For my third critical analysis, I watched An Inconvenient Truth. I felt like I was late to the party when I saw this because it has been years since it came out, but in the end I’m glad I saw it. The propaganda is pretty obvious, but I’ll just post the critical analysis and be done with it. Below I’ll post the trailer for the film from YouTube.com.
Now without further ado…
Critical Analysis 3
An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary that touches on a very heated, polarizing topic—global warming. In other words, those who see the film are bound to feel very strongly one way or another. Regardless of one’s politics there is no disputing that the film has many elements of propaganda within it. Al Gore and director Davis Guggenheim created a highly popular and entertaining documentary, but one that is easily studied for its aspects of propaganda.
One of the main things that any “skeptic” would consider while watching the movie are the politics of global warming and Gore’s blatant yet weak attempt at masking it. Gore at one point toward the beginning of the film says that it isn’t a political issue, but more of a “moral” issue. All the while he consistently mentions his “opponent” and “skeptics” and his campaigns for president. No human being likes being thought of as “immoral,” so Gore’s making it a “moral” campaign is emotionally charged and almost juvenile to an extent due to the obvious partisanship involved.
Other emotional appeals are endless in the film. At one point Gore is telling the story of his six-year-old son being hit by a car. The story is touching, perhaps even inspiring, but at what point does a shrewd viewer ask, “What does this have to do with global warming?” This is one of just the many pulls at a person’s emotions (rather than “just the facts”) to get the viewer on the side of the metaphorical “good guys.” Another obvious facet is the photos and graphics used in Gore’s presentation. The imagery is often vibrant and alarming. No one likes the idea of their planet being destroyed, and Gore and the documentary team are able to put forth the perfect images to affect the viewer. One great example is the polar bear. The graphic is shown pretty briefly, and Gore even quickly says afterwards “Now what does this mean for us…” At this point the appeal has already been made, the polar bear is meant to bring viewers to his side.
Of course these images are only so effective. They can only do so much, so Guggenheim and Gore seem to step it up a few notches when the bring Hurricane Katrina into the mix. The brief images and the idea of warm waters creating this perfect storm that blasted New Orleans are very powerful because so many people saw the devastation of that city and many even know someone who was hurt or lost everything during the storm. This is yet another appeal used by the makers of the film.
In the end, the movie leaves as many questions as answers. Even when excluding the hard data or global warming questions, a viewer may wonder many things. What were the motives behind its making and production? Are Gore’s tactics when addressing his audiences effective rhetoric or blatant propaganda? Would Gore even admit that the film is propaganda? Regardless of the answers, An Inconvenient Truth is a compelling, persuasive argument that gets many of its audience thinking about the Earth and how they can help the environment. With this in mind, it is fair to say that the documentary accomplished exactly what Gore hoped. This, if nothing else, makes for a propagandistic movie.
