FILM: AL’S (UNDESERVED) OSCAR
Motion Picture Academy member Roger L. Simon thinks Al Gore and his producers have a lock on an Oscar for their global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth ... even though there's little chance Simon will be voting for it. (Read his analysis HERE)
———
by Roger L. Simon
Whatever its ideological virtues, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (directed by Davis Guggenheim, produced by Laurie David, Laurence Bender and Scott Z. Burns) is a highly conventional business, part over-blown campaign film replete with puffery about the candidate and corny jokes about the opposition, part earnest Discovery Channel-style documentary with the usual didactic visual aids and animations. It is light years from the cutting edge of the documentary form. In fact, it borders on the stodgy.
Yet-in a year with few clear Oscar favorites-with the exception of Helen Mirren’s title performance in The Queen, Gore’s global warming flick stands alone as a lock for an Academy Award this February 27th.
It won’t deserve it.
So how does it come to be a surefire Oscar winner? At first glance this is just another example of Hollywood’s vaunted liberals honoring one of their heroes for producing a film validating the conventional wisdom on global warming. And, yes, as the Zen Buddhists say, “First thought, best thought.”
But it is more than that. Gore’s victory in February is insured by being in the one category of Academy Award voting – the documentary – that could arguably be called corrupt.
To be clear, in my over twenty years as an Academy voter I have seen very little that could fairly be termed corruption. (No one has ever tried to bribe me, alas). On the contrary, the Academy Awards are, in all, despite what the public might think, a pretty clean election.
But the documentary division is another matter. In 1995, one of the most highly regarded documentaries of the last decade, Hoop Dreams, about black kids trying to get into the NBA, didn’t even get nominated. This generated a controversy about the nominating process in that division that has never been resolved.
Members of their respective divisions nominate movies for Academy Awards. For the bigger categories (actors, directors, screenwriters, etc.) the assumption is made that the members have seen the films before they vote. These days we are all sent DVD screeners, which makes that process relatively easy. Not so for the documentaries, a much less commercial area (an exception being the richly-funded An Inconvenient Truth for which we have all received DVDs).
This leaves documentaries to be judged by a very small group of volunteers from that division (estimated at 30-35 persons) who have time to troop down to the Academy to view the potential nominees. For the most part, these people are retired or close to it. Being of a certain age, their view of the documentary form is, again for the most part, from a different era. They tend to be more comfortable with old-style talking heads docs like Gore’s (called “archival” in the trade) and less comfortable with the more creative verité approach of Hoop Dreams etc.
Good news for Al.
After this retrograde committee delivers an undeserved nomination to Gore (technically to his producers, but we all know the award goes to The Man Almost Who), the Academy at large gets to vote. Most pay very little attention to the documentaries. An Inconvenient Truth will be judged almost entirely on its ideology and hardly at all on its cinematic value or lack thereof. (For the record, I am concerned about global warming but since-like the former Veep-I am not a scientist, I get confused when the Russian Academy of Science says the real problem is global cooling, as it did last summer.)
Academy writers’ division member David Freeman put it this way: “This is an age of great documentaries and the Academy as usual is six steps behind.”
As I said, good news for Al.
Pajamas Media CEO Roger L. Simon has an Academy Award nomination in screenwriting for his adaptation of Isaac Singer’s “Enemies, A Love Story.”
Let’s clear up some confusion.
The two PJM “Freeranger” politicians — Joe Lieberman and Arnold Schwarzenegger — both know that the greenhouse effect is real and both push policies to combat it.
The Russian Academy of Science question the greenhouse effect?
Of course it does!
Russia is poised to become the biggest supplier of oil and natural gas in the world.
Why on earth would Russia want to help curtail the use of fossil fuels?
Put that report in with the one from the Saudi Academy of Science. LOL
Point taken to some extent. But my point is that I am questioning all politicians as conduits of such information. I prefer scientists. By the way, the Israel Space Agency reports the same concern for global cooling. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
The last I head the Israelis gave all their oil back to the Egyptians… or am I misinformed.
I had a teacher in film school fifteen years ago who said the guys who screen documentaries for the academy were a bunch of really old coots who could barely stay awake during a screening. And he was seventy-five!!
So Roger — who / what else was nominated, and which of those deserves the Oscar?
I am so not caring, I don’t even know who / what else was nominated. After Fahrenheit 9/11 (not to mention the Hoop Dreams fiasco) I barely pay attention to the Oscars. Since Hollywood says they like to push the envelope, why not be a little more edgy and change that category to Propaganda instead of Documentary?
I blogged this today at http://www.seejanemom.com
SCIENCE is all that is important to the Left. They are the party of REASON and FACT…I have a few FACTS on my blog that might not square with their ideas about MAN as GOD.
B@$tards.
And this photo makes him look like the churlish DEVIL that he is.
