Is Gore's "Truth" the Next Doc Hit?

Tomorrow marks the opening (in Los Angeles and New York) of Davis Guggenheim's new film An Inconvenient Truth, a cinematic treatment of former Vice President Al Gore's global warming message. A surprise hit at Sundance, the film was picked up by Paramount Classics, and screened this week at the Cannes Film Festival.

Seen by some as a trial run for a possible Gore bid for president in 2008 and by others as the fruits of "letting Gore be Gore" (sans the focus groups and consultants that are widely thought to have doomed his 2000 election - or at least put it in the hands of the Supreme Court), An Inconvenient Truth is also the first big documentary of the year, and considered by some to be a favorite for next year's Oscars.

The question is whether what is essentially a multimedia lecture writ large can draw the audiences that Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore have with their serio-comic muckraking or whether the public will view this as little more than a politico's ego trip.

Each year since the breakthrough of Bowling for Columbine in 2002, at least one documentary film has grossed $10 million. If that's thought of as being a smash hit for a doc, then what is considered a solid success? Is it 1.5 million? That's where Murderball and Why We Fight, the year's biggest doc to date, find themselves. Is it 3 million? That's about the business that Grizzly Man and Capturing the Friedmans did.

Is Al Gore's movie headed for Enron numbers ($4 million) or something closer to 2004's John Kerry bio, Going Upriver (which did just over $600,000)?

I, for one, had assumed that the film was going to be pretty popular, perhaps as popular as Super Size Me was. But I'm pretty bad at predicting these sorts of things. And when I read a David Poland's quip over on Movie City News that the film was a movie that "no one wants to see", I thought I might be wildly overestimating its chances for success.

So in the past week, I've emailed a bunch of people to ask for their thoughts on An Inconvenient Truth and its potential for finding an audience.

First off is Mr. Poland himself. I asked if he could elaborate on his note and he responded:

     $4 million would be, I think, a great theatrical
     success for this film. My guess is half of that,
     unless they can really energize the base.

     What is missing from the film - though the ads
     do a great job of offering it - is entertainment.
     It is a lecture. and not a lot more. It's an
     important subject, but it's the kind of important
     that is about educating "them," which often
     comes off as smug.

     I think anything over $2 million is a real success
     for this film. It's just not a pop event.

For comparison, I asked a bunch of writers and filmmakers, some of whom had seen the film, to comment on the film. As I would guess that most of these folks are fairly liberal in their politics, their resistance to the film may surprise you.

Paul Harrill at Self Reliant Film wrote, in part:

     I'm sure there's some compelling footage of
     icecaps melting and so on that would get me
     worked up into a lather, but nothing I've heard
     or read about "An Inconvenient Truth" leads me
     to believe that it will do anything more than
     "preach to the converted" (or "solidify the base",
     as some would have it). That's not why I got to
     the cinema.

(More of Paul's response below.)

Agnes Varnum, who writes a great blog about documentary filmmaking, responded:

     I'm an ardent environmentalist, but even I have
     compassion fatigue. There are only so many
     doomsday films one can take (OilCrash made me
     ill!), and pay box office prices for it? Not me,
     thanks. I look forward to films that try to explore
     the situation in new or fun ways (the asparagus
     doc, for example).

(More Agnes below.)

Finally, one of my favorite filmmakers, Fenton Bailey wrote:

     al bore on global yawning... hmmm. it all depends
     on how close to the tipping point the issue of global
     warming really is in the minds of the american
     public. its closer than it was, but is it close enough?
     i think the doc will be a big success in europe, but
     here, even with everyone hating bush, we seem to
     love our piglodyte lifestyle just too much to really
     consider changing it - and saving the world.

While it's important to note that none of the three quoted above (save Poland) had seen the film yet, from this vaguely random sampling of folks you get the feeling that the film might have trouble reaching into what would seem to be its natural audience.

However, two people who have seen the film offered pretty unconditional praise.

Indiewire's Jonny Leahan wrote that the film is "brilliant":

     The film makes Al Gore into a completely
     rehabilitated public figure, not unlike what
     The Eyes of Tammy Faye did for Tammy
     herself... Because it washes away all the
     criticism of how poorly his campaign was run,
     and makes the viewer pine for those days and
     regret the existence of the current
     administration.

     The film has moments of being a campaign film,
     and yet it works that way... after seeing it I was
     ready to vote for him should he run, and I was
     instantly motivated to do something about the
     environment at the same time.

     As far as box office, I think it will be much like
     any other good documentary... I could see a
     strong showing in limited theatrical. If an
     organization like MoveOn.org gets involved, and
     there is a real grassroots effort to get people out
     to see it, it could go wider for sure.

Sarah Jo Marks at Documentary Insider wrote about the film when she saw it at Sundance:

     When I read in the program that there was a
     documentary about global warming starring and
     produced by former future president of the United
     States Al Gore I figured The Inconvenient Truth
     was the movie for me. And really if you have to
     make a movie with Al Gore doing a lecture then
     it couldn’t have been done more gracefully and
     powerfully than this. Filmmaker Davis
     Guggenheim’s foray into the world of global
     warming is stunning. It starts out simply enough
     with Al Gore’s voice warming the audience with
     a geniusly directed voice over. Sure, the film’s
     not an easy sell, but when you get into it it’s
     actually quite moving (I got misty) and even
     more anger inducing than Who Killed the Electric
     Car?.

Sarah Jo wrote in response to my query:

     I don't know if it will be the biggest doc of the
     year - but it certainly is important. When you
     look at what people like to see (penguins (which
     I might add left out the global warming issue),
     ballroom dancing kids, spelling bee champs and
     quadriplegic athletes) and compare it with what
     people "should" see, it sort of makes the
     Inconvenient Truth a little like eating your
     vegetables.

     Personally, I think it's a really well-made film
     about an extraordinarily important topic.
     Whether or not Al Gore is running again, it
     seems, although really who can trust a politician,
     that this film is sincere and something he cares
     about deeply. And the fact that all politicians are
     actors to certain extent it clearly helped him with
     his voice over and presentation skills. The film
     comes off less like a lecture and more like a
     passion project.

Sarah Jo also noted that she had received an email asking her to "pledge to see the film" and, in fact, (as of 4:00 Tuesday afternoon) on the film's website, more than 96,000 people had pledge to see the film during its opening weekend in their town. I have no idea if these pledges will transfer into bodies but it at least points to some high degree of awareness and interest.

Reached Tuesday afternoon, a worker at Hollywood's Arclight Cinemas said that advanced ticket sales were "definitely very good compared to other documentaries," but then quickly added, "actually really good for any film." He noted that the film had sold out 2 of its screenings on Wednesday and that the theater expected more sell outs tomorrow, saying numerous tickets had already been sold for each screening. (It should be noted that director Davis Guggenheim is scheduled to appear at the Arclight after the 7:40 PM screening.)

Meanwhile, at the Laemmle Monica, they're reporting large group sales. "We've had political and environmental docs before but none have had this amount of business. The last big doc we had was "March of the Penguins", but that was 'day of' sales, families. This has a lot of large groups - teachers are telling students to come and see it, environmental groups are buying lots of tickets."

Calling An Inconvenient Truth a "unique film because of the controversy surrounding it", the Monica is predicting big business through the weekend.

For my part, I still think that the film might be a surprise hit, advancing beyond the $4 million ceiling that David Poland suggested. I think that strong critical reviews and positive word-of-mouth might encourage people who are dismissing the film at the moment. But will it be the year's first (or only) $10 million doc? Hard to say. And we probably won't know for several weeks. Sure, the numbers for New York and Los Angeles are likely to be strong (the latter even despite LA's notorious resistence to documentaries), but what happens when it fans out, not just to so called red states but also rust belt states across the midwest. If the Chicago numbers are strong then you might just have a big success on your hands.

It will also be interesting to see if the pledge to see the film on opening weekend leads to steep drop offs in week 2.

Finally, a note on the subtext that accompanies any new development regarding Al Gore - the question of whether the film is a thinly veiled kickoff for a 2008 presidential run.

Paul Harrill admits that this storyline - Al Gore reborn - might be one thing that could get him into the theater:

     The thought of seeing Al Gore's post-election
     "transformation" on film does pique my curiosity,
     but only a little. This is probably because Al's
     one of the first politicians whose names I ever
     learned because, as a native Tennesseean, I
     was a kid when he was first elected to the
     Senate. And then, the first time I ever got to
     vote, I voted for him for VP in 1992. So there's
     the sentimental angle.

     But is it "must-see" cinema for me? No. On the
     other hand, would I go see it if it meant that we
     could have Al as President instead of Hillary? Yup.

Agnes Varnum admits that it might just highlight the common perception of Al Gore, the consumate wonk:

     I read Gore's book and he is so literate that I can't
     imagine that a film about and with him is something
     I really want to spend time with – great thinker and
     writer but not nearly as compelling in person. I
     hope I'm proven wrong, but I can't imagine this
     doing anything to help his image.

But Jonny Leahan feels that this is a really fresh look that may change people's perceptions:

     This is Al taking control of the story, and telling
     it his way, to the point where he might actually
     be able to get through to the American people
     and make global warming a central issue in '08.
     I think the only way he'll run is if there is a
     groudswell of support, people begging him to run,
     and even then, the jury's out about whether or not
     he could beat Hillary in the primaries.

