An Inconvenient Truth
Director: Davis Guggenheim
Grade: A

At first, I felt inclined to write off An Inconvenient Truth as a means for rejuvenating Al Gore’s tarnished career - just a self-serving documentary by the guy who “lost” to Bush back in 2000. That was my cynical side talking, but for once, the cynic in me can go to hell! Without the slightest hint of irony, I proclaim this movie the must-see film of 2006, not for what it adds to the art of cinema, but for the message that it sends to viewers; one that should have been obvious to us all along, but one to which many (myself included) turned a deaf ear. I recall all the times I was approached on the street by environmentalists asking for a moment of my time. My reaction was to pretend to be in a hurry, brush them off, and, if pressed on the issue, tell them I simply didn’t have the time to talk. Truth is, I had all the time in the world to listen, but now it appears the world may no longer have the time for people like me, and as melodramatic as that statement sounds, it nevertheless bears an incontrovertible truth that can no longer be ignored.

Watching An Inconvenient Truth I felt sad that a person like me must be confined to a theater under the guise of entertainment before they’re willing to listen to a message of this importance. Now that the message is available to a wider audience in the form of this enthralling, if distilled film, it seems that people want to sway us in other ways, labeling it propaganda, or a film with an obvious liberal bias. What’s the bias here? Biased toward the Earth’s ecosystem? That assumes that caring about the environment or the future of the planet somehow represents a selfish interest upon which someone profits. Let me put it this way, if anyone is capable of presenting a bias, wouldn’t the natural assumption be that those who attempt to pose global warming as a theory rather than a fact are motivated by something like profits or the concerns of the oil industry? Unless they honestly believe that pollution has absolutely no effect on the environment. Certainly, no one elected to Congress could possibly hold such a belief. Right?

Concerning the cynical attacks on this film: is our goal to prove how jaded and dismal we are? If being influenced by a documentary meant to illuminate a serious ecological concern qualifies one as gullible then I accept my role. What do I have to lose? If I’m wrong, and the Earth isn’t doomed, it doesn’t mean I shall regret my decision to start walking more, to use less electricity, or resume my meticulous recycling campaign. Now consider the consequences if I choose to ignore it and end up wrong. Without a habitable planet, what difference would profit matter then?

Yes, the film has been labeled as dry. But what some consider bland, I see as an incredible focus. Consider the intended purpose of a documentary: is it not to convey information, to draw one’s attention to an issue, to illuminate a matter of great importance? Viewed through that criteria, An Inconvenient Truth stands as the finest documentary of the last decade. Certainly the only one that effects you regardless of whether you see it or not, since the consequences of its evidence extends beyond the celluloid.

Of course, the film isn’t bland unless you haven’t seen it yet, but one of the misconceptions hurting the film concerns the public image of Al Gore. Yes, we all remember him as the stiff and impassive candidate that he was during his campaign, but perhaps relieved of the burden of running for President, he finally has the chance to open up. Seeing him now, I suddenly regret the decision I made back in November of 1999 (that is, until Nader comes out with a documentary that paints him in a more personal light). The moments from his personal life interspersed throughout the documentary may appear extraneous and self-serving, but they help position him as more than just a lecturer at a podium talking down to an uninformed audience. These moments relieve him of the mythical status he could easily have assumed, instead revealing him as an ordinary person affected by the issue. He fights for the environment because, like all of us, he depends on it.

Alas, as always, there exist another side to this that, as much as I disagree, I feel obligated to include. Philip Hall of Film Threat calls the film a “blatant intellectual fraud” citing all the decisions Gore made while in office that cast doubts on the authenticity of his devotion to the environment. Whether such items are true or not (his source is Wikipedia, and we all know how unreliable that is) shouldn’t matter, though, if the message is clear; and it is. Yes, all this information has been readily available before the film was made, but how many bothered to track it down? I’d be lying if I said I knew about the situation clearly going into the film. The truth is America needs a film like this as a wake-up call. Think of all the petty assholes who still ignore the threats facing them. Think of all the brain-dead slobs who still feel that gay marriage is the most damning issue facing our nation. Think of all the people who still get into their gas-guzzling cars to drive a few blocks when public transportation is readily accessible to them. Now think how many people fit one of the above descriptions multiply it by millions and consider the crisis our planet faces.