Al Gore is not a scientist. His degree is in government. He did not finish his law degree-or so reported in wikipedia. Me thinks he has a desire to prove something. The Left is tripping over itself to give him accolades. He is their darling. Give us a break. The science is still out on global warming.
The award for films in this genre lost all credibility when Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine won a few years back. That established quite clearly that the academy was incapable of distinguishing between a documentary and propaganda. When Gore’s film wins, it will be yet more evidence of the same.
Wow, Al looks positively demonic in that photograph! That’s not a “cat who ate the canary” smile, it’s a “cat who slowly, deliberately, and gleefully ripped each wing and each leg off the canary and then bit its head off” smile.
I don’t know if it’s the Botox, the wrinkle fillers or the make-up but that photo creeps me out.
Interesting that sopme people look toward the Russian acdemy of science and ignore our own National academies.
And what’s with the “Al Gore is the devil” business. Nice substance, PJ posters!
The Israel Space Agency view? Never heard of it.
Let’s pay attention to our own. America has a space program.
The vast majority of scientists concur on the existence of the greenhouse effect. That is why Schwarzenegger, Lieberman, and other modern political leaders are leading on this.
… Apparently, the Israel Space Agency has a very tiny budget.
“The vast majority of scientists concur on the existence of the greenhouse effect. That is why Schwarzenegger, Lieberman, and other modern political leaders are leading on this.”
Their lead has nothing to do with the science. Politicians follow media pressures by and large. The only recent notable exception I can think of is G W Bush.
And have you been around and counted ths “vast” majority Bill?
When I see Al Gore and Laurie David alter their lifestyles to one which every person on the planet can have in order to bring the end to global warming, then I might, but only might, consider it. If they demolish their mansions and junk their cars, yachts and jets I might just start to view them as something other than snake oil peddlers.
That means that they must trade their mansions and vacation homes for a 2 room walkup in high density housing. Bid farewell to the idea of traveling on anything but mass transit with the proles and forgo the “season” in Cannes, Jackson Hole and “the vineyard” since unnecessary travel would emit harmful greenhouse gases.
It doesn’t matter if, as in Al’s case, his corporate sponsors are footing the bill. If Joe Sixpack needs to abstain from his weekends at the lake and the yearly pilgrimage to Disney World, then Al too can dispense with his jetsetting, which serves no other purpose than allowing him to have his ego boosted by the ignorant and gullible.
The Gurus of Global Warming, since they are supported by “science”, should also present a scientifically sound plan for stopping and reversing global warming with a timetable and measurable benchmarks for checking our progress. That means actions that will result in the end of global warming, not just using it as an excuse to force some kind of planned economy on the rest of us while continuing to enjoy your wealth and status.
That is the scientific way.
The present method of sound bites and Hollywood flimflam is religion, not science. Science can be measured and the scientific method means constantly revisiting previous data to check for errors. Not blind acceptance based on some kind of coerced “consensus”.
Give us your plan, your timetable and allow your data and assumptions to be checked. Show us that you are serious enough about this to actually make the sacrifices in your own lives and those of your families instead of preaching about “sacrifice” while driving your hybrid to your Gulfstream.
The thing that really ticks me off about the Documentary division is that so many of the nominees actually aren’t to be shown in theaters, but on TV.
In the recent few years there’s been notable exceptions in the feature division, but otherwise, most of these “Films” are made for PBS, HBO or some other cable outlet.
Let these shows compete for Emmys or Cable Aces. I cringe at every acceptance speech that thanks so and so over at “HBO”.
I may not like Michael Moore or Al Gore or what they stand for, but at least their films were available to the general public in theaters.
Bill Bradley Says:
“Let’s clear up some confusion.
The two PJM “Freeranger” politicians — Joe Lieberman and Arnold Schwarzenegger — both know that the greenhouse effect is real and both push policies to combat it.”
Let’s really clear up some confusion:
The “greenhouse” effect is not global warming, the “greenhouse” effect exists because the earth has an atmosphere. The earth has two sources of heat – the sun and the atmosphere. The earth is warmer than it would be otherwise without an atmosphere. Technically, the atmosphere doesn’t act exactly like a greenhouse.
The climate change questions are:
Is the current interglacial period the earth is in warmer than it would be otherwise because of human activity?
Will the next glaciation be delayed because of human activity?
Will this interglacial period become a post-glacial period because of human activity?
creepy pic… he’s clearly not running for prez
“The vast majority of scientists concur on the existence of the greenhouse effect. That is why Schwarzenegger, Lieberman, and other modern political leaders are leading on this.”
The greenhouse effect exists.
The greenhouse effect has not been proven to be the cause of global warming.
The vast majority of climatologists do not agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor to climate change (warming or cooling).
