I've Seen the "Promised Land" . . . (And It Was Disappointing)

I saw the film four weeks ago, but I've been waiting for it to close in the Pittsburgh area. I can't discuss it without revealing its surprise plot twist, but there are rumors that fracking interests have been leaking the ending in an attempt to discourage attendance. We know they've been running pro-drilling ads and passing out industry leaflets at showings of the film.

The gas companies needn't have worried. People on both sides of the fracking debate will find some things to like and some not to like about Promised Land, but anyone expectating a serious discussion of the environmental and public health risks of fracking will be disappointed. But how could it be otherwise? It seems likely that co-stars and co-writers Matt Damon and John Krasinski and director Gus Van Sant were required to present a “balanced” view of fracking in order to secure studio financing. To do otherwise would have resulted in an unprofessional looking movie and might have damaged their careers. The resulting film is better described as anti-corporate than anti-fracking.

A few plot basics. Damon plays the role of a representative of “Global Power Solutions,” who, with his colleague Frances McDormand, is expected to offer as little money as possible to the poverty-stricken farmers of a Western Pennsylvania town in return for the natural gas drilling rights on their land. He's challenged by a high school science teacher (Hal Holbrook) who is familiar with fracking's risks, and by a friendly and persistent environmentalist (Krasinski), whose persuasiveness frustrates and confuses Damon.

There are some things to like about this film. It dramatizes the real economic plight of rural America. ("You wouldn't be here," one farmer says, "if we weren't poor.") Damon's drilling salesman is a borderline psychopath, willing to say almost anything to get signatures on contracts. The film nicely captures the contrast between the respectful and friendly way he treats these landowners and the demeaning way he talks about them behind their backs. I particularly liked the scene in the diner which a local politician approached Damon for a bribe. It was taken for granted that Global would pay him off, but Damon did his job, talking him into reducing his price by threatening to leave town. Finally, every community should have role model like Holbrook, who had done his homework, and who quietly and patiently stands up against group pressure.

On the other hand, some aspects of the film were totally unrealistic.

• The centerpiece of the plot is a referendum in which the entire community gets to vote on whether to allow fracking in the town. The truth in Western Pennsylvania is quite different. When communities have placed restrictions on fracking, it's been done by their elected officials. But the natural gas companies know it's far too risky to leave such decisions up to the people who are actually affected by them. So in Pennsylvania we have Act 13, which preempts all local zoning laws and substitutes a statewide standard endorsed by the drillers. This encroachment on grassroots democracy is currently being contested in the courts.

• How likely is it that an environmentalist would be allowed to give an anti-fracking demonstration—a rather inflammatory one, at that—to elementary school children?

• Then there's the scene in which a group of anti-fracking folks enter a bar, pick a fight with Damon, and beat him up. Those nasty environmentalists! They're such bullies! Was this a crude attempt to “balance” the film's message?

SPOILER ALERT!!!

• The final twist comes in two parts. Surprise #1. On the eve of the referendum, Global provides Damon with evidence that Krasinski is a fraud. He's lied about his farming background, and the “evidence” he's been using are photos of cows who died for reasons unrelated to drilling. This, of course, totally reverses the momentum leading up to the referendum. Surprise #2. He's not even a legitimate fraud. He's an employee of the drilling company who was planted in the town for the sole purpose of being exposed, for the impact this would have on the community's vote.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that any drilling company has ever done anything quite like that, and the implausibility of this scenario totally undermines the credibility of the film. Was that the intention, or are we to assume that it was just an inept attempt to malign the drilling companies?

Ironically, there is a sense in which the film is basically correct. Many of our best-known environmental and conservation organizations have been infiltrated by corporate interests whose purpose is to undermine their political influence, but the way it was done is more subtle than the plot of Promised Land. At one time, environmental groups were funded by their members and occasional wealthy supporters. But their leaders have discovered a new source of revenue—corporations that are among the world's worst polluters. Not only are these organizations funded by corporate donors, their Boards of Directors are dominated by corporate executives.

But these donations come at a heavy price. Have you heard about the deal between the Sierra Club and Clorox bleach? Between IKEA and the World Wildlife Foundation? Between BP and the Nature Conservancy? Environmental groups now engage in commodity certification—putting their green stamp of approval on environmentally-unfriendly products. More importantly, their leaders dismiss necessary solutions—such as the limit of 350 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere that is needed to stabilize the climate—as “unrealistic,” and endorse disastrous “compromise” agreements. It could be argued that the real purpose of these “environmental” groups is to deceive their members into accepting the slow but inevitable destruction of our environment.

But that's not as easy to dramatize as the plot twist at the end of Promised Land.