During his visit to research bases in the Antarctic Peninsula, where temperatures have warmed faster than any other place on Earth in the last half-century, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared that global warming is an emergency and called for urgent political action to address the problem. In this context, documentaries like The 11th Hour are of vital importance in educating people both about the extent of the problem and possible solutions to deal with it. That said, this documentary never rises above the level of a feature made for a TV magazine show, and is unlikely to inspire people to action. During his visit to research bases in the Antarctic Peninsula, where temperatures have warmed faster than any other place on Earth in the last half-century, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared that global warming is an emergency and called for urgent political action to address the problem. In this context, documentaries like The 11th Hour are of vital importance in educating people both about the extent of the problem and possible solutions to deal with it. That said, this documentary never rises above the level of a feature made for a TV magazine show, and is unlikely to inspire people to action.
 
The 11th Hour is a sort of follow-up to last year’s successful climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, but takes a broader approach to the topic. While Truth built a case for the reality of climate change by presenting the growing scientific evidence, 11th Hour builds on the foundation set by the earlier film by focusing on the historical reasons behind climate change, the reasons for government inaction on the problem, and presents eco-friendly solutions and technologies. And this broad scope ultimately proves to be a liability for the film.
 
The documentary first traces the roots of climate change to the industrial revolution, indicts oil transnationals for political inactivity on the climate change problem and introduces “green” technologies to help lessen the use of fossil fuels. This is a lot of material to cover in just 90 minutes, and the film’s approach is to reduce all this important information into soundbites delivered by various experts.
 
In its publicity material, The 11th Hour lists no less than 53 experts in various fields (and mentions that it gathered 70), some of them familiar, such as scientist Stephen Hawking and former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, but the majority unknown to the general public. Each of them is essentially shoved in front of the camera for a few seconds of screen time to deliver some nugget of information or brief insight. The 11th Hour thus begins to resemble an audio-visual powerpoint presentation after a while, with little bits of information accompanied by illustrative footage.
 
The approach is informative and gives weight to the film, but you wish that many of the interesting ideas expressed in the film could be developed further. The section on the historical roots of climate change alone could generate its own film.
 
Although Leonardo diCaprio is prominently mentioned in the documentary’s publicity, the actor chooses to take a low profile with regard to his appearances in the film. He mainly shows up at the start and end of the movie, and showing up briefly in between. Although this is admirable, in that diCaprio clearly does not want his celebrity to overshadow the issues discussed, his decision to limit his screen time also denies the film a certain personality his increased presence might have given it.
 
In fact, the film might have benefited by cutting down on the number of on-screen talking heads and focusing instead on a handful of experts while using the rest as behind the camera resource persons. The filmmakers’ reliance on expert “testimony” moves the film into more cerebral territory. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it prevents the audience from a deeper involvement in the issues presented. Note that a big factor in the success of Inconvenient Truth is the persona of Al Gore, who succeeded in presenting himself as sincere and committed in his advocacy while guiding the audience through the potentially daunting mass of facts and data.
 
The filmmakers also fail to use the medium of film effectively to make concrete the consequences of global warming. Inconvenient Truth powerfully used a short animated scene of a polar bear vainly seeking an ice floe on which to perch to demonstrate the impact of climate change. There is no equivalent scene in 11th Hour other than the now familiar use of Hurricane Katrina footage to show how cyclones and typhoons are becoming more powerful as a result of climate change.
 
Like Truth, 11th Hour also shies away from issues of systemic change as a lasting solution to climate change. While Al Gore simply ignored the issue, the filmmakers of 11th Hour choose to call for consciousness change as the lasting answer to climate change. Their thesis is that as a result of the industrial revolution, people have become alienated from nature and thus view natural resources as commodities ripe for exploitation. Thus, they argue, as people become more aware of the problem they will spontaneously gravitate towards eco-friendly solutions.
 
That any kind of societal or systemic change might be necessary is not even addressed. In fact, the filmmakers go out of their way to stress that the solutions they seek are market-based, by including the energy and environment correspondent of free-market friendly The Economist (who enthusiastically argues that market-based solutions will prevail in his brief appearance) and in an interview included with the publicity materials of the movie.
 
The filmmakers also make no mention of how to confront the influence of the energy transationals, whose abuses are highlighted through footage of a US Senate hearing on oil companies’ profits. Indeed, the issue is raised but not sufficiently addressed; it seems to be one of those things that would be resolved once people gain sufficient awareness.
 
Ultimately, the best venue for 11th Hour may be schools and colleges, where screenings can be accompanied by discussions and lectures, rather than regular multiplexes where it may well be met by indifference.