Ultimately, I think the main obstacle facing an Al Gore run in 2008 is the difficulty overcoming the narrative that has already been written for him. Stiff. Dull. Wonkish. Exaggerater. Even though many of these have been dismissed as overblown or even factually untrue (like Gore's supposed "I invented the internet" claim"), they still stick.

Worse may be the new narrative that is circulating amongst the chattering classes in Washington. As the liberal site The Daily Howler notes, on this weekend's Chris Matthews Show, the conventional thinking was that, well, some people think he's craaaaazy!:

     Al Gore was right about global warming—way back
     in the 1980s. He was also right on internal
     combustion. And oh yes, he was right on Iraq, in a
     prophetic speech in September 02—a speech Joe
     Klein praised at the time. In a rational world, this
     would make Gore a reigning star—but we live in
     the world of a millionaire press corps, and we
     suffer, every day, from its judgments. On Friday
     morning, Michael Kinsley heaped torrents of praise
     on McCain, who was wrong. But how does the
     pundit corps treat Gore, the man was actually
     right on Iraq? On this weekend’s Chris Matthews
     Show, one empty scribe turned to another (Joe
     Klein), who then said what they’ve said all along:

        KLEIN (5/21/06): You know, there’s a big
        question here. If you read Al Gore’s speech
        just before the war in Iraq where he came
        out against it, it’s a brilliant speech. If you
        saw Al Gore delivering it, he looked like a
        madman.

     Al Gore can be right as much as he likes—but in
     these strange regions, he’s always a madman.
     Moments earlier, Matthews had started the hunt.
     He teed up the vacuous Kathleen Parker by
     quoting one of her columns:

        MATTHEWS: Kathleen, you wrote a column
        recently—I like the phraseology—you said
        Al Gore is “one slice short of a loaf.” (Group
        laughter) I mean, that’s like they say up in
        Massachusetts, they say things like, “He’s got
        a few shingles missing from the roof.” What’s
        your point? Is he a little nutty, are you saying?

        PARKER: Well, I think he’s got—There are
        those who say he’s lost it. I’m not going to
        go that far. I think he’s actually feeling quite
        liberated from himself, I think he’s having a
        great time. He’s now the alpha wonk. And
        suddenly he has all these admirers and
        Hollywood types loving him with this movie.

     For herself, Parker won’t say that Gore has “lost it.”
     Other people are saying it, though, the vacuous scribe
     coolly purred. Of course, she refers to Gore’s film
     about global warming—the topic where the nutty man
     who has “lost it” was actually right all along.

In some ways, it may be the left's backlash to the ongoing criticism of Gore that may be the film's secret weapon. If people like Chris Matthews and Joe Klein are saying, hey, the guy's "a little nutty" and Matt Drudge is filing strange bulletins about Gore driving 500 yards from his hotel to his Cannes screening (a bulletin that linked to nothing and was taken down an hour after liberal website Think Progress challenged the item's veracity) and if Fox News is seen as going on an all-out campaign against the film (witness the hysteria here and here AND if it appears that big oil is funding their own attack on Gore's film, it may draw a bunch of people who were not inclined to see the film but just want to support their man Al.

If so, maybe we should expect a deluge.

Photo Credit above - PASCAL GUYOT / AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[Michael C.]

Interestingly enough, the trailers for this film had left me surprisingly cold towards it. If someone had come up to me and told me briefly about the film, I would have probably thought, "Oh, that sounds like something the Chlotrudis folks will enjoy." But after seeing the trailer (twice in a row due to a glitch the first time) I really couldn't have cared less.

That said, your post and some of the comment in it have engendered some interest in me, and now I will probably check it out.

Will it be the biggest doc of the year? Personally, I don't think so, but like you, I'm not very good at predicting these things. I would have thought MURDERBALL and/or MAD HOT BALLROOM would have topped last year's list... not that movie about the penguins.

Michael C.

[Catherine Wyler]

I agree with Johnny Leahan on the quality of this doc. and the great showing Gore makes -- looking and sounding better than he ever did during his campaign. Because the subject is so compellingly treated, this is not just any environmental movie, and it is way too important to be seen only by art house audiences, however large they may be. (Unless the campaign promises a real doomsday scenario, however, I wouldn't expect a stampede to the theatres.)

Puncturing that "piglodyte" armor with this classy weapon should be every environmental organizations' aim, and they oughta come up with some mass distribution solutions once the theatrical run ends.

[dan nemet-nejat]

This is one of the most compelling posts I have read anywhere.

It really infuriates me when people talk about Al Gore not being a viable candidate. Sure, he is not the warmest, but who gives a damn. He is the rare politician who, without exaggeration could be labelled a man of vision.