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.

 

Background on my final paper

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05universal.html?scp=12&sq=green+media&st=nyt

Just an article showcasing NBC's decisionto air "green" shows during the week...

Critical Defense of NYT Artical

Manohla Dargis, one of the staff writers of the New York Time’s movie section, published a review of the new film, “The Other Boleyn Girl” on February 2008 found on the website, .

She describes this film as a “salacious” story of rich, pretty girls who run around the castle and act as prostitutes to the king. Dargis writes her review in a way that subtlety compares this movie to a reality TV show, where two sisters are set in competition and the audience gets to see their downfall. She calls these girls “more or less the Paris and Nicky Hilton of the Tudor Court. Her language also reflects this type of media. Especially for the New York Times, Dargis uses language that is on the saucy side. She writes, “His sexual wish was their command” and describes one of the sisters as being “passed around from man to man”. She even says that the daughters were “pimped out” by their father.

It’s interesting the language that she uses, sometimes very common and at other times quite confusing. What is the word “pastiche”? Is it a common term in the film world? Another confusing example of her language in her lede, she uses the phrase “More slog than romp”. Perhaps it’s due to a personal confusion, but it seems like this phrase is difficult to understand. Also she writes that “The Boleyn sister were the kind of trouble that can make for bodice-ripping entertainment, but they were also the kind of unruly women who sometimes risked burning”. It’s difficult to understand if Dargis is talking about the real sisters or how they were portrayed in the movie; overall, the sentence is badly constructed.

But she accomplishes her goal at placing her position on the film. From the second paragraph on, she uses descriptions that inform the reader of her point of view. She uses the phrases, “oddly plotted and frantically paced”, “safe and predictable”, “underwritten and unedited”, and “whittled down to the nub” to describe different aspects of the film. She writes that the movie has “few meagerly entertaining moments”. The reader can also know what to expect, without knowing too much about the film or plot. In her kicker, “Ms. Portman’s eyes, Mr. Bana’s hands, and Ms. Johansonn’s chin all receive vigorous workouts” Dargis paints a picture of what the audience should expect, especially if they are familiar with these famous actors.

Overall, she does a good job getting her opinions out and keeping the tone of her piece steady. Her title is lacking and wouldn't attract readers, but perhaps the movie was advertised enough for readers to naturally seek out her review. At some points, it is slightly difficult to understand who her audience should be, because of some of her word use, but she writes an engaging piece about a film she clearly didn’t enjoy.

Rough Draft

“10,000 years ago, one storm changed the face of our planet. On May 28, it will happen again”. This is the tagline to the film, “Day After Tomorrow” starring Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum and Sela Ward. The film tries to showcases how the planet will be affected by the damage done by mankind. Following the growing “green” 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. A consultation by NASA scientists was requested before the filming of the movie, but even NASA stated that the events in the film were too ridiculous to actually occur, and hence denied the request.

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 bout Las Angeles, and everything begins to freeze solid. Not only do these events happen at the same time, but they take place all 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.

Unfortunately, this type of media portrayal of the serious environmental issues causes a large problem. 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 is an actual cause that deserve their attention.

 

However, “Day After” does include several surprisingly barbed attacks on the US administration.  “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 stupidity of the government during times of environmental crisis, which was unfortunately proven during the Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Also during production of the film, Emmerich supposedly paid $200,000 out of his own pocket to make the production "carbon-neutral", where all carbon dioxide emitted by the production was offset by the planting of trees, and investments in renewable energy.

 

There is another way that the film itself can help save the environment. 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.

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.

 

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 how when US congress passed the clean air act, you can visibly tell in the 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.

 

            But even with all the scientific evidence presented clearly, the film takes a wrong turn. It focuses too much on Gore’s personal life and turns the film into an emotional cry for help. Gore tells the sad story of his sons car accident and having to wait in the hospital for a month. This apparently led to his interest in studying global warming and traveling around the planet looking for answers.

You look at that river gently flowing by. You notice the leaves rustling with the wind. You hear the birds; you hear the tree frogs. In the distance you hear a cow. You feel the grass. The mud gives a little bit on the riverbank. It's quiet; it's peaceful. And all of a sudden, it's a gearshift inside you. And it's like taking a deep breath and going, "Oh yeah, I forgot about this." Says Gore

Al Gore is like an entertaining lecturer professor, although the material is made to be easily understandable, even for people without a scientific background. 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 who exactly are we supposed to believe?

