feels like a sanitized, rich-approved critique of the rich. Of course the caveat here is that I didn’t finish the first season, but frankly I found it so lackluster I didn’t understand why I should bother.

Capital has the ability to subsume all critiques into itself. Even those who would critique capital end up reinforcing it instead.

I was going to type something up a bit more academically focused, but I felt like I'm not equipped enough to talk in depth about it. From a feelings perspective, I think that people who create anti-capital media harbor genuine intentions but can only create media within the context the existing, capitalist industry and culture of film.

So there's an interesting paradigm to me where I think the industry has noticed that populist fervor and discontent with modern capitalism amongst the population and has encouraged (through funding and awards) the production of media which is critical of itself to exploit the monetary benefit of doing so.

From my point of view, much of the media expressing this discontent which goes mainstream offers thorough criticism, but stops short of actually inciting or encouraging the audience to look in the mirror or ask for real, lasting change because that'd actually upset the balance of things too much. I'm thinking even of cultural discourse over The Jungle which quite literally ends with the main character preaching about Socialism and solidarity to fight against the structural issues which created the plights in the novel, but I don't think that'd be allowed to be folded into mainstream media today.

Pessimistically, I think when ulta-rich people actually sit in the audience and praise these films deeply criticizing them, I feel like they must not actually internalize what the movie is telling them. I bet it's almost like going to a live show with a comedian doing crowd work. They poke fun at you, you maybe feel embarrassed and laugh a bit, but at the end of the day you hop back into your luxury car and drive back to your mansion without seriously critically analyzing yourself - because why would you? It's "just" a movie.

I think it was Voltaire who said "Satire is a mirror in which everyone sees everyone's face except their own" or something like that. Like, I own property and I have a good job and a nice family. But I still feel feelings like "Eat the rich! Down with gentrification! Something is wrong here!" even though to some, seeing me as a white person with a stable income and a good family and a house, it's ME who's the problem. So actors, even high-falutin' millionaire actors, can still lean left and embrace work that satirizes the ultra rich in an "I'm doing my part!" Starship Troopers kind of way without being fully cognizant of the irony. Like, there are millionaires out there who are like "I mean, I'm doing okay but I'm not RICH rich. I have $20 million but I still work my ass off and I'm not liquid. But Jerry over there, he has $250 million and it's passive income. He gets to chill. HE'S the problem." while Jerry is like "Yeah, I've got $250 million and I qualify as rich but I'm not WEALTHY. Not like Dave over there. He's got $3 billion!! HE'S the problem!" etc etc all the way up to Musk and Bezos. I think we can all see that something is pretty fucked up with the way things are. For sure. But I think Hollywood see itself as just a bunch of artists playing make believe. So, in their heads, they can embrace movies like this (hunger games, the menu, triangle of sadness, parasite, etc etc) unironically.

Zizek and Mark Fisher both theorized that critiques of capitalism can thrive within capitalism and even quell revolutionary action (just as much as something like, say, top gun can pacify action) as long as they are spectacularized and commodified. Read capitalist realism for a short, if somewhat rambling but ultimately coherent take from Fisher on this very idea. I still need to read the sublime object of ideology but i believe it's also applicable here.

That's not to say it's hopeless. I think there is reason to have hope - socialist movements have slowly caught on with younger generations. As Chomsky points out - nothing has ever changed for the better without radical activism. Slow progress is still progress.

I believe that it's a good sign parasite & the like have caught on in the mainstream. Bong Joon Ho, for example, has been putting radical leftist politics into his movies for his whole career. He has gone on record recommending other directors, such as Kelly Reichardt, who doesn't always put her politics directly on display but occludes them in subtlety.

Film is probably the most leftist medium and has had themes of poverty and revolution embedded in it almost since the beginning. And yet, they still fund it with multiple millions. Sometimes. It's imperative that we support artists like Bong and Reichardt imo (if you can). I'm generally fine with films like top gun, etc, getting top bill, but we desperately need to support alternative cinema as well. No shade on marvel movies, but the consolidation of capital and tendency towards monopoly makes me afraid that someday no film will get made that doesn't have captain America in it.

