For his next escape

Matt Damon’s troubled anti-frack film

  • Last Updated: 12:23 AM, September 26, 2012
  • Posted: 10:24 PM, September 25, 2012

 

Matt Damon and John Krasinski ran into a big problem while making their film “Promised Land”; how they solved it tells us a lot about Hollywood.

Some time ago, the two actors decided to make a movie about fracking — a method of getting once-inaccessible oil and gas out of the ground that has become the bête noire of many environmentalists.

The two wrote a screenplay they said was about “American identity . . . and what defines us as a country.”

It was the usual Hollywood script. We all know the . . . drill: Damon’s character works for an “evil” oil company. He comes to small-town America and sells locals a dangerous bill of goods.


 

Then he encounters two problems — his corporate heart is melted by an attractive local woman and Krasinki’s character, an environmentalist, reveals the oil company plan to exploit, pollute and leave.

Shocked townspeople feel betrayed. Damon is conflicted — will he go with the company and his career, or with his heart and ride back into town in his white SUV, denounce the oil company and save the day?

The filmmakers were so pleased with the script that they announced it would be promoted as a potential Oscar winner.

But then came trouble.

I broke the news that “Promised Land” was about fracking and now I can reveal that the script’s seen some very hasty rewriting because of real-world evidence that anti-fracking activists may be the true villains.

In courtroom after courtroom, it has been proved that anti-fracking activists have been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation.

There was Dimock, Pa. — the likely inspiration for “Promised Land,” which is also set in Pennsylvania. Dimock featured in countless news reports, with Hollywood celebrities even bringing water to 11 families who claimed fracking had destroyed their water and their lives.

But while “Promised Land” was in production, the story of Dimock collapsed. The state investigated and its scientists found nothing wrong. So the 11 families insisted EPA scientists investigate. They did — and much to the dismay of the environmental movement found the water was not contaminated.

There was Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers in Texas, a group that produced a frightening video of a flaming house water pipe and claimed a gas company had polluted the water. But a judge just found that the tape was an outright fraud — Wolf Eagle connected the house gas pipe to a hose and lit the water.

Other “pollution” cases collapsed in Wyoming and Colorado. Even Josh Fox, who with his Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland” first raised concerns about flammable water, has had to admit he withheld evidence that fracking was not responsible.

These frauds and misrepresentations created huge problems for the Damon/Krasinski script about “what defines us as a country.”

So, according to sources close to the movie, they’ve come up with a solution — suggest that anti-fracking fraudsters are really secret agents employed by the fossil-fuel industry to discredit the environmental movement.

In the revised script, Damon exposes Krasinski as a fraud — only to realize that Krasinski’s character is working deep undercover for the oil industry to smear fracking opponents.

Hollywood is worried about declining theater audiences; it’s blaming the Internet and the recession. But the real problem might be closer to home.

Damon and Krasinski said they were making a movie that “defines us as a country” but then shoehorned ideology into a script — and when real-world events became a problem, they shoehorned in more ideology.

The simple truth about fracking is that much of the opposition is being driven by proven liars, charlatans and fraudsters — some driven by zealotry, others by hunger to win a big lawsuit.

There is a war going on in parts of America between impoverished locals and urban elites. These elites are using fraud, exaggeration and celebrity star power to stop rural communities from prospering through gas drilling.

Sounds like a great setting for a movie. Unfortunately for America, it’s not one Hollywood is going to make anytime soon.

Phelim McAleer is a journalist and the director of “FrackNation,” a documentary about fracking.

Views: 1711

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Foreign countries are prohibited by law from making campaign contributions to US candidates.  Of course they can always fund a movie as there is no law which prohibits that.  Of course if they were to find a way around campaign finance laws they could seek to influence energy policy and American election outcomes in a more direct manner.  Welcome to the new reality of Citizen's United.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11305-never-mind-super-pacs-how-b...

There is a typo the fraud film statement "Wolf Eagle connected the house gas pipe to a hose and lit the water." HOUSE gas pipe should read WATER WELL VENT pipe.

http://www.texassharon.com/2012/09/27/fracknations-phelim-mcaleer-d...

