No, really--or at least those folks who went to see An Inconvenient Truth last weekend in Dallas and Austin love Al Gore and his movie about global warming. Says so right here: IndieWIRE's reporting that when Davis Guggenheim's doc about Gore's terrifying lecture on how it's getting hot in here, so very hot in here, expanded last weekend from four theaters to 77, it "had the best per-location average of any major film in theatrical release," including the likes of The Break-Up and the third X-Men movie. That's surprising enough--maybe people feel bad for the guy they elected president who never got to serve--but the most compelling part of the story comes from Rob Schultz, the executive vice president of specialty film distribution for Paramount Classics, which is distributing the movie. Reports indieWIRE:
"One of the most interesting statistics came out of the Dallas film-distribution region. There, the film opened at three theaters--Landmark's Magnolia in Dallas, the Angelika Film Center in Plano and the Arbor in Austin (part of the Paramount Classics' Dallas market). Exit polling showed that 80+% of viewers who consider themselves Republican said they'd recommend the film. (The first weekend, in New York and L.A., 90+% of viewers said they'd recommend it.)
'We went into Texas because it's not homogenous politically,' Schultz said. 'The Republicans had a high recommend rate. It's low-80s instead of the 95% range, but that's still huge. So everyone finds it rewarding.'"
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
Probably not, oh, the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, which, on May 15, published a "study" that concludes "links between greenhouse gas emissions and severe climate impacts are tenuous." The study, touted on NCPA's so-called E-Team's homepage as a document that proves "the science behind environmental alarmists' claims is fatally flawed," was written by David Legates, an associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. The guy's got cred but also his many detractors, among them The American Prospect, which reported in 2004 that he's done work in the past for the George C. Marshall Institute, "an organization skeptical of much climate-change science that received $90,000 from [Dallas-based] ExxonMobil in 2002, the last year for which records are currently available." (According to ExxonSecrets, which documents how much money the petrochemical behemoth pays to folks who insist there's no link between their product, the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere and the melting of the glaciers in Greenland, the George C. Marshall Institute has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.) Also among his detractors: anyone who's stepped outside today. --Robert Wilonsky