Merrick here…
Thor’s Stone sent in a nice transcript from Sunday’s screening of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
After the screening, Davis Guggenheim (the film’s director) stuck around for a Q&A, and provided some rather interesting insight about his approach to the film - and how he perceives its challenging issues now that the project is completed.
There’s a lot of material here, so I’ll step out of the way and make room for Thor’s Stone…
This last Sunday, my wife and I caught An Inconvenient Truth at the 4-Plex in Santa Monica. After the show Davis Guggenheim, the film's director, stuck around for a Q&A.
Guggenheim is the son of four-time Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker Charles Guggenheim. He's married to Elisabeth Shue and has directed episodes of "ER" "Deadwood" "The Shield" "Alias" and "24."
If you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth I would suggest you do so when it comes to your area. The film possesses a depth of both scientific rigor and artistic merit that any documentary lover will admire. At its core, the film is essentially, "Al Gore's slideshow" but also represents so much more. Intercut amidst Gore's impressive multimedia stage presentation are more personal vignettes of the former VP as a boy, young man, father and husband. Some critics may see this addition of personal material as grandstanding ego-inflation on the part of a man that many of us already suspect thinks quite highly of himself.
In fact, the brief personal interludes serve to highlight the argument that this is not an issue to be solved by yet another big-government bureaucracy, but by single-minded and passionate citizens taking action in the way they best know how.
One thing is for sure: Gore has done his research and has anticipated many of the objections to the severity of the global warming issue. The argument that I had always heard, and partially subscribe to is that global warming is simply a part of the natural cycles of the earth. Temperatures naturally rise and fall, ice ages come and go and we really have nothing to fear. This objection is obliterated early in the film and what follows is a nuanced, scientifically literate and entertaining discussion of the issue. In the film, Gore addresses not only the environmental catastrophe that could very well be looming in our lifetime, but also the economic, cultural and moral issues that our denial of such a global crisis raises.
If Gore is wrong, then this is still a film with great cultural relevance, and no time will be wasted by seeing it. If he is right, then we really do have a moral obligation to remove our collective head from the sand and do something about it. An Inconvenient Truth may well be the catalyst for great changes in our society, and the way we as American citizens relate to the world, both today and in the future.
Following is a transcript from the Q&A with Davis Guggenhiem, director of An Inconvenient Truth:
Moderator: I want to start out by saying that this film has caused quite a stir with the people who see it, its really an emotional issue, and I think probably a lot of you would agree having watched it. That this guy would make a pretty good leader. What do you guys think?
Audience Applauds
Guggenheim: You know all the press has been speculating on whether he's going to run or not. And, actually, I think it's a big distraction, because I think he is so motivated. I spent most of the last year with him. He's so focused. For every day that I work, and I work pretty long days, he work's two days, and his singular focus is in bringing an awareness to this issue. That's what he is focused on, there is no secret alternate plan. Before we did the movie he was just on the road with his suitcase and his laptop. If a group in Detroit wants him to give his presentation that's what he does. Its pretty inspiring and pretty incredible.
We thought if we made a movie he wouldn't have to. More people could see it. I'm thrilled that you guys are here tonight, it blows my mind.
Moderator: Do you get the sense that someone who runs for political office
has to make so many compromises that they are actually more effective as a
lone-ranger, doing work privately, like this film? A person like Gore, is he
actually more successful doing this than trying to please an unknown
electorate?
G: I think this summer we'll find out. Hopefully this movie and what he's doing will gain some momentum. I hope so. The truth is that until there is an American electorate that is demanding big changes on this issue then it will be hard for any politician to push it through. There are just as many Democrats that are not making this a priority as republicans. That's what we are hoping is that people like those here tonight will go home and demand that this is the most important issue of our time and we have to do something about it.
M: This film asks people to do more than just change a light bulb to more
energy efficient light bulb or to buy a hybrid car, you are looking for some
type of political commitment. How do you get people to do that?