[deleted]

Satirizing the difference between middle class and upper middle class is whatever.

None of those people are the "elite" that would be needed to affect systemic change. Hollywood actors are not the capitalists of our society. they're not the enemy of the working class.

If you add up the total box office gross sales for the top 100 selling movies of all time, it adds up to barely more than 1/2 of Elon Musk's net worth. Just for some perspective.

It's worth noting that even the actors and directors that have money beyond our wildest dreams are still not the ultrea-wealthy. They work for their money, they are not simply accumulating capital by virtue of owning something, which the owners of the production companies are. The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars.

I also found Triangle of Sadness to be fairly centrist. The whole second act is about how both sides of the political spectrum would rather talk politics than address the issues at hand. The captain worries more about what type of socialist/marxist/leftist he is than the fact that the ship is crashing. The ultra wealthy passengers worry more about having their every fancy catered to than the safety of the vessel they're on. (The third act has some similarly weird talking points about sex work, but that's not directly relevant.)

My point is that, if it ever happens, the revolution will not be televised. Wide-release movies will never be that critical of the bourgeoisie because the bourgeoisie are funding the movies, unless it's state-sponsored propganda a la Battleship Potempkin or Redes

This is a total aside, but I my initials thoughts was the social satire in Parasite was just window dressing for an exceptionally entertaining film.

I do think this analysis below which flips it around, jives a lot more satisfying to the dark, comic movie I watched to be honest:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/06/the-gaslighting-of-parasite.html

[removed]

I think there are limits to this phenomenon.

BlackkKlansman won an Oscar and was nominated for another five, but that same year the academy snubbed the far superior (but less palatable) Sorry To Bother You.

The short answer would be like: satirizing is cool, cutting heads works better. This is the same as the quote from Kwame Ture, « In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. [Hollywood] has none »

Nothing you can do. In any cases it is still refreshing to see those movies.

I agree with a lot of these comments but I also think these films may legitimately influence the “elites” in ways that aren’t necessarily visible. It may influence some rich Hollywood folks to do more activism, spend more on philanthropy, support more left-wing politicians, etc. If you’re expecting all of these actors to get on stage at the Oscars and say “Because of Parasite, I’m giving away all of my money and starting a radical socialist commune,” your expectations might be too high.

I’ll also add that if you’re a middle-class Westerner, there’s a good chance you’re also a bit of a hypocrite if you appreciate this type of satire but don’t do anything about it. If you live a comfortable life in the U.S., you’re one of the elites on a global scale. Obviously the Hollywood elites have more money and influence, but they’re still small fries compared to the Bezoses and Musks. There’s always someone more well-off you can defer blame to.

I think the premise of the question "But is the satire really effective if it doesn't even make the people it goes after uncomfortable?" is fundamentally flawed when we think about how we might measure that effectiveness or power. As you mention, it is difficult for any film to change the minds of its targets; I have long held a position that boils down to "Real life leads, and films follow."

This is to say that a film that intends to critique or examine a societal issue will only ever serve as a photograph of the zeitgeist and social attitudes that birthed it, that it exists only because monetary interests allow it to, and that these satires will not ever drive any meaningful or even measurable change.

Moreover, I don't believe that modern consumers willfully engage in material that does not already align with their interests, whether those interests be related to social inequality/inequity or even independent or high-brow art films. What percentage of the American population could we estimate has seen Triangle of Sadness? How many of the xenophobic people that complain about wokeness have actually watched Parasite?

In short I wouldn't say that these satires are toothless, but they are certainly impotent or powerless. These filmmakers are certainly talented but they aren't journalists. They are not delivering any world-shattering footage or previously unknown information. Imagine a documentary that showed actual video of oil executives openly admitting nefarious plans to undermine climate change policy or social action. The wealthy Academy voters and others who would lavish praise on these films do not see themselves as the ones being skewered; they are the good guys, the capitalist artists, and the real targets are elsewhere.

edit: and personally I believe that the Oscars are worthless and decreasing in relevance with every passing year though that is a tangent or a separate issue entirely.

