Roger Ebert, the well-known film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, admits in his recent review of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, that he is, as critic, working as advocate. And, in fact, he is doing so as an absolutist, even an infallible one:
Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended.It is good to know that infallibility is not the sole claim of the Vatican: Al Gore, Roger Ebert, and the "scientists" are absolutely right. Next thing you know Messrs. Gore and Ebert will be dictating sacred scripture for our edification in the new Church. But I digress. There is more from Mr. Ebert:
In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.I wish Mr. Ebert would explain, since he is clearly a science whiz, how it is that he and countless others, including Al Gore, have no problem dumping tens, nay, hundreds of thousands of gallons of burned jet fuel at 35,000 feet so they all can get to Cannes, France to watch movies. Perhaps he can also explain those solar-powered yachts at anchor just off-shore of that famed movie mecca. Perhaps Mr. Ebert will, eventually, explain his omissions about such emissions to his grandchildren. And I am absolutely certain that Mr. Ebert will tell his grandchildren that, when it comes to "burning fossil fuels" jet-setting from Cannes to Sundance, "no other view can be defended."
At least there is the one saving caveat to Ebert's review: it represents, in his words, "the truth as I understand it." Of course it does.
As I've said, An Inconvenient Truth is exactly that.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Roger Ebert, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, Cannes, cannes film festival
