The year was 2006 — a simpler time, when either there were no people who believed the world was flat, or if there were, they had the decency and common sense to keep it to themselves. Documentarian Davis Guggenheim released An Inconvenient Truth, a film detailing Al Gore’s efforts to raise awareness of an imminent environmental crisis that was hotly contested then and remains so today. Guggenheim took home an Oscar, and Gore garnered a Nobel Prize for his troubles. That same year, South Park satirized Gore’s work with the season 10 episode ManBearPig, in which the lonely former vice president tries to raise awareness of an aptly named chimeric beast threatening all of humanity. I laughed along with everyone else, Gore included.
Well, it’s 2017 now — and I’m here to tell you that ManBearPig is real, and he’s coming for us. In the words of South Park‘s Gore: “I’m super, duper cereal.”
In what possibly amounts to the biggest “told ya so” in cinematic history, Al Gore has returned to update us all on the dire prognostications he proffered over a decade ago — and, good lord, is it depressing. I doubt even Trey Parker and Matt Stone could find a way to make a convincing joke about the current state of affairs, and Gore certainly isn’t laughing. As was true of Truth, Gore makes a compelling case, and the evidence he presents has only grown more damning in the intervening years. Many of his predictions from the last film —notably, that sea level rise could inundate the 9/11 memorial in downtown Manhattan — have come to pass, making the rhetorical position of climate change deniers increasingly tenuous.
And yet, that doesn’t seem to stop anyone. The film plays like a premature victory lap, with its climax celebrating Gore’s successful negotiation of the United Nations Paris climate accord in 2015 — you know, the international agreement we just dropped out of. If Gore’s achievements have been diminished by the current status quo, no one is more cognizant of that fact than the man himself. Frequently throughout the film, Gore seems world-weary and beaten-down, a crusader laboring under the unfortunate misperception that simply being right is enough to carry the day.
When Roger Ebert reviewed Truth, he described the film as having “the potential, I believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which could save the Earth.” Clearly, that didn’t pan out — or at least it hasn’t yet. If Gore is able to maintain a cautious optimism, I don’t know that I can fully agree. Co-directors Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk take a more cinematic approach to their subject than Guggenheim’s straightforward chronicle of Gore’s frequently delivered PowerPoint presentation, and the results are striking even if they lack some of the immediacy and impact of the prior film. It’s hard to watch aerial footage of glaciers literally exploding without drawing any other conclusion than Gore’s efforts may be too little, too late. One can only hope that Asheville won’t be beachfront property if Gore updates us again in another 10 years. Rated PG for thematic elements and some troubling images. Now Playing at Fine Arts Theatre.
Yes, of course, the climate changes. Everyone knows that.
What some have figured out, quite rationally, is that many of the loudest touters of ‘human-influenced’ climate change have profit motives. That is a conflict of interest, plain and simple.
Insist they remove their sticky fingers from the honey pot, then I will listen to what they have to say. Somehow, methinks that they will not spend as much time and effort on the topic once their monetary rewards are gone. We have zero to lose, and much to gain, by finding out exactly how sincere the concern is for Al Gore and others.
Scott, perhaps, you’d like to start the ball rolling by updating your review with the request that Al Gore cease any financial involvement in climate-related companies, investments or products? Oh, and that he live a lifestyle that conforms to the very things that he touts. Reasonable, yes?
I’m deeply flattered that you think Al Gore reads my reviews…
Either your reading comprehension is faulty or that is some sort of snarky retort meant to distract from a worthwhile suggestion. Neither of those is impressive coming from an adult……
Unless your own reading comprehension is faulty, my snark should have been self-evident. But since you’re unimpressed, let’s take another look at this “worthwhile suggestion” of yours…
In my opinion, your smarm-laden request that I “update” my review to reflect your views on the issue at hand was misdirected. My review was on a movie about climate change, a movie specifically about Al Gore’s efforts to address that problem. That’s it. I never got into his politics, or his financial interests, or Al Gore as a person — because those discussions would be beyond the scope of my role as a film critic. I reviewed the movie I saw, so if you’re looking for commentary extraneous to the material I saw onscreen, you would seem to be in the wrong place. And if you’re looking for a critic who will change a review to better suit your opinions, you’re definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Alright, it’s been established that it is both inaccurate comprehension and snark. (For quite some time, the movie reviewers at Mtn X have evidenced both of those and it does cause one to wonder why. Probably a tone set by Hanke.)
— It’s not a matter of a review suiting “my opinions” (inaccurate comprehension) it was a suggestion that benefits everyone to point out that the promoter (Gore) has a substantial conflict of interest.
— Good grief, you are being utterly disingenuous with, “……Al Gore’s efforts to address that problem. That’s it. I never got into his ………”. Your review is entirely biased on the underlying subject matter! You wrote as if you have authority on climate science, have specifically fact-checked Gore’s assertions and deem them “correct”. I could hand that review to 10 strangers and ask them whether that reads as a pure review of something or whether it is a CLEAR admission of support for what Gore and the movie assert? I feel confident how 10 out of 10 would respond. How can you not recognize your own subject bias in that review?
So, yea Scott, given the voluntary cheerleading, it seemed quite appropriate to point out that Gore, and many others involved in that issue, have benefited monetarily, and will continue to, by what they are promoting. A conflict of interest. Naivete serves no one.