Posted by: pascoesabido | May 28, 2009

Age of Stupid – good film, shocking review!

The Age of StupidFrannie Armstrong’s Docu-drama on climate change has been groundbreaking, earning her and her filmn audiences around the world, including a series of meetings with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – However… whilst I thought there were obviously some flaws in the film, SPIKED, an on-line magazine, gave it the worst review I have ever read! Read it and see if I’m being reasonable – at the bottom is a trailer for the film.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6359/

I thought I would write to them and point out what idiots they are! (in the best possible way)

For a website that claims to be anti-illiberals, ludites, narrow-mindedness, you don’t half fall into your own traps!

You can show off a plethora of philosophical and scientifice superiority through referencing, yet not see the economics of the day has led to a neocolonialism that is not only destroying our planet by consuming its resources, but also creating the greatest inequality we the world has ever seen.

And you missed the point of the film! Each example you chose, you misconstrued! It’s hilarious to read a piece by someone who takes themselves so intellectually seriously, yet deploys tools more at home in the Sun – or perhaps was simply to stupid to understand the subtleties of the film!

GoAir – yes, it is undoubtedly terrible for the environment to increase air travel, but rather than lambast him, it highlights the clash between environment and development, the desire to raise eveyone’s standard of living, yet how to balance this with a sustainable model that ensures a more equitable world is still inhabitable. He’s not necessarily blamed for it, but more it is a lambasting of the current paradigm where development is measured in GDP and consumerism, where giving people more more more is equated with getting them out of poverty. Poverty alleviation and fuelling consumerism have proved themselves incompatible on a large scale. Yes, capitalism, trade, entrepeneurialism pulls individuals out of poverty, but it plunges many more much further down. It is the idea that the current paradigm – if follow further – will lead to any form of equality that is the main culprit.

The windfarmer you lambast so highly – what was so depressing was not that he was turned down, it was the hypocrisy of those turning him down. ‘we all care about climate change, of course’ but just not on my doorstep. It was people’s lip-service that was so depressing. What the floods showed was that climate change is affecting the area, they are aware of it, feel its impact, yet do not want to do anything about it. It is not that building a windfarm will stop floods – don’t be so ridiculous and cheap in your argument – but that an attitude shift needs to take place which addresses climate change, where people realise that YES, their lives WILL have to change as a result.

You chose your heroes and villains, yet the film was all about contradictions and being human. That despite feeling the impacts, seeing them, experiencing them first hand in many cases, out attitudes have still not changed and we don’t find that disconcerting.

You continued claims of weak science are completely bogus, but rather than dress information in formulas and figures and confusing diagrams, it was spelt out quite simply. All the scientific information contained within has been verified by Lord Stern himself (someone who you undoubtedly have little respect for) and the IPCC, and has actually been understood by people who would otherwise have switched off.

I don’t think the film was flawless – far from it – but I don’t think it deserved the one-sided review you gave it, taking immediate offence because it was ‘environmental’. Although it is not surprising from a climate-change denier, I expected better from a website that makes the evidently untrue claims that it does.

I am dissapointed and hope that not all authors on this site have such a severe chip on their shoulder, motivated by pre-conceived falsehoods rather than the subject of their review. Think ‘what was this film trying to achieve?’, ‘to what extent did it do this?’, ‘what means were at its disposal to do this?’, and then be critical, but to take the position you did for the sake of being a black sheep is laughable. The Telegraph would love to have you on board.

Going against the grain may be cool and controversial, but perhaps a little though on what you are speaking of might be a good starting point.

For a website that claims to be anti-illiberals, ludites, narrow-mindedness, you don’t half fall into your own traps!

You can show off a plethora of philosophical and scientifice superiority through referencing, yet not see the economics of the day has led to a neocolonialism that is not only destroying our planet by consuming its resources, but also creating the greatest inequality we the world has ever seen.

And you missed the point of the film! Each example you chose, you misconstrued! It’s hilarious to read a piece by someone who takes themselves so intellectually seriously, yet deploys tools more at home in the Sun – or perhaps was simply to stupid to understand the subtleties of the film!

GoAir – yes, it is undoubtedly terrible for the environment to increase air travel, but rather than lambast him, it highlights the clash between environment and development, the desire to raise eveyone’s standard of living, yet how to balance this with a sustainable model that ensures a more equitable world is still inhabitable. He’s not necessarily blamed for it, but more it is a lambasting of the current paradigm where development is measured in GDP and consumerism, where giving people more more more is equated with getting them out of poverty. Poverty alleviation and fuelling consumerism have proved themselves incompatible on a large scale. Yes, capitalism, trade, entrepeneurialism pulls individuals out of poverty, but it plunges many more much further down. It is the idea that the current paradigm – if follow further – will lead to any form of equality that is the main culprit.

The windfarmer you lambast so highly – what was so depressing was not that he was turned down, it was the hypocrisy of those turning him down. ‘we all care about climate change, of course’ but just not on my doorstep. It was people’s lip-service that was so depressing. What the floods showed was that climate change is affecting the area, they are aware of it, feel its impact, yet do not want to do anything about it. It is not that building a windfarm will stop floods – don’t be so ridiculous and cheap in your argument – but that an attitude shift needs to take place which addresses climate change, where people realise that YES, their lives WILL have to change as a result.

You chose your heroes and villains, yet the film was all about contradictions and being human. That despite feeling the impacts, seeing them, experiencing them first hand in many cases, out attitudes have still not changed and we don’t find that disconcerting.

You continued claims of weak science are completely bogus, but rather than dress information in formulas and figures and confusing diagrams, it was spelt out quite simply. All the scientific information contained within has been verified by Lord Stern himself (someone who you undoubtedly have little respect for) and the IPCC, and has actually been understood by people who would otherwise have switched off.

I don’t think the film was flawless – far from it – but I don’t think it deserved the one-sided review you gave it, taking immediate offence because it was ‘environmental’. Although it is not surprising from a climate-change denier, I expected better from a website that makes the evidently untrue claims that it does.

I am dissapointed and hope that not all authors on this site have such a severe chip on their shoulder, motivated by pre-conceived falsehoods rather than the subject of their review. Think ‘what was this film trying to achieve?’, ‘to what extent did it do this?’, ‘what means were at its disposal to do this?’, and then be critical, but to take the position you did for the sake of being a black sheep is laughable. The Telegraph would love to have you on board.

Going against the grain may be cool and controversial, but perhaps a little though on what you are speaking of might be a good starting point.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: