AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Director: Davis Guggenheim (Steady TV work, Teach, Gossip)
Starring: Documentary "starring" Al Gore

I will categorically state that An Inconvenient Truth is the best Power Point presentation I've ever seen. Of course, that's like saying Betty White was the hottest Golden Girl. She was (sorry Rue McClanahan), but where does that really get us?

Put simply there is no way to review this film on its cinematic merits. It was not a particularly well done film, but neither was it amateurish. It was the result of professionals (but by no means masters ...) filming a seminar on global warming. This was not a great documentary film (see Roger and Me, Crumb, Capturing the Friedmans and more for what great nonfiction film looks like). No, this was a teaching aid on the screen. As such its power lies exclusively in the message. So yeah, I'm going to get off the topic of films and talk science - because, you know, it's kind of important.

Global warming has become politicized (and this movie is marginally politicized as well). Here's the thing though, despite all of the politicians, and talking heads, and blowhards wagging their fingers at the subject, at its core this is entirely a scientific issue. There are hoards of scientists quantitatively analyzing data on the subject, creating hypotheses, discarding failed ones, and progressively testing accepted ones. Science doesn't care if you're republican or democrat. Science didn't care that the Catholic church said that the sun revolved around the earth, or that the earth was 5000 years old and created in 7 days. Science didn't care about these things because its concern is exclusively with evidence, not opinion. Science demands that its practitioners change their opinions if the evidence demands it. It does not change based on the opinions of the practitioner. Yes, it is often times extremely difficult to come to conclusions based on the data, but over time as the pile of data becomes larger and larger it becomes less and less difficult. Believe me, the pile of data on global warming is significant, and growing larger daily.

Greenhouse gas global warming exists. Duh. It's why we're alive. It's why Venus is a thousand degrees warmer than it should be given its distance from the sun. Increased global warming over the past century exists. The evidence is massive. The evidence for global warming caused by man is highly significant. In fact, there are very few scientists who disagree with the liklihood. There are certainly some who disagree with the various flavors of prediction and degrees of causation, but overall the scientific support for this statement is overwhelming. The data is palpable. You'll find few scientists, but a lot of talking heads who disagree with this. Why is that do you think? Why were there few scientists, but a lot of tobacco company executives telling us that cigarettes weren't harmful?

Most layman arguments against man's contribution to global warming come down to broad swipes about the mini-ice age in Europe or previous temperature swings on earth. I want to stress as much as I can, that no scientist anywhere disagrees with the concept that there is natural variation in the earth's temperature. The statistics and data gathered on global warming is precisely to separate the effets of man on this natural background variation. And really, they have significant data showing that it's very likely that we are affecting global temperature.

Here's my personal addition to the argument, though. The concern should be an economic one. When someone has a particularly limited resource (or even a unique one like, say, the earth), shouldn't they be particularly cautious in their use of that resource? If you only have $100000 to live the rest of your life on, would you consider it a good idea to go to Vegas and see if you could double your money? Or would you carefully and soberly determine what you needed to survive, and perhaps use any extra to invest.

The potential monetary costs of a drastically changed environment are massive - trillions and trillions of dollars are potentially at stake. Simple things like moving farm production to new locations costs lots of money. And the effects are so basic to all societies that we can't even predict all of the potential costs (or perhaps even some benefits). Stability is generally good for an economy. Changing the temperature worldwide is not what I would call stability.

In another sense it's like insurance. There is an upfront cost to tackling the global warming issue. I mean, perhaps there is some possibility that your house will not burn down. No intelligent home owner would dare spare the expense to prepare for the worse, however. Taking on the costs associated with halting global warming are large, but hardly overwhelming. The technologies exist right now. And I'm not talking about absurd fantasy notions like making America run on solar power, or other Greenpeace-like silliness. I'm talking about common, tested technologies like automobile gas efficiencies, home heating efficiencies, and appliance and machinery efficiencies.

Oh yeah, I forgot, this was supposed to be a movie review. As a film, this was a particularly average one. But as I said before, this really isn't a film. It's simply a topic. It's a teaching aid. It's a discussion group. For that if you have interest in this topic (and you should, really) you should see the movie. At the least it may inspire you to seriously research reasons why you don't agree with its premise, and more knowledge on the subject can only be a good thing.

Standouts: The topic, because that's all this movie is about.
Blowouts: The cinema, because it doesn't have much. Also a segment that tried to relate global warming to new diseases like SARS and West Nile Virus - that made no sense to me.

Grade: B

A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION

Director: Robert Altman (MASH, The Player, Gosford Park, about 10 other really good movies)
Starring: Ensemble incl. Garrison Keillor, Kevin Kline, Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Virginia Madsen, Woody Harrelson, Lindsey Lohan, John C. Reilley, more

A Prairie Home Companion is the first great movie of 2006. Hopefully the first, and not the only, that is. Director Robert Altman, fresh off of his lifetime Oscar in March, has churned out a superb eulogy for his career in tandem with Garrison Keillor of NPR fame. This film is pointedly about death and endings and how we little people can cope with them. The answer is with wit and a stiff upper lip, because there ain't nuthin' in this world, not even an act of god, that's going to prevent our ending. The show goes on, right up until it ends, and that's that. Let's go have some coffee.

This film tells the story of a Saturday night radio show in the Fitzgerald theater - a variety extraveganza that was out of date before it even started. Now it's been running for 30-odd years and the end is in sight. The theater owner has sold the building to a Texas businessman, who's going to put the dusty old show out of its misery and build a parking lot in its place. He feels he's doing a service to the world. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Either way, it's what happens, and this story is about how they deal with the events, not how they prevent them. Yes, this story has much in common with the real Prairie Home Companion show.

