An Inconvenient Truth

Cafe Society
1

The documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, a film about Al Gore’s campaign to fight global warming, recently premiered at Sundance.

Has anyone seen it or is anyone otherwise familiar with it? I’m just wondering how the film came to be made and what the producers hope to do with it. It supposedly received a standing ovation at Sundance, but I’m not sure what to think of it.

It seems to at once be an intriguing story about global warming and also an unabashed publicity stunt for Gore. He’s depicted almost as humanity’s savior or something and his overwhelming presence in the film makes it seem, at times, more like “The Passion of the Veep” than a documentary centered around the actual global warming issue. So which is it? Is it just a political tool that Gore is using to prepare for the next election (there’s admittedly quite a bit of politics and Bush-bashing)? A genuine film about global warming that just happened to pick Gore as its central character (why? Why not just stick with the phenomenon itself)? Some combination of the two, or something else entirely? Hmm.

2

I saw the movie last night, and the night before last I saw Al Gore at a Town Hall event in Manhattan.

My impression is that he is passionate about this. You could sense that at the Thursday night event, as well as his frustration that people weren’t more active about it.

I entered the movie armed with my skepticism, and each point I had in my mind against global warming being real was addressed in that movie. It is truly compelling.

In my view, no matter what side you are on with regard to the “debate,” you owe it to yourself to see this movie. It is a serious endeavor, not a campaign or political stunt. It presents objective points and statistics. If you remain skeptical upon leaving the movie, you can feel free to check the statistics and information presented.

3

I saw a preview screening back in March, when the film supposedly wasn’t done yet. I think I’ll go see the final version again now that it’s out in theaters.

So you didn’t get the feeling that it was too focused on Gore?

4

It’s reviewed, very favorably, in the latest Entertainment Weekly.

5

I haven’t seen it yet but it’s on my list of Must Sees.

Al Gore was an environmentalist long before he got tapped to be VP. His book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit came out in 1992, so this is hardly a new thing for him. Who else should be talking about it if not him? I don’t hear any prominent Republicans giving a shit. Since it’s mostly based on a lecture Gore’s been giving for a long time, of course he’s going to be in it a lot. You think they should replace him with an animated stick figure?

It doesn’t matter if the talking point is going to be that it’s a “publicity stunt” or political football. Global Warming is still an important subject and the movie is not going to destroy our economy (as according to Fox News). If nothing else, it will show future generations that some people cared and tried to warn others.

Who admits? Where? What did they say? What’s actually said in the movie? If Bush’s policies are bad for the environment and someone points that out, how is that “Bush-bashing” and why is the issue reduced to mere “politics”?

6

Cool. I didn’t know that.

I figured it’d be a Discovery-type documentary about Global Warming, without any sort of significant narrator/protaganist. But admittedly, a film like that would be much harder to watch.

Sure. I’m glad the film is bringing the issue into people’s minds; I just question whether it’s necessary for Gore to be so prominent in it. Is his primary goal to educate people or to make himself a hero?

Honestly, it’s been a while and I don’t remember exactly what was said. If Bush’s policies are an actual, significant contributor to the issue, it’d be fair to discuss them. But are Bush’s worse than his predecessors’?

What I’m saying, exactly, is that I hope the movie doesn’t reduce the issue to “mere politics”… politics shouldn’t even be involved unless politics IS one of the major contributors.

7

I thought it was excellent.

I’m pretty well educated on much of the material so I went in not expecting to learn anything new, but my experience was quite the opposite. There was so much that I either didn’t know or didn’t fully understand- as for understanding, the movie is wonderful at presenting the hard science and then explaining it through analogy and illustration so that I would end up fully grasping a concept that might have confused me when first mentioned.

My pre-screening opinion was that this would be a film that only preached to the choir. But even if that is so, I think there is a lot that the choir has to learn that they weren’t really aware of. I think the choir will be so moved by this that they will influence people, who wouldn’t normally be interested, to see the film

Bush bashing?
There are definitely a few points that might be perceived as Bush bashing if you happened to be extremely protective of Bush. Even though I am no Bush fan, I did cringe whenever anyBush related point was brought up because I knew that any Bush bashing would hurt the film by calling into question the film’s true intentions.
However, any point that was Bush related included the point that neither Party is acting enough on this issue and, more than impuning Bush as an individual, these seemingly Bush related points culminated more in a call to responsibility of the American people.

