No, not another post on violence. I saw An Inconvenient Truth last evening, and it’s a pretty damn good documentary. Admittedly, I kind of enjoy well-spun, finely-crafted talking-head documentaries, and this is essentially one guy on a stage doing a very fine power-point/multi-media presentation. That said, with a generally-refined sense of how to “open” up the lecture, the lecture is smart, witty, engaging, challenging. I think it’s a helluva good introductory argument about global warming, but it’s also just a fine documentary about a subject by an expert.
Now, that expert happens to be an ex-Veep, famous for having been displaced from the Presidency. So the film, if read on its aesthetics, loses some energy as it too often segues into filmed segments wherein Gore visits home, reflects upon personal experiences, stares into the middle-distance thoughtfully. These were far less artful than the rest of the doc, and aesthetically tended to grind down the intense momentum of the presentation. Even more aggravating (and seemingly flat pointless) were endless shots from behind Gore, as he walked through airports, on to and off of stages, etc. [Side note: Gore has a very rectangular body.] Why is it all there? It bothered me, and I thought a great documentary could have been made with some trimming and discipline.
But on the way home my friend noted that he thought it could be read as one of the best campaign films ever made. I.e., if we watch the movie imagining that Gore is a potential candidate for an ’08 run at the presidency…. well, suddenly the personal “digressions” become part of a (surprisingly) attractive electoral package — a reflective, emotional, damned articulate, often witty individual; instead of a film about Global Warming, it could be read as a film about a guy who can get us to do something about global warming, who can define and sell this important issue, etc. (And all those tracking shots are necessary “reality effects”: look how tirelessly this guy works, look at him travel without entourage from small audience to small audience, look how passionate and selfless and …..)
I’ll admit: I could vote for this guy. As angry as his mishandling of the 2000 campaign made me, I could imagine this Gore–nuanced, smart but never condescending, forceful rather than cautious, self-deprecating and rarely self-serious–as a welcome force in the next few years’ debates.
But to return to the flick: even if you hate the thought of candidate Gore, or of that whole political rigmarole coming up yet again, this is a good film, not just the “important” one being anointed by critics.
i’m happy you posted this, mike. i was really looking forward to this film. then the sun-sentinel made the same point you make: it’s a campaign video (it also, unexplainedly, gave it three stars). that put me off a little, not because i’m against al gore (the thought of what the world would look now had he gotten the presidency in 2000 could cause me a psychic explosion if indulged long enough), but because i’m loathe to pay $9 for a campaign video. but you restore my will to see what’s happening to the planet in gore’s powerpoint presentation. especially because florida, i hear, is going down first.
I havent seen this film, but I wonder if Gore is truly being calulating in using it as a way to re-enter the Presidency race. I hope not.
After all, when he ran for president in 2000, he never really brought up the environment – he was told by his handlers that he wouldn’t gain a single extra vote by talking more about global warming (the idea being people that care about global warming were already voting for him, so why bring up something Gore is passionate about and cares about?)
One review (New Yorker?) I read of this said that the “digressions” of Gore sitting by a river reflecting were some of the best parts of the film. And they certainly sound similar to the relaxed, likeable Gore we saw at home in Spike Jonze’s doc on he Wholpin DVD.
I hope he doesn’t run. I hope the Democratic Party will have more imagination to run a candidate who is not from a political family, wife of ex-president or a Kennedy. For that matter I hope the Republicans have the imagination to nominate someone who isn’t Jeb Bush.
Couple responses: yeah, I really did not think the film was calculated. Your point, Mark, about the ’00 election is dead-right: I think this film, for me, shows the ways he could have talked about an issue that matters in a way that would have mattered to many–but he ran from his instincts, his passions, and his sheer talent for such articulation. This film, the MoveOn speech of a couple years back–I take these to be strong, sincere challenges from someone who recognizes his authority/legitimacy as an extra-governmental political voice, and I take him at his word that he prefers this role now. That said, my friend–a diehard fan of the blogosphere, and more invested in the rumblings of the campaign to come, saw it as…well, not calculated, but a sincere political move.