G: I'm not an environmentalist, I wasn't before I made the movie, I was more concerned as a parent, and I had read about certain environmental changes and it worried me. I'm not a Greenpeace guy. I'm just not that focused on it. The producers Laurie David and Lawrence Bender dragged me to one of his slide-shows at the Beverly Hilton here, and it just blew my mind.
And I still don't feel like an environmentalist, but I feel like this film far surpasses how you define an environmentalist. I've known environmentalists, and I think they are on the forefront of making big changes. But I think we as parents and workers and teachers need to stand up and demand big change, because what one of these NASA scientists have said recently: we have ten years to figure this out. We have ten years to make substantial changes before we pass a point of no return.
And that's terrifying to me. It's terrifying on an environmental level, on a political level on a human level, and that's why when Al talks about it being a moral issue, it's really starting to land on me. Yes, politics is a tool to get stuff done, but there is a moral issue for all of us to wake up like when I did when I saw this slideshow and to start, not just changing light bulbs but making real substantial changes on a local level and on the global level.
M: Tell us about getting involved in the film, you told us about seeing the
slideshow...at what point did you come in. What was your first meeting with
Al Gore like when you sat down and said "Okay, we'll plot out this movie?"
G: The first meeting we basically begged him to let us do the movie. And his big concern was the science that he had worked on it for thirty years, that that would be carefully handled. And I gave him that security. And the other thing was that I felt it was critical to add the personal narrative in the film, and he was not so sure about that.
I mean, he wasn't sure why we would need to go back and talk about his son's accident and how he learned from it, and I thought it was a critical element for people to hook in to the movie. The feeling was that if the audience invested in him, in his journey to tell the story and trying to ring this alarm bell, that if we did that, then audiences would hook in emotionally to what is a very abstract and scientific issue.
M: The film has a lot of science in it, but it also has a lot of drama and a lot of momentum, humor, some frightening images. You directed a lot of TV shows: Alias and 24 and Deadwood. Did your experiences working on those factor into making this movie in any way?
G: My father made documentary films and I grew up at his knee making documentary films. And he always felt. He made many films that were issue oriented. But he always felt that the issue was important and should be served, but that when you make a film that people will invest in people. When they watch a film, people will hook into a person and invest in that person.
Whether it's Deadwood or not. Whether they are a good buy or a bad guy, a villain or a hero. You go, yeah you're dealing with the muddy streets and the horses and everything like that, but you hook into people. So when I go from documentary to television, and some of the television goes from pretty mainstream to pretty extreme, to me its about a compelling character, and usually the most compelling characters are the ones that Joseph Campbell talked about. They confront great obstacles and they find a way of achieving great things.
And so in this case, I see this guy Al Gore, who had this terrible tragic blow in the 2000 election. And imagine him on the dais, watching George W. Bush being sworn in, with Bill Clinton there and Hillary there, but also Chief Justice Rehnquist who ruled against him. And Rehnquist offers his hand for Gore to shake, and what does he do?
And you land on Al Gore after 24 years of political service, after winning the popular vote and knowing in his bones that he is right on so many positions. To me the choice of not living in anger, and not being bitter and not selling out. I mean the guy could be going to Detroit to make good cash money, speaking to a lot a businessmen just to cash in. But instead his choice to do this, to drag his bag and go from city to city for no money, to me that's a compelling character, to me that's one of the most fascinating, compelling characters I've ever been apart of. And as a director you live to serve and to describe and to love those characters and so to me there is no difference between that and really good television or really good movie.
The difference is this is true and helping to change the history of the world. So that has an extra benefit.
M: You mentioned your father, Charles Guggenheim. He won three Oscars?
G: Four.
M: Tell us more about the impact he had on this film.
G: I am always thinking of him on nights like this. He was nominated for twelve Academy Awards, he won four and he always felt that the best films he made were never recognized. He made a film before he died called Berga, about American soldiers who were put into Nazi death camps. He made hundreds of movies and he lived a very quiet life. He biked. He lived in Washington and he biked to his office in Georgetown. His grandson and granddaughter are here tonight. He was just this remarkable man who believed in documentaries helping to change the world. In think tonight this film will gross, if not surpass two million dollars it will get close to two million dollars, and that's something he could never contemplate.