 

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. As adults, it is important to critically question all the information that is presented in films about the green plight and understand that it is a real issue. Not the next new controversy, but something that everyone needs to understand.

 

 “An Inconvenient Truth is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry to protect the one earth we all share.  ‘It is now clear that we face a deepening global climate crisis that requires us to act boldly, quickly, and wisely,’ said Gore”. 

** I hope to interview someone in the K biology department as well as add more information about childrens movies. I was only able to briefly touch on the green movement outside of the two films, and I think I would like to add more on that  as well.  

I wanted to apologize to the class that my draft isn't up yet, I promise I'll have it up by tomorrow morning!

Topic for final project

I was interested in delving into the world of media with a focus on the "Green Movement" or environmentalism and sustainability. Films such as An Inconvenient Truth (presented by former US vice president Al Gore), The Day After Tomorrow, March of the Penguins, and even children's movies such as Ice Age are trying to open the public's eyes to our effects on the planet. Series such as Planet Earth or Blue Planet (created by the discovery channel) show viewers nature at its finest and implore upon its audience to help save the planet. Even commercials on television, such as Esurance, tell consumers that if they use their insurance company, they don't tell the audience how to help save the planet. Also, the cost of becoming green is high, which leads us to wonder whether it's worth the trouble if our planet is already doomed to ruin anyway. 

No Dazzle at the Oscars

“The fight is over, so tonight…welcome to the make-up sex!” jokes the host Jon Stewart in reference to the end of the writers strike as he opens the 80^th annual Academy Awards.

Steward, the comedian who is the host of the popular TV comedy central “The Daily Show” was the savior of the awards show this year. With only a week to prepare, the full genius of Stewart emerges when he delivers every line so naturally and comically.

He opens the show with a comedic monologue, addressing issues like the writer’s strike, the Iraq war, and the presidential elections. He jokes, “Tonight we look beyond the dark days to focus on happier fare: This year’s slate of Oscar-nominated psychopathic killer movies. Does this town need a hug? What happened? ‘No Country for Old Men’, ’Sweeney Todd’, ’There Will Be Blood’? All I can say is, thank God for teen pregnancy” referring to the feel good hit, “Juno”.

But other then Stewart’s witty comments, the entertainment value of the show was at an all-time low. The writers apparently couldn’t slap together enough material, as there were montages that highlight every single Best Picture, Actress, Actor, Director from the creation of the award show until the present.

They obviously needed something, anything to fill the three hours that the awards show spanned. George Clooney reminisces, “One thing that’s always consistent…it’s long…no I’m kidding… it’s unpredictable.”

Unfortunately, this year, the show was utterly predictable. “There Will Be Blood” and “No Country for Old Men” was up for eight nominations each and between the two, took home five major awards. “No Country” had four. Best Picture, Best Director, Best adapted screenplay and best editing. Not to mention, Javier Bardem who won Best Supporting Actor for his role in “No Country”. Daniel Day-Lewis won, for the second time, Best Actor, sealing his fate as an Oscar worthy talent.

The biggest surprise was when the small low budget movie “Once” won the Best Original Song for “falling slowly” when the Disney film “Enchanted” had three songs in the running.

Another surprise was the international theme of the show, with award winners from Spain, England, and France. All four acting prizes went to Europeans: Frenchwoman Cotillard, Spaniard Bardem, and the British Day-Lewis and Swinton.

But it’s noticeable that the iconic stars were absent. They were there as presenters and not as nominees. Matt Damon from “Bourne Supremacy”, Julia Roberts from “Charlie Wilson’s War”, and Brad Pitt from “The Assassination of Jesse James” didn’t even seem to be present at the event! Viewers waiting for their favorite celebrities were sadly disappointed.

Which leads to the question, why was Miley Cyrus even there? Was she a way of compromise that other famous pop icons were absent? Although she helped spark interest in the show among her following of preteen adolescent fans, she had no real reason for attending the classy celebrated award show for serious actors and actresses. Perhaps even she had nothing better to do on a Sunday night, than go to the Academy Awards.