In all my life I have never seen a movie that could bore the living daylights out of me, but at the same time intrigue and open my eyes; and that is an inconvenient truth. I could not truly believe that I was watching a serious documentary about how our fossil fuelled lifestyles are eventually leading to Earths unfortunate demise. Because to me what I was watch was a sort of serial chat show style set up; in which Al Gore presented his slide show with detail and graphs about climate change, Co2 levels and greenhouse gases. Then out of nowhere he would say something really intelligent which had an added joke inserted in it, which amused the audience bringing them to life, then silence would fall as the chat show set up had broken into a documentary sequence.
An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary film like in the style of March of the Penguins, but with defiantly a lot less ice, directed by Davis Guggenheim. The film is about the former U.S Vice President Al Gore whose campaign to educate people about the effects of global warming. This film is not an action film like I thought it would be, but involves Al Gore presenting a presentation on climate change and what will happen to Earth. It is broken up between snippets of slideshow and film clips; where he talks about how global warming plays apart in his own life from education to family.
With the understanding of the nub and jist of the film I can begin to reflect on it; it’s overall message, how it’s presented, my overall view of the film and what I think the audience would have thought.
The films messages have complexities attached to them; In my opinion the messages are trying to open the audiences eyes; not in a “shut down all the factorise or the Earth gets it” type of way, nor is it saying “oh don’t worry, when the Co2 levels get really bad we will figure something out” kind of way. Though the first message that I personally picked up on was “as the citizens of this Earth this is what we are doing to it and boy we don’t really want a happy future do we?”. It’s showing to us the levels of danger that we could come into contact with if we don’t start sorting ourselves out, but in a way that immediately catches our attention. For example Al Gore uses examples from 650,000 years of Co2 levels against temperature. Where at first he explains that yes there has been in the past a natural global warming and cooling of the Earth, but the Co2 level had never reached over 300 parts per million, until people became more modern and screwed up Earths natural system. This screwing up of the Earth’s natural system has resulted in the succession of Co2 levels exceeding the 300 part per million level, which Al Gore then emphasises or to put as he said “exzardgerates” through the use of a cherry picker how far predations can compute Co2 levels will be in the next 50 years. This message comes in the form of a dark joke which says “ha ha yeah that sure is funny how he has to use a cherry picker to show how high Co2 levels will be, but hang on; if Co2 is related to temperature… we are going to roast, that’s not funny anymore”, and throughout the part of the film that I watched this sort of eye opening dark comic intellectual humour continues. With a message like this being showed off to the audience, it is a hazy and in some places a complex one to understand, this is because in my opinion the main message is climate change and how it is going to affect us but it is covered up by scientific explanations and jokes.
When deciding whether this approach of portraying the message in the form of in-depth scientific fact and humour is a double edged sword; this is because the message can be interpreted in two ways. The first way of interpreting it is by only seeing the facts, which in my opinion where blown out of proportion and emphasised a bit too much, which can quite easily lead people down the path of panic if miss interpreted. Whereas other people may only see the humours side of what is being said; only listening to and remembering the jokes and comments made around the scientific facts, which can lead to ignorance to what is truly happen, thus the appropriateness of how the message was approached depends on how the person watching the message interprets it.
Though the views that I have given on the film An inconvenient Truth are what I personally think, others may see it completely differently, or in the case of the BBC movie review on this film some may agree with me. The BBC says that “An Inconvenient Truth, is not a drama or even a documentary. It's a slide show, delivered to a live audience, on the subject of the environment. Doesn't sound too thrilling, does it? And in truth, it ain't Die Hard. But be assured: this a really really good slide show”.
Whilst other people have an entirely different view to mine, such as those found on the site rottentomatoes.com which include reviews such as “has its heart in the right place but overall the film stands as a one-track doomsday warning with too little substance to achieve its intended effect” by Dustin Putman from dustinputman.com and “no matter how much generosity critics and activists show this movie, it is still a boring slideshow by a boring speaker with cool graphics and thus, a boring movie” by David Poland from Movie City News. But as I stated before people will interpret how they see the film and its message differently, and the opinions of others does not sway my own, for I see the film as a great movie, but in terms of how good it is as a tool to promote awareness about climate change and environmental sustainability in general, I’m still on the fence.