As far as the vast majority of scientists is concerned, who cares what a geneticist thinks about global climate change? It is not their speciality and they have no first hand basis for their opinion. In that respect, the average Joe’s opinion is just as valid.
Considering how much of what was offered up in the way of science in that documentary was either wrong or purposely misstated. It would be a travesty if the people behind it were awarded for their efforts.
To think we have in our midst the finest scientific minds on the planet. Making sound, scientific discoveries that actually will change our lives in the future. And yet our attentions and an increasing amount of our resources are focused on those who have discovered that quackery in profitable.
How ironic it is that they accuse their critics of only being motivated by profit.
Pathetic.
M
This cover photo of Gore resembles a Jiminy Cricket Pez dispenser:
http://www.popapez.com/resourcecenter/pezlist/listimages/Disney/jiminy_cricket.jpg
Dougger said:
“The vast majority of climatologists do not agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor to climate change”
This statement is incorrect. Every scientific organization that studies the climate has issued a statement in suuport of the anthroprogenic climate change theory (NASA, AGU, AMS, EPA, NOAA, National Academies of Science, Royal Society of the UK, NCAR, and, yes, even the Russian Academy of Sciences among many, many others). There is virtually no peer-reviewed research that counters the consensus. There is no competing theory that can explain the twentieth century warming.
hi rog’:
i don’t think al gore will win the oscar.
the accounting firm will say it’s a tie, and then the scotus will give it to DAVID ZUCKER.
” There is no competing theory that can explain the twentieth century warming.”
You’re insane. The piddling temp increase in the 20th century, most of which occurred by mid-century, could easily have been caused by, say, fluctuations in the sun’s output. Imagine that!
And don’t try to argue the “hockey stick” graph, which has been proven bogus. Let’s not forget the Middle Age warming period either, though your co-religionists have tried to quash it.
Climatologists don’t generally support AGW, and the older, more experienced climatologists overwhelmingly reject it. Of course most of them got their education before the Universities became such left wing anti-capitalist and Anti-American indoctrination centers.
PB:
No. Solar trends are flat and do not account for the recent warming. Not to mention that the greenhouse properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. You can google the organizations I listed and find their positions on AGW, unlike your unsourced and unsupportable statment that “Climatologists don’t generally support AGW”.
The HS graph has not been proven bogus. Please read the latest NAS report on climate reconstructions to disabuse yourself of this fantasy.
The rest of your post is conspiracy theory and speaks for itself.
Boris:
source 1
source 2
source 3
Stop spouting the party line. There is certainly not a consensus around AGW. A loud minority is drowning out good science that is claiming otherwise.
Open your mind instead of your mouth.
Nukem,
Two of your three links don’t work. The one that does work quotes the study’s author as saying:
“That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor.”
WIllson’s study is countered by many others that show no solar trend–or even decreasing solar trend, depending on statistical methods used and types of measurements. The absolute highest estimnate (And one not believed by the vast majority of climatologists) gives solar a 50% percent role in warming, leaving half the warming caused by increasing CO2 concentrations. Moreover, a hotter sun will be amplified by the well-known and emprically proven greenhouse properties of CO2.
There is a scientific consensus. Since you are big on reading, why not read the statements of the scientific organizations, read the peer-reviewed iterature, read the IPCC report, read http://www.realclimate.org. Then you can open your mouth with more confidence.
Boris -
“If solar trends are flat”, then why is Mars getting warmer? Carbon Dioxide from our ONE vehicle there?
Frankly, I think that working to slow global warming, if in fact it exists, is something with some appreciable side benefits.
For example, using less oil = lower oil prices = less money to the Saudis and Chavez. Switching from burning gas and some oil to nuclear helps keep the US energy independent (I don’t want Putin to have any leverage on our economy) There are also environmental benefits aside from less carbon dioxide, such as reduced sulfur and nitrogen oxides, lower amounts of smog, and less exposure other toxic chemicals.
It would be nice if Gore’s documentary had actually bothered to mention nuclear energy. I guess that truth would have been too inconvenient.
Reading this review and its comments, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Two points are worth making.
First, Simon tells us that he prefers to get his science information from scientists. That sounds good! So where does he go for cutting-edge information about planetary climate change? Why, the Russian Academy of Science and the Israeli Space Agency, of course! Not a word about our own National Academy of Sciences or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or even the Environmental Protection Agency. Like Bush cherry-picking the intelligence on an Iraq invasion, Simon is ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the experts in the field to focus instead on a few stray bits of data that confirm what he wants to believe. We all know how well that approach turns out.
The second point is that Simon describes An Inconvenient Truth as “a film validating the conventional wisdom on global warming,” but the comments posted here show that it clearly isn’t the conventional wisdom among the general population. There’s still a broad swath of Americans who have been mislead by oil industry propaganda into thinking either that there is some reasonable doubt about the anthropogenic climate change taking place or that any remedy would be too costly and painful to even consider.
