 |
|
Amanda Peterka
The world is being quickly destroyed, and if we don’t act NOW, we’re not only dooming our own species, but all the species on the planet. At least that’s the message I got from watching The 11th Hour, Leonardo DiCaprio’s personal vendetta against any and all who harm the environment. As soon as I found out that the hour and a half movie was coming to Wells Hall on Thursday, January 24, I knew I had to be in the audience. After all, not only was the movie about the environment and featuring interviews with many well-known names, it was also the lovechild of Leo, whom I must admit a guilty pleasure toward. I arrived with high expectations but beyond the aforementioned, I knew nothing about the movie itself. The show began around 8 p.m. after an introduction from the president of Eco, who explained to a packed room that the movie was part of Focus the Nation, a national effort to teach global warming solutions. The movie began with a heartwrenching mix of natural disasters and soaring landscapes showing the beauty of the earth. Right off the bat it began spitting name after name, interview after interview with the president of this environmental association, the author of that environmental book, Stephen Hawking, an ex-CIA director, etc. Each said the same thing: that the earth is in great need of our help. From there, they traced the human species from the very beginning to the present, each pointing out that we ARE a part of nature and shouldn’t assume a superiority over all other species, especially since we’re doing so much to harm the earth. The “plot” then turned to global warming, basically just saying it’s real and that we need to do something soon. From global warming, the movie outlined almost all the major environmental problems, pointing out that we’re at a critical moment in history and that we have the power to either change the world for the good or go on to destroy everything beautiful – mostly ourselves. From there, the movie blamed the lack of action on political and corporate leaders who invest more in the economy rather than the environment. The movie ended with outlining some practical solutions such as wind power and advanced green building, saying there was still some hope. However, as the ex-CIA director pointed out something along these lines: “America usually ends up at the right solution, but only after all solutions are exhausted.” The problem with the movie was that it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. I can see how it might inspire someone who doesn’t know anything about the environment into some action, but for anyone who has been paying attention to news headlines and is decently informed, the movie was too general to really make a difference. It felt a little repetitive and redundant. And talk about interviews! The whole movie was basically clips of people’s heads in front of the same background saying the same things. It cut quickly from scene to scene, from person to person – by the end I quit trying to read the type at the bottom of the screen that gave the name of the current talking head. I do admire Leo for doing something like this – for taking something he believes in and trying to do his part for the environment. But it felt too much like an overview of things I already knew. Even though the cinematography was better than “An Inconvenient Truth,” I’d recommend the latter in terms of environmental films simply for its wealth of knowledge. Questions? Comments? Contact Amanda Peterka at peterkaa@msu.edu |
|
||
