I went to see Al Gore's documentary/speech film, "An Inconvenient Truth," today. I recommend it highly, not only because it clearly and concisely demonstrates the massive ongoing crisis in the global deterioration of our environment, but also because (perhaps less importantly) it demonstrates the possibility and value of presenting facts in a digestible format with the use of technology (which is more than a bit ironic, given the blame that we can legitimately place on what Gore calls "old habits + new technology" creating the environmental mess that we're clearly experiencing).
Gore's delivery is "Gorian," if I may use that fictitious word, in the sense that he speaks clearly and intelligently, but with limited emotion. His words, were one to listen closely, might adequately convey the data that he presents to unassailably prove his primary thesis: that scientific data proves the existence of global warming. It is a very fact-based presentation -- one that would have suffered were it not for his ample use of various forms of technological visual aids.
From anime to massive moving charts to pieced-together satellite photos, Gore accents his words with visuals that hammer home his points. Indeed, except for occasional asides, the entire film is one massive stack of impressive visuals explained by Gore, standing in the foreground of his visual aids. It is, by far, the most effective speech that I've ever seen him deliver, and one of the most effective speeches -- period -- that I've ever witnessed.
Celluloid Gore clearly enraptured most of the audience when I saw the film. Granted, I saw the film in Palo Alto, California, where many people are presumably friendly to Gore, not to mention the fact that one ticket was $9.50 and many people were nonetheless applauding at the end (presumably, in agreement with the film, rather than noting its end).
While watching the film, I was reminded of my own experiences volunteering for Concord Coalition (about which I've previously blogged) in the early and mid 1990s . I struggled with ways to simply convey the massive financial crisis engendered by Federal deficit spending to non-economists. I eventually settled on the basic comparison to keeping a personal checkbook in balance -- once you spend more than you have, you start running into financial problems. It was a simple, if insufficient, way to convey the difficult-to-convey economic arguments attached to making the case, but it usually convinced many people. Had I had technological tools like those used by Gore, I suspect that I could have made the point much more clearly. A moving chart showing the national savings rate declining while the Federal debt increases, or the increasing number of retirees relying on entitlements against the decreasing number of workers funding those entitlements, that sort of thing.
Gore effectively uses these tools -- which are much more dynamic than mere static overhead slides -- to convey very difficult ideas and themes. Whether its explaining why the Federal debt matters (and explaining the economics), or explaining why "fair use" should matter to all who care about cultural growth and innovation, as Prof. Lessig has shown so well, these dynamic tools can make very complex ideas relatively easy to understand for people who may not be well-versed in the subject matter, or even interested in it. Thanks to relatively easy access to these rudimentary technologies, all of us can become better communicators. What technology cannot make easier is deciding what we intend to communicate -- and how to get people to listen. The ultimate demographic viewership of Gore's film may help answer whether the technology can effectively bridge that gap as well.