Join online today and as a special thank you, we'll send you a free rucksack as well as a one-year subscription to Sierra magazine and the City Sierran.
For many of us who are familiar with Matt Damon’s environmental advocacy work, we offer much appreciation and thanks. Mr. Damon’s latest film, “Promised Land,” which brings to light some of the more unethical tactics used by gas industry executives, will hopefully create a stir and help spread the word about the dangerous gas drilling process known as “fracking.” In addition this writer has great admiration and respect for Mr. Damon’s talent as an actor, producer and writer.
The Wrong Story
The film, “Promised Land,” is well written, beautifully photographed, well crafted and acted and will likely engage viewers on an emotional level as it follows the personal journey and story arc of its main character: gas man, “Steve Butler,” played by Matt Damon, through his crisis of conscience. Sadly, for this viewer, the film misses the mark in terms of the story it choses to tell which is contrived and begs credulity. In focusing mainly on the romantic interest, taking the perspective of the gas industry lease pushers and sympathizing with the “other side,” the film loses an opportunity to portray any one of the more compelling life and death struggles that most families in gas drilling communities are faced with–the desperate stories of poisoned water, ruined farms and livestock, lost property values, and sickened and bankrupted communities wrought by oil and gas industry recklessness. These are the real-life stories that need to be told, shouted out for all the world to hear, to understand the insanity of fracking and take action against it.
The surprising denouement, which I won’t give away here, is an unfortunate plot twist and one must wonder what rationale went into this choice. If the intention for making the film was to boost the cause for environmental justice, this cinematic choice sends an ambiguous and confusing message to those uninitiated to the horrors of fracking, while giving short shrift to tackling the more serious problems with the industry and the valiant environmental champions trying to protect us from harm. To be fair, there is only so much information that can be artfully crammed into a two hour dramatization. Still, I worry the film will be of questionable value in advancing the case against fracking, though one should never underestimate the draw of romance and emotional content in Hollywood films. The real question is, will it rouse people to take action to stop fracking? Only time will tell.
For the sake of our health, our environment and future, I certainly hope I’m wrong about this film’s potential to move the masses. Many of us who have been in the trenches fighting fracking for some time now have done our homework and witnessed the evidence. We are utterly convinced that there is no question as to the harm it causes! We know about the myth of “safe” fracking and that the sacrifice to our health and communities is too great. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. For those willing to face facts, it is absolutely clear that fracking will lead us off the environmental cliff to ever more devastated communities, contaminated water, air and food, sickness, economic ruin, increasingly catastrophic climate events and the end of a livable planet.
Gusti Bogok is Co-Chair of the Atlantic Chapter Gas Drilling Task Force
Click here to leave a comment below.
[...] “Promised Land” Misses The Mark [...]
I agree with Gusti Bogok that Promised Land has terrific production values and evokes rural, specifically Southern Tier, New York and rural Pennsylvania beautifully. However, Gusti criticizes it for submerging the larger story of the impact of fracking by “focusing mainly on the romantic story line, taking the perspective of the gas industry lease pushers and sympathizing with the ‘other side,’ thus “losing an opportunity to portray any one of the more compelling life and death struggles that most families in gas drilling communities.” Actually, the story Gusti wanted Damon et al to tell has previously been produced. It’s called Gasland and, in spite of awards, accolades, limited commercial showings, and a DVD, it has, so far as I can see made virtually no dent in the wider public. So, I think Damon’s decision to create this movie had much promise.
Unfortunately, it is a weak movie. The only character with real motivation for his life choices is Mr. Damon’s, but even that is only telegraphed. And, except for Hal Holbruck’s and Frances McDormand’s performances, the actors seem to be walking through their roles. The “romantic interests” (there is competition between Mr. Daman’s character and that of an “environmentalist”) is actually weak and unfulfilled, so even it isn’t very convincing. The denouement, which does amp up the emotion briefly and motivates the ending scenes, is not just surprising, but gimmicky.
Mr. Damon and his writers should have spent more time on the writing. Unhappily, I predict this movie will not have much impact on the public, not because there isn’t enough information about the impact of fracking, but because there just isn’t enough there there
Promised Land is a good, entertaining story that puts hydraulic fracturing before the viewer. Rather than be critical of the movie I believe we should encourage people to see it and talk about it, that way keeping the issue before the public. Believe it or not there are still people who do not know about fracking. I spoke to some of them on the subway coming home last night.
If movies like this can generate a following and make a little money or at least pay for themselves for the people producing them it could encourage people in the business to cover other environmental issues. Movies are a good way to get ideas before the public.
Like Gusti, I was disappointed that the movie was so ambiguous and wished it had not added the invented plot twists. I would have preferred the same human interest story, but based on the realities of fracking and the fight between each side as it actually plays out. So I was very nervous about the impact on the general public, that they might take these inventions as reality.
Matt Damon (as the landsman) is very appealing, and ends up being one of the few characters with any personal integrity. He says over and over, “I’m not a bad guy,” and he’s such a likable “bad” guy that emotionally, you could end up subconsciously rooting for him. The movie goes to pains to make it clear that he believes he’s acting in the best interests of these small towns, even as he puts the screws to the mayor and works the sales pitch. He even gets the girl!
Then there’s the bogus demonstration of the fracking technique to schoolchildren that has nothing to do with reality, and the plot twist (I won’t spoil it) which puts the integrity of environmentalists in question.
The movie does not offer any scientific info, does not show the harms, does not explain the real issues. But I did not expect that it would. It intends to focus on the personal issues and divisiveness it brings to small towns. It is very good at capturing the feel of rural america, and having grown up upstate, I wondered if I knew the town where it had been shot.
Following the feedback of people who’ve been leafletting outside theaters, it seems the general public, especially those who were uninformed, are moved by the picture, and in our direction. Audiences told one activist they “didn’t realize it was that bad,” (even though we may think how much worse it really is). Many said they thought NY was safe from fracking and didn’t have to worry (until they saw the film). So if the movie brings any of this to light for a larger audience than we have reached so far, this is a good thing. But it really requires us to reach out around this film’s release and get solid info out there, which I’d suggest be a focus in the weeks coming up before the DEC deadline. City dwellers are still largely unaware and if a romantic story is what it takes to get them involved, so be it.
Get involved in the effort. Join the Sierra Club’s Facebook page hydrofracking team at http://www.facebook.com/groups/sierra.frackers/
also join the activist network hydrofracking team at http://sc.org/frac
Everyone who goes to see the movie should either make business cards with your chapters website, e-mail or telephone number to get involved and pass them out at the end of the movie to the audience. Or make a flyer with the same information or circulate a clipboard for people to sign up or sign a petition against fracking. This is the time to get more people involved to stop fracking now.
THANK-YOU Marcellus Shale Coalition – If for no other reason, people will check out the movie just to see what the fuss is all about.
http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/01/04/thank-you-marcellus-shale-coalition/
This film is clearly written for people who are not already immersed in the minutia of fracking and nat gas issues. It lays out the big issues in broad strokes so people totally new to the question can understand that it’s not the simple (false) choice between needed economic prosperity and unaffordable tree-hugging that the industry has spent millions to promote. By treating most of the civilians on various sides of the issue as primarily well-intentioned the film allows uninitiated viewers to examine their own preconceptions without feeling defensive. This is the beginning of a good dialog about true costs, and one the gas industry is rightfully fearful of. Thanks to Matt, et al. Properly-low key people handed out lit at the showing I attended.