English 145

8 April 2007

An Inconvenient Truth: An Analysis

                  A controversial issue in American society today is [CS1] the existence and significance of global warming. There are[CS2]  researchers and politicians on both sides of the issue. “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary featuring Al Gore, was produced [CS3] in order to create awareness about 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 [CS4] 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[CS5] . From there the film goes on to introduce Gore and present an overview of global warming. The middle of the film goes into great detail about Gore and global warming. 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 research and predictions. This emotional appeal to fear and moral responsibility creates the film’s pathos. The film makers use the plot structure to gain the audience’s attention, support their claims with evidence, and potentially[CS6]  sway the audience to support their cause.[CS7] 

                  The film’s central claim is that global warming is taking place, it is caused by humans, and that[CS8]  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. It is first shown [CS9] that Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere 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). The film then goes on to explain that [CS10] both the Arctic ice cap and the ice in Antarctica are melting, presumably due to a rise in the temperature (17, 20). Then, it is explained that 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 very [CS11] 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. [CS12] Ultimately, the film sets up credible evidence that supports its claim.

                  The film uses the emotions of fear and guilt to further their[CS13]  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 actually[CS14]  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 then 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 exaggerated claim in order to send people into a panic. The film also attempts to make the audience feel guilty. One example of this was when the U.S. was named the largest contributor to CO₂ emissions, meaning the U.S. is the largest contributor to global warming (24). This fact did lead me to feel guilty, however not as powerfully as I’m sure the film makers would have hoped, which was mainly due to the fact that I wasn’t completely convinced 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.[CS15] 

                  The film attempted to create an idealistic character of Al Gore[CS16] , but I didn’t find their attempt very 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, [CS17] in countries all over the world (29). At the same time[CS18] , scenes depicting Gore’s rural childhood are shown to give the impression that he understands the concerns of ordinary people (15). Unfortunately, I did not believe their portrayal of Gore, because it is unrealistic. In many respects he is made to look like a persecuted saint.[CS19]  This heroic depiction actually made me dislike Gore’s character more[CS20] , because he just seemed like a façade and not a real, imperfect human being. This really harmed Gore’s credibility, ethos, in my opinion.[CS21] 

                  Overall, the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” does a decent job of presenting a persuasive argument to prove the existence and significance of global warming. There were [CS22] strengths and weaknesses in all three parts of the argument: logos, pathos, and ethos. Whether or not the film persuades its audience to believe its claim, it does make the audience more aware of the global warming controversy.[CS23]