Al Gore Hearts Tarantino's Footprint

Al Gore, who hasn’t been getting much attention, lately, is going to get into a few headlines by helping Quentin Tarantino promote his new film, Inglorious Basterds, in Tennessee.

Lawrence Bender, producer for Quentin Tarantino’s new film, Inglourious Basterds, asked the former vice president to host a Nashville movie premiere tonight, and Gore was happy to do it, reports spokeswoman Kalee Kreider.

The connection: Bender was one of the producers behind Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Bender also attended the Nashville Film Festival in 2007, where he received the President’s Award.

I’m looking forward to seeing the flick (can someone explain why “bastards” is spelled with an e, though?), but I cannot help but wonder how Al Gore – Savior of the Planet and Scourge of Carbon Users Everywhere – can reconcile himself with the film and tv industries, which hog so many resources? A Tarantino film is going to have a lot of travel, location scouting and shooting, lots of gun shooting, the release of gunpowder into the atmosphere….

As I wrote a while back:

All of these artists will be covered by deathless television news and infotainment crews, who drive their own trucks, use their own lights. The rockers will be joined in their “awareness event” by people like Leonardo DiCaprio, who makes his living in a medium where klieg lights burn by the hour, limos and trucks shuttle important people and their equipment to-and-fro, enormous amounts of paper and tape are expended for promotion (which also involves lots of air-travel – not commercial, for our little princes and princesses, but private). DiCaprio will tell us to take mass-transportation whenever possible while jetting about guilt-free; he’ll be using his Academy-Award Presenter Gift, free carbon-offsets, as plenary indulgences, so he’s green. Somewhere in the world a tree will be planted.

Am I wrong, btw, or is film petroleum-based? When summer blockbuster films are being made, doesn’t Hollywood create huge explosions, sending all sorts of pollutants into the air? Has anyone ever bothered to calculate just how much damage the film industry inflicts on the environment when they spray fake snow, or take leaves off of trees to “create” winter? [UPDATE: In fact such a study does exist, and it's not very flattering to Hollywood - admin]

Actually that study I linked to can’t be found online, anymore, but there is this, which is something. The “free carbon offsets” link from Terrapass also no longer works although their website assures that “you will not find better transparency than at Terrapass.

Al Gore’s connection almost turns me off from seeing the film. But I’m a Tarantino fan, so there you go.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Diane

    Point taken about much of the high end talent, though there’s not as much frivolous flying about as one might think. A network may send a private plane for a cast to do east coast promos (and part of the private plane use has to do with legitimate security concerns), but the plane is full and the schedule is packed. These are cost conscious companies after all. Also, although most are still shot on film, there are a growing number of films and TV shows shot digitally (including Superbad, Angels and Demons, Slumdog Millionaire, etc; Dexter, Damages, etc) more at this site; I’ve worked on sets and most are very conscientious about reusing & recycling, plus much of what you see on-screen is computer generated – for example, not much tree stripping that I’ve seen, certainly not in recent years.

  • Sherry

    Don’t you realize those planetary indulgences involve:
    1) providing penance by converting others to the cause –meaning all of us.
    2) a pilgrimage to the country of the pentitent’s choice where they can decry the waste and self indulgent lives of others and mourn the pristine earth that would be if only more of us were selfless like them.
    3) a large cash investment in the cause championed by High Prophet Al Gore like the “Virgin Earth.”
    4) Mandatory self flagulation via the sparse use of toilet paper, bath products and other petroleum based products and electric cars when engaged in preaching to the great masses who still wash too much to save the Earth.

    Save your money, tell them you’re saving the Earth by waiting until it comes out in Netflix.

  • tim maguire

    I plan on waiting for the first set of reviews. The previews look too much like Mel Brooks without the humor. No clue on the misspelling. I assume it’s intentional.

    The thing about Al and Leo is, they are doing good work. Just as you have to spend money to make money, you have to release carbon to prevent carbon release. So famous activists are completely relieved of the duty to reduce their carbon footprint.

  • Jackie Parkes

    Can you add me to your links please?

  • Al

    Tarantino is a Nihilist whom the critics are afraid of panning. He makes the same boring, violence-fo-violence sake, rehashed, same tune, different song films..over and over and over. He is a one hit wonder who the critics continue to adore every time he produces the same film with a different title. Why? Probably because if they dared pan his tiresome “Hipster” cool crud they wouldn’t be invited to any of the “Important Parties” with all the other Valedictorians and self-appointed guardians of the culture.

    Face it…Hes Crap

  • Bender

    Why folks throw money at the First Emperor of the Moon Algore continues to bewilder me.

  • Gayle Miller

    Al is lying or demented and Leo is just an ignorant actor who vomits forth the words of other, more intelligent (hopefully) people! I’m sorry to be so negative but with our planet’s temperature considerably cooler than in years past, this nonsense of global warming is just being debunked by good old Mother Nature her own self! It’s cyclical climate adjustments you twerps!

  • Pingback: Will Sarah get another big win? No Health Care Reform Without Legal Reform « Jim Blazsik

  • Kris, in New England

    The inspiration for Tarantino’s latest is a 1978 Italian film called “Inglorious Bastards”. Tarantino couldn’t use the same name, so he coyly changed the spelling, saying it’s the “Tarantino way of spelling it”.

