All the stupid things people have said today

And I’m looking at you, Malcolm Rifkind, and you, John Redwood.

There's nothing like a political thriller to get the pundits out on College Green selling their wares to the lowest bidder and spouting a fury of nonsense on rolling news. Somebody has to fill those long and languid hours, I suppose, as everyone runs around chasing anyone in a suit who looks like he might be negotiating something.

Rumour has it that a Sky reporter found himself in Caffè Nero filming a negotiation over the price of a blueberry muffin and yelling to the camera, "It's looking good for a deal, people! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!" Well, not quite, but almost.

Anyway, there have been a couple of real hype-whippers today, stirring up as much trouble as they can, scaremongering in that delightfully cool-headed way that slightly redundant right-wing commentators will.

First up, and definitely the prizewinner, is Sir Malcolm Rifkind.

The idea that the two parties that suffered most in this election, that were rejected by the electorate, that in the case of the Labour Party lost a hundred of its seats, should put together an illegitimate government, this is the Robert Mugabe style of politics . . .. It's exactly what Mugabe did, you know -- he lost the election and scrabbled to hold on to power.

You know, he's got a point. Whenever I look closely at Labour and the Lib Dems, all I can really see is Mugabe-style politics. All those violent bullying tactics, murder attempts and house demolitions. I can't believe no one has made the comparison before. That's searing political insight in action, that is.

Next: the Conservative MP John Redwood, who said that the current situation is "a disaster for British democracy".

It's all that some of us feared about hung parliaments. There's complete chaos and confusion.

How is it a disaster for British democracy when what we are experiencing now is precisely its outcome? How could you have prevented this hung parliament that you so "feared"? (Mental image: Redwood sitting up in bed with his duvet round his ears, whimpering and repeatedly counting seats in his model House of Commons.) Well, by getting a clear majority. WHICH YOU DIDN'T.

Of course, it's the news channels' fault, really, isn't it? If you interview someone 43 times about the same subject within half an hour when there is actually nothing new to report apart from a series of wayward and hazy possibilities, you are bound to get some interesting interpretations.

Solution? To pass the time, set up Adam Boulton in a series of wrestling matches with suitable opponents (first: Ann Widdecombe).

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Show Hide image

Did Titantic do more for climate change than Leonardo DiCaprio’s new documentary?

Sex, icebergs and individual plight: the actor’s earlier outing teaches us more about vast disasters than his new docufilm about global warming’s impact, Before the Flood.

“Now you know there was a man named Jack Dawson and that he saved me . . . in every way that a person can be saved.” Or did he? For Titanic actor Leonardo DiCaprio, there is one way in which Jack never did rescue Rose: from the threat of climate catastrophe. 

Over the last 15 years, DiCaprio has made the issue a personal mission. Yet even in his role as UN climate ambassador, he stills feels far from heroic:

“If the UN really knew how I feel, how pessimistic I am about our future . . . I mean to be honest, they may have picked the wrong guy.”

So begins his new documentary, Before the Flood. A quest for answers on climate change, the film sees Leo racing around the world, marvelling at the sound of endangered whales, despairing at the destruction caused by tar-sands – “it looks like Mordor” – and interviewing a series of concerned experts, from professors to Barack Obama to the Pope.

There are plenty of naysayers to stand in his way and put him down. “Who better to educate world leaders on made-up climate change and a crisis that doesn't exist, than an actor with zero years of scientific training?” mocks one commentator from Fox News.

But if DiCaprio can gather enough evidence to believe in himself – AND believe that there are viable solutions out there – then so can we. Or so the story arc promises. His journey thus stands as a guide for our own; a self-education that will lead to salvation for all. 

It's all a little messianic. The film is even named after a biblical painting. And will those who don't already know who DiCaprio is even care? 

The sad fact is that, while DiCaprio’s lasting popularity still owes so much Titanic, the 1997 box-office smash that made his name, his new documentary fails to recapture the dramatic wisdom that put him there. It doesn’t even quip about the icebergs.

This is an oversight. Titanic didn’t win 11 academy awards for nothing. As well as a must-see rite of passage (pun intended) and soundtrack for infinite school discos, it taught me something invaluable about storytelling. Though I was not initially a DiCaprio fan, over the years I’ve come to accept that my lasting love of the film is inseparable from my emotional investment in Leo, or at least in his character, Jack. What Titanic showed so brilliantly was that the fastest way to empathise with suffering on a vast scale – be it a sinking ship or a sinking planet – is to learn to care for the fate of one or two individuals involved.

Every part of Jack and Rose's story is thus intimately linked with the story of the ship. Even that famed sex scene gains its erotic force not from the characters alone, but from their race through the blazing engine room (situated as it is between the foreplay of the naked portrait and the famous post-coital ending in the back of the cab).

And such carefully crafted storytelling isn't only essential to great entertainment but to great activism too. It can literally inspire action – as evidenced by fans’ desperate attempts to prove that both Jack and Rose could have climbed to safety aboard the floating piece of wood.

So would Before the Flood have been better if it had been a little bit more like Titanic and less like An Inconvenient Truth? Yes. And does that mean we should make climate films about epic polar bear love stories instead? Not exactly. 

There are many powerful documentaries out there that make you emotionally invested in the lives of those experiencing the consequences of our indirect (fossil fuel-burning) actions. Take Virunga, a heart-wrenching insight into the struggle of those protecting eastern Congo’s national park.

Sadly, Before the Flood is not one of them. Its examples of climate change – from Beijing air pollution to coral reef destruction – are over-familiar and under-explored. Instead of interviewing a Chinese official with a graph on his iPad, I would have preferred visiting a solar-panel factory worker and meeting their family, who are perhaps suffering from the effects of the smog in a way I can't yet imagine.

If you want a whistlestop tour of all things climate change then this necessary and urgent film is the movie for you. But those hoping it will give new depth to climate activism will be disappointed.

DiCaprio's distant relationship with the effects of climate change leave him stranded at the level of a narrator. He makes for a great elderly Rose, but we need a Jack.

Before The Flood is in limited theatres from 21 October and will be shown on National Geographic on Sunday 30 October.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.