Image: Focus Features
Unlike the documentary Gasland, the Matt Damon/Jon Krasinski "fracking movie" Promised Land is a Hollywood drama, with a plot twist that’s pretty shocking and not meant to be believable. So, be charitable when it comes to holding it to the truth.
The movie is really about the trade-offs of living in a rural area vs. a city—small towns have a lot of beauty but it's tougher to make a living—and what the possibility of a major new industrial development could do to the people living in a rural area. What makes it about resource extraction is that the people own the land and they really have to make that choice for themselves, balancing lining their pockets against development risks, rather than having their elected representatives dispassionately analyze the decision. Even when the town does decide to make a collective decision on development, they do it with some basketball-gym direct democracy, not a council meeting.
I found it remarkable that no actual resource extraction activities were depicted, just some beautiful and unspoiled rural lands (and a rural bar to die for!) This reinforces the idea that industrial development is the issue, rather than shale gas development per se.
How misleading was the movie about shale gas risks? Laughably so in one memorable scene depicting a table-top model of a farm going up in flames because of the fracking chemicals and methane escaping on the land. The only damage figuring prominently in the film was some photos of dead cows on a farm (with no drilling rigs or other equipment in sight). It was implied that this was a major risk of shale gas development. Certainly there are anecdotes about livestock being distressed due to exposure to methane or other chemicals used in the development process. But this effect seems overhyped, and it's an odd choice given the many better-supported alleged risks.
Finally, how did the movie do as a risk communications tool? Examining those who delivered the messages first, most of the characters were caricatures, especially Matt Damon’s, as a supposedly high powered, hugely successful leasing agent who seems at a loss to defend against any couterarguments; the town councilman who just wants a bribe, and nearly all the local people, who see only the glitter of gold or the despoliation of their land, but nothing in between. Even the local Master Yoda (played by Hal Holbrook) who is the only one in town to see the risks of development, implicitly delivers a blow to local common sense, because he's really an outsider: an MIT grad and former Boeing engineer.
As for the message itself, there are some balancing moments. On the industry side, the (correct) idea that natural gas is a lot cleaner than coal comes out clearly and the economic arguments are made strongly and fairly (although avoiding what happens post-boom town). But they come with the assertion of zero risks. Holbrook’s recounting of the risks is pretty fair in decrying the claim of zero risk, but he fails to provide a way the locals can make reasoned and better trade-offs. Even the environmentalist from out of town (Krasinski) comes in for some wisecracks from the locals, although he wins them over in record time!
Do yourself a favor and give this movie a pass if your sympathies lie with sustainable development.
