The Documentary Before the Flood go through this issue of climate change and global warming issue and how this climate change is affecting the Nature. They focus on ice, the sweeping views of earth, seeing the rushing waterfalls in the glaciers, and, massive land mines being used to farm fossil fuels are sobering scenes to watch, it is compelling and well-made. The documentary does not hide DiCaprio’s lavish lifestyle. What is really alarming about this documentary is that DiCaprio talks to Obama and John Kerry. He just tried to be updated with the current questions and issues. He talks to a fisherman on ice problem, scientist on Greenland and those are valid points by showing such a real example by meeting not just only “Authorities” or “Politicians” but also, scientists and local people to understand the depth of this issue and to really feel it. Documentary also uses various “Panels” to portrait the previous time of 17th century and to save some old architects. DiCaprio talks to his producer and says, “I would do a movie on this architect and I dare to you”. This showed how he has a strong feeling to save what is been going endangered and no one really talk about it. Moreover, this documentary uses political language to explain economic change (price of carbon) with a legal constraint (carbon tax) through democracy (manifesto commitments). It admires the consistency and clarity on the Global issues. With many other languages, this documentary reflects major part of Political language and also various “Tax” related terms which sound metaphoric to the audience
DiCaprio discovers how our diet is affecting out climate change by questioning to a Research professor Gidon Eshel about beef industry that how it ss inefficient and more harmful? How diet is responsible for producing more greenhouse effect? And what must be done? Gidon explains how nearly 70% of land out of food production is used to feed cattle than fruits and vegetables which is near 2%. Most importantly cows produce methane and methane is powerful greenhouse gas. Man says, “Carbon dioxide is much more than methane into atmosphere but however, methane far more impactful than C02”. As every molecule of methane is equivalent to 23 molecules of co2 and nearly all the methane is due to the livestock. Professor demonstrates to Leonardo that about 10 to 12 percent of U.S emission is due to “Beef”. The chicken will require 20 percent of land and 10 percent of the green house emission and if compared to rice and potatoes, beef requires 50 times more land. This can be a helpful approach in understanding not about emissions from the food, but also about what a healthy food can be considered and eat. Leonardo agreed to the whole concept and solution to it. Gidon says, “eating tofu 24/7 is difficult but switching to chicken will eliminate 80 percent of what emits” and that will also help in maintaining food cost problems associated with diet. It is easy to switch diet from one choice to another. Even if Before the Flood is viewed many times, it may not create a significant difference because issue of Climate change to Global Warming when compared to the facts based on politics, it creates biased tone towards people listening to it and it may look less attractive towards understanding the issue of Climate change Of course, the context is strong and resourceful, but it can easily create a difference in audience’s understanding.
What Leo never gets close to exploring is how the same system that keeps people in poverty are the ones that are killing the planet- that the mechanism of global pollution, climate change and corporate waste are what many of us live in, and under, and they control a lot more than just carbon emissions. Political language or real political agenda comes forth when DiCaprio talks to economics to say that the only way to solve this problem is to raise the taxes. This is incredibly alarming because all solutions in today’s world is better than just raising taxes. It is like “Confusing Public” with using a metaphor under economic and political base. Documentary says, “Ocean is not a problem, it is all democratic”. It is apparent also that Leonardo DiCaprio may be wants to become a “Democratic President chokes candidates” in ten or 20 years because documentary bashes republicans’ sort of in worst political examples hence documentary is also very politically toned. U.S consumers may be would not have more effects by going through this tone, listening to Obama or Kerry, “I think this is not a good thing and we are building an architecture for it” as Obama said. Political language does not deal with problem or solution rather it creates its own biased tone in documentary that creates bottom-down perspective and I think they may had brought more true local people examples rather compared to politics or tax examples. Rather if Leo brings 10 products with bottom-up perspective which are natural, convenient and vegan, it would have more effect on U.S consumers than this political reference. This creates more sentimental approach when listening to “Melodramatic music”. However, this documentary overall played a great role in attracting the audience and also, DiCaprio played a great role in presenting various issue related to our environment, but it seems like sponsored by democrats and liberals of United Nations. It is biased and top-down because of tax perspective or idea used related to political approach.