The show lives in a fantastic world of radio entertainment where reality is tangential. Lucky and Dusty, and the Johnson sisters are vaudvillian acts, the likes of which haven't existed since the turn of the last century. Guy Noir (Keillor's comically hard-boiled private investigator on the real Companion) runs security in the theater. There's even an angel (Madsen) floating around the theater to collect souls for that other show we'll all be appearing in someday.

From beginning to end this film lives in a world of midwestern sensibilities and wisdom. There are no great battles, psychological or otherwise. There is quiet fortitude and determination and acceptance. Keillor (more or less playing himself in the film) may state at one point that he hates eulogies, but that is exactly what this film is. It's a eulogy for his show. It's a eulogy for Altman. It's a eulogy for simple pleasures that have faded from the landscape of our lives.

In a sentence: Lord, give me the courage to change what I can, and the grace to accept what I cannot. There you go. Sure it's easier for a successful man like Keillor to say than it is for those in difficult circumstances, but in the end we're all going to the same place. You might as well get used to the idea.

As for early award consideration I'll put Altman and Streep on my lists for 2006 Oscar nominations. Altman has created yet another wonderful film, and Streep was (again) simply fantastic as a simple, sweet entertainer in the Johnson family singers (described in the film as the Carter family, just not famous).

Standouts: Pretty much everything. I think this will live on as a great film for years to come.
Blowouts: Little to nothing. Like all Altman films, there is even much new to see on repeat viewings.

Grade: A+

THE DA VINCI CODE

Director: Ron Howard (Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, Opie Taylor)
Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany

I love a good mystery, always have. In fact, I think it's my favorite genre by some margin. I mostly love the "dark and stormy" night variety, but I'll take anything. I had hopes that the ubiquitous DaVinci Code novel could translate into a very good mystery on screen. The film didn't quite make the "very good" label, but I believe it was a solid effort.

I'm assuming that anyone with internet access reading a blog of film review already knows the general plot of this movie. If you don't, stop reading. Actually, if you don't know I'm vaguely impressed. How did you do it? How did you not hear about this? Do you live in a cave?

Uh, anyway, for those who don't know the plot, but don't mind spoiling it, the story follows a "tweedy" Harvard symbologist (whatever that is) as he becomes embroiled in a murder case in the Louvre. This (of course) leads through a series of brain teasers and fairly mundane action sequences to the revelation that a secret society has been keeping the progeny of Jesus Christ hidden from the Catholic Church for 2000 odd years. No it doesn't really make sense why anyone would need to hide Jesus' kid in the first place. Muhammed seems to have gotten away with procreating, and his religion got big pretty fast. Oh well, I guess it's hard to have a terrible secret revealed in a novel without the secret.

And now on to the hype. Yes, this is a terribly overhyped book. Ridiculously overhyped, in fact. Due to this overcommercialization and discussion of a novel that really isn't nearly as potent as the hypers claim, I fear a bit of a backlash resulting in some overly sensitive reviewing of this film. For my part, I will state categorically that The Da Vinci Code was not a particularly great novel. It was a fun read, but it was also poorly written, with a strangely constructed plot (and not in a good way). Worst of all, though, were the characters. There weren't any. The heroes and villians were some of the blandest and broadest that could be conceived. Despite these problems, however, the book remained a good, solid mystery. The puzzles were fun, the action exciting.

It turns out that the film version was also a good, solid mystery, but with the same problems as the book - lazy character creation, so-so dialogue, and a flawed plot (that nonetheless kept things moving along). I had hoped that some highly talented movie folks could transform the ho-hum characters of the book into far more interesting personas. They didn't. Frankly, the cast was boring. (Perhaps excepting Ian McKellen from this accusation. He seemed to be having a great time in his role.)

Probably the most unfortunate aspect to this story also happens to be what is most compelling about it - the arcane trivia. The plot provides some quaint little explanations for common items like the origins of Friday the 13th being a feared day and the origins of the bars on a soldier's uniform. Like the main plot surrounding Jesus Christ's family tree most of these are fictional as well. Or at least they're not anything like proven fact. It's unfortunate that the story couldn't mix in a bit of better research in its momentous plot. Oh well.

Yes, you heard me right (and I hope I'm not crusing someone's dearly held beliefs here), Jesus did not have children. Or let me rephrase, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that he did. I, like most other reviewers, I imagine, am frustrated by the movement that is taking this fictional plot device and turning it into a crusade. Yes, this story is not true. Sorry folks. Okay, I'm not sorry. I'm sorry that people are buying into these sorts of things. However, despite all of this it's still a fine little story, a pretty good mystery even. I'm happy to say that the book doesn't ever claim any of the story is true. Some guy just wrote a novel, and made a fortune doing so. End of story.

P.s. If you're a fan of ancient conspiracy theory and finding the roots of truth in history I highly recommend a couple of Umberto Eco novels. Although perhaps not fast-paced, gripping adventure tales like Dan Brown's book, they are much better works exploring the nature of truth and lies and separating the two in history. If you like this sort of thing, take the time to read Baudolino and Foucault's Pendulum. They are a couple of classic works that cross this same territory.

Standouts: A fun, gripping little adventure/mystery. I enjoyed it throughout.
Blowouts: A lot of flaws throughout: characters, dialogue, plot. People really think this is real?

Grade: B