04/09/07

English 145

The Inconvenience of Truth[CS1]

The opening scene of An Inconvenient Truth [CS2] immerses the viewer in a cascading entourage [CS3] of natural sensations reminiscent of photographs by Ansel Adams and writings by Henry David Thoreau. [CS4] Albert Gore Jr.’s tranquil voice lulls the audience into a sense of security, granting an appreciation for [CS5] the spectacle at hand. (Ch 1: .15) Although most regard [CS6] this light display as merely an introduction to the more serious discussion of global climate change that follows, this pastiche [CS7] serves a more important purpose. The glorification of nature forces the audience to acknowledge its value, a critical necessity for generating concern about the environment. This theme is constant throughout the film,[CS8] not only advocating respect for Nature’s majesty, but also maintaining the audience’s attention as Gore attempts to effectively present scientific data to the American public. Although the film begins by glorifying nature, the middle of film focuses on nurturing the audience’s relationship with the speaker.[CS9]

Davis Guggenheim, the director[CS10] , gives the audience a sense that they personally know Al Gore at the beginning of the film. He is careful to maintain and cultivate this relationship throughout the picture. One example is when Gore begins his presentation by telling personal anecdotes about two of his former professors. (Ch 2: 6.30) Although Gore’s stories are relevant, it is clear they are a stylistic departure from a traditional scientific presentation on global warming. However, it is not surprising that, in addition to Guggenheim, Gore is careful in approaching the presentation of data after the negative response to his speaking style in the 2000 elections. Coincidentally, portraying Gore as a charismatic person instead of an arid politician both serves the interests of Gore as well the message the film hopes to convey. The Simpson imitation cartoon about global warming is further evidence supporting the film’s efforts to entertain while informing. (Ch 4: 10.23) Gore’s personable approach no doubt takes away from the validity [CS11] of his claims, but conversely, adds to his power to persuade the viewer.

Gore at long last meanders to the point of his theatrics [CS12] explaining the correlations between worldwide CO2 levels and global temperatures.(Ch 11: 20.00) With the help of his oversized displays, Gore explains his premise that domestic, industrial, and agrarian CO2 emissions are directly affecting our environment at an alarming rate. [CS13] The former Vice-President goes on to substantiates [CS14] these claims with graphs depicting the histories of temperature and CO2 levels over the past 650,000 years. Just as it would seem the film is moving towards a documentary, Al appears on a hydraulic lift to assist [CS15] the red line representing CO2 in its ascension towards the top of the set. Although untraditional, the strangeness of this Democrat’s presence twenty feet in the air only further calls into question the red line at his side.[CS16] This exhibition clearly appeals to the emotions, a tactic that Gore ends up misusing.[CS17]

Although [CS18] on several occasions Gore’s appeals to emotion strengthen [CS19] his argument, some of them ultimately don’t withstand logic[CS20] . The protagonist[CS21] repeatedly tries to impart [CS22] the severity of the implications of climate change upon the audience, eventually comparing the threat of global warming to the Nazi Party’s ascension to power in Germany. Gore implies that his stance against global warming is analogous to Sir Winston Churchill’s stance against Hitler. He tries to legitimize this implicit claim [CS23] quoting Churchill’s words, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of Delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”(Ch 12: 34.10) The apparent relevance of Churchill’s words to Gore’s fight against global warming persuades the viewer into believing that not only are the two characters alike, but the problems they face are as well. This strategy is effective as people inevitably link their feelings about Hitler to the unrelated issue of global warming. However, this historical analogy is deceivingly simple, polluting logic with undertones of emotional persuasion.[CS24] Clearly Hitler represented a severely immediate threat, where as global warming represents a long-term problem.

An Inconvenient Truth utilizes emotional appeal in argument to a greater extent than l[CS25] ogical appeal. Clearly though, there is enough scientifically backed data to legitimate Gore’s aforementioned premise[CS26] . The foundation of Gore’s argument is grounded in logic.[CS27] Therefore all of the arguments with emotional basis only reinforce this foundation and his opinion as a whole.[CS28] Gore needs logic in his argument for his claims to have validity, but logic is not essential[CS29] for him to persuade his audience. Accordingly, it makes sense that Gore ends the film with an emotionally charged statement, “It’s our only home. That is what is at stake, our ability to have a future as a civilization.” (Ch 32: 1:28.00) In this finale Gore sets the stakes of global warming debate as high as they can be. The last scene [CS30] is perhaps the most effective in the movie showing that if Gore is right, everything we know will cease to be. [CS31]

---

[CS1]good effort at snappy title, but it has little to do with the paper's claim.

[CS2]italicize titles of films and books, not articles

[CS3]word choice--try "barrage"

[CS4]apt references

NM,K

[CS5]awkward

[CS6]might regard?

[CS7]wrong word

[CS8]not supported

[CS9]i'd say the relationship with speaker is just as important in the introduction. Your opening paragraph doesnt provide a thesis that states what the whole paper adds up to.

[CS10]not helpful to introduce him here, since you're talking about Gore throughout the paragraph

[CS11]not supported.

[CS12]awkward mixture of metaphors

[CS13]good summary of his central claim

[CS14]proofread

[CS15]word choice

[CS16]confusing sentence--why the first two words?

[CS17]all of your paragraphs so far lack topic sentences

[CS18]you again use this word misleadingly

[CS19]proofread

[CS20]misworded

[CS21]wrong word

[CS22]word choice

[CS23]wordy; delete

[CS24]good observation of the fault in the analogy, although I'm not convinced that it invalidates it. But you use too many words to make this point.

[CS25]this looks like a thesis that should come earlier, but the quantitative comparison isnt convincing.

[CS26]ugly sentence

[CS27]redundant and vague

[CS28]up to here, this paragraph reads as if hastily written and never edited

[CS29]do you mean "sufficient"?

[CS30]specify

[CS31], this starts strong, but gets steadily worse. It merits a thorough rewrite. If its submitted by Monday 4/17 I'll average the new grade with this one. The thesis needs to be carefully worded, appropriately placed and supported by a topic sentence in each paragraph. Some of the specific references are well chosen and astutely analyzed, but many controversial assertions need backing.

C-