Re: A Name is Missing From Posters Advertising 'Inconvenient Truth' Movie

Just as fictitious is a term I can live with in the sense that both the climate chance and Gore's win are well supported by fact. You do raise a point that it may not convince republicans, but those republicans who did see the movie, and yes, most viewers were liberals, were quite positive about the message. So perhaps there is hope.
Combing facts of science with facts of politics however may be a turn off to a larger audience, but then again the title already seems to acknowledge this "inconvenient truth".

<quote>Sometimes we see Gore gravely talking on his cell phone--or gravely staring out an airplane window, or gravely tapping away on his laptop in a lonely hotel room--for a little longer than is absolutely necessary. And yet, as a means of education, "An Inconvenient Truth" is a brilliantly lucid, often riveting attempt to warn Americans off our hellbent path to global suicide. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not the most entertaining film of the year. But it might be the most important.</quote>

I have not yet seen the movie so I am not sure in which context the 2000 election was raised. I can only guess that it may be relevant for Gore's course change

<quote>That man is former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the course of his life to focus on an all-out effort to help save the planet from irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his 'traveling global warming show,' Gore is funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our 'planetary emergency' out to ordinary citizens before it's too late.</quote>

The fact of global warming is one that deserves to be told and heard.

A sidenote to the 2000 election

<quote>
Even more glaring, a consortium of news organizations found and reported on the front page of The New York Times (and other papers) on 12 September 2001, that in Florida "...a statewide recount -- could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his [Gore's] way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent." (The Times apparently chose to bury this fact - that Gore actually won the 2000 election - in the 15th paragraph and behind a misleading headline because the nation had been attacked on 9/11 the day before.)
Not only was the election of 2000 stolen by the Bush brothers, but it was proven by the later statewide recount that - even after Jeb's knocking thousands of African Americans off the rolls - Gore still would have won Florida had all the votes been counted.</quote>
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1129-26.htm

Now with new shenanigans in Ohio during the 2004 election, one may start to wonder. Is this just a coincidence?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote: On 6/8/06, Pim van Meurs
 wrote:

> That's too bad since the message of the movie is an important one. The
> fact of global warming and the impact on our culture and world is one
> that needs to be told. If the movie also discussed how the 2000 election
> was stolen in Florida then it may indeed turn off some people who are
> offended by the fact that Gore did win the election. To many Gore's
> movie may indeed be an Inconvenient Truth (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)
>

You have a political tin ear. The interminable re-raising of the 2000
election puts climate change in the context of mere sour grapes. By
doing this climate change is made just as ficticious as the alleged
Gore "win". If you want outreach to moderate Republicans this is not
how to do it.

> And perhaps the audience did not respond as we may expect
>
> But to *Rob Schultz*, Paramount Classics' executive vice
> president of specialty film distribution, one of the most interesting
> statistics came out of the Dallas film-distribution region. There, the
> film opened at three theaters - *Landmark*'s Magnolia in Dallas, the
> *Angelika Film Cente*r in Plano and the *Arbor* in Austin (part of the
> Paramount Classics' Dallas market). Exit polling showed that 80+% of
> viewers who consider themselves Republican said they'd recommend the
> film. (The first weekend, in New York and L.A., 90+% of viewers said
> they'd recommend it.)
>
> "We went into Texas because it's not homogenous politically," Schultz
> said. "The Republicans had a high recommend rate. It's low-80s instead
> of the 95% range, but that's still huge. So everyone finds it
> rewarding."

You left out a key part of the quote.

Schultz acknowledges that so far the majority of "Inconvenient
Truth's" customers have been politically liberal.
Received on Thu Jun 8 15:17:02 2006