Before the Flood: Rewritten (Plan for Revision) "The Narrator’s Impact On Effective Persuasion"

The Narrator’s Impact On Effective Persuasion

            Much of the documentary Before the Flood’s success is contingent on Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance as narrator and viewpoint character. Director Fisher Stevens and many film critics alike believed this meant establishing DiCaprio’s credibility as a true environmentalist and voice in the community would be vital to the film. Consequently, through the first ten or so minutes of the film following Leo’s opening monologue describing a piece of artwork his parents hung in his room as a little boy, Before the Flood takes several different approaches in establishing this level of credibility for Leo. He is seen meeting with United Nations Secretary General Ban KI-Moon and speaking to world leaders as the newly appointed United Nations Messenger of Peace. Ki-Moon describes Leo as a “very coveted and effective environmentalist”, and thusly “counts on his leadership and vision”. Even after all its efforts, Before the Flood still doesn’t seem to position Leo as an authority on climate change, but that inadvertently adds an element to the film that makes it highly approachable, relatable, and effective. Rather than follow the orthodox structure of having an environmental expert narrate and walk the viewer through information, Before the Flood features a highly passionate figure with perceivably not too much more knowledge than the target audience. Viewers follow DiCaprio and learn along with him as he further discovers the truth about the effects of climate change and what is actually being done about it. The result is a very fresh and compelling take on the typical “call to action” documentary that would not be possible had DiCaprio been more effectively depicted as the environmental activist he is. If I was able to contribute to the documentary in any way, I would actually spend less time establishing DiCaprio’s credibility in the beginning and focus on developing him as the films viewpoint character.

Those familiar with DiCaprio’s environmentalist efforts know his knowledge and expertise go far beyond what is depicted in this documentary, but the set-up given in the early parts of the film fails to convey that. In his review of the film, Hollywood Reporter’s John DeFore highlights that “DiCaprio was taught about global warming by Al Gore in the White House in his early 20s; he spoke at Earth Day in 2000; he went on Oprah to promote energy-efficient light bulbs…too-little, too-late. Still, for his efforts, the United Nations designated DiCaprio a "U.N. Messenger of Peace" in 2014, and tasked him with getting the word out on climate change”(DeFore). This information is not left out of Before the Flood, but is undermined by choices made by DiCaprio and Director Fisher Stevens. For example, DiCaprio narrates over his entire inaugural speech as U.N. Messenger of Peace. In a moment where he could have established immense credibility within the film, Leo modestly voiceovers “I feel incredibly honored that they chose me to be the United Nations Messenger of Peace on Climate Change”. Then, the speech audio cuts back in momentarily just to hear Leo state “I stand before you not as an expert” before returning to the narration. “I want to do everything I can to learn more about this issue; see for myself exactly what’s going on, and what can be done. But, it all kind of seems beyond our control”. DiCaprio goes on to explain his role as an actor playing fictitious characters solving fictitious problems, how that relates to the public’s perception of the issues of climate change, and even claims that if they knew “how pessimistic (he) is about our future”, the UN might think they chose the wrong guy. Stevens even goes as far as to include clips of well-respected political commentators such as Sean Hannity mocking DiCaprio’s position and aspirations. All of this plays beautifully to establishing Leo as a viewpoint character for the viewer to relate with and feel they are approaching the issues alongside, but within the context of the film it fights against everything the director is trying to do. What’s created is a narrator who the audience knows has an advanced understanding of the topic, but is constantly discredited to the point where he doesn’t feel reputable or relatable.

The importance of having a viewpoint character narrating rather than a well-informed but disconnected narrator may seem minor, but in understanding the idea of stases, and the way people think and learn, it becomes clear that it’s the best formula to satisfy the viewers demand for causality, a concept explained in Keith Grant-Davie’s Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents. “When we study history, our first question may be "what happened?”, but the more important question, the question whose answer offers hope of learning for the future as well as understanding the past, is "why did it happen?" At a fundamental level, then, understanding the rhetorical situations of historical events helps satisfy our demand for causality-helps us discover the extent to which the world is not chaotic but ordered, a place where actions follow patterns and things happen for good reasons” (Grant-Davie 254). If the narrator perceivably already knows all the answers, it feels redundant to follow them through the journey of learning why things are the way they are; a question associated with learning about something for the first time. Most adults know that they have to be silent in a movie theatre because noises can be distracting to other people trying to watch the movie. When an adult brings a child to their first movie they simply tell them they have to be quiet without providing further explanation as to why. The child then begrudgingly remains quiet, fighting the urge to comment on things that catch their attention or consult the adult for their opinions or explanation of things they don’t understand. If two children were to attend their first movie without any adult supervision, they would wrinkle their candy wrappers and talk aloud until an annoyed moviegoer insists that they remain quiet. While the latter experience is more complicated and involves more steps to convey the same information, the children now understand why they must remain quiet in the movie theatre rather than just know they must. Similarly, as the viewer joins Leonardo DiCaprio as they learn about the rhetorical situation of climate change for the first time, it feels natural to spend the time learning why things are the way they are through rhetorical discourse.

