We went to see An Inconvenient Truth (2006). The second half was a bit better than the first. I felt there was nothing that new. Claudia’s take home message:
I totally underestimated the stupidity of American voters. Just look at the difference in magnitude of education! Here’s a guy who does popular science talks, and there’s the guy who cannot tell apart cocaine from cocoa.
I find it amazing as well.
The movie itself I don’t want to recommend. I sincerely hope that lots of non-green minded people go to see it and start doing something about the Climate Crisis, but that should be obvious, right?
We saw lots of other movies on DVD because joining this DVD swapping program here in Switzerland has given me access to a huge library of movies.
The two Ghibli studio movies Laputa: Castle in the Sky (1986) and [Kiki's Delivery Service (1989)](http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Kiki's+Delivery+Service+1989) were awesome. Totally recommended, family friendly, feel-good, entertaining, and enchanting.
Laputa: Castle in the Sky (1986)
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Kiki's+Delivery+Service+1989
Seven Swords (2005) is a Chinese martial arts movie that is totally not recommended. If you liked Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (2000) and House Of Flying Daggers (2004), there’s absolutely no reason to go and see this movie. Not recommended at all. There were several times when I nearly stopped watching it, but the weather was bad... And the movie was bad, too... What a waste.
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (2000)
House Of Flying Daggers (2004)
Steiner: Das Eiserne Kreuz (1977) is a good movie about German soldiers at the eastern front in 1943. Not too much gore, very interesting camaraderie, two very interesting sneak attacks, but I didn’t really enjoy the bad guy in the movie. Too obiously evil. But other than that, very good. I recommend it.
Steiner: Das Eiserne Kreuz (1977)
At the end of last year I also watched Fog of War (2003). It had nice archive material, but McNamara’s message was a bit muddied. I couldn’t tell you a single one of his points right now, so I don’t recommend it unless you want to look at some archive material...
#Movies
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
People in the U.S. (I mean, the minority of us that do vote) will vote for the “outdoorsmen” image over the “professor” image, 2-to-1. Al Gore lost because he was associated with Clinton, and because he could not distinguish himself well from Bush on issues of defense, energy, economics, trade, labor, capital punishment, queer rights, and many other issues. The 2000 election would also be the most successful one for the third-party Green Party’s candidate, Ralph Nader.
There’s a Saturday Night Live skit of a Bush and Gore debate in 2000. After each question Bush answers, Al Gore repeatedly responds by saying only, “I agree”.
– AaronHawley 2007-01-15 13:58 UTC
---
You probably know that I believe the Democrats and Republicans are far too close for comfort. There is far too little to distinguish them! But when things are close, the little things do count. In 2004, reelecting the president that led the nation into Iraq was a mistake, even if the Democrats are just as incapable of a solution. In 2000, electing the candidate that is such an obvious ignorant in preference to a candidate that cares about the environment... I dunno, it’s a small difference, but it counts. Well, it did in fact not count, but I feel that it should have. 😄
– Alex Schroeder 2007-01-15 14:38 UTC
---
Unfortunately, there was not an antiwar choice for President in 2004, and in 2000, Al Gore and his predecessor Clinton had inspired little about environmentalism, save a crumbling Kyoto. For instance, their tenure saw an explosion of sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), no progress in alternative energies, and via NAFTA put environmental controls and wildlife protections on the chopping block. Environmentalism was *not* discussed publicly by Gore in 2000. Maybe for those very failings.
This is why I’m convinced *Inconvenient Truth* rather than being simply popular education is an attempt to repackage and market (via historical revisionism) Al Gore’s persona. To best illustrate the point, consider how you and Claudia came to the same conclusion about the movie, that was nothing about the movie. It’s the same thing that happens with those who see it here.
Anyway, yeah life sucks in the States. Back to work.
– AaronHawley 2007-01-15 18:29 UTC
---
Hm. Interesting line of thought. It seems very plausible... Thanks!
(I’ll also forward this to the guy who recommended I watch the movie in the first place.)
– Alex Schroeder 2007-01-15 18:37 UTC