Too much Gore?
Well, yeah. Definitely in parts, but I got over it. He’s been doing these lectures for years. He’s been involved with this issue for decades. This is very much his thing.
So, much of the film is him speaking at these lectures- GOOD!!!
He is so well versed on this topic, it was wonderful to hear him speak.
However,
There are lots of shots of:
“Gore looking out a window thinking”- YUCK
“Gore standing by a tree pondering”- GAG
“Gore walking aroung the family farm remembering”- UPCHUCK

The “Yuck, Gag, Upchuck” portions did take away from the film a little bit for me- mostly because there are so many of those shots at the beginning and I really feared the whole movie would be like that. But it ends up being not so bad. These “thoughtful” shots do give way and the really good stuff takes over. And I honestly think the inclusion of these “Yuck, Gag, Upchuck” portions were not so much PR as they were just bad, sentimental filmmaking.

Still the film as a whole FAR OUTSHINES the “Yuck, Gag, Upchuck” portions. Really a must-see.

8

So…does he find Manbearpig?

Is that how it ends? Aw…I wanna see him get that bastard Manbearpig.

9

And was it totally cereal?

10

As others have said, the movie is based on a presentation Gore has been giving for years, since the 1970’s. The movie does go into the history of Gore’s interest in environmentalism. It underscores his personal interest in his quest to educate people on the issue, and shows it transcends politics for him.

There’s been some yapping in the pundit sphere about Gore being a possible candidate for '08, especially after they saw this movie. I don’t think this movie was put together for that purpose. That’s my impression after hearing Gore speak and seeing the movie.

It’s a very powerful message on the reality of global warming. Even if you think global warming is a hoax, you should see this movie. You might come out with a changed mind.

11

From FlickFilosopher.com:

12

I haven’t seen it, I don’t know if it’s necessary. I don’t know if they could have taken his lecture and made it without him being in it, for as little money anyway. In any case, it is his lecture, why shouldn’t he be in it?

Educate people. (DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!)

Anyway, he’s already a hero of sorts to people who care about the environment. Tell me who else is talking about this so openly, who has the public profile and clout to get heard.

Only conservatives/Republicans/people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are making this about politics and Gore’s political ambition. The issue is Global Warming/the environment, not Al Gore. It’s just easier to talk about Gore since NO ONE wants to talk how we’re fucking up the planet.

Whatever. In the end, the planet will take care of itself, like George Carlin says, by getting rid of the parasites who inhabit it.

13

I saw the film yesterday, and the above pretty much sums up my opinion, although I probably didn’t go in as well informed as bienville.

Let’s face it; some politically motivated people will decry this film as “politically motivated Bush-bashing” and never actually address the film’s subject.

I was warned about these scenes in a short review I read before seeing the film, but I didn’t find them as egregious as either the reviewer or bienville. I thought they served to make the film personal and diffuse the predictable accusation that Gore’s environmentalism is a trendy political posture.

Don’t forget the most rabid antienvironmentalists of all, the libertarians.

14

Kyle Smith of the New York Post gave it one star out of four.

15

That has to be one of the worst reviews I have ever read.

All that aside, Kyle, how did you like the movie?

16

I’m no fan of politics or politicians, but Wired had a cover story on Gore in May’s issue, and it made me think “I’m glad Gore is out of politics now and can really make a difference.”

I haven’t seen the movie, but after reading this article I am happy to support Gore.

17

I saw this a few days ago and frankly I don’t remember any mention of GWB, except for the short bit about Gore losing the election. The film doesn’t focus blame for Global Warming on any one (or any administration) in particular. If anything, it bashes everyone for not paying enough attention to this issue.

So now the polar bears are drowning! :frowning:

I worried going in that a filmed lecture would be dead boring, but it turns out that the film only falters when it moves away from the lecture and into the more personal Gore moments. But these bits are brief, and don’t detract from the larger message. The film actually works very well as a piece of entertainment, which surprised me.

Agreeing with many of the above posts, it’s not a Gore commercial. He is shown in a positive light, because he’s clearly interested in, informed about, and taking action on, the issues at hand. But the focus isn’t on him as it is on the message. He claims no ownership of these ideas - he is simply passing on the research and data that he’s spent decades collecting. In other words, he’s not saying “Listen to me, Al Gore,” he’s saying “Listen to every single scientist in the world, and here’s why.”

18

It’s funny, I was thinking this too while watching the film. It’s kind of like how you hope the person you think is really talented doesn’t win Amercian Idol, because then they’re locked into making an awful, bland pop album, while the runners-up have more freedom to make their individual mark.

Maybe not the best analogy, but it works for me! :smiley:

I have a feeling Al Gore will make more of a real impact with this film than he could have made as President.

But then, I guess we’ll never know. :frowning:

19

I preferred the more humorous tome Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth :wink:

20

Good christ people, think for yourselves. Global Warming is a tool, for both sides. This is a freakin’ movie!