English 145

8 April 2007

An Inconvenient Truth: An Analysis

                  In American society today, the existence and significance of global warming stands out as a heated controversy. Scientists and politicians have drawn a line in the sand and taken sides. “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary featuring Al Gore, alerts its audience to the dangers of global warming. The documentary employs the fundamental rhetoric components of logos, pathos, and ethos, as well as cinematic basics like plot structure and film devices. Some of these techniques are successful at furthering the film’s message about global warming, while others are not.

                  The structure of the documentary is typical and is composed of a beginning, middle and end. The film opens with a view of a serene river in a forest, focusing the audience’s attention on the beauty of nature. This sets up the audience to receive the larger message of the movie: the importance of stopping global warming in order to protect the earth’s ecological splendor. From there the film introduces Gore and presents an overview of global warming. In the middle of the film, much of Gore’s life is documented, including both private and political matters, all of which are used to strengthen his ethos. This part of the film also provides the evidence, or logos, behind their argument through research findings, statistics, and expert opinions. The end of the movie consists of a dramatic build up featuring startling doomsday predictions. This emotional appeal to fear and moral responsibility creates the film’s pathos. The filmmakers use the plot structure to gain the audience’s attention, back their claims with evidence, and sway the audience to support their cause.

                  The film’s central claim is that global warming is taking place, it is caused by humans, and it will have disastrous consequences on the planet if humans don’t act to stop it. The documentary uses strong scientific evidence to back up this claim. Proven through the measurement of atmospheric gases, Carbon Dioxide levels have gone up dramatically since the onset of the industrial revolution (9). This suggests that humans are the cause behind the rise in CO₂ levels. Then, a correlation is drawn between the rise in CO₂ levels with the rise in temperature, citing 2005 as the hottest year in recorded history (11). In addition, both the Arctic ice cap and the ice in Antarctica are melting, presumably due to the rise in temperature (17, 20). According to Gore, the melting of these large bodies of ice will lead to global flooding and an increase in catastrophic weather (17, 21). The logos used in the film is supportive of the argument; however, one thing is left out: the counter-argument. The documentary does not offer any opposing opinions and this lowers the strength of its logos. But ultimately, the film presents credible evidence that supports its claim.

                  The emotions of fear and guilt are utilized to further the filmmakers’ message with the audience. In order to create fear in the audience, the film describes the inevitability of catastrophic events if global warming is not stopped. At one point Gore says, “Our ability to live on planet earth is at stake!” (32). This statement is intended to scare the audience into thinking that if global warming isn’t stopped, the human race will not survive. However, when Gore said this I was not stricken with fear, but offended that he would make such an overstated claim in order to send people into a panic. The film also attempts to make the audience feel guilty. One example of this is when the U.S. was named the largest contributor to CO₂ emissions, thus identifying America as the principal culprit of global warming (24). This fact led me to feel guilty, but not as powerfully as the filmmakers intended, due to my doubt of the significance of global warming. The film pushed both of these emotions on the audience throughout the entirety of the movie, providing for a very strong pathos in the argument.

                  The film endeavors to create a heroic character in Al Gore, but I didn’t find their attempt successful. Throughout the movie, Gore is portrayed as a crusader against global warming. He is shown giving his slideshow exposing the realities of global warming in countries all over the planet (29). Gore promises to take his message to the world without relenting, from city to city and person to person (29). He proclaims that global warming has been the issue fueling his pursuit for political power. Unfortunately, Gore’s single-minded attitude seems exaggerated and unrealistic, especially for a politician. His entire character comes off as a façade, which brings down his credibility and harms his ethos.[CS1] 

                  Overall, the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” does a decent job of presenting a persuasive argument to prove the truth and significance of global warming. Strengths and weaknesses exist in all three parts of the argument: logos, pathos, and ethos. The film might not persuade its audience, but it does remind them that there are more important things to worry about in this world than the latest fashions and celebrity break-ups.[CS2]