Kelly WandAn Inconvenient Truth
September 20th 2006 07:03
This is a site dedicated to reviewing film. My opinions have been known to be extreme; my love for obscure reprehensible films baffling and my rambling style down right annoying. Today, I’m going to do something odd even by my own quirky standards. I’m going to lay a lot of praise at the feet of a film that I find stylistically dreadful. It has been said that Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language. Something like that is going on here for me.
“An Inconvenient Truth” is way too wholesome for its own good. Even the word “Ass” is beeped out. At its worst it is like watching an episode of Oprah. A really bad episode of Oprah. It is still, quite possibly, one of the most important films ever made. Despite its failings, one watches it and hopes it will mark a turning point in human history. It just might.
For those of you who have been hiding under a rock for the last few months, Davis Guggenheim has just directed a documentary about former Vice President Al Gore and the lectures he produces on Global Warming and Climate Change. It presents a fairly bleak picture for the future of the world if we don’t act now. And so it should. In the Science Fiction genre, when the scientists rattle their pipes and warn of imminent danger, the President leaps (or at least hobbles) into action. In the real world, it seems the President employs his oil buddies to rewrite any report that may imply we might be require to take some action.
I could be utterly scathing about this film. It almost sets itself up for a quick smack in the face right from the get go. Al Gore’s homespun sincerity is so treacle dipped that I could almost feel the diabetes marching into my veins through my eyeballs. He makes capital out of his sister’s death and his son’s brush with death. Any real emotions he may have had over these terrible events are covered by the Colgate ring of confidence he thinks of as a halo. We are never allowed to forget that he won the popular vote but lost the presidency to a gap toothed inbred. When he starts talking about going down to the riverbank, my stomach turned. It’s an admittedly knee jerk reaction. “Damn us all to Hell,” I felt like saying. If this guy is the answer then the question must be “Why does the world deserve to be smothered in saccharine?”
It feels like the spin doctors have gone over the text. The marketing boys have checked all the pre planned smiles and pauses are in the right place. What may pass for sincerity in the United States has a frighteningly different effect on an Australian audience.
You see, there is a lot I could start in on. The flanks are exposed. One can almost smell that next run at the presidency like blood in the water. The fish are in the barrel and, even as I take aim, the metaphors are skirting dangerously close to a bit of mixing and matching.
But I’m not going to shoot. “An Inconvenient Truth” is too important a film. The issue it raises is too urgent to kill in any crossfire. The fact that Al Gore is the person standing up to plead such an important case is perhaps unfortunate but his is the only voice in town who seems willing to be heard. Politicians are running scared of their economically rational paymasters. The media know exactly where their advertising dollars flow from.
When he sticks to the science, Gore makes a good case though but one must accept this as a propaganda film. We tend to use that word in a derogatory sense but it merely means the promotion of a doctrine. “An Inconvenient Truth” doesn’t allow much space for an opposing voice. According to the film, there is no legitimate opposing argument to its reasoning. What is scariest is, from the evidence presented here, the film is almost certainly right.
The media at large has always been happy to jump on any crackpot theory that claims to prove that global warming is a hoax or a naturally recurring cycle despite the lack of scientific evidence. Should a film give time to these idea no matter how ridiculous they are? Well, clearly, I think this one should. It is not the evidence on display here that sinks the truth, it is the unanswered claims of the opposition.
The film itself speaks of companies who claim what they are selling is doubt. If those doubts go unanswered, then their poison remains. Even today, I hear intelligent people talking about hundred year weather patterns that almost certainly do occur. Unfortunately, these people use this kind of evidence to hide from a far bigger and more terrifying reality. It is like a man who has cancer blaming his symptoms on his hayfever.
I would particularly have liked to hear someone dismiss such notions as variations in heat output from the sun. Whilst such a cyclic event has minimal effect on temperature, it is often wheeled out by the media as proof that Global Warming does not exist. Alternately, only a few years ago, I remember an Oil Company scientist claiming Global Warming was a good thing because the sun was entering a cooler phase.
The film should have addressed these points. It is not enough to laugh off these claims as absurd. Scared people will clutch at any straw and who can blame them?
Besides, the film would have been made stronger by the inclusion of opposing voices. An interview with George Walker Bush arguing the case for the negative would have certainly bolstered the arguments of the affirmative. Your truth will out - especially if you are the film’s editor. If you don’t believe me, just look at the allegedly unbiased reporting of the media. Can you seriously watch the news on any of the commercial channels without noting the propagandist at work?
All media is political. Even things as apparently vacuous as “Neighbours” or “The Brady Bunch” set up moral frameworks for an audience to buy into. The introduction into a series of a popular character who turned out to be a Moslem would have far more chance of turning the tide on racism than a hundred well meaning pamphlets.
The fact that media has (and there are promising signs of change in that arena) been dismissing Global Warning has to be addressed. This is an area where the film treads far too lightly for its own good.
