Journalist Phelim McAleer faces bogus lawsuits, gun threats and intimidation questioning environmentalists and anti-fracking activists in his search for the truth.Journalist Phelim McAleer faces bogus lawsuits, gun threats and intimidation questioning environmentalists and anti-fracking activists in his search for the truth.Journalist Phelim McAleer faces bogus lawsuits, gun threats and intimidation questioning environmentalists and anti-fracking activists in his search for the truth.
Mark Ruffalo
- Self
- (archive footage)
George W. Bush
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Katie Couric
- Self
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
Phelim McAleer in "FrackNation" provides a well researched, thorough, entertaining, and scientific rebuttal to the emotional pleas provided in Josh Fox's "GasLand."
Opponents of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) would have us believe that the human push-and-pull of fueling civilization versus conserving the biosphere is a left-versus-right or climate change supporter versus denier phenomenon; in fact it is a conflict of science versus emotion. This is the genius of "GasLand": we want to get emotionally angry over a cause. "FrackNation," however, tosses some ice onto those smoldering embers with cold facts.
Nothing is more damaging to the platform of "GasLand" supporters than Fox's multiple refusals to answer pointed questions from McAleer:
McAleer: "Isn't it true that decades before fracking started, that there was methane in the water there?" (regarding the flammable tap water)
Fox: "Can you identify yourself?"
McAleer: "My name is Philem McAleer."
Fox: "Okay, where are you from?"
McAleer: "I'm a journalist."
Fox: "Journalist from where?"
McAleer: "From Ireland."
Fox: "From Ireland?"
McAleer: "Yes. Isn't it true..."
Fox: "You're concerned about the fracking going on in Ireland?"
McAleer: "No, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the documentary."
Fox: "You're a journalist for what paper?"
On the surface, a cause's champion refusing to answer the opposition is unsettling but it goes further; Fox's thinly veiled attempts to impugn the credentials of McAleer--even his nationality--and his absolute refusal to respond to challenges to "GasLand's" documentary authenticity leave the watcher mentally ticking off points in McAleer's column. But there's more.
At another point, Fox repeatedly refuses to engage MacAleer in conversation at an event held at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. Eventually McAleer and his director are ejected from the event... scientific dialog indeed.
Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, McAleer obtains video from the US Government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the largest environmental regulatory body in the world. In this video, the Sautner family--the champions of "GasLand"--were presented with the results of an EPA sampling of their well water, demonstrating that the well water was not contaminated. The Sautners react with emotion: the wife storms out, the husband demanding the results are false, and the EPA representative stating "we found no contaminants."
Scientific and methodical thinking people of the entire political spectrum are forced by this film to consider the evidence of the hydraulic fracturing issue and see the opponents reacting with emotional pleas and the supporters providing clear and well documented science.
--oversoul
Opponents of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking) would have us believe that the human push-and-pull of fueling civilization versus conserving the biosphere is a left-versus-right or climate change supporter versus denier phenomenon; in fact it is a conflict of science versus emotion. This is the genius of "GasLand": we want to get emotionally angry over a cause. "FrackNation," however, tosses some ice onto those smoldering embers with cold facts.
Nothing is more damaging to the platform of "GasLand" supporters than Fox's multiple refusals to answer pointed questions from McAleer:
McAleer: "Isn't it true that decades before fracking started, that there was methane in the water there?" (regarding the flammable tap water)
Fox: "Can you identify yourself?"
McAleer: "My name is Philem McAleer."
Fox: "Okay, where are you from?"
McAleer: "I'm a journalist."
Fox: "Journalist from where?"
McAleer: "From Ireland."
Fox: "From Ireland?"
McAleer: "Yes. Isn't it true..."
Fox: "You're concerned about the fracking going on in Ireland?"
McAleer: "No, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the documentary."
Fox: "You're a journalist for what paper?"
On the surface, a cause's champion refusing to answer the opposition is unsettling but it goes further; Fox's thinly veiled attempts to impugn the credentials of McAleer--even his nationality--and his absolute refusal to respond to challenges to "GasLand's" documentary authenticity leave the watcher mentally ticking off points in McAleer's column. But there's more.
At another point, Fox repeatedly refuses to engage MacAleer in conversation at an event held at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles. Eventually McAleer and his director are ejected from the event... scientific dialog indeed.
Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, McAleer obtains video from the US Government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the largest environmental regulatory body in the world. In this video, the Sautner family--the champions of "GasLand"--were presented with the results of an EPA sampling of their well water, demonstrating that the well water was not contaminated. The Sautners react with emotion: the wife storms out, the husband demanding the results are false, and the EPA representative stating "we found no contaminants."
Scientific and methodical thinking people of the entire political spectrum are forced by this film to consider the evidence of the hydraulic fracturing issue and see the opponents reacting with emotional pleas and the supporters providing clear and well documented science.