And I grew up just hoping one day to do something and to make a film, to make a mark like he did. He was just the loveliest and most beautiful filmmaker you could ever imagine. Whenever I go to work everyday, there's not a moment when he's not sitting on my shoulder saying, "here's what you should do." He's a wonderful spirit who stays in my life.
Q: The film has so many different elements to it, it has humor, it has frights, it has cartoons (A clip from Futurama), the only thing it doesn't have is a musical number. How did you combine all of that, and were any of those things hard sells for Al Gore?
G: The interesting thing was that Melissa Etheridge saw the presentation and she wrote a song which is at the end of the movie. This movie has a lot in it. Its interesting for filmmakers out there: we shot 35mm film, 16mm film, a lot of the farm sequences I shot on 8mm film, we shot on hi-def, the cameras that George Lucas uses. We shot on the pro-sumer 24p cameras. We did four types of animation. We had people in Greenland emailing us pictures of the melting. We had a couple other formats, we used almost every single format you could possibly contemplate. We don't have charcoal drawings in it. And it was a very much a strange anomaly of storytelling devices. It's like a concert film when he's on stage, but it's also a documentary, but it's also a political action film.
So it never quite. I can't place this film in the group of other films, it's a very strange type of form and we never knew whether it would work. We made it so fast, we made it in less than six months, and we finished the last reel the day before Sundance and literally brought it with us to Sundance, and we had no idea. We had only played it for the small group of people who had worked on it, and we had no idea, none. Whether anyone would be remotely interested in this film. Some people said well, only science teachers would like it.
We had no idea. And that's the really interesting thing for filmmakers here that you really don't ever know. The times I thought I knew and was certain, I didn't know.
M: A lot of people who have seen this film have commented that Al Gore seems
different than he did six years ago, you have said that you think it's the
people who have changed, tell us more about what you mean.
G: I have been with Al on the press tour for the last three weeks. I've heard him answer the question, I've answered the question: everyone says: "What happened?" And he's started to say that one of the things is that he's been through a lot. The 2000 elections, and I think that's changed him. I think the venue has changed.
If he'd had a ninety minute movie when he was running for election I think you would have heard and felt a different man. I think the light through which we see our political candidates is so distorted. And also the political context at that time, I think the undiscovered thing, the unfocused thing is that we've changed.
There were a lot of us who were seduced by Bush. His quick, simple answers. Well, I didn't vote for him but. There is also something. The nuanced, Democrat, twelve shades of grey answer that takes six minutes to answer are frustrating, but I don't find them frustrating today. I think in the television format, the thirty second spot. He doesn't necessarily fit in that. I think that we are now as a general public hungry for more thoughtful, more nuanced, more shaded answers.
M: What do you think of the anti-An Inconvenient Truth ad that is running
now?
G: I did an interview on CNN the other day and they showed clips form the movie, but while the anchor was asking me questions, they played in the background this spot that is sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Now when you look at the institute its Exxon Mobile and all these other interests who do not want the system to be changed. Its in their interest to keep this controversy alive.
I couldn't believe it when I was answering this question and they played this footage and there is this little girl blowing on a dandelion, and they say "CO2, they call it pollution, we call it life." And I think a lot of us have to take to task the mainstream press and the shows we watch. If we know the world is round, and some institute is saying the world is flat does that mean they should report both sides? That is pretty much what is happening here, and it has happened for too long.
M: About a week ago a reporter asked President Bush: "Do you plan to see Al
Gore's new movie?" And he responded with: "Doubt it." Then the next day I
saw Al Gore talking to the Associated Press saying "We'll bring him. We'll
show him the movie at any time." Has there been any movement on that?
