Oscar Flashback: An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

Next on my Netflix queue was An Inconvenient Truth, which won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar and for which Melissa Etheridge won the Best Original Song Oscar for the song "I Need to Wake Up," (film year, 2006; awarding year, 2007). The other nominees in this category were:

Best Documentary Feature

Deliver Us From Evil
Iraq in Fragments
Jesus Camp
My Country, My Country

Best Original Song

"Listen" from Dreamgirls *
"Love You I Do" from Dreamgirls *
"Our Town" from Cars *
"Patience" from Dreamgirls *

This film also represents the second of two Oscar-nominated films from the year 2006 topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track.

I pick up documentaries from time to time if I am interested in the subject matter and will also, as you might know, gravitate toward the award-winners. Since documentaries are non-fiction, are invariably made for didactic reasons, and tend to be best served when the viewer is ready to hear the message, I generally tend to be choosy about the topics. I felt I had to see An Inconvenient Truth, not only because it won the Best Documentary Feature Oscar, and not only because the subject centers on what seems to me to be the glaring evidence of global warming and its effects, but because I felt the film, as a film, is important, not only for the current generation but also for future generations. It may be one of the most important documentary films ever to be made, and it's certainly one of the most famous (or infamous). In my opinion, it's going to be one of those films that outlive the decade in which it was produced because of its message; because of its boldness, courting controversy as it inevitably did; and because of the decision to use film as a fresh approach to disseminating information quickly to a large number of people in a professional and palatable way, something that is not usually achieved through today's other great information distributor, the internet (which Al Gore did not invent, but that's another story) - present website excluded, of course.

For the record, I will say, first and foremost, that I am a self-proclaimed Democrat (that would be the liberal mainstream political party here in the US, for those not familiar with the American political system). I voted for Gore in the ridiculous 2000 Presidential Election. I voted for Kerry in the 2004 election. I voted for Obama in the 2008 election, and so it will be until the conservative agenda (since there is *always* a liberal agenda, there might as well be a conservative one too) convinces me to jump the fence. I did not like George W. Bush ever and never agreed with a single policy decision of his. The only time I liked him was when he gave his famous speech from Ground Zero not long after the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City. I offer all of this unsolicited disclaimer because one of the primary critiques of this film, by both those unconvinced of the effects of global warming and those who don't like Mr. Gore, for whatever the reasons, is that the film is "too political." The predominant feedback I've both read and heard is that it uses scare tactics and exaggerations based upon "questionable" science for the purpose of bolstering Gore's possible attempt to re-run for president in 2008. Well, with the benefit of hindsight at my disposal, I can say, in wholehearted "nah nanny boo boo" fashion, that Gore did not enter the presidential race in 2008. In fact, I think his political career is over, at least at the national level, and the proof can actually be gleaned from this film. His heart is so passionately invested in global climate change, it is clear, given his best and most riveting speech/pitch in this movie, that his energies will be devoted to environmental causes going forward, and he presents convincing arguments why we all should do so, too, because, as he says, global warming "is really not a political issue, so much as a moral one."

An Inconvenient Truth documents a presentation on global warming that former United States Vice President Al Gore (he was Clinton's VP) has given globally to countless audiences, symposiums, government officials, and so on, though beefed up for this film. For the film, his multimedia slide presentation is projected onto a large, IMAX-sized screen for an audience in a closed studio. Interspersed throughout this presentation are retrospectives about Mr. Gore and some of the critical events in his life that contributed to his knowledge and enthusiasm about this topic of choice, highlighted by his voice-over narration.

As I review the film, I am not going to comment on the merits of the presentation itself, though I will say that it seems highly querulous to me when people come out so dead set against the concept of global warming as to completely doubt or disregard it without even allowing for the possibility of it. Never mind that many of the naysayers hail from the primary industrial nations of the world (like the U.S.), which have been documented to contribute the highest degree of carbon emissions (like the U.S.). Be that as it may, I am no scientist nor political pundit, so I am not prepared to call Mr. Gore right or wrong. The question, and the key to reviewing a documentary, surrounds the assessment of whether the documentary properly educated its audience about the chosen topic without straying into propaganda or turning into, you know, Michael Moore, with his in-your-face antics and creative editing. Did the film accurately and effectively depict the events and, then, did it properly convey the message it was trying to convey, and did it do so in a creative, inventive, or original way?

