First and for most, I fully support the metaphor of capitalism as cancer, capcerism as it were. Also I enjoy defamation of celebrity politicians. But as an attempt to incite any kind of anti capitalist ideation, or spark any change in lifestyle the movie fails entirely. First off, the screenwipes and showing of too many images on the screen at once doesn't help convey a message, it makes the movie less enjoyable to watch. Secondly, having been to Bard campus, met Bard students, and knowing that Bard tuition costs over thirty thousand a year, I find hearing from Bard students about the cancerous evil of capitalism to be just as hypocritical as Al Gore making a movie about global warming. Thirdly, and this is the most important criticism I have, a failed politician, especially one that failed to inspire the green party of all people and lost to RALPH NADER, especially one who is an ugly old man WILL NOT inspire ANYONE at all to try to change the system, that man couldn't keep the kid's of today away from thiner PSPs and Iphones for more than a minute, let alone keep them in a movie theater for the length of the documentary. So in summation, while the message is accurate, and one that needs to be spread, this film's attempt to distribute it is in my mind unquestionably doomed to complete failure. if you want to catch the attention of todays capitalist youth, you will need to use the same tactics as their bourgeoisie overlords, entice them to your cause with sexual imagery, threaten them with their inevitable anialation, do something, anything to trigger a greater emotional response. The crying fat kid in front of the super dome after Katrina, and the teddy bear insurance company were a good start, but if this film is going to compete of a free market for a share of viewer ship, it will need at least one big explosion, and a whole lot more material designed to satisfy the viewers collective id.
I wish the makers of the film the best of luck in spreading their message, and hope my advice is taken seriously.
Showing posts with label Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gore. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Strapped Financial Situation
It is commendable that (Gore) is doing something now but he is not giving answers, he is just giving a platform from which capitalism can grow and flourish. I am excited to get to watch the end of this film and see what happens. I really enjoyed A Really Inconvenient Truth and thought that it was done much better than An Inconvenient Truth, especially with what im sure was a much more strapped financial situation. great job with the movie and i hope to see more movies like this in the future.
Gore Did NOTHING When He Had Power
Photo of Joel Kovel, whose critique of Gore is the basis for A Really Inconvenient Truth.Comment from student:
I thought for the most part that the film was actually very good. I enjoyed the in depth analysis of Al Gore's movie and the way that Joel Kovel explained his many ideas. It was excellent the way that he bashed Gore tastefully. Although Kovel was agreeing with Gore to some extent it was great to see how he showed the increase in CO2 emissions and how it directly correlated to the years that Gore was in office. I could not believe that Al Gore was the head of environmental regulations and he did nothing when he had power.
The World Has Cancer
Comment from student after viewing Joel Kovel in the video A Really Inconvenient Truth:
I remember the speaker was talking about how the world in a sense has a cancer and that we need to get rid of it in some way and not just go home and do little things. But i wonder if really, in a sense, humans Are the cancer, and if we are indeed getting rid of cancer, are we not really getting rid of ourselves? He explains that the growth of capital is the death of nature but nature lives and dies and eventually all things have to die, humans are just advancing it and capital is probably not the only reason for nature dying.
I remember the speaker was talking about how the world in a sense has a cancer and that we need to get rid of it in some way and not just go home and do little things. But i wonder if really, in a sense, humans Are the cancer, and if we are indeed getting rid of cancer, are we not really getting rid of ourselves? He explains that the growth of capital is the death of nature but nature lives and dies and eventually all things have to die, humans are just advancing it and capital is probably not the only reason for nature dying.
Gore's Disconnect
A comment from SUNY Purchase:
An Inconvenient Truth presents scientific concepts and evidence about global warming in a really clear and entertaining way. I do commend Al Gore and his crew on their efforts. That aside, I see a profound disconnect between Gore's analysis of the global warming issue and the political program that he advocates for dealing with it. First he speaks of the severity of the situation, the 'magnitude of the crisis', but he then suggests that the problem of global warming could be solved fairly easily by producing (and using) more energy-efficient cars or by individuals turning down thermostats and shutting off lights.