G: We're not holding our breath. When I was at the Cannes film festival, and we all had Blackberries all sort of lined up when we first heard that statement. And I saw Al on the phone with a reporter who had asked him about it, and Al was excited. He really was so wonderful about this and hopeful because when we show it to people who are open minded, it's changing minds.
We showed this film to seventy-five evangelical ministers, these are people who have sided with the Whitehouse forever, and who are very resistant to other types of social change, and they are supporting this movie and are setting up showings. I am really proud that this movie is not righteous and is not throwing stones and going after people. The intention of putting the word Truth in the title is very carefully done. But the idea was: let's lay out a very simple thoughtful, balanced issue, well argued and intelligent people will go to it with an open mind, and both views will see that this is true. And it's started to happen and I can't believe it.
Question from Audience:
Q: Does the film have national distribution?
G: Last week we were just here and New York, and this weekend we opened seventy seven theaters in twenty cities, and it's doing very well so far. The next three or four weeks is really critical.
This is an interesting thing: how many people saw March of the Penguins? (Most of the audience raises hand) Now how many people saw it on opening weekend? (Hardly anyone raises hand) The point being, the reason March of the Penguins played all summer long. I went with my wife and kids late. We went in August. The people who come here tonight, if they go home and spread the word and tell people to go, this theater will keep holding the movie, and it will keep going and more people's minds will be changed.
So Paramount Classics is supporting this movie, they're wonderful and I don't have one complaint. If this thing keeps going and we gain some momentum, it will open wider and wider. We are hoping that by July 4th to open in four-hundred theaters, and they even have a pattern where they open it into a thousand theaters, but that's if it plays in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Dallas and places like that. So please go home, please email friends and hopefully the movie will continue like March of the Penguins.
Q: Do you sell bumper stickers to help spread the word of the movie? Do you have any promotional items available?
G: There's a really wonderful website that I almost failed to mention. Its called climatecrisis.net, it was shown at the end of the credits. I encourage you to go. You can go and use a carbon calculator where you can find out how much carbon your emitting, and how to compensate for that, and there are ways to take action. I think you can go into a part of the site and get stickers that say "I've seen the truth." Those are the ones that I've seen, but I honestly don't know how to get them. But the website is a nice way to get involved. [climatecrisis.net]
Q: The vote of the black caucus to not ratify the election, has Al Gore told
you what was going through his mind at that time?
G: He's a better person to answer that question than, but I have heard him answer that before. I think he made his decision, and I think Michael Moore showing that in his movie is one of those. I enjoyed Fahrenheit 911, because I agree with the politics of that movie, but I felt dirty after seeing it, because I felt the film was incredibly manipulative. A lot of people will disagree with me, it's a longer conversation, but I felt like it hardened a lot of hearts.
People who agreed with the film still do, the people who didn't just said, yep these guys are. You know. It gave people permission to dismiss the true connections between oil and politics and that whole thing. I think the way he presented that scene in that movie was tremendously dramatically effective. It effected me, but I'm not sure he played the true context of that.
The point is, after the Supreme Court ruling, Gore made the decision to accept it because truly the only choice after that was a coup de tat. The procedure of the senate was this archaic thing, other senators couldn't. It's a whole complicated thing. I'm out of my league politically. My point is that he did make a conscious choice for what was best for America, to accept the rule of law. Now some of us may not agree with that, but I respect the decision.
Q: Why did your film focus so much on the problems of global warming and not
the solutions like alternative energies? What do you plan for a sequel?
G: We really struggled with this because there's a whole other movie What your saying is that this is something that needs to be mobilized; like we mobilize for war. You think how many films there are about war.
This is a deep issue with a lot of dimensions to it. We felt like as filmmakers that we had to focus on: this is the problem, its real, we are the cause of it, and it's urgent. Now if we did that much and offered the tip of the iceberg of solutions at the end then maybe we could start something. We wish we could have added more, but the movie was another kind of thing.
Moderator wraps it up with pleasantries.
G: Thank you. Thank you so much for coming tonight!
