Arguments and criticisms arise for any documentary, movie, or research that discusses an important issue. The documentary An Inconvenient Truth didn’t escape that. Although it is a powerful portrayal of global warming and its impacts, there are still questions on whether it gives the complete truth. I will write about two authors who have two different views about the movie.
Mr. Hall has a negative review about the movie and Al Gore. First, All the facts presented in this movie have been proved and there is no new information in the movie. Second negative thing that Al Gore uses his family tragedies to show that he sympathetic of other. Third, Hall think that Al Gore was against global warming. He wrote that the global warming started rising in the 1990s during Al Gore and Clinton’s campaign and auto makers fought against energy standards no one tried to stop them because they benefited financially from it. Furth, There are many other acts against the environment done by Al Gore which are stated in his Wiki Blog. (Hall)
On the other hand, Mr. Vognar has a different view than Mr. Hall . First, he wrote that the movie presented many facts about the effects of global warming and the causes behind it. Second, the documentary was well presented and it has awakened many people to the fact that Global Warming is something that threaten the world. (Vognar)
In conclusion, the movie was great and the senses verbal communications were great too. I felt very convenient and I was like one of the people who were sitting with Al Gore in the movie. Finally we should take care of our planet and change our lifestyle in order to help protect the environment.
Bibliography
Hall, Phil. "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH." 15 May 2006. http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=8451.
Vognar, Chris. "An Inconvenient Truth." 06 Feb. 2006. http://www.guidelive.com/portal/page?_pageid=33,97283&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&item_id=45377.
No comments:
Post a Comment