I lived in Norco LA for 8 years and moved to Arlington TX where we have 60 padsites drilling for natural gas in urban areas sometimes as close as 300 feet to people. I keep up with how the industry could make things safer for those near drilling like using electric rigs, keeping the silica dust sand from flying off of the padsite and into the neighborhoods, using scrubbers on the open hatch flowback tanks and then of course using Green Completion equipment to not waste the methane when getting the well in production.

It is not a typo but an intentional libelous lie intended to create outrage in the fracking apologist crowd. Phelim knows he lied about that and a number of other things in that fake "op-ed." The NY Post, also knows because I wrote them and sent links to prove it. But, a survey found the NY Post the least credible media outlet so consider the source. It's like the National Enquirer only worse. At least the Enquirer gets it right occasionally. 

Just another example of Hollywood injecting the vapid minds of media watchers generally and TMZ, MTV and People magazine, etc., in particular. Have we, as a nation, lost all sense of critical thinking?? Must be; otherwise these childlike storytellers could not prosper.

WTH??  "Arab oil money" funds anti-frack movie??

Here is today's NY Post OpEd again by McAleer (who has wanted to make Frack Nation, a pro-frac movie)

However, in his first NY Post Op Phelim said it would "

"sources close to the movie, they’ve come up with a solution and be pro-frac because it would, in his words,  "suggest that anti-fracking fraudsters are really secret agents employed by the fossil-fuel industry to discredit the environmental movement."

When this thread started we thought it could somehow be a pro-science movie, discrediting the hucksters on both sides. Now, it seems clear it's anti-fracking and may have more to do with international oil politics than science.

Check out his oped today, clearly this film is anti-fracing and he claims its being finance with "Arab oil money" . That would not surprise me and I've always thought this movie would be anti-fracking.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/frack_film_flim...

HANG:

Do you know much about The New York Post?  Do you know who owns it?  Is it a legit paper or is it a b.s. tabloid?

And, y'know, do you know how Phelim makes his money, i.e., do you think he's being completely objective (considering where his income is coming from and how he "might" be motivated to shave points so as to help his own wallet)?

Conflict of interest?

HANG, didn't you say you used to be a media flack or so such something?

Seems to me that folks need to vet all sides before jumping on a bandwagon.

Hey, in all honesty, it's all about making money, right?  Who isn't out to make money per the spin that fits their own needs?

In other words, if you didn't have a dog with NG wells, would you even be concerned about any of this stuff?

Aren't we all looking out for ourselves and not what the truth is or what is best for whatever community?

I mean, who agrees to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket so as to do the right thing and help some non-landowner strangers (with no royalty NG mineral rights) we don't even know?

So, y'know, Is there really any objective "moral" high ground, or is everyone just a self-serving hypocrite looking out for "number one"?  

I think that's the place most Americans find themselves in - most Americans will follow the science, not the politics. But, who should you trust?  Aubrey? Yoko Ono?  Do you trust the scientist paid by Chesapeake or paid by the Sierra Club? Will either jeopardize their position? We've seen the back and forth at Cornell and U Texas.

Who outside the field can understand this complex, and fairly new science? IMO, Neither scientist is a better, more honest human being than the other. We lack people who understand the science and can report it for the rest of us.

It's a perfect situation for hacks from either side to exploit the ignorance on both sides - we do not have reporters who understand any of this well enough to report fast changing facts.

My own issue with all of this is that I want to follow the best science. but, i don't understand enough to evaluate it and so far no group has come along that is not totally funded by one side or the other. I fear science will lose to politics.

But, me a media flack?? You may be thinking that back a quarter century ago I worked in the state legislature. Lobbying is lobbying. I never noticed much difference between any of the lobby from business or teachers or doctors. All of their lobbyists were about the same. Those are the folks who actually write much of our laws. It is far from a perfect or even a "good system" of governance. Yet, it's better than any other I know of. I heard that when I was a kid and it's still true.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service