Whilst other people have an entirely different view to mine, such as those found on the site rottentomatoes.com which include reviews such as “has its heart in the right place but overall the film stands as a one-track doomsday warning with too little substance to achieve its intended effect” by Dustin Putman from dustinputman.com and “no matter how much generosity critics and activists show this movie, it is still a boring slideshow by a boring speaker with cool graphics and thus, a boring movie” by David Poland from Movie City News. But as I stated before people will interpret how they see the film and its message differently, and the opinions of others does not sway my own, for I see the film as a great movie, but in terms of how good it is as a tool to promote awareness about climate change and environmental sustainability in general, I’m still on the fence.
The film doesn’t manage to promote awareness about climate change to its full potential as it had been continuously bashed by scientists saying that some of the information is wrong or blown out of proportion. The BBC may have given the film the thumbs up but it also found nine 'errors'. For example “Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"”. With such negative remarks it can make people see the film as a dramatisation thus leading them to taking the information included in the film with a pinch of salt. However the film could be acting as a tool for creating awareness; it could be the push that some people need, to see that global warming is actually happening and is a real thing.
Even so, to conclude, in my opinion An Inconvenient Truth is one of those films that is not going to be everybody’s cup of tea, for it has an acquired taste, to one person it may be as tasteful as boiled socks to another it’s the cats pyjamas. The film brings the subject of climate change and global warming to the table quite neatly and the message is clear” this is climate change and this is what is going to happen because of it” with enough added information to not confuse or patronise the average Joe, but to bring about an awareness with whit and scientific fact at it's side. Though the film has been slapped around the face a few times by those in the know, it has managed to capture the attention off the girl who fell asleep watching March of the Penguins and has the theme tune to Sex and the City the Movie as her ringtone.
Hello Lady H,
ReplyDeleteI love the blog, I think it is really imformative and helpful for people who want to understand the film.
The images you have used complement the blog nicely, especially the ones that are straight from the documentary!
One question though: Have you thought about Gore's political motives for making the film, if any? I can't help but think that some of the comments he makes about fellow politicians are irrelevant and unecessary?
Let me know.
Hello there to you too Rebecca,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comments about the my blog, its really great to hear feedback.
Now about your questions, when I was writing the blog I was aiming to achieve my own understanding of the film, and it did not occur to me that Gore has many political motives for making the film until now. Maybe by making this film he thought that it would make him seem more important to the normal folk such as the average Joe, enabling him to be seen better to the public after not becoming the US President.
To answer your other question to do with the other politicians, I'm not sure about whether it was irrelevant or not, because I'm not very politically minded.
Thanks
I think that I would have to agree with you on your view on an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ similar to yourself I found that at times the documentary was rather boring, however in a strange way it was also rather interesting! Likewise I agree with your views on the complexity of the documentary, he does simplify the technicalities of global warming down, which is what for me as a geographer makes it rather dull! But the added humor and exaggeration as you quoted ‘if Co2 is related to temperature… we are going to roast, that’s not funny anymore’ is what makes it rather interesting.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this documentary what effect do you think it’s had on your day to day life? Do you think that you have become more aware of your carbon emissions, making a more conscious effort to reduce them?
Also what do you think of Al Gore’s presentation manner, in the way he presents himself to the viewer? Do you think it would be the same documentary if someone a little less enthusiastic was to present an environmental documentary, or the documentary was somehow created into a chick flick?
Hi there Collette
ReplyDeleteIt’s nice to see that I am not the only one who was bizarrely intrigued yet absolutely bored. Now to answer your questions.
The documentaries impact on my everyday life has been minimal, because I know already that there are finite resources left on earth and that a loved we should look after our planet for the sake of our loved ones. Though at the same time the horrific numbers that Gore was showing about temperature against CO2 levels will be forever burned into my mind, but the majority of the movie I have already forgotten. Now, my awareness of carbon emissions has sort of stayed the same because the movie had simplified what was happening to the world thus did not challenge and enlighten me to change my views on carbon emissions.
Gore should have been a chat show host not a runner-up for president, because I found that his stage presence kept the audience awake with witty comments and simplified explanations. He presented himself to the viewer as a guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously but knows when to actually be serious to get the point across. Gores enthusiasm for me makes the movie, if a boring old scientist where to be presenting the documentary, I think half of the audience would have left even before he had introduced himself, thus people would be missing out on some good information on climate change. This movie would be a very interesting chick flick, where the main character, who is a fabulous scientist, has to save the world before its to late and win the heart of her dream man. Yeah, ok, have your people call my people, we shall do lunch.
Thanks