Promised Land (2012) ☆ ☆

Some movies that address controversial issues or situations tend to dance around the details of their stories, afraid of offending one side or the other.  When this happens those movies never quite pack the punch that they promise.  Such is the case, I fear, with Promised Land, which is Gus Van Sant’s movie about natural gas “fracking” in Pennsylvania.  The film is undeniably against the practice, and paints a company that is trying to persuade farmers to let them drill on their lands as an exploiter, yet the film seems afraid to address the central issues of the fracking practice, choosing instead to explore the motivations of the man and woman trying to buy those drilling rights.  Indeed, although concerns are raised about tracking by a wise old man (Hal Holbrook), the only physical evidence stated against it is a picture of dead cows.

Instead, the movie is a morality play with natural gas company employees Matt Damon and Frances McDormand cajoling and persuading the hick farmers to sell drilling rights to them at minimal expense to the company.  Resistance appears in the form of Holbrook, who is not a hick farmer but a science teacher, and John Krasinski, who suddenly appears in town as an environmentalist with his own agenda against the company.  They all banter back and forth without ever really addressing the scientific questions that need to be answered, all the time just trying to win over the people to their sides of the issue.

The script is by Krasinski and Damon, who also produced the movie.  It is certainly realistic enough, with some fairly pungent dialogue and very well-rounded characters, yet Promised Land remains unsatisfying.  Part of the problem is the situation itself; the controversy surrounding the practice of fracking is very real, with very high commercial (and social) benefit that may or may not balance its environmental impact.  There are no easy answers, and the movie doesn’t even try to discuss the question, only inferring that each town should decide for itself how to proceed.  If the movie wasn’t so slanted against fracking, that wouldn’t be a problem.  But it seems disingenuous to pretend to be fair and balanced and yet still paint the gas company as piratical and its ultimate aim as destructive (to both the town itself and the ground beneath it).  Take a stand regarding the practice, not just this fictional company!

This is also a film that, while I enjoyed watching it, has lessened significantly in my view as I have considered it further.  Sometimes that happens.  Movies can entertain with good acting and interesting relationships while, as in this case, not saying much of anything about their central situation.  So, what was going to be a positive review yesterday is now less glowing.  ☆ ☆.  14 January 2013.

 

Leave a Reply