Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The reality of political life in the American society has formed Americans’ stereotypical thinking concerning the destiny of the former vice presidents. Two paths are generally considered possible for former vice presidents upon leaving the office: to take part in the presidential race or to fade in obscurity (Behreandt 31). Most of them end up in obscurity. Al Gore chose to run for the presidency. However, after losing the elections he did not want to become a forgotten politician. Instead, he let himself in for the business of documentary filmmaking. His first effort on this arena, An Inconventional Truth (2006) is considered in the current paper with the emphasis made on the audience’s understanding and accepting the basic ideas and solutions that the film offers.
Main body
An Inconventional Truth expressively weaves the science of global warming and focuses on Mr. Gore’s efforts to fight drastic environmental changes. The film encloses Gore’s personal story and renders his lifelong commitment to stop global warming. It won the Oscar for best documentary at the 70th annual Academy Awards presentation and for the best original song I Need to Wake Up (performed by Melissa Etheridge) on February 25, 2006 (Behreandt 31).
Making his speech at the winning ceremony Gore encouraged the viewers to act: “My fellow Americans” he said, “people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started with the possible will to act. That’s a renewable resource. Let’s renew it.” (Behreandt 31)
Though this Gore’s message got a warm reception at the Oscars, average Americans viewed his efforts to save the planet as a work of the principle “do as I say, not as I do”. The thing is that the viewers could easily notice the controversy between the ideas promoted and the lifestyle that Gore has. On the one hand, the film encourages to adopt eco-friendly standard of living as a way to head off climate change, on the other, Gore himself has a far larger “carbon footprint” than the average American. Tennessee Center for Policy Research states that the former president’s mansion in Nasville is an energy hog.
The examination of Gore’s electric and gas usage reports that the mansion “consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year.” (The Inconvenient Truth about Al Gore’s “Carbon Footprint” 9) The studies like this and their revealing through various mass-media make the public think of the sincerity and the importance of the claims that Gore makes in the film.
One more thing that puzzles the American audience is that Gore presents too detailed analysis of the problems. For the British audience where there is political consensus on combating climate change it is the solutions they crave, in the US, however, the debate continues at the expense of action (Will Going Green Really Save the World? 34).
The British audience feels unsatisfied with the solutions, or, to be more exact, with the lack of the solutions offered. Disturbing footage of melting polar ice caps and receding glaciers do not impress the British viewers any more. They know about the existence of the problem and do not need in-depth explanation of its essence, rather, they strive to see solutions: to learn whether there is “any alternative to a painful cutback in [their] cardependent, energy-guzzling lifestyles?” (Will Going Green Really Save the World? 3).
Instead of offering these solutions, Gore offers a bunch of evidence that is quite often difficult for the viewers’ understanding. What hampers the viewers’ comprehension is the absence of numbers in most of Gore’s presentations. For instance, while talking about C[O.sub.2] Gore demonstrates a chart showing a steep rise in C[O.sub.2] levels, but there are no numbers on the chart to put the data displayed into perspective (Behreandt 33).
Overall, the charts, graphs and explanations that go along with them offer a rather pessimistic perspective that cannot but discourage the Americans: their way of life appears to be incompatible with the survival of the planet.
Accepting Gore’s views on the environment and climate change presents some difficulty because of obvious exaggerations that Gore makes. His warnings become extreme when it comes to the problem of hurricanes. Gore’s assumption is that the effects of global warming shape the power of the Hurricane Katrina. According to him, hurricanes would get stronger because of the global warning. This claim is a rather contestable one.
For instance, Dr. William Gray who heads Colorado State’s Tropical Meteorology project states that “the degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes to increase is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms” (Behreandt 34). More exaggerations relate to the oceans future rise by some 20 feet while even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report about 1-2 centimeters rise in a century (Behreandt 34).
The loss of credibility of Gore’s words increases when he examines the ice cores of the Antarctic. Pointing at one of the core under examination Gore states that there is a clear line in it demarcating the advent of the Clean Air Act. However, to speak of this is senseless, as the naked eye can’t pick that out of an ice core (Behreandt 35).
Those people who are interested in the problems discussed in Gore’s film are likely to be informed about the issues from other sources. Comparing the information at their disposal they can see that it differs at many aspects and realizing the degree of Gore’s professionalism in the sphere of politics rather than the sphere of global warming sub-unconsciously they prefer to believe the views presented by the professionals.
The respond of the educational circles too the film under analysis deserves special consideration. For instance, teachers in Federal Way School District, south of Seattle, were criticized for showing An Inconvenient Truth as Gore is not competent enough in the subject to present his views for students.
Moreover, parents considered the film to be biased: “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is… The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.” (Hess 194) parents’ wishes to bow the film were carefully considered by the school management and the following decision was taken: the teachers who want to use Gore’s film at their lessons should get the permission of the school principal and present a credible, legitimate opposing view to the students’ opinion.
It is obvious that the controversy that the film created in schools results from the general controversy it created in the British and the American society. In the public, there is no existing consensus about the veracity and validity of Gore’s fundamental claims. For instance, the 2007 national survey the adult Americans’ beliefs about global warming presents the following findings: 77 percent of the respondents believe global warming is occurring, fewer than a half say it results from human activity and most do not find it to be a top priority issue that deserves examination on the state level (Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and Solutions).
The existing dispute about whether An Inconvenient Truth deserves airtime is an example of ideological battles. And in the case of showing the film in educational establishments it is very important that these battles do not enter the classrooms.
Conclusion
Even when the film audience accepts the veracity of Gore’s claims the controversy will still exist as the film being documentary is not objective, however. An Unconvenient Truth is a rallying cry, a call to arms. And the way this nature of the film is accepted in this or that societal circle will shape the overall response of this circle to it. Those who think that the film is lacking objectivity will feel reluctant to accept Gore’s views on the environment and climate change.
Those who do not find any contradictions to the existing reality will consider the film to reverberate as genuine. The respond of the public thus largely depends on the viewers’ competence in the subject discussed and their impartiality towards Gore who makes the first steps in his career as a scientist contrary to the biased views that the media often air.
Works Cited
Behreandt, Dennis. “Hot Air: An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s New Documentary about Global Warming, Is Intriguing, but Fails to Convince in the End.” The New American. 2006: 31.
“Global Warming: A Divide on Causes and Solutions.” 2007. Web.
Hess, Diana. “From Banished to Brother Outsider, Miss Navajo to an Inconvenient Truth: Documentary Films as Perspective-Laden Narratives.” Social Education 71.4 (2007): 194.
“The Inconvenient Truth about Al Gore’s “Carbon Footprint”.” The New American. 2007: 9.
“Will Going Green Really Save the World? Al Gore’s Climate-Change Film an Inconvenient Truth Has Put Him Back in the Presidential Race and Convinced American Audiences. What Can He Teach Us in Britain, We Asked a Panel of Experts.” The Evening Standard (London, England). 2006: 34.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.