Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

Image Credit: Al Gore

This documentary was not what I was expecting at all. I have very limited knowledge of documentaries in the first place, but I have this idea that documentaries are a lot of voice-over and interviews presented in film format to advocate a certain position on an issue. It was interesting that Al Gore decided to film himself giving a powerpoint presentation to an audience for the majority of this film. In comparison to Michael Moore, I felt that Al Gore did little to entertain the viewers of his film. While the graphics and the data he presented were interesting and informative, I think the viewer would need to have a desire to learn and watch this movie to actually become engaged in the film. He made little use of soundtrack and other elements traditionally included in films also. He did make a lot of use of graphs and data charts and illustrations, which is a deviation from traditional film. This did make his argument more persuasive. I guess Gore's film just goes to show that simplicity can be a vehicle for conveying a point.

It was pretty interesting to me that Gore spent so much time laying out the facts of environmental change in the world and the effects it can have, but spent so little time discussing ways that people can try to preserve the earth. I do think it was necessary to spend a lot of time laying out the facts because people are pretty divided on the issue of environmental change and global warming. However, simply flashing the URL of a website to visit for ideas on how to help the earth just before the ending credits begin is not effective. Incorporating ways to help into the ending credits is also not effective. Most people probably do not even leave the movie playing for the tips on how we can help the earth to come on.

While this film was informative, it was not very entertaining and I felt like he did not fully cover the position he was advocating.

Michael Moore's "Sicko"

Image Credit: Michael Moore

After watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", I knew Moore would take an extreme stance on America's healthcare system. To be completely honest, I thought "Fahrenheit 9/11" was interesting and thought-provoking, but I was skeptical of Moore's claims. They seemed ridiculous. However, I am reevaluating these doubts after watching "Sicko".

I have a little more knowledge about the American healthcare system than I did about the 9/11 attacks and the federal government. This might have contributed to my being more persuaded by Moore's argument in "Sicko". Although Moore does choose to use some outrageous testimonies to persuade viewers that the American healthcare system is corrupt and centered around making money, there is some truth to these claims. Working in a pharmacy, I see insurance companies troubling patients with some of the same things that Moore shows in his film. Granted the things I see do not jeopardize lives, but they do indicate insurance companies are trying to spare themselves money at the expense of insured people's pocketbooks.

It seems crazy to me that insurance companies are able to determine what is "medically necessary" and what is "experimental". The people working for insurance companies probably do not have near the amount of knowledge that a doctor does regarding medical issues and medications. For that reason, I think that insurance companies should not be deciding that medications or procedures are not necessary. Even though insurance companies are not denying people service, they are making it impossible for patient's to seek the help they need because of the cost.

Much of the movie focused on comparing the American healthcare system with the healthcare systems in Canada, Great Britain, and France. I had always known of these countries having universal healthcare, but I thought that the quality of healthcare suffered and taxes paid by citizens skyrocketed under this system. I know I cannot trust Moore as my sole source of information on universal healthcare policies, but he did showcase several interviews with doctors and everyday citizens that contradicted these widely held perceptions about universal healthcare. And even though the doctors were employed by the country's government, they still earned a decent salary and were able to live luxurious lives. Moore made it a point to say that doctors working for the government probably would not be able to afford multiple million dollar homes and six cars, but why is that necessary anyway?

All in all, I thought this film was pretty fascinating. While Moore is quite biased, I think there is some truth to this film. I do wish we could see a documentary that was anti-universal healthcare for comparison purposes.

Random Thoughts:

1. I thought the part where Moore threw in the clip from Fahrenheit 9/11 and had the voiceover saying: "and remember, let's fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was completely unnecessary.

2. I felt like Moore's choice of using the 9/11 victims' struggles with insurance companies and Moore taking them to Cuba to obtain more affordable healthcare was a little too extreme. First of all, 9/11 was a tragic touching event that people of all ages relates pretty well to. I feel that Moore chose to include this in the film to win over those viewers that maybe hadn't bought into his argument just yet. I wasn't a fan of this choice.

3. I loved the part about Moore sending money to help pay for the medical expenses of the wife whose husband has the anti-Michael Moore website.

4. I am interested in how the insurance companies reacted to this film, especially after the part in the film with the girl that is not approved for both cochlear implants until her father writes a letter to the insurance company about how he will tell Michael Moore about his troubles.

Photograph of Colorado

I took this photograph a few winters ago in Colorado. This image could be used as proof of nature's beauty. However, standing alone, this image argues that nature is beautiful.

The unaltered realness of this image helps construct the image's credibility. The partially melted snow at the tops of the mountains and on the roads and the recently skied-on surface of the snow shows that this image is a snapshot of reality, not an artificial representation of nature. Because this image was not staged nor planned out, the image authoritatively speaks about nature's beauty.

The colors present in this photograph of Colorado convince viewers of nature's beauty. Clear blue skies are often associated with beauty, and the color white is a universal symbol for purity and beauty. Because both of these traditionally beautiful colors predominate the image, the photograph persuades the audience that nature is beautiful.

The comparison of the elements of nature in the image with the man-made ski lift on the right side of the image also demonstrate the beauty of nature. The trees, the blue sky, and the snow on the ground are all natural components of nature that appear very real and appealing to the eye. In contrast, the man-made ski lift in the picture, made of metal and dark in color, does not have a sense of reality and beauty about it. This contrast shows that there is beauty in simplicity and in realness.

Through capturing a true, unaltered depiction of nature, in analyzing the predominant colors in the image, and in comparing nature with a man-made ski lift, the photograph of Colorado convinces the audience that nature is beautiful.