maarmie's musings

Monday, July 10, 2006

Film: An Inconvenient Truth

If you can manage to stay awake, An Inconvenient Truth is a movie worth watching.

For one, I had no idea that Al Gore is such an environmentalist. When you don't know anything about a person, you tend to only know and believe the media hype. Those meat-headed journalist types would have you and me and everyone else believe that Gore is a robot and that he goes around claiming to have invented the Internet. Now he's going to singlehandedly fix the global warming issue, too, right? Oh, wait. Some people would have us think there IS no such thing as global warming.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and I'm tired of hearing people say that my vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. In fact, I think I will bloody the face of the next person who tells me that. That's how sick I am of hearing it. OK. I never voted for Gore. I thought he was nothing but a robot who claimed to have invented the Internet. A wooden wacko boy, right? Wrong!

If nothing else, An Inconvenient Truth shows another side of Al Gore, the softer and more passionate side of a man who loves nature and treasures the time he spent on his father's (tobacco) farm growing up. In the movie, Gore talks about what's causing global warming and the effect global warming will have on our planet - all in our lifetime. Within 50 years, if CO2 emissions continue like they are, says Gore, the temperature of the Earth will rise by one or two degrees, the ice caps will keep melting, species native to those areas will die out (polar bears will drown), water surges will flood huge parts of Asia, a majority of Manhattan, lots of Florida, California, several other states. Not only will those areas be underwater, but the dry land left over will be flooded with people who have nowhere else to go. Weather patterns will change. Some areas will face typhoons; others will face drought. In short, we'll all be screwed in one way or another.

Gore doesn't offer any solutions to the global warming crisis, though. I think that's where the film falls short. Why present the problem and the issues that problem will create and not give the solution and steps people can take to fix the problem? That's basic speech etiquette.

Instead, Gore uses fancy graphics and cartoons to outline the dilemma in the global warming speech he gives and has given all over the world. Cut into the speech are segments showing Gore at the North Pole studying the ice cap with researchers, clips of him running other legislators over the coals on environmental issues and footage of Gore on his father's farm.

It was obvious he knew his material well. It seems the wooden puppet had turned into a flesh and blood boy. But it felt like this film was nothing but a campaign tool for 2008. If it is, he's crafty. If he would have requested a manual recount of every ballot in all Florida precincts for the 2000 election, I might even think he's smart.


Annie said...

I too voted for Nader because he talked about real issues and offered real solutions to the things that concern me. And he seemed "real" and unpackaged. And people say the same thing to me that they say to you.

And I too found Gore stodgy and wooden and not really "into" it. I saw him give a speech to a small community group and was extremely disappointed in him - his entire speech seemed to consist of one cliche after another. So I didn't find him appealing as a candidate for office.

I think maybe his heart wasn't in being a candidate for office. I'm inclined to believe he was groomed for that all his life and so he was following a script that had been laid out for him when he was running for President. We didn't see any passion because he didn't feel any passion for the position. I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth yet but will. If you saw passion there, maybe his passion is connected to this issue and to educating about it.

maarmie said...

I've seen him speak twice. Once was for the 2000 election. He came to Portland, Oregon, where I was living at the time. I didn't really listen to the speech, because I was there to protest him (remember, Nader!) so I had to stand in the way back in front of a line of policemen on huge horses. I was worried the whole time that the horses would trample me. The second time, he came to Leon County to speak right before voting day 2004. He was a little looser than I had seen him be on TV. But, in the film, he was pretty loose. I agree with you. Maybe passionate about the environment but not about being president. I could see that as being possible.

Jeremy said...

I have a couple friends who are hardcore Republicans that now openly admit they wish Gore had won in 2000 and that Bush and the current administration has been an utter embarrassment and failure for the party. I don't know that I'd go that far (I consider myself neither Democrat or GOP, just whatever I feel like at the time I get in the voting booth).

I hate to confess it, but I voted for Bush in 2000 for no other good reason than I thought 4 years of hearing Gore speak as President would lull me into a coma. My thoughts were, "Ok, the guy is not the brightest, but he'll surround himself with wise advisors who will keep him from doing anything stupid." *smacks his forehead* Little did I know.

maarmie said...

I voted for Bush's father in Clinton's first run for office. I'm ashamed of it now...But at least I learned my lesson about voting for Bushes.

maarmie said...

I voted for Bush's father in Clinton's first run for office. I'm ashamed of it now...But at least I learned my lesson about voting for Bushes.

squidley said...

Too bad the science isn't behind Gore or anyone else who is up in arms about global warming. What we are experiencing now is what happens after an ice age (a mini-ice age ended in the 19th century, don'cha know). What's more, the hockey stick graph isn't supported by science, either.

Ignorant policymakers have hopped onto the GW bandwagon, and disburse funds accordingly. Now, some of the (formerly) most prominent climatologists can't get funding, because their research doesn't support the predetermined answer that they're supposed to reach about GW. GW follows in the same hyped footsteps as worldwide starvation by the year 2000, DDT scares, nuclear reactor scares, the ozone hole scare, and more. BTW, does anyone else remember that in the 70s, the big environmental problem was--get this--global winter?

Reel Fanatic said...

Great stuff .. Mr. Gore's movie has somehow finally managed to make it to my little corner of the world this week .. I'm going to see it today at noon, nice and early just in case Mr. Gore does start to put me to sleep!