Career starting in 3...2...1...go!

OK, my life is now officially cool. An Inconvenient Truth, which I saw on the plane, carried some pretty rubbish suggestions at the end for ways to help save the planet. They were so lame, the only one I felt capable of was spreading the word and raising awareness of the film. I wrote a review then and there, and started plotting ways to get it into my local paper.

Coincidentally, the day I landed home, our local cinema club announced it was showing it as a special environment evening, with a chance to ask politicians questions afterwards. What a fantastic (albiet badly spelt) oppertunity. Well, I just emailed it in to the local press. And they emailed back to say thanks, we'll print it.

GROOVY!!!!!!!!! I'd show it to y'all, but our web cam is broken. It was good enough getting my name in print on a big A3 page of beautiful reviewness. But the next day I get an email from the cinema club saying thank you, it was a wonderful review - and by the way, our regular reviewer who writes for the press is snowed in with work and would you be interested in helping out?

Stupid question. Hell yeah.


So now I've been comissioned to review Les Choristes and Kiki's Delivery Service for the upcoming Arts festival. I've even got time out of school to meet up with the head honchos for coffee one lunchtime.

My one concern is that it's less of review-opinion and more review-promote. I've seen Les Choristes - there's lots of wonderful things about it, but the colour scheme and singing never quite manage to cover up for the banality of the plot. I assume any negativity towards the proposed films should be outweighed by the positives. But oh well. I'm happy to metaphorically sell my soul...garn, that looks bad. But it's the unfortunate truth that I'm willing to compromise my views a little. I'd never openly deny my opinions, but I've always been happy to tweak them to make people happy - which in some ways is worse.

The funny thing is, I've always insisted I don't want to be a journalist since a teacher sat down for two hours and explained exactly how I was going to become one...pretty hypocritical, now I look at this blog.

Anyway here is said fantastic review - none of me normal blog rantery here. It's probably one of the most coherent things I've ever published here:

An Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth is possibly the most important film you have never seen. It is also 90 of the scariest minutes ever committed to celluloid.

At first glance it does not look terribly fascinating – Al Gore “I used to be next president of the United States” films his Powerpoint presentation about global warming. But its simplicity is also its greatest strength. Gore mostly lets the facts speak for themselves, with the aid of some very alarming graphics

But it’s not all numbers and figures – the odd touch of humour helps get the point across, such as a hilarious Simpsons-style information video and an animated frog in boiling water. Short breaks from the stage presentation highlight an alternative, emotional response to the issues – most effectively comparing the complacency with which we ignored the cancer/smoking link to the current situation with global warming

As for the evidence itself, it is sickening. The ease with which famines in Africa, Hurricane Katrina, the extinction of seemingly disconnected breeds, random seasonal changes and the spread of new diseases can all be traced back to carbon emissions makes you think twice before using the air conditioning.

Individually the ideas are nothing new, but presented together it adds up to a terrifying picture of the world in ten years time. It is one thing to predict sea level rise; it is another to watch a computer generated model of areas of Shanghai, India, Florida and the Netherlands sinking beneath the waves. The fate of a few mangy polar bears never seemed less trivial.

If Greenland melted, the water would rise 20ft – which should be particularly alarming to us, an island nation (note: yeh, I live on an island. Think...that little place in The Wicker Man. Just like that. Only we don't sacrifice people down here. Well...only on special occasions XD). So what can we do to help?

Sadly, this is where the film falls down. I felt very much a member of the group he described as going “from disbelief to despair” on hearing the facts, without passing through the “middle” sector who actually take positive action. The credits list a few things we can do to help – such as buying more energy efficient houses or planting more trees – all of which seem as trivial as putting one extra lifebelt on the Titanic. The initial evidence may be groundbreaking, but their suggestions are nothing new. Despite being fully convinced of the issues, it showed few things I could practically do to help aside from helping to promote the film. And with planes being a major source of pollution, Gore probably should not have admitted to travelling all around the world to present his lecture.

This is a film which could change the world if the people who saw it took action. It is well worth watching - even if you think global warming is a hoax and earth science is dull…after all, it isn’t every day you see a film which scares you into switching the lights off.



See! Wasn't that well written. It's a hard act to follow with whatever they want off me next. Oh well...

PS, if anyone cares, we won the speaking competition. We were the only people competing, so we won by default. Pretty depressing, though the trophy is nice and shiny.

PPS Our school system has inexplicably and irritatingly blocked imdb, so I've found a replacement of sorts: http://www.allmovie.com

To test its reliability, I looked up Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead:

• Firstly, as a pretty obscure film with slightly obscure actors, the fact it was actually in their database means it must be a pretty comprehensive site.
• It provides a plot synopsis, and a review: well written, but slightly spoiler ridden.
• I looked up some of the cast - it gives a brief biography, and a list of their other films, and a random list of some of the people they've worked with.
• Down the side, there's a list of all the basic details: a star rating (in this case, 3.5, which I think is fair enough), who it's released by, whether it's in colour etc.
• It also has "keywords" (i.e. castle, coins, Denmark, lunacy), "themes" (i.e. the individual vs fate), "tones" (i.e. bittersweet, humourous, wacky) and "flags" (adult language and extreme violence against potatoes) Pretty interesting, and mostly correct, though I disagree with their theme "faltering friendships". What's faltering about it?! And their flag "adult language" seems unecessary...ok, it's confusing, but hardly obscene.

Let this be said: it doesn't beat imdb. It doesn't have the interactivity, or user review system, which means any comments and ratings are only drawn from one source. But the themes/mood/keywords column is a fantastic feature. It has BCSK down as a "mood enhancer", a good film to cheer you up when you're feeling down, and describes the tone perfectly as "nostalgic, rousing, easygoing, humorous, irreverent and bittersweet." And plus...it gives both movies a decent review and a fair number of stars.