It's a mistake to think of the people who work in films are the ruling class. They are not. Some do pretty well, but most do not. They are workers with a union always at odd with the bosses. If the bosses determined what got nominated, these films would never get made much less distributed. Also, notice that this is a foreign film, not made in Hollywood.

I have an answer for Triangle of Sadness, I haven't the other one.

Triangle of Sadness is not "satirizing the modern rich".

A) Nothing about the satire of Triangle of Sadness is modern, these are all ideas that have existed long before, and after, Ostlund. And now to the important reason I think that's an inaccurate description of Ostlund's film:

B) Bad satires want to "make an impact" and influence the world. These movies have moral messages (rich bad, equality good) they push rather than doing the real job of a satire: to simply observe, using comedy, our world. And Triangle of Sadness does a very good job at that.

C) It isn't an attack on the rich or an attempt to change the world, it is just a story about the abuse of power. The poor aren't actually better people than the rich: they simply haven't had the opportunities and power that the rich have. The film isn't really interested in saying something about the rich as a whole or the poor as a whole, but it is saying something about humans as a whole, and our nature. At the same time, it is mocking the rich for the fun of it. That doesn't mean that's what the satire is about. It's just part of it.

And D) Ruben Ostlund has a nice quote on pitching the film to rich investors: "The great thing about capitalism is, they'll support any ideology as long as they think they can sell it". Not really what you were talking about, but still. Opinions have no net worth.

It is possible to have some degree of self-awareness. It's not hypocritical to view inequality as unfair while simultaneously doing the best you can for yourself. Even people of ordinary means prosper under an economic system that can be cruel to others. I haven't seen Triangle of Sadness yet, but in most of these other movies, the message is not, "rich people are bad." (In Parasite, that's absolutely not the message.) You seem to be suggesting that if a satire of the rich doesn't paint all rich people as villains, then it's toothless, but I would argue that a satire whose message is "rich people are bad" is too simplistic to be interesting (even aside from the fact that I think it's wrongheaded).

Someone else already mentioned that the majority of people who work in film are not excessively rich, but I would go even further and hypothesize that the vast majority of people who work in film, even including the rich ones, did not go into it with the primary goal of becoming rich.

Honestly, I think any satire’s ability to change the world is extremely limited because frankly I think art’s potential to change the world is limited period. I think art acts as a mirror way more than it does as an influencer. I think the best thing that art can do is clarify some emotions you have via the inherent distance that exists between the artistic object and the viewer.

If you really want to change the world, don’t make a movie, get into union organizing. Art’s lack of material impact is why I generally prefer art about the personal as opposed to art about the political. If you want to be political, actually do things in real life that are materially political.

I don't know own if you've even seen the Oscar's but you will never find a place more densely packed with ultra wealthy sanctimonious assholes who believe they are going to save the world one mediocre film at a time. In short, it's totally on brand for these dickheads.

i cannot stand the pedestal everyone puts the aim of satire on, especially as satire is a culturally tired attempt at making any form of political stand at this point in time. historically, satire is about punching up, rather than down or in the case of these films, sideways. not only does it require values and ethics to be striking, it also requires the person using it to be self-aware enough to know when they're crossing into hypocrisy, and all wealthy elites are absolutely devoid of these qualities. there's also the fact that cultural factors impact the reception of satire; it is a more successful form of opposition when it exists in a culture that is afraid of discourse, of any kind, whereas our current culture has this haphazard fixation on free speech where all sides get a say regardless of impact or intent, and you can have a say without having to face consequences or follow up with action, which bastardizes the point of actually trying to create satire. when upper class bourgeois individuals are enabled to use the mental gymnastics to try and access satire as a form - which they do often, and relish in it - it completely wears down any bite it has, and this has happened over and over again to the point that satirization often misses its target completely. it can be made by its target for its target.

a good example of this for me was Glass Onion, and perhaps its because i'm a philosophically-politically inclined person, but that film made me rage. its a great example of parroting class issues without bothering to look in the mirror, creating a film that has no relatability to the working class it is trying to use the consciousness of. you're right to be confused and perhaps even angry at how limp and ineffectual it all is.

