
"It must be nice to always know better, to always be the smartest one in the room."
"No. It's awful."
-- Peter Hackes and Holly Hunter, Broadcast News
For all of the talk about An Inconvenient Truth's ground-breaking nature -- a top-ten Box Office showing in its first week despite playing on less than 100 screens nationwide, a unique cinematic opportunity to have an ex-Vice President open up on film about his life and ideas, an unabashed attempt to try and change the direction of the planet's fate with mere storytelling and argument -- it also demonstrates one of the classic rules of indie filmmaking. If you want to get something on film fast, have the person you're filming practice, practice, practice. It works for adaptations of plays (like The Shape of Things or Melvin Goes to Dinner); it works for concert films (like The Last Waltz and Neil Young: Heart of Gold). There are no guarantees to success in filmmaking, but if your project involves pointing the camera at someone who's doing something they've done any number times before you've certainly narrowed down the number of things that might go terribly wrong.
And Al Gore has been talking -- and thinking -- about global warming for 30 years; recently, he's begun addressing crowds about the topic. Directed by high-end TV veteran Davis Guggenheim, An Inconvenient Truth takes Gore's road show and makes a movie out of it. In many ways, An Inconvenient Truth is like the documentary equivalent of adapting a musical like Phantom of the Opera or Hairspray into a film. And in many ways it is not, because when you make a film out of The Phantom of the Opera, there's not a flurry of punditry about if The Phantom is going to run for President again in 2008.
There's a lot of politicking around An Inconvenient Truth, much of which obscures the film's very real merits, and that's a pity. Liberals are making it the must-see film of the summer for left-leaning film fans, like The Passion of The Christ for Utne Reader subscribers. Conservative commentators are re-grinding the "Gore Loser" ax and dismissing the films' concerns as tree-hugging partisan nonsense aimed at the ex-oilman currently in The White House, who took the job away from Gore fair (or not) and square (or not) six years ago. The problem is that heated molecules don't move to the right or left; they simply rise, because physics is not partisan or ideological. (If it were, we'd be hearing about 'intelligent falling' instead of gravity.)
Some Leftists will love An Inconvenient Truth as it gives them a parallel-universe take on The Da Vinci Code: A brilliant, decent man is the only one who can marshal arcane information, decipher the conspiracy and save the world! (Gore has better hair than Tom Hanks, too.) And some Conservatives will hate An Inconvenient Truth, finding it a piece of propaganda scaremongering with no more basis in reality than, say, X-Men: The Last Stand. And both of those groups, with their completely off-base reasons to hate or love the film, will dominate the debate and squeeze out reasonable people who might actually be convinced either way.
But as a film, An Inconvenient Truth is well worth seeing; it's actually a nicely made documentary, even if you're just watching Gore run through Keynote slides on his PowerBook. (Movie Cliché Alert: Gore, like every movie good guy, uses Apple computing.) Much of An Inconvenient Truth is like watching Gore give the end-of-quarter marketing presentation -- and we all know how exciting that can be -- but the significant difference is that Gore's not giving numbers for the end of quarter but rather for the End of Days.
Gore explains -- unimpeachably, methodically, carefully -- about how the buildup of man-made gases is resulting in an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide which may be increasing global temperatures. (Actually, Gore's a lot less firm in this assertion than you'd think. Gore's trying to make the point that global warming is worth looking into based on the facts, where as much of the discourse about not worrying about global warming is based on wishful thinking and corporate inertia.) And Guggenheim does a good job of bringing Gore's public presentations and personal asides to life, even if I wanted to know less about Gore-the-person and more about global warming.
And my inner centrist was riding a roller-coaster during An Inconvenient Truth: I liked how Gore and Guggenheim did not use images of cute animals in peril too much (although there's a CG polar bear that gave me diabetes in about 5 seconds flat); you don't want this film to play solely on a level of environmental sympathy for lesser beings, The Deathmarch of the Penguins. At the same time, why does the central question any unconvinced person would most be curious about -- Is fighting global warming going to hurt my job, my pocketbook, my standard of living? -- have to wait until 15 minutes before the closing titles? And God help us, did Melissa Etheridge have to do the theme song over the end credits? You couldn't reach out to someone less obvious, like Jimmy Buffett or Jack Johnson?
But this is Gore's show, and it is easy for Guggenheim to make Gore look good, because he is good -- warm, funny, incisive and committed. He can get away with a joke at his expense -- "Hello; I'm Al Gore; I used to be the next President of the United States. ..." -- and then sell a line that quietly, defiantly and firmly accuses the current administration of costing us all a high price: "Maybe we should be concerned about other problems as well as terrorism?" And Gore knows how to structure an argument, too -- citing the Global warming findings of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's science adviser, and implicitly raising the contrast that we trust Tony Blair's advisors and intelligence when going to war but fail to hear their concerns as regards the fate of life on Earth. ...
And a big part of An Inconvenient Truth's appeal is its maddening, charming, infuriating and earnest naiveté. This is a film that thinks it can change politics -- which becomes truly hilarious after a few moments contemplation of our re-districted, campaign-contribution, incumbent-favoring public sphere, where politics itself can't change politics-as-usual. There's a note in the credits about how An Inconvenient Truth is an "energy offset," "carbon neutral" film -- or, in other words, no planets were harmed in the making of this film. And maybe that is earnest naiveté, but I'd rather that than numb, dumb cynicism or blind, willful ignorance.