--oversoul
It was nice to hear the other side of the story. I'm sick of the 1% (actors and rich politicians) manipulating our information to fit their agendas. There are too many groups in our country who wish to censor opposition rather than have a calm debate over the facts. Why wouldn't you welcome investigations by multiple source to prove your point? America needs more debate and information free of censorship. This documentary was well produced. It really showed how we in America can be managed by a biased media. Actors who are either uninformed or have their own agenda push questionable information. We need to question the information put before us rather than viciously supporting it and tearing down opposition. This film does exactly what we all need to do. When presented with information first ask if it's true. Seek out other sources that support or disprove the information. To be clear, I'm not saying I believe this documentary 100%. Only that it's nice to hear another point of view.
FrackNation, in terms of documentary filmmaking, is a competent exercise in trying to get to the bottom of an issue that needs to be dissected. I found it a more entertaining and less vindictive watch than Josh Fox's Gasland, the anti-fracking documentary that is heavily examined and critiqued in this film. I firmly believe in terms of approach and direction that if you were to show the same audience both Gasland and FrackNation back-to-back, the consensus would be that FrackNation's information is more accessible and caters more to the public, whereas Gasland caters to the more science-minded individual. Now which approach and direction leads to the correct distribution of facts I'm still trying to figure out.
I guess I should begin by saying that fracking (formerly known as "hydraulic fracturing") is the process in which a large machine drills into the ground from a well - roughly a mile deep - straight down, before it turns sideways and exhibits hard pressure, extracting natural gas from shale and sending it back up through the well.
The film stars Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist whose "freelance" title better not make you laugh. McAleer is a stand-up guy, a strong interviewer, and a serious-minded writer, and was inspired to make this film when his question about the water supply in Dimmock, Pennsylvania (the main town of focus in Gasland) is casually dismissed when asked to Josh Fox. McAleer makes an effort to visit the residents of Dimmock, Pennsylvania, who Fox depicted to be suffering from the effects of fracking considerably. In this film, we saw pro-fracking gatherings in the street and learn that after Fox's film was released the town of Dimmock received much help they didn't really need since the effects of fracking were not harming them. They were actually booning their economy and helping farmers, the long, and sadly-dying, chain of Americans.
Gasland's tagline was "Can you set your water on fire?," and featured several clips of Fox and the locals lighting their tapwater on fire. All of them claimed it was a direct result of fracking in the area, and that the numerous chemicals the process utilized had found their way in the water supply and contaminated it with things like benzine and methane. McAleer's research and interviews with locals reveal that methane in the water supply has existed long before fracking even began, and the process has been around for many, many years to begin with, with no reports of it harming the water supply (it drills a mile past it, even).
Not to mention, in Gasland, fracking is depicted in the light that leads one to believe it is highly unregulated, which leads to the conclusion that this is why people are lighting their tapwater on fire. Quite the contrary. The film (and research on my part) shows the pile of paperwork that must be done before the drilling process can commence. It is a very regulated procedure. Not long ago, my state Illinois approved fracking but, as the state is known to do, passed strict regulations - the strictest of all the states that allow fracking to be conducted.
FrackNation does a solid job of getting the facts right, from what research can tell me. The thing I appreciate about McAleer as a filmmaker and as a documentary personality is that he doesn't seem to enter the film with the preconceived notion to dismantle the institution and the process of anti-fracking protests or vice-versa. He wants answers, and as a journalist, he goes about them the right way. He stages formal interviews, he asks the tough question, and he holds a tough magnifying glass to opposition, even when the opposition tries to recoil and stay hidden. The examination process alone makes this a pretty recommendable viewing.
The film was funded on donations from the crowd-sourcing website Kickstarter, which allows people to post information about potential-products and asking anyone on the web who believes in the product (whether it be a film, a documentary, a piece of technology, a novel, etc) to send a donation of whatever amount they see fit.
So, the real question is what do I think of Gasland after seeing the film? I still find it relative in some regards because it's a film that shows a perspective and goes about it in a mature and sensible way. However, examination at even a basic level makes it a highly questionable piece of work as of now.
When I assign the accursed (and soon to be scrapped) star rating to films, especially documentaries, I consider content, direction, approach, presentation, obvious bias, the personality of the filmmaker at hand, and stylistic attributes (if applicable). FrackNation succeeds on most levels to a certain degree and earns a recommendation. An in-depth examination and a fact-checker I am not. It does the job of giving the viewer a strong ground on which reputable points are made in the favor of the pro-fracking side. It successfully made me consider on a deeper level the process of hydraulic fracturing and encouraged me to research outside of three documentaries. That has to mean something, right? Starring: Phelim McAleer. Directed by: Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, and Magdalena Segieda.