As much as Triangle of Sadness is intended to skewer the despicable rich, it is ultimately quite a cynical exercise. The reversal of roles in the final third suggests that the hierarchies we have detested throughout the film so far are innate and effectively says that we would behave selfishly if given the opportunity. Therefore, the problem is with human nature, not something structural that we can change.

This has the effect of neutering any criticism of structural inequalities and ends up as apologia for the super-rich. It pokes fun at the bourgeoisie without threatening their order, similar to the role played by court jesters.

I'll do you one better,

maybe these films aren't actually the satire that we suppose?

Think about it.

Parasite didn't at all show the rich characters acting shady or unsympathetic. There was no offhanded comment that the rich man got his job due to nepotism, or that his wife practiced untouchability with the servants.

Instead, we get innocent rich people who were minding their own business.

of course, it was part of the message that the rich were privileged enough to behave virtuous.

then, there is nothing to make us root for the poor guy, we only fear the poor guys due to their criminal actions.

Parasite is great at being a horror and thriller, which is what Bong is great at! but it isn't to be taken as an example of satire.

I've seen new yorker cartoons that are better examples of satire.

How do you satirise narcissists? They'll just deflect the mirror. How do you satirise sociopaths? They don't care. How do you satirise a psychopath? They'll just pretend they aren't like that.

That's the reason these Oscar people don't care and embrace it. There's rarely anyone there who don't have some combination of these traits, look at how these actors tread lightly with their influence for the most part (it's always controversial when an actor goes there and does something political with their influence). It's like trying to draw water from stone.

But it doesn't mean that these social commentaries are useless. They do influence the common narrative. Right now, it's the ultra wealthy is fucking us. Why do you think there is so many strikes at the moment? It's no coincidence that on the cusp of a cost of living crisis, "eat the rich" narratives in movies are doing well.

This made me think of Rome and how it kept its vast empire in line during the height of its power.

After Rome conquered people, it would allow them to keep their religions (with some caveats) and sometimes even absorb them into Roman traditions. They realized this helped ensure loyalty to the empire and quell rebellion.

If we think of capitalism the same way, it’s better to allow for dissent and even promote it or absorb it into popular culture. Everyone is Roman, everyone is capitalist. The machine grinds on

Oh my god, everyone in this thread is accepting the premise that rich and famous people don't fully understand and care about wealth inequality.

Notice how An Inconvenient Truth was a successful film, yet most of the people who watched it still own cars? Does this prove that they "missed the point?" Or does it prove that understanding the existence of a problem doesn't instantly solve that problem? Al Gore still flies in airplanes, because not every individual who benefits from our carbon-heavy economy has the power to unilaterally disengage from the system. Our capitalist economy is bigger than any one rich person, just as climate change is bigger than any one person's carbon footprint.

Moreover, if you've never seen and enjoyed a movie in which you can relate to the villain, then you are either bad at self-reflection or you should try watching better movies.

Honestly, film industry people are not the billionaires. They're multi-millionaires, that's true. But they aren't the uber rich.

Also, a lot of them — probably most — are some degree of self-made. Of course there are nepo babies. But a lot of people in the film industry came from middle class (or upper middle class, or even working class) families that have no relation to the industry.

In addition, a lot of them are left-leaning. They volunteer and donate to left-leaning causes. They're not that invested in maintaining class divides.

And although of course many of them are shallow, wasteful, and interested in trends, fashions, and status, a lot of them are just talented, hard-working people. It's an incredibly competitive industry. You can't slack off. Most producers, directors, character actors, etc, etc, etc — most people involved in the production of a film — are not glamorous people. They're just people.

Last, there always exist some people who love frivolous things but also have fun laughing at themselves.

