The hypocrisy of Hollywood preaching to the public about the ills of capitalism is hard to ignore. As they traverse the globe in private jets, the cultural elite are eager to demonstrate their moral superiority by ‘raising awareness’ of ‘pressing issues.’ Yet, they wouldn’t dream of relinquishing the comforts they denounce.
Hollywood is becoming more guilty lately of misinformation on environmental issues. Recently, Appian Way Productions, the company owned by Leonardo DiCaprio, unveiled a new animated film titled Ozi: Voice of the Forest. The story centers around a young orangutan, distinguished by her topknot, who stands up against a corporation intent on ravaging her rainforest habitat. Ozi fights back by mastering the use of a tablet and becoming an online influencer.
DiCaprio, in particular, is a prime example of this contradiction. He enjoys the convenience of private jets but seldom acknowledges the glaring inconsistency between his environmental activism and his considerable carbon footprint. Emails released by Wikileaks in 2015 revealed that DiCaprio took six private jet flights within a span of six weeks. The following year, he flew 8,000 miles on a private jet to accept an environmental award. The irony seems to escape him.
And it doesn’t stop with air travel. DiCaprio once took his girlfriend on a trip aboard Britain’s largest superyacht, the Vava II, which consumes 300 gallons of diesel per hour.
DiCaprio is entitled to his private jets and his contradictory beliefs. However, it’s unfortunate that he chooses to fill our cinemas with his sanctimonious messaging. Parents would do better to skip Ozi: Voice of the Forest and opt for something genuinely entertaining for their children, rather than subjecting them to thinly veiled propaganda.
Regrettably, the film is excruciating to watch. Even The Guardian only awarded it two stars. Viewers weren’t particularly impressed either; Ozi earned just £221 per cinema during its debut weekend. However, the filmmakers likely remain undeterred by these dismal earnings. Their true satisfaction likely comes from the approval they receive from their ideological supporters.
As expected, the film depicts entrepreneurship and profit-seeking as inherently harmful. What’s more, the environmental narrative at its core is easily disproven.
The antagonist in Ozi is a fictional palm-oil corporation. Palm oil, an ingredient found in approximately half of the packaged products on store shelves, ranging from chocolate to shampoo, has historically been linked to deforestation. However, like many other industries, palm oil production has seen significant improvements in sustainability over the years.
Due to a focused effort in Southeast Asia, the region where most palm oil is produced, 93 percent of the palm oil imported into Europe now meets sustainability standards. This shift has had substantial environmental benefits. For example, research from Global Forest Watch indicates that Malaysia, a leading producer of palm oil, has experienced a sharp decline in ‘primary forest loss.’ Since reaching its peak in 2014, forest loss has decreased by more than 70 percent. The palm oil industry today is far from inherently destructive.
But such facts seem to matter little to the creators of Ozi. Criticizing palm oil has become fashionable, and that seems to be reason enough to make it the focal point of the film. The movie simplifies the complex issue, presenting children with a stark choice between modern comforts and environmental preservation. From their opulent homes in California, the filmmakers imply that no balance between the two can be achieved.