By Herman M. Lagon
Due to a cautious distributor and a lackluster reaction, Idiocracy’s 2006 release was welcomed with minimal fanfare. Eighteen years later, the film—with a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 66% on Metacritic, and 4.6/5 star rating that is higher than the all-time highest-grossing ($1.2 billion) R-rated Movie “Deadpool and Wolverine”—has transformed into a classic, a satire that seems uncannily accurate and prophetic. Biting criticism on the course of modern civilization is offered by the film’s basic concept, which portrays a dystopian future in which intelligence is scarce and ignorance is king. It is a place where the well-connected, famous, and ridiculously rich rule, frequently at the expense of integrity, competence, and good judgment.
The anti-intellectualism, mass consumerism, and corporate dominance that characterize our world today are satirized at the heart of Idiocracy. The film’s vision of a future where the least competent persons hold the most crucial roles acerbically deconstructs how we choose our supposed leaders. This pattern is typical in many countries, especially ours. Voters frequently disregard qualified, committed, tested-and-proved candidates in favor of the overhyped, filthy wealthy, pompous ignoramuses, opportunistic, or fence-sitters.
The movie starts in 2005 with average Joe Bowers (Luke Wilson) and a woman named Rita (Maya Rudolph) are put into a secret hibernation experiment. Forgotten when their base is closed, they remain in stasis until 2505. Upon waking, they find humanity’s intelligence has plummeted, making Joe the smartest person alive. Although played for laughs, this premise echoes a troubling trend in modern politics: the promotion of mediocrity, even stupidity. Debates in Congress have occasionally descended into ridiculous back-and-forths that put showmanship ahead of content, evoking images straight out of Idiocracy. These instances are amusing and appalling and reflect a more serious problem: the marginalization of critical thinking and well-informed decision-making.
One of the film’s most stunning aspects is its depiction of a society that has let corporate interests run rampant. Brands control everything in Idiocracy, including the most fundamental human needs. Despite the absurdity of substituting water for Brawndo, a sports drink, because “it’s what plants crave,” the risks of letting private interests influence public policy are evident. In practice, corporate or family-interest lobbying does have an outsized impact on policymaking, which can result in measures that put profit or personal interest before the common good.
The language in Idiocracy, which has become a clumsy amalgam of slang, grunts, and ads, shows the decline of data-driven analysis, reflective judgment, and genuine conversation. The modern tendency toward oversimplification of words in popular culture reflects this trend in traditional and social media. The rise of sensational headlines, soundbites, and viral content sometimes overshadows legitimate reportage, nuanced discourse, and sensible debate. A decline in our collective communication and collaborative skills endangers the capacity of our democratic society to hold fruitful dialogues.
Voluntary ignorance, or deciding to stay in the dark out of convenience, is another peril discussed in Idiocracy. Because of this lack of knowledge, the society in the film cannot address even the most fundamental issues. In this day and age, when false information travels at the speed of light, and many people selectively or ludicrously consume content that supports their existing worldview, this is a real concern. Poor governance becomes more than just possible; it becomes inevitable when people justify social apathy and utter laziness, stop caring about sensible governance, settle for mediocrity, or put fun before facts, as the film shows.
Ultimately, recognizing the importance of critical thinking in a society where the truth is being overwhelmed by noise is the central message of Idiocracy. As we observe the present political farce in our country, the US, Russia, and other parts of the world, it is abundantly evident that we need well-informed, competent, and charismatic servant leaders. There is an immediate need for a more socially aware, thoughtful, and involved voter in light of the shenanigans in the Senate, Congress, Malacanang, and Local Government Units (LGUs), where discussions frequently turn into comedy.
Idiocracy is hardly a flawless picture, though, and that much is clear. Its treatment of dysgenics, which proposes that the less intelligent can outproduce the more thoughtful, is oversimplified and possibly insulting. Whether deliberate or not, this statement has the potential to be construed as endorsing damaging prejudices. Nevertheless, the film’s overall impact is not diminished by these faults. On the contrary, they show how important it is to avoid generalizations and prejudice even when criticizing society.
Nevertheless, despite these critiques, Idiocracy has garnered a considerable following, mainly due to its disturbing precision in foretelling specific social tendencies that some of us now witness. People who live through the problems depicted in the film—consumer culture, intellectualism’s decline, showbiz theatrics, short-term thinking, smart shaming, and entertainment-driven politics—will identify with the film’s condemnation.
Idiocracy is a sobering reminder that the most profound lessons often come when we least expect them. In its peculiar way, it encourages us to be more demanding of ourselves and our leaders, to value competency above popularity, and to think critically about the problems and narratives that impact our society.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.
