Final Draft

The Films That Cry Wolf

More than one billion of the world’s population does not have access to clean water and among those, one of five are children. This is one of the many facts that msn.com presents on it’s new section, aptly titled green. It is getting harder and harder to come by any type of popular media-- whether written or presented in television or film-- that doesn’t push environmentalism.

Several recent films engage this new phenomenon in varying ways. The film “Day After Tomorrow” tries to showcases how the planet will be affected by the damage done by mankind. Following the growing environmental trend, the film tries to inform people of the risks of remaining ignorant to our Earth’s current status.

Disappointingly, “Day After Tomorrow” goes far too overboard to be taken seriously. At the National Snow and Ice Data Center website, nsidc.org, NASA makes an official statement regarding the film. They describe the film as “exciting but fictitious” and that “the kind of disaster portrayed in the movie is impossible”. When asked if this movie is realistic, NASA answers with one decisive word, “No”. 

Viewers expecting to see scientific truthful information about global warming are seriously disappointed. During the “pulse-pounding rollercoaster ride” as the film’s website claims, there are tidal waves that engulf New York City, tornados tearing apart Los Angeles, and everything begins to freeze solid. Not only do these events happen at the same time, but also they all take place in the period of one day. During these events, the characters must also battle, wolves, blood transfusions, and a trek from Washington DC to New York City. Any environmental issues that the film tried to address are buried deep under the dramatics they used to keep the audience’s attention.

This type of media portrayal of the serious environmental issues has a very negative effect on the environmental cause. When the goal of a film company is to make money, the cause of the film is often lost behind tricks that will please the audience.  Anything truthful and shocking about the planet’s status will soon be disregarded as another Hollywood shocker to rake in the money. Like the story about the boy who cried wolf, eventually the general public will be numb to any more environmental issues, which can have serious and disastrous results.

“Day After” does include several barbed attacks on the US administration. In the commentary of the film, it is said that “Casting Kenneth Welsh as the Vice President was controversial due to his physical resemblance to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, but the director Roland Emmerich insisted on it for that very reason, likely to highlight the Bush/Cheney administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Perhaps Emmerich decided to highlight the inefficiency of the government in an environmental crisis, which was unfortunately proven in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

However, there are those in the government that are very passionate about environmentalism and sustainability. In the documentary “Inconvenient Truth” Director Davis Guggenheim uses the former Vice President Al Gore to present the science of global warming. Gore’s lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change is also highlighted in this film. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a humorous lecture, filled with evidentiary graphs and charts.

The DVD for the film “An Inconvenient Truth” is packaged to make the smallest possible environmental footprint, “it is made of 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, no excess materials, and absolutely no plastics. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of this DVD will benefit the bipartisan climate effort, The Alliance for Climate Protection.” This information about the DVD was highlighted in the website, climatecrisis.net. This website acts as an extended arm for the film, adding extra information about global warming and other environmental concerns.

Gore presents photos of actual sites around the world in a before and after style to show the drastic changed in just the last 20 years. He talk about the time that the United States congress passed the clean air act, it was visible to note the difference in air stuck in ice core samples in Antarctica. He presents several graphs, proving the correlation between Temperature and CO2, the rise of CO2 in our lifetimes, and the predicted temperature rise.

            Even with all the scientific evidence presented clearly, the direction of the film takes a wrong turn. By focusing too much on Gore’s personal life, the film becomes a feel good story about a political figure. Gore tells the grievous story of his son, who was in an accident and placed in the hospital for a month. This apparently led to his interest in studying global warming and traveling around the planet looking for answers. This type of story-telling trivializes the portrayal of global warning in this film.

Al Gore is an amusing lecturer, who uses his charisma to introduce the audience to this cause and keep them laughing in their seats. Perhaps he is not the best source for actual information. The film tells us our duty is to separate truth from fiction, but also tells us that the government and popular media will try to hide it.

So where exactly are the actual scientists with the believable data? Perhaps they thought it was too complex for the general public to comprehend, but by presenting the information in such an informal way, the seriousness of the cause can only be set up by Gore’s passion for the topic, not very scientific.  

Even children’s film media is turning environmental, such as “Ice Age”, “The Bee Movie” and “Arctic Tale”, but these movies are right on track for children by introducing the concept that caring for the Earth is very important. Obviously, as adults we know that mermaids and talking animals do not exist and in that same way, it is important to critically question all the information that is presented in these films. For children, however, it sets the root of the idea. Perhaps it’s a lesson that popular media should not be taken as seriously as it is, and it is the responsibility of the audience to determine if the wolf is actually there.