    The fact that he couldn’t come up with a different title speaks to how I feel about his filmmaking abilities.

    Tarantino explains the movie this way:

    Tarantino has repeatedly stressed that despite its being a war film, the movie is his “spaghetti western but with World War II iconography”. In addition to spaghetti westerns, the film also pays homage to the World War II “macaroni combat” sub-genre (itself heavily influenced by spaghetti-westerns), as well as French New Wave cinema.

    How can you say it’s a spaghetti western when … it’s not. Either it is or it isn’t. That he needs that much to say about his inspiration also says alot about his abilities. Personally I find nothing original about him.

  • John Pazzesco

    Tarantino is a fan of Castellari who made “The Inglorious Bastards” back in the 70s. I imagine the “e” is to differentiate between the 2 films.

  • Mike

    The Italian film was apparently spelled Inglorious Basturds, a deliberate misspelling to make some sort of point. USA Today ran a story a few days ago in which the “newspaper” said Tarantino’s movie was a remake of the Italian film, “only spelled correctly.”

  • gb

    Better see Fr Z’s post on this film before you go…

  • Joseph Marshall

    Am I wrong, btw, or is film petroleum-based? When summer blockbuster films are being made, doesn’t Hollywood create huge explosions, sending all sorts of pollutants into the air?

    No, you are not wrong, but you are willfully obtuse about this fact. Everything we do has some greater or lesser impact on the environment. The question is not whether we can stop this, but whether and how we should manage it. We have so far not seriously managed any of it in the least except on the most local of scales–recycling drives, a few wilderness areas here and there, and some legal restraint of just how much poison can be fecklessly dumped in everybody’s well.

    Your point of view [were you to state it plainly] is that we should do no management of this whatever so that everybody may make whatever money they can out of the results.

    I don’t happen to take this point of view, but I’m willing to recognize it as consistent and coherent within its own terms. And I am not inclined to throw personal invective at those who hold it, or make every attempt to insinuate that anyone who express this view does so in bad faith and only to further illegitimate personal agendas.

    But then I am a Liberal, and I know such things to be the height of discourtesy, even when I, or my fellow Liberals, step over the line and indulge in such discourtesy. No one can wholly avoid ad homenium argument when things get overheated, but I do not claim the right to use any and every possible club, like Punch beats Judy, on someone whose beliefs I think wrong. And I am willing to acknowledge without reservation that such abuse is morally wrong when I can finally get myself cooled down.

    Al Gore is and has been Judy to your Punch and you and your confreres have no qualms about that fact whatever. And I have never heard anyone among your confreres do anything but claim the absolute right to such unlimited personal abuse of those with whom they disagree.

    Fundamentally, this is the highest wall between us and the real grounds along which this country is divided. It goes beyond any particular argument or issue and to the heart of how we feel other people should be treated because they are fellow human beings.

    The saddest thing about it is that the claim of absolute freedom to say anything whatever about those with whom you politically disagree actually keeps you from seeing the real wall that separates us, despite the fact that over the past two decades it has risen to several stories in height.

    What you are constantly calling “condesension” on the part of Liberals and those media with a Liberal editorial point of view is actually something much, much worse.

    Something horrible, in fact, to think about anyone even when the basis for it is true.

    And it stems from the wall that we can see and you cannot.

  • Rob

    Please take a look at this site/movie about Fatima to be released this fall. Perhaps you could link to it for greater awareness for everyone.
    Thank you.

  • dry valleys

    Joesph Marshall is quite right. Even if Al Gore were the biggest hypocrite on earth, does that automatically invalidate what he says? Benedit takes climate change more seriously than you do but my theological differences with him don’t make me ignore what he says. He even has solar panels, & pals around with the likes of Prince Charles, a renowned environmentalist who like Gore has been roundly criticised by “libertarians” for his views.

    If you think environmental problems don’t exist or should be ignored, then explain why you think this, instead of dismissal & picking those representatives of environmentalism you dislike & have always disliked.

    There’s always a chance to break ranks- you know yourself that you often disagree with other right-wingers, just as I feel free to disagree with other left-wingers on issues such as unlimited immigration, but consider myself part of “the left” because I agree with them more often than “the right”.

  • Steven H.

    This film doesn’t sound appealing to me, but I thought Kill Bill was brilliant. Then again, I love the whole samurai / wuxia / over-done philosophizing thing that he was parodying. Pulp Fiction was well put together, but empty and over-rated.

    I wonder if he could make a film that just conveyed a story, rather than deconstructing genre elements.

  • Mary Alice

    I believe that film is cellulose based.

  • dry valleys

    Botswana admits bushmen were evicted for diamond mine

    There is a whole load of stuff like this from the Third World. Whenever I hear the right-wing claim that environmentalists are the foes of ordinary people, I wonder what these particular ordinary people make of it all.

  • Gayle Miller

    A male friend saw the film over the weekend and loved it. He’s a big Tarantino fan; loves the gore and violence a LOT. If he loved the film, I’d probably hate it. He did mention that Pitts was surprisingly good in it.