See the highly anticipated sequel before its wide premiere!
In four screenings across Pennsylvania, director Josh Fox "delves even deeper into an industry and practice that poses a threat to not only our health and environment, but our democracy itself. The film follows some of GASLAND's most beloved stories and investigates a new level of contamination due to fracking, the contamination of our democracy. Before the HBO premiere, before anyone gets to see this film, we are bringing it on the road directly to the grassroots."
The Sierra Club is co-sponsoring screenings in PA.
All screenings followed by Q & A with Josh Fox. Click on the links for more information and to RSVP.
Greater Philadelphia Region
New Jersey State Museum - Trenton, NJ Sat, Jun 15 - 4:00 p.m.Sat, Jun 15 - 7:00 p.m. Bethlehem Broughal Middle School Mon, Jun 17 - 6:30 p.m. Camp Hill Digi Plex Cinema Center Tues, Jun 18 - 7:00 p.m.
Williamsport
Community Arts Center Wed, Jun 19 - 7:00 p.m.
Pittsburgh
Soliders & Sailors Memorial Hall Thurs, Jun 20 - 7:00 p.m. |
www.dangersoffracking.com is a good website to check out. It gives a brief overview of hydro fracking
ReplyDeleteOr, you could talk to my Hydro-geologist wife, who will be cleaning this mess up in twenty years. Or, you could talk to my Mining Engineer father, who lives in the heart of Frack country, Pa, and refuses to sell the mineral rights under our farm.
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting to see the dangersoffracking.com site and then see the energyfromshale.org site and the numerous corporate sponsors supporting that site. This stuff makes me so angry. There are so many alternatives that we are not exploring.
ReplyDelete1. Which rhetorical appeal was most prevalent in this film? Why do you think he chose to use this appeal above the others? What examples from the film best exemplified his use of that appeal? Did it work?
ReplyDelete2. Do you think this film is propaganda? How? Why? What evidence can you use to support your claim?
3. What mode do you think the filmmaker used?
4. What was the function of the film? What does the filmmaker want us to think, feel, do after viewing his film? Do you think, feel or want to do those things? Why or why not?
5. What is the filmmaker saying about technology? Humanity? Government? Nature? What cinematic techniques did he use to lead us in that direction?
Wes, I’m interested to hear about the claims your wife refuted, but the film played them up. Shed some light on us
The thing my wife had the biggest issue with, as far as the film-maker's presentation, was the scene where he is at the well-site and is critiquing the waste-water pit and the other parts of the process. Her complaint was that he clearly had no idea what he was talking about: the pits are designed NOT to let the water seep into the ground, like he suggested it would; the flags, which he mocks as celebrating the opening of another dump, are there in an effort to keep wildlife away from the pit; the process of evaporation actually neutralizes many of the compounds (especially hydrocarbons -- they break down in the sunlight). He did not do his homework and was leading his viewers to think that the best-practice, on-site remediation systems he was showing were somehow lazy or negligent, or worse -- purposefully damaging to the environment. At other times, she was actually shouting at the television "Don't do that! It'll kill you, you idiot!" when people were sniffing substances, climbing up on recovery tanks, or lighting faucets on fire. She was sorry that there was no discussion of HOW the drilling could be effecting people's water (the fracking wells are significantly deeper than people's water wells -- the industry says that there can be no connection between the areas fractured and the drinking-water aquifers). She refutes industry claims and can list at least three ways the gas and waste-water can migrate into people's wells, but the issue was not investigated beyond "They drilled; our well went bad". Many of the chemicals listed were carcinogenic, others are innocuous. The list goes on; this is what comes with living with an environmental scientist.
DeleteAnyway.
I think the filmmaker wants us to realize that there exists a significant threat to all of us which is dramatically impacting a few of us, and is being perpetrated on us by people who either bury the story, censor the story, or, through deep pockets and political connections, have framed the story in such a way that many Americans, if they are aware of the issue at all, look at the short-term gains and see a godsend. This film is presented as a grass-roots effort of of victims and potential victims to expose the evil machinations of big business. It comes complete with banjo-playing advocate and rural, plain-folk sensibilities. I like it and think it does a good job of starting the conversation. I'll just be careful not to watch the second movie with my wife in the room.
While watching this documentary, the thing that drew me in were his appeals. I compared it right away to 'Loose Change' due to his voice and his claims. I admired how he started with a logos appeal, moving into ethos and finishing with pathos. I think it was most powerful that way, but I do not know how I felt at the end. I definitely felt I was being persuaded and that a problem existed but no sense to take action as he requested. What did stand out the most to me was when he stated that we are all citizens, this is our problem happening in my backyard, which is your back yard. Making a connection from the problem that these people faced, to him and then later to us, was very effective and appealing at least to me.