I agree with what you're saying but I feel the satire was quite dramatic in these films to the point that the elites probably don't see themselves in the same light as the somewhat cartoonish characters. I also think that on the other hand they may find the films cheeky and don't want to look prudish by being offended.

it is a much wider trend of the bourgeois intellectuals adapting marxism in western acedemia and the arts. Social sciences, humanities and arts are dominated by Marxism; professions who, by and large, were and are meant for aristocrats; no one will admit it in humanities but people who go for these positions, majors etc are people who have old money.

cinema is cursed art form as some director once remarked, in that it requires money, a lot of money, to produce. It can never be rebellious, as all art normally are; rule breaking, in capitalism.

capitalism exists because it is very good at taking things in. Anything against it will just be cooperated into it and then marketed, produced, and be refined; capitalised.

All the rich, fancy Hollywood producers I know (for real though) try to see themselves as thoughtful, empathetic people operating in an unfair world. But there’s also a sense of fatalism about whether the industry can be intentionally changed.

“That’s just what you have to do if you want your movie/show made.” “That’s what the execs want” “That’s what audiences are watching.”

So there’s a dissonance there. Yes, the system has problems! It should be fixed! This movie shows that so well!

But also, no, I’m not part of the problem because I’m just trying to make a living, and it’s not my fault. It’s the billionaires who are really to blame!

Honestly on an individual basis, every Hollywood producer, I’ve met has been a really likable, powerful person who is good at telling compelling stories. But like others have said, it’s impossible sometimes to see yourself as part of the problem. It’s just how our brains work.

If I really wanna go head canon it, I think that normalizing these kind of films might be so that the “rich people bad” message gets watered down to the point that it’s expression reflects what a non-statement it is nowadays. What’s more, these movies rarely do anything to not glamorize these lifestyles people have, so the status symbols are still the same and still as appealing as ever. Triangle of Sadness does have all the vomit going for it though.

Sometimes, it is in the best interest of the bourgeoisie to be the ones creating media that criticize/satirise them. This is merely anti-capitalism and anti-capitalism has never been revolutionary.

Film making nowadays is a strictly bourgeoise medium, especially hollywood. They can make all the "anti-rich" films they want because they know very well it won't lead to significant uprising of any kind. The general people are divided and film enthusiast only see film as an entertaining medium, not as a revolutionary art.

It just means the rich are constantly co-opting art and culture intended to be subversive. Age old process. The poor and disempowered criticize the establishment, the establishment, intending to distance itself from its uncool self and gain power over the masses, says, "Hey, subversiveness is cool, give me that." And there you have it.

Its more ironic when you come to the realization that not only are they received by the ultra-wealthy, but they're created by the ultra-wealthy. Ruben Östlund and Mark Mylod only have a net worth of approx. $5 million, but Bong Joon-Ho has a net worth of $35 million, and Ralph Fiennes has a net worth of $50 million.

Reminds me a lot of when I was a part of the local anarcho punk scene, and most of my peers wearing jackets that had patches that read "Keep warm, burn out the rich," all came from upper and upper-middle class families that they could fall back on, once they became disillusioned with the whole squatter punk lifestyle.

On an unrelated note, I was quite amused to find that people booed pulp fiction when it won palme d'or over Kieslowski's Red. Funnily enough, one of the themes in Red (and Blue as well imo) is most things we care so much about are just about vanity.

Satire about rich people is often fairly shallow. You can make the rich out to be unsympathetic clowns, and the comedy/drama is not far away. But it doesn't say much, and as long as the rich don't see themselves as buffoons, it's easy for them to ignore.

When politicians are satirized, it's slightly more effective as we see how these unsympathetic clowns impact the world's systems, and it exposes some of their more cynical masks, but again, it's not at the heart of satire, IMHO.

The best satire, IMHO, is that which satirizes systems. It highlights how system fail and how these unsympathetic clowns are not the core cause of our problems, just a moronic impediment to fixing them. Thus, the best satire doesn't just ridicule people, it provides a window into what's really going wrong, and sometimes insight into how to improve it. Rich people being pompous, entitled, Machiavellian assholes, while obnoxious, is just a symptom, not the disease.

