If you see just one movie this year about a group of smart people — scientists, teachers, lawyers, activists, and government workers — who meet in a hotel in St.Petersburg, Florida, in 1980 to talk about climate change, then make sure it's "A Statement" (until something better comes along).This meeting actually happened.It was organized by the U.S.Congress.Back then, people were starting to worry about global warming.The group met for three days in Florida, and their job was to write a plan that would look at the dangers of climate change and suggest what should be done about it.
"A Statement" was directed and written by Tom McCarthy, who also made "Spotlight" and "Stillwater." The movie stars some great actors, like Paul Rudd, who plays the calm leader of the meeting, Paul Giamatti as a tough government official, John Turturro as a funny professor, and Amy Ryan as a quiet person who becomes the group's moral guide.
The movie doesn't have any action scenes, car chases, or big stunts.
It’s all about the meeting — 20 people talking, arguing, and trying to figure things out.The whole movie is about how people talk to each other.I really like movies that focus on conversations — like "12 Angry Men" or "Before Sunrise." I think talk can be action, and I enjoy seeing smart people argue about important issues.That's why I think "A Statement" is right up my alley.
But I also had mixed feelings about it.
On paper, it sounds interesting, but the movie is both talky and slow, intense but boring at times.It wants to be a powerful documentary-style film, but I'm not sure who would want to watch it.I think it's more like a very long article made into a movie, and I don't think many people will be interested.
McCarthy and his writing team, Thomas Bidegain and Noé Debré, didn't make up any of the dialogue.
They used the real conversations from the meeting, word for word.That's a bold choice, and McCarthy is a good director who knows how to capture the feel of a meeting.He shows how meetings can be full of talking, back-and-forth arguments, and people trying to get their point across, even if they don't really agree.
For people who have ever been in such a meeting — which is almost everyone — this might feel a bit like a mixed blessing.
These meetings can be useful, but they can also be frustrating.People keep talking, trying to one-up each other, and eventually everything gets settled with a compromise that doesn't really matter.That's the kind of feeling you get in "A Statement."
It's interesting to watch these conversations from 1980, especially because you might think they'd sound out of touch.
But the surprising thing is that they don't.There's no "back then they didn’t know what they didn’t know" feeling.The people back then were already thinking about climate change, and they were taking it seriously.
The movie is partly based on the 2019 book "Losing Earth: The Decade We Could Have Stopped Climate Change" by Nathaniel Rich, which talks about the 1980s.
The main idea of the book is that back then, people already knew a lot about the problem — at least the experts did.
Early in the movie, the character played by Turturro, Dr.
David Rose, uses an overhead projector to show five slides.These slides show graphs that explain how carbon dioxide levels are rising and what damage this will cause to the environment.The facts presented are clear, even though there are some small disagreements about them.The slides show dangers like the thinning of the ozone layer, the serious risks of using fossil fuels, and the timeline showing how things are moving towards a dangerous future.
Most of us didn't really start learning about global warming until later in the 1980s, like when Bill McKibben wrote a big article in the New York Review of Books in 1988 asking if the world was getting hotter.It's surprising that people in this group were already thinking about it so much.So, what are the people in the room actually arguing about?I wish they would argue more.There's a lot of fine-tuning and back-and-forth, and since climate change is all about trying to predict the future, there's a big disagreement on how they should think about the threat.Should they say, “This is what will happen” or “This is what could happen”?That's a good question to have.
Some people in the group are more worried about their own positions and don't want to upset people in power.
One person, Jason Clarke, is described as a loud and full-of-himself person.But even with all the arguing, the main ideas people are talking about don't really differ that much.
Two of the most noticeable characters are a professor played by Turturro and Rafe Pomerance, who is the leader of Friends of the Earth.
Pomerance was one of the first environmental activists to talk about climate change.He's played by Evan Peters, with a beard and long hair, looking like a passionate, angry hippie.He waits for the right moment to speak, but he believes it's too late to wait any longer.He wants the group to tell Congress the truth, no matter how bad it sounds.
It's clear to most of us that he's right.
They should be telling Congress just how serious the situation is, or even worse, what it will be if they don't act.But even if they do manage to tell Congress, the bigger question is, what should they actually do?
Early on, there's a moment that hints at the real debate.
When Rafe, the counterculture type, meets the professor and finds out he's a nuclear scientist, he jokes about calling him the "Big Bad Wolf." The professor laughs, but back then, saying the word "nuclear" could make people very uncomfortable.However, the professor really knows what he's talking about.He's way ahead of his time, pointing out that renewable energy, like solar, isn't enough to replace fossil fuels.And, surprise, that's still true today.The only energy source that could actually replace fossil fuels right now is nuclear energy.The professor says this out loud.(If you're not sure, check out the documentary "Pandora's Promise" or "Nuclear Now" by Oliver Stone.)
But the professor is ignored, not just by Rafe, but also by a strict lawyer played by Tatiana Maslany who doesn't like the word "nuclear." I found it interesting that the movie brings up this topic, but it's quickly dropped.
This makes me wonder: what is the movie really trying to say?By the end, the movie seems to suggest that we're like Hamlet—able to talk about climate change, but unable to take action.That's an important point.
In a way, "A Statement" is a perfect example of this problem.
It's a low-budget indie movie, similar to "Digger," and it feels like it's mostly just showing that some Hollywood people care about climate change.But if they really cared, why don't they do something bigger, something really different?"A Statement" shows a moment in time and gives a glimpse of what was known back then.
As a drama, the film is kind of like greenhouse gases.
It keeps you stuck in a place that isn't brave enough to think of ways to fix things.
