Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth uses a multimedia presentation, humor, and emotions to convince those who watch it that global warming is a serious problem that not only affect citizens of the U.S., but affects all those on the planet. Overall, the presentation is successful in portraying the issue and problem of global warming; however, I feel that it is lacking in a solution. At the end of documentary, he shows a graph of CO2 levels and how by doing little things we can cut these levels down to below where they were a few decades ago. This is one of the only moments when he addresses a solution in the documentary, but even in this moment he does not give any specifics to the audience.

One reason he may do this is because he provides additional information at the end of the documentary such as the website for the documentary and another website where you can calculate your carbon footprint and it shows what you can do to reduce it. By doing this, Gore is assuming that his main audience has internet capabilities and is willing to take the time to visit these websites. This is a dangerous assumption to make when you are trying to convince a variety of people with a plethora of interests that global warming is a serious problem that is worth their time to find a solution that fits their needs

A second problem with the presentation is in the type of humor that he uses. Some of it is funny and it eases the tension of such a serious topic, but some of it may reduce the fragile authority that he presents to his audience. For example, his humor poking fun at the 2000 presidential election may be unappealing to those who voted for George W. Bush. It could also be unappealing to those who are on the edge of being convinced into action, but find the issue to be too politicized with Gore’s humor.

Gore’s authority is not solidified at the beginning of the documentary. He establishes his past work with global warming (i.e. work with his professor from college on the issue and congressional hearings on the issue), but by bringing up the election again he may be reducing his authority in the eye’s of parts of the audience. I think he should have chosen one joke about it and not have brought up the election for the rest of the presentation, so as to dedicate the time to the seriousness of the issue and the potential solutions that the audience can engage in.

Parts of the documentary that I think that Gore did a good job on is the lay-out of the documentary, primarily the division of the actual presentation and the documentary part. By splitting the documentary into segments separated by film allows the audience who is watching the film to have a break to absorb what they have seen and heard. If he just had the presentation in the film, I do not think it would have held the audience’s attention for long. Most would be bored with it and not be able to take away as much as they can when the documentary is laid out as it is.

Along with this idea, I think that the visuals that Gore uses also captivate the audience. Instead of using an even split of text and visuals, he chose to utilize the visuals. These spanned from the first picture of the earth to video excerpts of glaciers melting. I think that the heavy use of visuals was a better way of providing the audience with an idea of what the problem is rather than using primarily text. Visuals are easier to grasp than text with an issue like this. However, the text that he does use also helps his argument. The few uses of text are with direct quotes from a variety of people such as Mark Twain and Winston Churchill. By using text for these special instances, it gives the audience a break from the visuals and provides a quote that the audience may be familiar with.

A final point about the film pertains to something that Gore addresses early on in the documentary. He says that people need to reassess how they think of warnings. He continues by saying that we (I’m assuming he means those with power and influence) need to find a way to ensure that warnings are based on scientific fact and are heard by the public and followed. I thought this was an interesting point to make in a film that is addressing a general audience. This seems to be something that he should be addressing to a congressional committee rather than in a documentary.

Nonetheless, I think that he makes a good point. There are many situations where we address risks in a similar manner whether it is an issue such as global warming or an issue like national security. Obviously, these are two very different issues with different aspects and dimensions and risks to it, but it seems they are being addressed in a similar manner. The government holds hearings on the issue, creates legislation, implements legislation, and attempts to inform the public on all of it. In some instances it works, in others it doesn’t. In the instances that it doesn’t, the government seems to freeze and not know what to do in order to fix the problem. They don’t know how to address the risk (for a variety of reasons) in a different manner. I think this is why the state/local government and the private sector hold such a powerful influence on issues. Because they are not the national government and are given more flexibility or are able to devote more time and money to a particular issue, they provide innovations and a fresh perspective on the issue that the national government alone could never achieve. I wish that Gore would have addressed this separately from the documentary so as to further explain what he meant by it rather than mention it in passing.