Critical Analysis Over the Movie, an Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth is a film produced by Davis Guggenheim that shows a man’s eager crusade to stop global warming deadly progress. The man putting on this traveling lecture show is no other than the former Vice President himself, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore. After his defeat in the 2000 election, Al Gore set out to educate people about his long time concern for global warming and hopefully get people of the world to take action. The film is a large power-point show of personal experiences and ideas he has learned from scientific theories and facts. To make sure the audience understands how serious this problem is, Gore uses photographs of current events that could have resulted from global warming and graphs that lead up to serious events yet to come. He pleads that most people feel that the earth is so big, that we could never have a lasting harmful effect on it. This he states is not true and demonstrates with many graphs showing increased values of carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature over many years and he comments on their distinctive relationship. Taking things out of a political standpoint, Gore expresses that this is strictly a moral issue and that mankind needs to rise above the conflict and take responsibility to save the earth that supports their needs. If we act like a frog in a glass of water slowing heating up, things could get bad, and by then it would be too late. With belief that there is still time to make a difference, An Inconvenient Truth ultimately brings about a plot that expresses Gore’s persuasive argument that will have you ready to take upon the largest moral challenge facing our planet today.

The themes of the film start out with the basics and then progress with more details. For viewers new to the global warming concept, Gore starts out with a general explanation which is very effective for this film. Then he speaks of a college professor that had an impact on him by the name of Roger Revelle, who studied the hard data that proved that CO2 concentrations were on the rise. Showing this teacher, student relationship in the film gives Gore a more believable appearance to the audience. Gore goes on to express his beliefs in global warming with pictures – for example those of Mt. Kilimanjaro and shrunken glaciers around the world. Gore is correct in saying that many mid-latitude glaciers are melting in response to warming atmosphere, but not Mt. Kilimanjaro. In the article “The woes of Kilimanjaro: Don’t blame global warming,” Philip Mote, a University of Washington research scientist says “global warming has nothing to do with the decline of Kilimanjaro’s ice, and using the mountain in the northern Tanzania as a poster child for climate change is simply inaccurate” (2007). The scientist relates Kilimanjaro’s ice loss due to solar radiation (University of Washington, 2007). This article refutes Gore’s claim regarding Mt. Kilimanjaro, but validates his other information on other glaciers. A specific problem Gore speaks of is the decline in ice mass in the Himalayas and how 40% of people in the world receive their water from the springs fed by the belt water coming off this glacier, will lose this resource and face a shortage.

Gore truly believes in his heart that the ice has a story to tell us. The glaciers theme is a very visual one that grabs people and keeps them attentive as he progresses through other factors believed to be affected by global warming. He leads us into graphs of temperatures becoming higher than normal when looked at over a thousand years. When compared to the trends in CO2 concentrations, the two are very closely related. Then he talks of the hottest years being of the recent last fourteen years, and the hottest of all them being 2005. The European continent recently had life threatening heat waves with a loss of 35,000 individuals and India reaching an extreme of 122 degrees Fahrenheit. The article “Death rates will rise because of global warming, researchers warn,” expresses that Harvard researchers put together a city specific weather data/death study and found that more than 6.5 million people have died in the United States between 1989 and 2000 due to weather extremities (2007). This data is also hard to ignore, and keeps the listener attentive. This directs Gore into the next theme of his slide-show that higher temperatures make more powerful storms due to water temperature. He then explains that the United States had an all time record of tornados and Japan had one for typhoons all due to hotter weather. Pictures of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans demonstrate what could result from global warming and shows heart breaking occurances that can and have happened. In the article “Is global warming causing an increase in hurricane activity,” scientists explain that “more research from observation, theory, and modeling is needed to resolve the current debate around global warming and hurricanes” (2007).

This article calls into question Gore’s claim that the storms have increased due to global warming. It states that more tests need to be done to be sure that this correlation is due to causation. Next he shows pictures of how global warming makes more frequent flooding occur and on the other extreme, more droughts. The most devastating event that he mentions is the idea that increased global temperature will cause the polar ice caps to melt. This seems to be an easy concept for most humans to relate to. Everyone can relate to the summers becoming longer and winters shorter. The other day it was 87 degrees Fahrenheit in College Station, Texas and it is late November. Most people would see this effect and correlate it to climate change and melting ice-caps. In the last forty years the Artic Ice Cap has diminished in thickness by forty percent. Gore touts two studies that he says prove that in 50-70 years the ice caps will be completely gone. This sounds fearful, but he does not help his viewer by giving the specifics regarding the studies like the names of the individuals and affiliations so that the mentioned articles can be referenced. However, Gore demonstrates an animated clip of a struggling polar bear due to melted ice and no place to rest between far distances. The use of emotion to influence opinion in this instance is underwhelming. Another appeal to sentiment is used when he talks about the ecological niches affected by what Gore thinks is global warming.

