⮞   Why did you choose such a challenging subject?

 

 Our era demands big, integrative questions. Humanity stands at a crossroads of climate pressure, social upheaval, and runaway technology; treating those crises as isolated problems felt dishonest. We wanted to explore the deeper currents beneath them—the ways cultures evolve, heal, or get stuck. As psychologists and cultural observers, we kept noticing how outer turmoil mirrors inner states. Heraclitus was right: “Change is the only constant,” and today the velocity of change is unprecedented. Instead of shying away, we felt a responsibility to dive in. In truth, the theme chose us as much as we chose it.

⮞   Additionally, why did you opt for animation among the various options available?

 

 LOOK UP ranges from microbes to galaxies, from private emotion to planetary systems. Only animation could glide freely across those scales and make the invisible visible. It let us fuse data with metaphor—co-operation becomes a flock of luminous particles; trauma cracks a landscape like dried earth. We treated each animated element like an actor with inner life, directing movement and timing until ideas carried genuine feeling. What began as a pragmatic tool soon revealed itself as the film’s native language.

⮞   I believe this topic could have been developed into a proper book, yet you chose to create a documentary. What                    specific reasons influenced this decision?

 We actually wrote a full manuscript first, then realized the knowledge needed a multisensory vessel. Film engages eyes, ears, and heart simultaneously: you feel the science rather than merely understand it. The voice-over you hear is a verbatim reading of our text, but onscreen words fuse with image and score to become an embodied experience. Turning pages into pulses of light and sound widens access without diluting depth.

⮞   Science and culture are often seen as poles apart; however, you decided to blend them together. What led you to                    believe that these two subjects would work well in conjunction?

 For us, science and culture were never separate. Science explains how the world works; culture decides what it means and what we do with that knowledge. Ideas themselves survive through a form of intellectual natural selection inside culture. Our partnership spans research and the arts, so pairing evolutionary biology with myth, neuroscience with storytelling, felt organic. When fact meets meaning, both become more powerful—and more human.

⮞   The film is filled with information and anecdotes. Was it a conscious decision to include them, or did the film’s flow                demand their presence?

 Both. We promised ourselves every scene would teach something concrete yet remain alive. Whenever a concept risked becoming abstract, a story stepped in to ground it. Over time the film demanded that rhythm—fact, story, pause, reflection—like breathing. The result is intentional density, but navigable through the heartbeat of narrative.

⮞   I’m curious about your extensive focus on connecting psychotherapy and culture. Why did you choose to dedicate so              much time to this?

 Culture is collective psyche writ large. The mechanisms that heal an individual—trust, dialogue, integration of trauma—scale up to communities. By showing parallels between the therapy room and the public square, we offer tangible hope: if people can change, cultures can too. Leaving psychotherapy out would have meant ignoring some of the most tested tools for transformation.

⮞   It’s clear that you invested significant effort in researching and writing. Can you share some insights into your writing            and research process?

 We began like doctoral candidates: hundreds of papers in psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, history, and philosophy. Then came the sculpting phase—removing everything that wasn’t the core statue. We write in first-person plural to invite the audience into a shared inquiry, drafts ping-ponging between our analytical and intuitive halves until we arrived at what we call “scientific poetry”: rigorous citations carried on lyrical sentences.

⮞   The background score is also fascinating, though it is divided into several parts. What inspired you musically while                creating the background score?

 We structured the film like a symphony with movements and recurring motifs. Classical roots (Bach, Rodrigo) provide architecture; improvisational influences add spontaneity. One moment the score swells with orchestral grandeur; the next it dissolves to a lone piano or a heartbeat pulse. Silence is equally purposeful—the pause between notes is part of the music. Sound and stillness form the film’s pulmonary system: inhale, exhale, insight.

⮞   The title of the documentary is catchy and engaging—straightforward and direct. What was your thought process                  behind naming the film?

 We wanted a title that is both a simple invitation and a profound metaphor. Literally: raise your eyes from screens and routines. Figuratively: aspire, seek perspective, imagine higher possibilities. The subtitle—The Science of Cultural Evolution—grounds that optimism in evidence. Two words open the door; the subtitle hints at the library inside.

⮞   Lastly, what projects are you planning for the future?

 Our next major step is The Doula School—a two-year part-time program blending modern psychology, neuroscience, and timeless wisdom to support parents, teachers, and caregivers. If LOOK UP maps cultural evolution, the Doula School aims at parental evolution, where culture truly begins. Cinematic modules and future documentaries will be core teaching tools. Beyond that, we’re nurturing new film concepts at the intersection of AI, consciousness, and ethics, always guided by the same mission: crafting scientific poetry that invites reflection, growth, and a kinder future. ▸