I think it should be clear that Gore himself is representative of the capitalist and imperialist class in the US and can only approach global warming with the perspective he holds. There may be a question of whether Gore really cares about global warming or is using the issue for political purposes. My point, and I think your's, as evident in A Really Inconvenient Truth, is that Gore's class position and perspective blind him from being able to assess the real causes and solutions to the global warming crisis.
I commend you on your efforts in properly addressing the issue. Gore's analysis suggests three issues, rapid population growth, increased technology, and not thinking about the environment as root causes of the crisis. While important, I agree with you that they are not key; global warming and the destruction of the environment is rooted in a global system of capitalism, where production is determined not by social needs or environmental sustainability but by profitability and where a few countries dominate the global economy.
NOTE: Gore mentions that nearly 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is the result of burning brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires for cooking. I don't think he mentions, though, that the burning of forests is not being done by 'peasants' in the third world without reason. I believe it's occurring because perhaps globalization is forcing people off of lands where their families have farmed for quite some time – and in order to survive, people are driven by necessity to burn down forests for farmland. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.
An Inconvenient Truth was a success in increasing awareness of a pressing issue, but the proposed solutions are unsuitable. If your target audience is receptive to the message of your film we may eventually have some sort of major organized effort.
I'm not sure of what Marx was saying the following in regards to, or if it is really inline with your film, but maybe you can throw it in somewhere. It is from Capital. "From the standpoint of higher economic forms of society [socialism and communism], private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the globe. They are only its possessors…they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition."
I found the following to sum up my thoughts aptly. "While we need to fight every possible battle to force companies and especially governments to implement measures that can make a big difference, nothing short of making revolution in every country when the opportunity arises and overthrowing the global imperialist system can fully unleash the powers of humanity to face this problem. The magnitude of global warming crosses all geographic, national, cultural and social boundaries, and the solution lies in a radical political and social rupture…". I think your film has great potential. I'm sure it will be well received. ---M.I. SUNY Purchase
An Inconvenient Truth presents scientific concepts and evidence about global warming in a really clear and entertaining way. I do commend Al Gore and his crew on their efforts. That aside, I see a profound disconnect between Gore's analysis of the global warming issue and the political program that he advocates for dealing with it. First he speaks of the severity of the situation, the 'magnitude of the crisis', but he then suggests that the problem of global warming could be solved fairly easily by producing (and using) more energy-efficient cars or by individuals turning down thermostats and shutting off lights.
I think it should be clear that Gore himself is representative of the capitalist and imperialist class in the US and can only approach global warming with the perspective he holds. There may be a question of whether Gore really cares about global warming or is using the issue for political purposes. My point, and I think your's, as evident in A Really Inconvenient Truth, is that Gore's class position and perspective blind him from being able to assess the real causes and solutions to the global warming crisis.
I commend you on your efforts in properly addressing the issue. Gore's analysis suggests three issues, rapid population growth, increased technology, and not thinking about the environment as root causes of the crisis. While important, I agree with you that they are not key; global warming and the destruction of the environment is rooted in a global system of capitalism, where production is determined not by social needs or environmental sustainability but by profitability and where a few countries dominate the global economy.
NOTE: Gore mentions that nearly 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is the result of burning brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires for cooking. I don't think he mentions, though, that the burning of forests is not being done by 'peasants' in the third world without reason. I believe it's occurring because perhaps globalization is forcing people off of lands where their families have farmed for quite some time – and in order to survive, people are driven by necessity to burn down forests for farmland. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.
An Inconvenient Truth was a success in increasing awareness of a pressing issue, but the proposed solutions are unsuitable. If your target audience is receptive to the message of your film we may eventually have some sort of major organized effort.
I'm not sure of what Marx was saying the following in regards to, or if it is really inline with your film, but maybe you can throw it in somewhere. It is from Capital. "From the standpoint of higher economic forms of society [socialism and communism], private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the globe. They are only its possessors…they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition."
I found the following to sum up my thoughts aptly. "While we need to fight every possible battle to force companies and especially governments to implement measures that can make a big difference, nothing short of making revolution in every country when the opportunity arises and overthrowing the global imperialist system can fully unleash the powers of humanity to face this problem. The magnitude of global warming crosses all geographic, national, cultural and social boundaries, and the solution lies in a radical political and social rupture…". I think your film has great potential. I'm sure it will be well received. ---M.I. SUNY Purchase
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