I’ll state the case of the film clearly. Historically, we can see a direct correlation between the level of carbon in the atmosphere and the Earth’s temperature. There have been cycles that are clearly visible in the geological record. Their troughs and peaks have marked out ice ages along with the more temperate periods. Human civilization as we know it roughly coincides with the arrival of the last temperate period.
The levels of Carbon currently in the atmosphere are so outside of historic precedent that they should be of major concern to all of us. There is no convenient natural cycle to hide behind. Once upon a time, people used to empty their chamber pots out into the street and then wondered why disease was rife. Our ancestors figured it out and quite a few of us who are around today are only here because they did. Now we are throwing our crap into the air and we are only beginning to see the consequences.
Glaciers are melting. Polar ice caps are breaking up. If the Greenland Ice Shelf collapses (and it is showing very worrying signs that it will), sea levels will rise by six metres. If some of the larger antarctic shelves break up, they will be a similar result. Any rise in sea level will also promote further ice melt. It is an extraordinarily bad worst case scenario.
Okay, let’s split the difference. Lets just assume sea levels will only rise three metres. Let us assume that global temperatures will only rise a couple of degrees. Even then, the results will be almost too catastrophic to consider in terms of death and suffering. I know I get up on my soap box a little too often but I find myself in total agreement with this film. We are emitting too much carbon gas into the atmosphere. The consequences of this are beyond scientific doubt and will be catastrophic. We must act now.
Despite my criticisms, I would recommend you see this film. It’s urgent message is far more important than its cinematic failings.
Instead of (or as well as) seeing it, why don’t you pick up some energy saving light bulbs. Maybe you could walk down to the shops instead of driving. Maybe you could get off of the computer for a while and maybe read a book. You could do anything that reduces the amount of carbon you are producing. The one thing that it is important to take away from this film is this; the technology exists to overcome the problems we are creating. We do not have to build giant machines, we merely have to make choices as consumers and live with the consequences.
It is fine that you don’t like the energy saving shower head because it’s a little different than what you are used to. It is fine that you think the energy saving light bulbs aren’t the right colour. It is fine if you think a hybrid car doesn’t have the necessary grunt to cover up the unsatisfactory size of your penis. It is fine just so long as you don’t mind (say) Bondi disappearing into the sea, the world’s economy collapsing into chaos and watching civilisation descend into barbarism as displaced people fight for dwindling resources. Knock yourself out.
If you don’t see the movie or ignore its warning, there is every chance you will see this story continue in real life. Whilst disaster movies can be fun, real life disasters seldom are. This is one we can work on avoiding.
If you have gotten this far in text, I thank you for your patience.
For those of you seeking further information visit.
www.notcarbon.com.au and www.aninconvenienttruthmovie.com.au
“An Inconvenient Truth” is way too wholesome for its own good. Even the word “Ass” is beeped out. At its worst it is like watching an episode of Oprah. A really bad episode of Oprah. It is still, quite possibly, one of the most important films ever made. Despite its failings, one watches it and hopes it will mark a turning point in human history. It just might.
For those of you who have been hiding under a rock for the last few months, Davis Guggenheim has just directed a documentary about former Vice President Al Gore and the lectures he produces on Global Warming and Climate Change. It presents a fairly bleak picture for the future of the world if we don’t act now. And so it should. In the Science Fiction genre, when the scientists rattle their pipes and warn of imminent danger, the President leaps (or at least hobbles) into action. In the real world, it seems the President employs his oil buddies to rewrite any report that may imply we might be require to take some action.
I could be utterly scathing about this film. It almost sets itself up for a quick smack in the face right from the get go. Al Gore’s homespun sincerity is so treacle dipped that I could almost feel the diabetes marching into my veins through my eyeballs. He makes capital out of his sister’s death and his son’s brush with death. Any real emotions he may have had over these terrible events are covered by the Colgate ring of confidence he thinks of as a halo. We are never allowed to forget that he won the popular vote but lost the presidency to a gap toothed inbred. When he starts talking about going down to the riverbank, my stomach turned. It’s an admittedly knee jerk reaction. “Damn us all to Hell,” I felt like saying. If this guy is the answer then the question must be “Why does the world deserve to be smothered in saccharine?”
It feels like the spin doctors have gone over the text. The marketing boys have checked all the pre planned smiles and pauses are in the right place. What may pass for sincerity in the United States has a frighteningly different effect on an Australian audience.
You see, there is a lot I could start in on. The flanks are exposed. One can almost smell that next run at the presidency like blood in the water. The fish are in the barrel and, even as I take aim, the metaphors are skirting dangerously close to a bit of mixing and matching.
But I’m not going to shoot. “An Inconvenient Truth” is too important a film. The issue it raises is too urgent to kill in any crossfire. The fact that Al Gore is the person standing up to plead such an important case is perhaps unfortunate but his is the only voice in town who seems willing to be heard. Politicians are running scared of their economically rational paymasters. The media know exactly where their advertising dollars flow from.