To ignore the way people think, wonder, and learn when constructing an educational film would be to ignore the “classical system of invention known as stases” (Fahnestock, Secor 428). The stases describe a series of “points at which certain types of questions arise about a subject…They follow a logical, hierarchical order; the first, most basic question must be disposed of before more complex ones can be addressed. There are questions of fact, questions of definition, questions of value, and in some versions questions of procedure, which we will conflate with questions of policy” (Fahnestock, Secor 428). As Grant-Davie explained, people want to know more than simply something is what it is. They want to know why it is that way, how it got to be that way, what implications it will have going forward, and many other details to get a full understanding. Although any well-informed filmmaker and narrator can answer these questions, the system of stases emphasizes the natural order those questions come to mind and the need to address them in such order. A narrator learning alongside the viewer at the same time will be more likely to naturally approach and confront these questions in the same order as the viewer. Thus, another reason why it is beneficial to have a viewpoint character as a narrator rather than someone who already has all the answers.

The primary reason Before the Flood was made, like most “informative” documentaries, is to bring an issue to the attention of the viewer, and then persuade them think a certain way about it. In this case the issue is climate change and those involved with the film would like to persuade the viewers to believe climate change is a real problem and act accordingly. The issue with trying to persuade someone of something is people are inherently skeptical. They are not likely to just accept what they are told as fact without asking questions and addressing stases. With skepticism comes healthy argument. If one wants to successfully persuade a viewer, it is important that they end up on the same side of the argument as the viewer. To do this, they must understand how a healthy argument works beyond right vs. wrong. Rebecca Jones unpacks the nature of and stigma around argument in her essay Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?. A quote Jones uses from George Lakoff and Mark Johns compares the way we use arguments in western culture to war. They point out that “we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of war. We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies” (Lakoff and Johnson). As Jones explains, a good argument is not so divisive. Using inductive and deductive reasoning, both sides should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion through argument. Within the context of this documentary, inductive reasoning is most important in ensuring the viewer is persuaded in the right direction. “Inductive reasoning starts with a particular or local statement and moves to a more general conclusion” (Jones 164). In having the narrator and viewer approach new ideas together at the same time, their reasoning will develop similarly. Each small issue that they encounter together and each question they have answered grows the narrator and the viewer more like-minded. Through inductive reasoning, the narrator and the viewer should form similar opinions, putting them at the same side of the argument. A narrator who confront ideas and questions in an order irregular to the viewers natural stases risks coming to different conclusions than the viewer, thus placing them on the opposite side of the argument. As Lakoff and Johnson laid out, opposite sides of the argument seemingly always only grow farther apart. Being at the opposite side of the argument likely means the viewer will be persuaded in the wrong direction.

It is important to clarify that application of my criticism of Fisher Stevens’s directorial approach starts and ends within the first ten or so minutes of the film. Stevens actually ends up acheiving much of the effect that would be made with my proposed changes anyway, but with a tweaked approach in the beginning of the film these effects could be amplified even more so. Positioning Leonardo DiCaprio as a viewpoint character for the viewer to follow along with through learning about climate change would lend itself more to the way people naturally think and formulate opinions. Being mindful of this thought process can help ensure the desired outcome of the film is achieved.

Works Cited

DeFore, John. "'Before the Flood': Film Review | TIFF 2016." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p.,

09 Sept. 2016. Web. 5 Apr. 2017.

Fahnestock, J., and M. Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written

            Communication5.4 (1988): 427-43. Web. 4 Apr. 2017.

Grant‐Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical situations and their constituents." Rhetoric Review15.2 (1997): 264-

            79. Web. 5 Apr. 2017.

Jones, Rebecca. "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?" Writing Spaces:

            Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 1. N.p.: Parlor Press,

            n.d. N. pag. Print.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. "Metaphors We Live By." (2003): n. pag. Web. 6 Apr. 2017.