With An Inconvenient Truth, the answer is a resounding "yes" to all questions. Mr. Gore's presentation was filmed in an exciting format that was true to its keystone subject: offering up an argument for achieving climate change and for reducing the global "carbon footprint." A streamlined, highly-technical method of shooting the actual presentation was interchanged throughout the film with grainy photographic slide shows and stock footage of Mr. Gore's early life and political career. While the focus of the film strayed into highlighting Mr. Gore's passion, grounding the issue in the emotional center fueling Mr. Gore's raison d'etre, it also invariably came back to the man pleading his case for the world, presenting his research and conclusions that he has gathered and compiled from his own personal study of the matter and citing the work of actual scientists who research and study the phenomenon themselves.

Returning to the critique that the film is "too political," there are two conclusions to discuss. First, Mr. Gore is a politician. He knows it, and confronts it head-on by opening his presentation with a joke: "I am Al Gore; I used to be the next President of the United States." Is he trying to push an "agenda," float campaign rhetoric, tout the party line, etc.? This viewer did not see it that way. A widely known political figure is speaking about an environmental issue, so the parallel to be drawn seems inevitable. He is a politician, so he is probably only accustomed to sounding "political." On the other hand, there is a clip in the film that meditates on the 2000 Presidential Election, complete with Mr. Gore editorializing about his experience fighting to achieve victory when what he would ultimately suffer is an anticlimactic defeat, thanks to the state of Florida, pregnant chads, and a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. If this were a documentary about the hiccups in the Electoral College voting system, this kind of retrospective would make sense. While it can be appreciated that Mr. Gore is trying to tell the story of how he arrived at investing so much of his life into the global warming issue (mainly at the frustration of such a stunning blow to his political career), the mere mention of it in the context of this film does appear to lend the "too political" argument some credit.

Some might say that he also takes every opportunity he can to bash the Bush administration in his speech, which is not so and exaggerated. Former President Bush did not do much in the way of a national environmental policy, which I think even Mr. Bush would admit, so Mr. Gore's statements about some of the Bush administration's stances on ecological improvement are not far off. Also, Mr. Gore also seems to be rather equal opportunity when he attributes the failure of the United States to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to take more formative stances on global warming issues in the past to all politicians. He is careful to repeat that the issue is not "Democrat or Republican." Though, and again for the record, environmentalism has more traditionally and stereotypically been associated with the "liberal agenda."

I digress. A documentary is designed to educate, and I think this piece achieves that education in spades. Even if some believe Mr. Gore's rhetoric is "alarmist," the film still offers scientific basis and carefully presented research to support its conclusion and does so in a, mostly, diplomatic and straightforward way. Also, talk of carbon emissions and ice cores could be dry stuff to spend ninety minutes trying to absorb, but the way Mr. Gore and Director Davis Guggenheim chose to film and to present the information capably achieved its desired effect. Also, Melissa Etheridge's song "I Need to Wake Up," which played over the closing credits, was moving and poignant. Speak of the closing credits, in between the filmmaker's names were creative visuals flashing messages and suggestions of how an individual can take steps to become more active in this issue and to reduce their personal "carbon footprint." The closing credits themselves could serve as a great slide show or foundation for a presentation on the topic and proved to be a creative opportunity for Mr. Gore and company to reiterate their messages and to drive their point home.

As explained in my review of "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," I don't usually rate documentaries with my patented, registered, trademarked ratings scale because they are not about entertainment as much as they are about education. For this one, I think I would make an exception and rate it an 8.5, between having minor flaws but being very good and being perfectly entertaining. I loved this documentary; it educated me on global warming in facts and theories I hadn't been exposed to previously and proved to be an electrifying perspective on the subject. For that reason, and because I think it's a responsible film, I think this film passes the test of ownership. I would love to be able to pass this film off to others searching for more information about these topics (or, perhaps, to those open to changing their environmentally-harmful ways). Given all of the above waxing about disclaimers and political opinion, though, I recommend this film to anyone who is open to the idea that global warming is slowly and irreparably harming our planet who won't be automatically turned off by Mr. Gore, whether because he's a Democrat, a former American politician, or because he is who he is. It's worth hearing what he has to say this time around, and since he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, I think he's owed the chance.