When he sticks to the science, Gore makes a good case though but one must accept this as a propaganda film. We tend to use that word in a derogatory sense but it merely means the promotion of a doctrine. “An Inconvenient Truth” doesn’t allow much space for an opposing voice. According to the film, there is no legitimate opposing argument to its reasoning. What is scariest is, from the evidence presented here, the film is almost certainly right.
The media at large has always been happy to jump on any crackpot theory that claims to prove that global warming is a hoax or a naturally recurring cycle despite the lack of scientific evidence. Should a film give time to these idea no matter how ridiculous they are? Well, clearly, I think this one should. It is not the evidence on display here that sinks the truth, it is the unanswered claims of the opposition.
The film itself speaks of companies who claim what they are selling is doubt. If those doubts go unanswered, then their poison remains. Even today, I hear intelligent people talking about hundred year weather patterns that almost certainly do occur. Unfortunately, these people use this kind of evidence to hide from a far bigger and more terrifying reality. It is like a man who has cancer blaming his symptoms on his hayfever.
I would particularly have liked to hear someone dismiss such notions as variations in heat output from the sun. Whilst such a cyclic event has minimal effect on temperature, it is often wheeled out by the media as proof that Global Warming does not exist. Alternately, only a few years ago, I remember an Oil Company scientist claiming Global Warming was a good thing because the sun was entering a cooler phase.
The film should have addressed these points. It is not enough to laugh off these claims as absurd. Scared people will clutch at any straw and who can blame them?
Besides, the film would have been made stronger by the inclusion of opposing voices. An interview with George Walker Bush arguing the case for the negative would have certainly bolstered the arguments of the affirmative. Your truth will out - especially if you are the film’s editor. If you don’t believe me, just look at the allegedly unbiased reporting of the media. Can you seriously watch the news on any of the commercial channels without noting the propagandist at work?
All media is political. Even things as apparently vacuous as “Neighbours” or “The Brady Bunch” set up moral frameworks for an audience to buy into. The introduction into a series of a popular character who turned out to be a Moslem would have far more chance of turning the tide on racism than a hundred well meaning pamphlets.
The fact that media has (and there are promising signs of change in that arena) been dismissing Global Warning has to be addressed. This is an area where the film treads far too lightly for its own good.
I’ll state the case of the film clearly. Historically, we can see a direct correlation between the level of carbon in the atmosphere and the Earth’s temperature. There have been cycles that are clearly visible in the geological record. Their troughs and peaks have marked out ice ages along with the more temperate periods. Human civilization as we know it roughly coincides with the arrival of the last temperate period.
The levels of Carbon currently in the atmosphere are so outside of historic precedent that they should be of major concern to all of us. There is no convenient natural cycle to hide behind. Once upon a time, people used to empty their chamber pots out into the street and then wondered why disease was rife. Our ancestors figured it out and quite a few of us who are around today are only here because they did. Now we are throwing our crap into the air and we are only beginning to see the consequences.
Glaciers are melting. Polar ice caps are breaking up. If the Greenland Ice Shelf collapses (and it is showing very worrying signs that it will), sea levels will rise by six metres. If some of the larger antarctic shelves break up, they will be a similar result. Any rise in sea level will also promote further ice melt. It is an extraordinarily bad worst case scenario.
Okay, let’s split the difference. Lets just assume sea levels will only rise three metres. Let us assume that global temperatures will only rise a couple of degrees. Even then, the results will be almost too catastrophic to consider in terms of death and suffering. I know I get up on my soap box a little too often but I find myself in total agreement with this film. We are emitting too much carbon gas into the atmosphere. The consequences of this are beyond scientific doubt and will be catastrophic. We must act now.
Despite my criticisms, I would recommend you see this film. It’s urgent message is far more important than its cinematic failings.
Instead of (or as well as) seeing it, why don’t you pick up some energy saving light bulbs. Maybe you could walk down to the shops instead of driving. Maybe you could get off of the computer for a while and maybe read a book. You could do anything that reduces the amount of carbon you are producing. The one thing that it is important to take away from this film is this; the technology exists to overcome the problems we are creating. We do not have to build giant machines, we merely have to make choices as consumers and live with the consequences.
It is fine that you don’t like the energy saving shower head because it’s a little different than what you are used to. It is fine that you think the energy saving light bulbs aren’t the right colour. It is fine if you think a hybrid car doesn’t have the necessary grunt to cover up the unsatisfactory size of your penis. It is fine just so long as you don’t mind (say) Bondi disappearing into the sea, the world’s economy collapsing into chaos and watching civilisation descend into barbarism as displaced people fight for dwindling resources. Knock yourself out.
If you don’t see the movie or ignore its warning, there is every chance you will see this story continue in real life. Whilst disaster movies can be fun, real life disasters seldom are. This is one we can work on avoiding.
If you have gotten this far in text, I thank you for your patience.
For those of you seeking further information visit.
www.notcarbon.com.au and www.aninconvenienttruthmovie.com.au
| 98 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Im hoping to catch An Inconvenient Truth this weekend.
I was lucky enough to see Who Killed the Electric Car last month. It comes out in November and in the same vein it is an absolutely must see documentary.
Comment by Bob Short