Posted on 07/18/2006 11:44:04 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee
by L.N. Smithee
July 18, 2006
Although it is far from the overwhelming box office success of Michael Moore's factually-challenged "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11, Al Gore and producer Laurie David's glorified campaign ad/PowerPoint presentation An Inconvenient Truth is a hit...for a documentary. This is not surprising, because few documentaries have the backing that this one does: it stars a nationally known figure in former Vice President Al Gore (who, remember, got the majority of votes cast nationwide in the 2000 election), is co-produced by a well-known celebrity spouse (Laurie David, wife of professional schlemiel Larry David and a quasi-environmentalist who loves those fuel-burning private jets), and it is distributed by a major Hollywood studio (Paramount Pictures).
In limited release May 28, 2006, Inconvenient grossed $367,311. In expanded release a weekend later (June 4), it brought in an impressive $1,356,387, a per screen average of $17,615.42. Not Fahrenheit or Bowling For Columbine money, but not bad at all.
Unfortunately for the backers of Inconvenient, that was the high-water mark, if you will pardon the expression. It was flooded into cinemas across America in the next three weeks, from 77 theaters on June 4 to 587 on July 2, and while overall box office numbers were higher, the amount of viewers per screen plummeted. By the weekend of July 2, Inconvenient had been lost and forgotten among summer blockbusters; it was bringing in a paltry $2,879 per screen.
In preparation for the July 7-9 weekend, the Inconvenient print ad took on a cry of desperation. This is what I saw when I opened the San Jose Mercury News on Friday, July 7 (click to enlarge):
I am not a rubber stamp for conservative pundit Ann Coulter, whose opinions I more than frequently agree with, but whose rhetoric is oftentimes downright cruel. But she got one thing absolutely accurate with the subtitle of her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Liberalism -- and its pet causes -- are practiced by its devotees like the religion they fear and despise in their ideological opposites.
If you don't get my point, try this: read the ad above again, and this time, instead of the words 'An Inconvenient Truth', imagine the words 'The Passion of the Christ.' Instead of the word "documentary," imagine the word "motion picture." Imagine the word "Washington" was the word "Hollywood," and the words "dismiss this as a fringe issue" were "dismiss us as religious fanatics." Instead of the words "global warming," imagine the word "Christianity." Instead of the words "the planet's favor," imagine the words "God's favor." Instead of the words "defending the only home we will ever know," imagine "saving the only soul you will ever have."
Who thinks that an ad like that for The Passion of the Christ would run without controversy?
Is there something intrinsically wrong with the language used by the backers of Inconvenient? I don't think so -- unless they are the type that hold deeply religious people in contempt because of their certainty about their beliefs, or about the importance of evangelism and -- yes, in their words, conversion -- in order to save the lives of others.
By the way: The secular evangelism didn't help matters at the box office. Inconvenient's numbers dropped again! On the weekend of July 7-9 -- presuming none of the 587 theaters dropped it -- the movie only garnered $1998.27 per screen. Maybe the suggested act of 'converting others' goes against the grain of the movie's target audience so deeply, they couldn't bring themselves to 'make [others] see it."
As promised. Enjoy.
I think you'll find this interesting.
Thanks, LN. Good post.
Boy, that's quite an ad! You're correct, substitute those words and you might think that St. Paul himself had paid for it.
-Rex
This ad defines the term "reeks of desperation".
Make them see ii! They're killing me! I can hear the libs now. "You have to see this movie..."
"No, I mean you REALLY have to see this movie..."
"OK, if you DON'T see this movie I'm gonna hold my breath and die, and then you'll feel all bad and stuff!"
Tom Brokejaw about to enter the fray with more correlations passed off as causation.
Ain't it interesting how Al Gore is getting a pass for not being a scientist when the late Washington governor Dixy Lee Ray was pilloried despite being one?
I still remember the legendary public service announcement with the crying Indian. That spot scared me to death when I was a kid. But I've lived past the times when the population bomb was supposed to plunge the world into famine and smog was supposed to cause species (as well as people) to drop dead left and right. When tap water was supposed to be unsafe, and when an inevitable nuclear accident would render life above ground unlivable. Meanwhile, DDT was banned, and insect-transmitted diseases plague Africa.
I would more open to the idea that things are as dire as they say if they all didn't just dismiss all objection as not being that of "serious" scientists. Academic doomsayers don't have a good track record, and it's about time someone pointed that out.
What happened to my gif???
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2354/721/320/IncoTruthAd2.png
Why does my pic of the ad keep disappearing?
Some interesting tidbits on the Gore / Brokaw connection:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGU1NGIzOTRkYmRhMWEzZjNjMzY0NmU3ZWU0YzY4OTk=
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.