ReplyDeleteThe first time that I saw this film was in my intro Geology course, "The Dynamic Earth." I am a Geoscience major at F&M and water has been something that always interested me because I live right on the Chesapeake Bay. Watching the film a second time allowed me to focus on some of the film techniques used to tell this story. I would agree with Shaniqua 100% that this film strategically used logos, then ethos, and then pathos. His arguments in the film felt so logical that it frustrated me that there are people out there that are ignoring or can not see the amount of harm fracking has done. I appreciated the use of ethos towards the end of the film, because by that time I was begging for someone official to confirm what we had just seen. I think that ending with the pathos that, "this is all our problem," proved most powerful to be left until the end because by this time the viewer is upset and whats to take action.
ReplyDeleteI think that the filmmaker is trying to show that the Government is implementing new technologies too quickly, by not give scientist enough time to research the effect on people and our environment. The cinematic techniques that lead me to this thought were his contrasting scenes between untouched nature and the unattended bulldozed fields filled with gas rigs.
Also, Thanks Tanya for showing me those two sites. They take quite a different approach to talking about natural gas.
All of your comments are providing such an interesting discourse. My own pathos and the narrator's ethos easily get in the way of my ability to critically evaluate a film like this. I found it so persuasive, based largely on the sincerity of the filmmaker. He didn't set out to do an expose but to find out what was going on, and we got to experience his growing awareness, shock and dismay every step of the way. He stumbled upon the things he was learning; they were kind of plopped in his lap, like the jar of brownish-yellow liquid he was asked to evaluate. The narration is calm and comprehensive (which does not preclude a bias), and I found it very convincing. The Participatory Mode was effective in this film. Folks turning to him for help brought a special poignancy to the film (spell that p-a-t-h-o-s). At the end of the film, he refers to the "friends" he made across the country. (It felt different from the camaraderie Michael Moore exhibits, which always feels more like an extension of his showmanship.) I think Josh could not provide a call to action at the end because HE wasn't sure what to do next.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the film's poetic feel, especially in the contrast between the natural world (snowstorm seen through the windshield, pastoral shots of the wooded countryside) and the starkly barren industrial drilling sites.
This film did not feel like propaganda, at least not overtly so. So I went through our checklist. I believe Courtney pointed out the fear it raised - check one. It also seeks acceptance of a particular idea and makes the same point repeatedly. The opposition would say it ignores the complexities of reality and offers simple readings of history. And self-interest? Yep, the drilling companies wanted to drill on Josh's land. So, gee, it sure does meet several of the criteria. Can a documentary be persuasive without utilizing at least some of these tactics? It would be an interesting exercise to find one that is free of all propaganda elements.
Speaking of propaganda, I went to America's Natural Gas Alliance site to read their rebuttal of the film (www.anga.us/critical-issues/the-truth-about-gasland). It calls the film's claims "egregious" and aims to "set the record straight in a fact-based way." Ouch.
Gasland was convincing and even mesmerizing. Josh is a likable and sincere person. Yet it is so important to step away from an emotional response and look for the other truths that are out there. We tend to seek out like-minded people/documentarians, having already decided we're going to like what they have to say. It's the preaching-to-the-choir syndrome, and we're all robed up, ready to sing along. Maybe there's another song out there that could provide harmony, rather than discord. Testimony from experts who do not have a political agenda (like Wes's wife) can introduce scientific and historical fact into the mix and help emotional folks like me settle down and listen to the bigger truths of an issue.
Cathy, I agree with your statement about the filmmaker stumbling upon information and not having a distinct direction at the on-set of his investigation. I think witnessing his discovery and even his lack of information and intentions on film was endearing and created a sort of subtle character arc for him; his participatory role made him into a sort of character that the audience felt some sort of connection with. However, echoing Sophia, I was eventually eager for someone who KNEW what was going on to teach me something and (showing my own bias) validate all of these things the filmmaker was saying and showing. I think he ultimately hurt his Ethos in this film; I think it needed to be implemented earlier and more directly. Following each personal discovery, interview, or water test with some sort of concrete fact would have made this film a strong statement rather than an opinionated production with a shaky informational foundation (as it could easily appear to someone who is on the other side of the argument). Conversely, I think Pathos played a huge role in this film and I think it was necessary. It's easy to shrug off pollution in the name of acquiring resources at times, especially when we all drive around in cars and have our household trash dumped into landfills. However, it's much more difficult to ignore when we see everyday people like ourselves poisoned by the water pouring from their kitchen faucet. Our emotions towards these people drove many of us to grow angry, which can inspire awareness and action, ultimately serving the filmmaker's purpose.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to see Gasland 2 and to do some independent research on the subject, as I have heard some disparaging remarks from other people about this film. I was told that some of the water he set on fire wasn't affected by the fracing and that some of the families' water supplies had been polluted before the drilling occurred. These are interesting implications, so I would like to look into them further. Anyone heard anything else like this?