The niche loss leaves room for new invasive ecological niches to come in its place. This for instance brings about many problems like the pine beetle in the United States. Gore speaks about the diseases being spread throughout different ecological systems. He states coral reefs are bleaching and the rate of species decreasing has increased by 1000 times. The article “Scientists concerned about effects of global warming on infectious disease,” claims that the impact of rising global temperatures can force malaria to spread to higher altitudes than before because the increased temperature will increase the malaria line (2007). The next theme Gore explains is a major alarm bell as he calls it, the ice shelf melting of Antarctica. Gore spent most of his time enumerating this theme. Gore tells of one shelf diminishing within 35 days. He says scientists were astonished. Again, the name of the scientist in charge of the study would be very helpful. This melting could result in evacuations of residents due to rising water levels. If west Antarctica melted, the sea level of the world would rise twenty feet, resulting in many people losing their homes. Greenland would give similar results in raising sea level if it melted.

These references by Gore are ideas that people should think about and hopefully take action upon. All the themes were very effective in getting viewers attention; however some critics would believe that more documented evidence should have been expressed to give further credibility to the arguments made. Personal interviews with known scientists would have helped add to the scientific integrity of the film, rather than its emotional appeal. Also, critics will notice the word “if” mentioned a lot during the film. Overall, the themes were very effective in raising concern. Gore was very passionate and inspirational about his material presented in the film. He trusts that if he can generate awareness in people, the planet can be saved. Gore uses animations to express certain ideas which make the large power-point show entertaining and captivating, along with very visual graphs for every theme. The presentation was well put together to cover its point, and this film is a very good recap of known facts. Like James Berardinelli says, “If the movie comes across as alarmist, that’s because the situation is alarming, not because the film makers are employing hyperbole” (2006).

Gore also adds in personal information throughout the film like his son’s accident, his sister’s death to lung cancer, the Angus farm, and their raising tobacco. All these clips help viewers relate to Gore as a real person. Otherwise, most would see him as a hard, heartless politician. These were great additions to the film. It will be hard to get some Republicans to view the film due to the name on the cover, but maybe these clips will make it worth their while.

A film review by James Berardinelli explains that “The problem with An Inconvenient Truth isn’t the message, it’s the messenger” (2006). This writer just doesn’t see why Gore, a washed up presidential hopeful wanted to educate and warn others of global warming. He does not believe that many Republicans will spend 100 minutes of their time listening to the ex-Vice President. Personally I have the same feelings about this and I probably would have not watched the film either, until this assignment. Also Berardinelli points out that with “biographical snippets and personal reflections from its central figure, [the film] seems to be more about Gore than global warming. Despite what others have written, there is clear, albeit subtle, political bias” (2006). I agree again that the political bias is brought up too much and being a George W. Bush fan, I got a little angry at times. I do not agree with everything President Bush does, but I do not think this film would be a good place to express it for anyone. Gore comes across as since he was not elected that nothing is being done correctly.

Critics would say that Gore is not the best person for this film due to many appearances on his personal plane, riding alone in cars, having a laptop, cell phone, and some may even go as far as raising cattle which are another, albeit more moderate, CO2 emitter. These aspects of his life give hints to a belief that maybe he is not doing his part by practicing what he preaches. Critic Peter Schweizer, reports that public records show that Gore and his wife have “two properties-a 10,000 square foot, 20 room, eight bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000 square foot home in Arlington, VA” (2006). He also adds in that both home are in range of having wind powered electricity, but records are showing that he has not signed up. This gives belief that Gore is probably not the best person to lecture these many themes to help save the planet.

Overall the film was very moving and should influence people to act. The film is compiled of real science, but Gore put it together so that all ages could benefit form it’s knowledge. The clarity of the film is astonishing. If only a few viewers act from watching this film, the film has had some worth. Gore should not let the critics pierce his accomplishment of getting the word out, this is a very serious problem and any knowledge will help, but he should act to the same extent to which he is asking others.