« Amour | Main | The Impossible »
Friday
Dec282012

Promised Land

Promised Land has nothing but good intentions and I agree with what it has to say. It tries to expose the dangers of natural gas drilling by highlighting a small farming community, the inhabitants of which don’t have the slightest clue about what could possibly happen if these companies begin fracking, and a small group’s battle to stop the destruction of their community. After watching the terrific Oscar nominated documentary film, Gasland, the dangers of such a procedure are clearly evident, and even with all that on its side, Promised Land still doesn’t work, exaggerating nearly everything to the point of absurdity, including the lengths a company will go to begin the fracking process.

Steve Butler (Matt Damon) works for a natural gas company. He is working hard for a promotion and his latest job entails purchasing a local farming community’s land so they can begin drilling for gas. So, along with his partner, Sue (Frances McDormand), Steve sets off to do just that. However, before he’s even aware of it, an environmental group led by a sole activist named Dustin (John Krasinski) is in town and trying to change the people’s minds with horror stories of his own experiences with his community being overtaken by natural gas companies. It quickly becomes a showdown between the two factions, each fighting to convince the town that the other is trying to manipulate them.

Such a story is ripe for drama. The natural opposition between big business and small town, between those trying to make money through destruction and those trying to save their land despite their poverty, is gripping stuff. A small environmental group spreading truth and convincing the people to stand up against the bigwigs who think they can win any argument by throwing money at it is inspiring. But that’s not the direction Promised Land takes. Without ruining it, it instead approaches its topic from a “conspiracy theory” angle, with a late movie twist that is so ridiculous it somehow manages to over-demonize the corporation it has already made quite clear is up to no good anyway. Instead of feeling anger towards the characters in the movie, the ones that are aiming to harm the innocent townsfolk who don’t know any better, your anger is directed at the filmmakers for taking what should have been a simple, effective story and pushing it so far over the top as to be self-parody.

And that phrase isn’t used lightly in this context. In one scene, when Steve is sitting at a bar, the rest of the town now suspicious of what he’s trying to do, the film comes dangerously close to the clichéd “we don’t take kindly to strangers” bar scene that has been endlessly satirized at this point. In another, the townspeople stand in unison against the proposal to begin fracking in their town, similar to how soldiers in a war movie all step forward at the same time to fight the good fight. It’s like watching a movie come to life that was written by a first time screenwriter who wanted to tackle a serious issue, but knew nothing beyond the dramatic tropes he’s seen in television soap operas. All the more surprise comes when one finds out it was actually written by Damon and Krasinski, the former of who actually won an Academy Award for his Good Will Hunting screenplay in 1997 and should know how to avoid such typical Hollywood pratfalls.

The writing, put simply, lacks subtlety. It refuses to allow viewers to form their own opinions, instead forcing you to hop onboard with its heavy-handed approach or be left behind. Just when you think Promised Land can’t pile it on anymore, it somehow does and then continues to do so until the end. It’s as if the filmmakers made a bet with themselves to see if they could make each successive scene cheesier and more laughable than the last (and if that’s the case, bravo). The only thing saving the film from complete disaster is its surprising amount of humor, including its utilization of rack focus to create a number of visual gags that are downright inspired. The problem is that humor works counterproductive to the film’s serious goal, so when the drama does come into play, it feels out of place and exaggerated. If you’re really interested in the subject, watch the aforementioned Gasland, because it doesn’t matter if you’re for or against natural gas drilling, Promised Land reeks of manipulation.

Promised Land receives 2/5

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (1)

If only farmers rose up against big gas to protect land at the urging of 1 tree-hugger and a retired science teacher! Sadly, this politely earnest Capra-esqueness is out of sync: economic need and/or greed + large acreage drive farmers to organize themselves into co-ops so as to cut deals in hopes that windfalls will not be anecdotal. Property owners/renters living in small villages/on small tracts and 2nd-home-owners are the ones with little to gain and much to loose.

Much is made of an implausible plot twist at the end. Why would big gas bankroll a Noble (sic) (anyone with boots on the ground knows that a lone fracktivist with $s to spend on glossy 4-color flyers/lawn signs would raise eyebrows) when they have real-life phonies like EDF ready to carry their water (pun intended)? But something like this could come right out of a COENTELPRO handbook. The writers may be referencing the fact that Range Resources relies on military psyops specialists to manipulate local populations + isolate fracktivists as terrorists, that industry consultants urge gas co’s to study the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual.

Instead of taking the time to ask the art to stand on what is known + what is known about what is not, a preconceived dramatic contrivance is forced onto the material, and at its expense. Since the writers are talented, and since - I am sure - are sincere and earnest, this suggests that they were hurried. Some will say, and I guess that would include me, that it doesn't matter that the film is good, it simply matters that it is out there and getting people talking. But it has to be good enough to get people to the theatres. For those who get there, the film, sadly and ironically is as likely to direct debate down blind alleys as toward substance for those who manage to get there.

Disclaimer: this writer has been a grassroots organizer for 4 years on this issue.

January 3, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterunreceivedogma

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>