Director Davis Guggenheim’s film documenting Al Gore’s campaign to raise public awareness of global warming has now grossed over $17 million, according to recent figures. Though hardly a box office record-breaker, An Inconvenient Truth has proven to be a formidable presence among the crowded ranks of movies this summer. As a review in The Washington Post states, this film is “surprisingly absorbing,” which may account for some of its success. As film-making, Guggenheim’s movie has captured viewer interest, which is perhaps an expected result from a director that has been responsible for episodes of several attention-getting television series, including Alias, 24 and Deadwood.
It is no doubt the presence of Al Gore that has contributed to the intense flurry of partisan rhetoric over the film. Like the most controversial films, An Inconvenient Truth has prompted a flurry of responses, often from people who have not seen it. It is instantly distained by many conservatives, who see it as liberal propaganda. It is embraced by many liberals, who assume its perspective is in concert with their own. Ultimately, this film cannot escape the effects of the poisoned air in which 2006 American politics is played out.
The question of global warming is a scientific and complicated issue. It is hard to imagine that a strictly scientific investigation would gather as much attention from movie audiences, however. Many vitally important questions in modern life have scientific dimensions, but they have not prompted theatrical releases. With Al Gore as the front man for An Inconvenient Truth, the science here is filtered through a high-profile political figure. The polemical responses to the film were perhaps inevitable as a consequence.
No matter what you think about the science underlying the global warming issue, this film is not likely to settle the matter for many people. The inconvenient truth of An Inconvenient Truth is that, once packaged with Gore’s persona, the issue has little chance of returning to the scientific realm. In the end, it seems that the film helps assure that it will remain a squarely political question. Unfortunately, that means that it may help harden as many minds, reinforcing already perceived ideas, as it will open them for a clear look at the evidence.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
I believe the film would have been better (and more credible) if there weren't all those "Al Gore flashback" sequences, which made it seem as if this movie was little more than a hagiographic Al Gore campaign film for his inevitable re-run for President in 2008...
2 - Clavos
which made it seem as if this movie was little more than a hagiographic Al Gore campaign film for his inevitable re-run for President in 2008...
RJ:
Given the timing of its release as well as the accompanying publicity blitz, what else could it be?
3 - djfreq
I honestly doubt that Gore was sitting back thinking this would be a great way to get him in the white house. He has after all been pushing this issue for years. Although that being said i wouldn't mind seeing a president with some respect for facts.
4 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
djfreq, I duno about that. Having seen the film it seemed like a political springboard for running for election. Maybe he realizes he has a near 0 chance of winning, but I think he definately is thinking about running. For example, in the movie Gore says in reference to environmentalist's campaign against global warming, "Political will is not a limited resource is in America." While on the surface it sounded to me like he is urging on grass root movements against global warming, once I thought about it I realized it's probably in reference to himself as well.
Besides what's the point of all the flashbacks of his history? If the movie is about global warming they certainly wont convince any minds. Perhaps they're just to make the movie more entertaining, but personally, I think he is trying to dispel the sense that he is a shallow, political figure, who cant talk like a normal humanbeing that he gave voters in 2000.
5 - Hoggle
the issue has little chance of returning to the scientific realm. In the end, it seems that the film helps assure that it will remain a squarely political question.
Good.
Global warming is a political issue and should be reported and discussed as such. The essential scientific questions (is it happening? are we causing it? and can we do anything about it?) have all been answered to the satisfaction of mainstream science (i.e. kooks aside) and while the details are still the subject of intense scientific study and debate, it is now time, and past time, for concerted political action.
I am waiting for this film to be released in the UK with eagerness, but as you can see, I am not in any need of convincing. The value of the film, I think, will be to raise awareness of the imminence and seriousness of climate change, even among people who don't go to see it.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait for 2008 to see any movement on the national scale in the US.