This is why Al Gore’s movie is so richly deserving of an Academy award. It takes a clear-eyed look at the best science available on the issue and presents it to the public in a clear, understandable way. The film teaches us, entertains us, and inspires us to work for a better world. What more can you ask of a movie?
There is no science among overwhelming consensus.
Foir example, there was a time when overwhelming consensus agreed that the earth was flat until discovery proved that consensus wrong.
The main reason why I do not buy into the theory that global warming is man-made is because of overwhelming consensus; all the experts must agree otherwise they will not receive research funds.
Most likely a little late to wade in here, but a quick quiz for ya Boris:
What is the largest gas involved in the greenhouse effect?
What was the pre-industrial baseline for CO2 in PPM?
What is it now?
What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is natural? Manmade?
How much of that increase was natural? Manmade?
How much CO2 (in gigatons) is in the atmosphere?
Now much water vapor?
What is the Global Warming Potential for CO2? Water?
Now, the rest of you just wait, I want to see Boris answer first.
Josh
It looks like this thread is over. Before we go though, here’s a relevant story to remind us just why Gore’s movie is so important: Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight
————–
Stephen W. Hawking, the renowned cosmologist and mathematician, told The Associated Press that global warming has eclipsed other threats to the planet, such as terrorism.
“Terror only kills hundreds or thousands of people,” Hawking said. “Global warming could kill millions. We should have a war on global warming rather than the war on terror.”
This is the first time the bulletin has explicitly addressed the threat from climate change.
“We are transforming, even ravaging the entire biosphere. These environmentally driven threats – threats without enemies – should loom as large as did the East-West divide during the Cold War era,” said Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, Britain’s academy of science.
“Unless they rise higher on international agendas, remedial action may come too late,” he added.
——————
Strong words, but hey, who are you going to believe – the brightest minds on the planet or the loudest voices on talk radio?
Josh, a challenge, huh?
Most of your questions are too non- specific to be of any use. Preindustrial CO2 was about 270 ppm, and it is currently around 380, an increase of ~30%, which is all from human influence.
I suppose that you want to argue that since water vapor is more prevelant in the atmosphere that CO2 does not matter. But this is faulty science and logic. CO2 is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor. In fact a lot of the warming scientists expect to see is the water vapor feedback from CO2 warming.
The Mann Hockey Stick does not exist in the sense that it can’t be validly reproduced using Mann’s own data. Mann fudged, and the vaunted ipcc reviewers were not the ones who caught him.
Likewise, according to pre-1995 ipcc graphs, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is now. But now the ipcc essentially wants the multiply reproduced MWP to disappear.
There is yet no proof that GW would be a net disaster. Potential benefits of GW have been minimized by ipcc-like science, or at the least not sought by research funded comparably to that looking for disasters. The Media, enc., virtually denies the very existence of GW benefits, some of which are really quite obvious.
Regardless, underdeveloped Countries such as China and India, which will probably be more adversely affected by any climate change whatsoever precisely because they are underdeveloped, are embarking upon massive coal-fired electricity plant construction.
In constructing 800-1200 such plants over the next decade or so, China and India show in practice that they don’t believe that massively increasing CO2 emissions in order to develop will result in more of a disaster to themselves than not increasing these emissions.
The Kyoto Treaty excludes Countries like China and India from having to follow the Kyoto Protocols. Countries containing 5 billion of the Earth’s 6.5 billion people don’t have to follow the Protocols.
The ipcc does not back nuclear energy as a cure to its alleged disease. Likewise, it has intentionally not studied the costs and probable ill-side effects of its own alleged cure – the Kyoto Protocols – to its own alleged disease.
Thus, in practice, the ipcc does not believe its own disaster-cause schema, and is not serious about its own alleged remedy.
So there could be a “consensus” on paper that GW will be a disaster and that the culprit is fossil fuel CO2 – though I am unaware of the appropriate vote having occurred. But there is definetly not a consensus in practice, especially if judged by the acts of alarmists themselves, as noted by alsmm – except that the popular “consensus” is wrong.
In the end the ipcc “science” – or the manipulation of its science – is simply not scientific. All it does is state disaster-cause hypotheses, then beg the question. It does not scientifically try to disprove its own hypotheses.
That’s why it didn’t catch Mann’s mistake – one small example among many involving unscientific ipcc claims and methods.
This cover photo of Algore only confirms what most of us have always suspected — he’s an alien.
Our first clue is that he was born almost exactly nine months after the famous UFO crash at Roswell.
His robotic speech and wooden movements — particularly when trying to simulate human dance movements — were the second clue.
But once we saw him grab Tipper in public, get a firm liplock on her, and try to force his ovipositor down her throat to implant another alien spawn, there could be no doubt.
They walk among us. Watch the skies !