And all of this is irrelevant to the fact that, yes, An Inconvenient Truth works as a movie; Guggenheim manages to turn info-bits like the total number of annual frost-free days in Iceland -- I wish I were kidding -- into compelling parts of a gripping narrative that is neither sensationalized nor treated lightly. You'll walk out of An Inconvenient Truth talking to your seatmates; you will have much to think about; you'll be confronted with a vision of the worst-case scenario and seduced with an appeal to the best parts of America. An Inconvenient Truth may be summertime counter-programming, but it's also one of the more noteworthy and thought-provoking films of the year.
(For more on An Inconvenient Truth's controversy and genesis, see Karina Longworth's report on the Al Gore WIRED Town Hall. See also Kim Voynar and Ryan Stewart's previous reviews of the film.)













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-15-2006 @ 9:46AM
Hollie said...
I don't really understand your problem with the "carbon neutral" claim, could you elaborate? There are easily half a dozen websites out there that would allow you to make various aspects of your life carbon neutral, although I'm sure the average American is not familiar with this term.
Reply
6-15-2006 @ 11:17AM
james said...
Part of the films apeal is the "carbon Neutral" I don't interpret a problem being articulated there.
For me the films best and worst aspect is Al Gore. Anyone that cares about the planet should also catch the Nova presentation of "Global Dimming". Because of Global Dimming, the effects of Global Warming are being masked and offset.
Have we reached the point of "Human" Peter Principal?
What a world, What a world!
Reply
6-15-2006 @ 12:56PM
Josh Boelter said...
Hmm, that doesn’t sound like good news that the film only tackles the “Will this hurt my job/economy?” question 15 minutes from the end. To paraphrase the Aaron Eckhart character in Thank You for Smoking, people will commit all manner of sins in the name of paying the mortgage. Very few people are able to look beyond their own small world to see the bigger picture. I live in the Detroit suburbs and almost everyone here is tied to the automotive industry in one way or another. Most people who live here (left or right leaning) would rather suffer the carnage of daily freeway accidents, not to mention the exhausting commutes, than see public transport take hold in the area. Public transportation is competition to their beloved auto industry, an impediment to the bread they put on their tables. Many people can’t see beyond that. I wish people were more willing to see the broader implications of the auto industry, but most do not. Listen to the local radio shows and it’s clear that people will seek out every oil-industry-funded dissenting scientist they can find to combat the theory of global warming. Because if global warming is real, they might lose their job, and like Aaron Eckhart’s tobacco lobbyist, they might not be able to pay their mortgage. What could be more important than that?
So yeah, I agree with the review that the most important issue for the average person is how fighting global warming will affect the person’s job and bank account. That’s what most people care about. So I think that’s the central dilemma for convincing the average person to do something about this problem.
Reply
6-15-2006 @ 6:44PM
Some Dude said...
I think this article tells the real truth.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Reply
6-15-2006 @ 7:56PM
Josh Boelter said...
Thanks, "Some Dude" for the link to a right-wing media outlet. Like I said, you can always find someone who will support the alternative view. That's what people like "Some Dude" do when they can't bothered to be inconvenienced by the views of the vast majority of scientists--they seek out the fringe response. So there are hundreds of scientists who don't believe in Global Warming? Hmm, I guess that overrides the many thousands of scientists who say they have evidence that supports it.
Stephen Hawking said recently that we're going to have to go into space if the human race is going to survive. Thanks to people such as "Some Dude" and people who would rather destroy the air around them than move into a new career, I think Stephen Hawking is right.
Reply
6-16-2006 @ 3:05AM
afs said...
"Some dude"'s linked source quotes a man named Pr. Bob Carter who has claimed to be an "experienced enviromental scientist." He is, in fact, a geologist who's primary research is in ocean drilling methods, who gets his research grant money from... you guessed it, oil companies. He must get a whole bunch of grant money from the oil companies, too. For a guy who is claims to be "just a scientist," he sure does have a heck of a travel budget to fly all over the world (from Australia) making appearances at hearings anywhere the oil companies need someone to read this week oil company talking points.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
Reply
6-16-2006 @ 1:02PM
james said...
Some Dude has expressed his opinion and the article that he has linked is indeed one side of the debate. There are zealots on both sides and Gore is one of them.
To attack this fellow and his posted article in the way that you both have takes away from the main topic in a way that is typically counterproductive.
The politicalization of this topic devalues considered analysis and critical thinking. Something this world could stand a bit more of.
There is so much more to Climate Change than CO2 levels and Global warming.
This link will give you more of the big picture
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
I encourage taking off the liberal/conservative blinders and keep an open mind.
"...one should doubtless keep an open mind ... though an open mind, to be sure, should be open at both ends, like the foodpipe, and have a capacity for excretion as well as intake."
Northrop Frye (1912-1991), Canadian literary critic
Reply
6-23-2006 @ 7:16PM
Dave said...
One aspect of the global warming discussion that I don't see mentioned - Co2, methane, nitrous oxide are greenhouse gases, their percentage in the atmosphere is rising dramatically due to human input. It'd be really very odd if this didn't have a warming effect. Basic scientific laws and all that. Sort of like dropping a stone and it goes up instead of down - very suprising. Can we have the greenhouse deniers tell us how the increasing green house gases will not have a warming effect - why they expect the stone to go up rather than down?
Similarly, warm water drives hurricanes, the water is getting warmer. Can the doubters tell us why they expect that the warmer water will not cause stronger hurricanes?
Reply