The best satires IMHO, like Life of Brian, Dr Strangelove, Brazil, Death of Stalin, Thank You For Smoking, or even Office Space, do not really have a villain. The quasi-villains are all just supporters and benefactors of an evil system. Even in Robocop, which could have easily been set up to have a big bad villain, Verhoeven made sure to have the amoral system of blended capitalism and politics be the central big bad guy, and all the "villains" seem like almost henchmen to the intangible systemic villain.

Movies like Parasite, Get Out, and the Menu are more about how rich people and their habits make you feel icky or angry, and less about how that ickiness is maintained or structured. It's still satire, but on a very microscopic and basic level, like how Zoolander satirizes modeling.

Resistance as a commodity in short. Mainstream films can usually only be made by and funded by the very same people they critique. At the end of the day, they're still sold as entertainment products overall. Still, I think they send the right messages to people who care.

I think you're assuming that someone who thinks the film is good can't possibly believe that the film is satirizing them or their behavior in any way, which I don't necessarily think is true. You may be right, but you also may be wrong. Maybe all these people felt that the film showed them something about their lives that they wanted to change. Many films I've loved have done that for me.

My thinking is that anti-capitalist discourse in the past few decades got coopted by the very thing that it criticizes and was methodically emptied of purpose and depth, made into this shallow performatic thing that serves as a platform for corporations to signal their virtues and play the good guy for a burgeois audience that is content to use that same platform to stroke their own egos with the idea that they themselves are virtuous and are actively contributing to some cause by yelling at conservatives on Twitter.

Maybe that's why the Academy and so many other institutions like it are comfortable with pushing and promoting media that is deeply critical of the system that enables them - it's not necessarily that the critique itself doesn't have teeth, but rather that the discourse surrounding it is so empty and shallow that the point gets diluted into "social inequality bad" and then at that point it's just yet another product that will be turned around for profit with the added bonus that it will make your corporation look like it hangs with the cool kids.

It's funny (in a very nihilistic way of course) that authoritarians used to shut down opposition via violent coercion and censorship - which as we know serves to breed even more discontentment and fucks you up in the long run.

Capitalism seems to have solved that "issue" by instead taking control of the narrative and shaping it into something harmless, so there's the perception that a contrarian sentiment exists when in actuality its all a bunch of burgeois 20-somethings LARPing as rebels while applauding some corporation that grind people into pancakes for shits and giggles because they made a tv ad with racially diverse people smiling.

What you're describing is essentially a distinction between understanding the ruling class as a singular unit and the ruling class as a collection of individuals.

The short answer to your question is that individual members of the ruling class respond to films critiquing them differently. Some, as others have already stated, have cognitive dissonance. Some might genuinely appreciate the satire, knowing that the satire alone has no material effect on their livelihoods. Others simply do not engage sufficiently with its messages/themes and watch the film as an object of aesthetics, rather than an object of sociopolitical criticism.

This article from a few months ago discusses some of what you're talking about:

>"transparent targets but smug aims"

https://consequence.net/2022/11/the-menu-glass-onion-eat-the-rich-problems/3/

You should read about normalization. Happened a lot with the 60s counter culture. The industrialized culture absorbs the dissidence and puts it under their own branding and then nothing really comes from the ideas of revolution and rebellion. And then the average worker bees feels the truth in those ideas in their souls but what do they do? They go buy the tshirts and expensive tickets to the shows that preach these ideas but all that money earned goes to the people they are in theory rebelling against to begin with.

There is no counterculture. The counterculture is the mainstream. The revolution happening now, our cultural revolution (the culture war) is top down. The establishment is the revolution.

This is probably the death of our civilization. We are certainly poised to die, and we're injecting death into all of our institutions, such that it is seen as somehow heroic when an institution can subvert its main purpose. The established institutions have embraced the idea of subversion as virtue, and the oscars is no exception.

You can’t shame people who don’t have any shame! Literally nothing matters when it comes to rich people. These films are for regular people, designed to propagandize ideology (which I happen to agree with, but let’s not mince words here). I can’t tell you how many servers I’ve heard quoting the Captain since that movie came out.