As to the scenes by the river–I didn’t seem them as fake, but they certainly seemed more rhetorical device (now, let’s step back from the information, and get personal/emotional) than a product of the rhythms of Gore’s narrative. Maybe I’m just recognizing that these scenes are, in fact, grafted onto a presentation he has down pat… but I liked the presentation, and I wasn’t sold on the integration of these pastoral moments (as, again, they seemed too pat and neat a contrast with the rush of information and the anxiety of the imagined disaster coming).
Just came back from seeing this – on a day when it’s in the low 90s in Hollywood. 100+ in the Valleys. As frustrated as I get about the topic, I was amazed how viscerally upset I get – and the audience did too – during the film’s digression of what happened in the 2000 election and how this country, this world, might have been different IF not for a 5-4 Supreme Court case, IF Gore hadn’t tried to play Clinton centrism and alienated so many liberals, if if if…
So maybe I’m naive – and I don’t think I am – but having now seen this, I don’t feel it’s a campaign film at all, and media reviews that call it that are doing the topic, and the man, a huge disservice.
Frankly, after the debacle of the 2000 election, I think it would be very unlikely that Gore will run for the Presidency again. He hasn’t given this presentation 1000+ times in dozens of countries just to do better in the Iowa caucus in ’08. Anyway; on to the film.
It’s great. While Moore’s Fahr. 9-11 made me angry (and, naturally, manipulated) this film actually made me hopeful. As bad as the news is, as bad as the damage that’s been done, there are things that can be done to change the path we’re on; there are cities and states taking initiative that the federal govt. will not, as Gore says. There is even the marketplace itself causing people to rethink what kinds of cars they buy, and where their energy comes from.
It’s certainly not a movie about solutions though – it’s about the problem. And it spells out the problem; Again. And again. And again. I dug the stuff about his family, about being a kid, about the long walks through airports even. The message was: This is now what I do. And I keep doing it. And I will keep doing it. Because it’s worth doing.
I wanted to buy DVDs of the film right there and send them to family members. It is not as shocking, say, as morris’ Fog of War. It’s not tricky or even clever. It’s very clear: This matters; here’s why.
Pretty good essay on the film and on Gore.
Well, that was depressing . . . and smart (not always the most delightful combination).
After the revivification of my idealistic self’s love of politics as potential beacon for our better angels, I decided to squash any such rejuvenated optimism by watching Our Brand is Crisis, a documentary following Bolivia’s 2002 elections. As you’ll recall, the mainstream candidate–former president Goni (Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada)–in a tough fight trying to overcome the taint of rampant corruption and economic breakdown/collapse, hires James Carville’s consulting firm to stage-manage the campaign.
The film makes one heartsick about the somewhat vacuous self-interest and arrogance of the often well-meaning consultants, who asked to ponder what went wrong after the election could only mutter that democracy might not work well in every situation–a comment that provides ironic contrast to the film’s implicit critique of how the campaign, in seeking a strong package (and equally strong attacks on the rivals) itself tried a baldfaced attempt to manipulate through the tactics of democratic choice.
It’s an illustrative film, but I wouldn’t say it’s just good medicine, which you have to force yourself to swallow–the film works quite well as a narrative, it is revealing and engaging and has a point of view, even as it avoids the kind of 1st-person focalization that Michael Moore’s critiques rely upon. In short, it invites tough questions and reflection, rather than laying out a thesis. Good stuff, even if dispiriting.
i watched this last night. it is a terrible film–what were you people on when you watched it? yes, the subject matter is important and i’m glad it was made and watched for that reason, but as a film i found it to be incoherent, muddled and deceptive. the latter, not about global warming but about its interest in being a piece of gore-promotion. but that stuff bothered me least–mostly i was just bored.
Arnab hates the Earth.
the earth is overrated. i for one welcome the imminent arrival of our alien overlords who will transport us to their worlds off alpha centauri.