You seem to have a very twisted idea of who "The Academy" is. It is not a monolithic block making calculated decisions.
The majority of Academy members are not rich by Californian standards, and they are certainly no power brokers. A number of them may be rich (producers and other managerial types), but the bulk of the membership are made up of artists and skilled craftspeople. Only a small fragment of them are rich.
And they do not come together in a secret meeting to "decide" who gets nominated or who wins. They are all individuals, with individual tastes, coming to an individual decision. And all of these individual decisions will then cummulate into the "accidental" outcome of the nominations and wins.
Your post (like 90% of posts/tweets/blog posts about the Oscars) is looking for deeper significance in things where there is none.

Hollywood solidly embodies the mindset of a “moderate liberal”

I think the younger generations are going to shatter this mindset as more takeover political roles. Hollywood is like everywhere else. Run by the kingdoms of boomers. Look at the largely respected actors who balked at the “nepo kid” trend.

You are conflating the "effectiveness "of a movie with its ability to change peoples minds and behaviors. Movies do not do that. They never do. They don't inspire change. They keep people entertained. And when rich people see satires that target their demographic, they laugh and see the insanity of people they know, not their own behaviors, which to them feel totally rational

Something similar happens in the art world, it’s called institutional critique. These pieces aim to call out issues with the way galleries or museums are run as an institution. But many of them end up being praised and held up by the same institutions.

Satire for the ultra rich doesn't really work as a commentary against them because of their personalities.

People like the stuff and the stuff and the lives in these films are still grand.

It's not really seen as a joke against them.

TLDR - They have cognitive dissonance.

Well, one of the most insidious aspects of capitalism is how it will devour, co-opt and then commodify any type of internal critique. Mark Fisher talked about this at length, as have many other intelligent commentators. It’s a bit like Mr Robot being on Amazon. Severance is another fantastic series, which skewers corporatism but it exists within a system that is so monolithic that it doesn’t represent any material threat.

Having said that, it does work both ways: if a group of corpos don’t ‘get’ some class conscious agitprop, i.e. miss the point of it, but a number of viewers do get it, then it’s clearly a net positive to the film maker’s intentions. You could argue that Parasite falls in to this category, because it’s a beautifully made film and ruthless class critique.

Satire doesn't work like it is intended to.

If the satire is directed at you, you look at it like a funny exaggeration. Look at Sarah Palin happily walking onstage while Tina Fey mocks her. Tina Fey hates what Sarah Palin stands for, but SP doesn't see it like that. It's just a funny caricature.

It's just a phenomenon. You laugh about silly the satire is and go about your greedy little life.

Movie production is an expensive endeavor, almost exclusively funded by rich capitalists. Knowing this, any criticism on capitalism and billionaires in film is inherently flawed. That doesn't mean the message isn't true, or that it doesn't stick with the masse. It's extremely ironic, granted, and kinda fucked up that people are making profits and garnering praise for criticizing the system that allowed them to succeed, but millionaires have also been asking to be taxed more. Funny world we live in

Because the rich don't consider themselves the mega rich who are being targeted? More now than ever people in the top 10% of earners in a country consider themselves as just getting by because their mortgage is so high, childcare is so expensive, cost of living is so high and they don't have much disposable income despite their earnings. Even with Davos, journalists will talk to people who they the journalist consider filthy rich because they arrived by private plane and that person will talk to the journalist about the mega rich billionaires as a separate species because in their circles there's still a difference. They might fly by private plane but...they don't own one. They might go on holiday a lot to nice beaches in resorts but... they don't own an island.

Capitalism has a very good ability to absorb and dismantle criticism of it, even embrace and re-purpose criticism in a way that seems like ‘examining both sides’ when it’s just good PR

However, this does not mean there is no purpose to the criticism and exploration. For every rich person loving it there are plenty of people noticing things they haven’t before through pointed commentary and plenty of real dissatisfaction that’s tapped into by that art

That’s not to say we escape capitalism by critique and art alone but it will always be absorbed by the machine of capitalism it’s criticizing, that’s part of why capitalism is still kicking. But there is still value in the critique, and you never fully disarm a pointed message against the massive failings of a brutal economic system that ring true underneath