I guess I should begin by saying that fracking (formerly known as "hydraulic fracturing") is the process in which a large machine drills into the ground from a well - roughly a mile deep - straight down, before it turns sideways and exhibits hard pressure, extracting natural gas from shale and sending it back up through the well.
The film stars Phelim McAleer, an investigative journalist whose "freelance" title better not make you laugh. McAleer is a stand-up guy, a strong interviewer, and a serious-minded writer, and was inspired to make this film when his question about the water supply in Dimmock, Pennsylvania (the main town of focus in Gasland) is casually dismissed when asked to Josh Fox. McAleer makes an effort to visit the residents of Dimmock, Pennsylvania, who Fox depicted to be suffering from the effects of fracking considerably. In this film, we saw pro-fracking gatherings in the street and learn that after Fox's film was released the town of Dimmock received much help they didn't really need since the effects of fracking were not harming them. They were actually booning their economy and helping farmers, the long, and sadly-dying, chain of Americans.
Gasland's tagline was "Can you set your water on fire?," and featured several clips of Fox and the locals lighting their tapwater on fire. All of them claimed it was a direct result of fracking in the area, and that the numerous chemicals the process utilized had found their way in the water supply and contaminated it with things like benzine and methane. McAleer's research and interviews with locals reveal that methane in the water supply has existed long before fracking even began, and the process has been around for many, many years to begin with, with no reports of it harming the water supply (it drills a mile past it, even).
Not to mention, in Gasland, fracking is depicted in the light that leads one to believe it is highly unregulated, which leads to the conclusion that this is why people are lighting their tapwater on fire. Quite the contrary. The film (and research on my part) shows the pile of paperwork that must be done before the drilling process can commence. It is a very regulated procedure. Not long ago, my state Illinois approved fracking but, as the state is known to do, passed strict regulations - the strictest of all the states that allow fracking to be conducted.
FrackNation does a solid job of getting the facts right, from what research can tell me. The thing I appreciate about McAleer as a filmmaker and as a documentary personality is that he doesn't seem to enter the film with the preconceived notion to dismantle the institution and the process of anti-fracking protests or vice-versa. He wants answers, and as a journalist, he goes about them the right way. He stages formal interviews, he asks the tough question, and he holds a tough magnifying glass to opposition, even when the opposition tries to recoil and stay hidden. The examination process alone makes this a pretty recommendable viewing.
The film was funded on donations from the crowd-sourcing website Kickstarter, which allows people to post information about potential-products and asking anyone on the web who believes in the product (whether it be a film, a documentary, a piece of technology, a novel, etc) to send a donation of whatever amount they see fit.
So, the real question is what do I think of Gasland after seeing the film? I still find it relative in some regards because it's a film that shows a perspective and goes about it in a mature and sensible way. However, examination at even a basic level makes it a highly questionable piece of work as of now.
When I assign the accursed (and soon to be scrapped) star rating to films, especially documentaries, I consider content, direction, approach, presentation, obvious bias, the personality of the filmmaker at hand, and stylistic attributes (if applicable). FrackNation succeeds on most levels to a certain degree and earns a recommendation. An in-depth examination and a fact-checker I am not. It does the job of giving the viewer a strong ground on which reputable points are made in the favor of the pro-fracking side. It successfully made me consider on a deeper level the process of hydraulic fracturing and encouraged me to research outside of three documentaries. That has to mean something, right? Starring: Phelim McAleer. Directed by: Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, and Magdalena Segieda.
When I happened across this movie 20 minutes into it, I thought, "How clever of Big Energy, hiring this humble filmmaker to create pro-fracking propaganda for them." But the longer I watched, the clearer it became to me that McAleer wasn't advocating fracking, just pursuing facts and not pushing anything. I came away with a realization that yeah! there really is another side to the "conventional wisdom." I'm guessing the majority of people who have even heard of fracking are against it because of what they've been fed by "green" types helped by media that are more lazy than biased. I hope McAleer's message will somehow reach people whose attitude is, "Don't confuse me with facts."
10mikehosk
GREAT DOCUMENTARY !! Phelim's unassuming interview style belies a tenacious knack for getting to the truth, seeing his subjects melt down is worth it alone. The movie makes a clear case for the benefits of fracking including how safe it is. With the positives massively outweighing the negatives you have to wonder why our Gov't and the enviros (AKA the Left) fight it so hard to destroy it ?? A MUST SEE !! The film showcases how fracking is accomplished and the small ecological footprint it leaves. Most of all it contradicts Big Media's attempts to destroy fracking. The film"Gasland" is an attempt at pure propaganda. The director, Josh Fox, is confronted a number of times by Fracknation's director, Phelim McAleer, and refuses to answer questions.
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatures GasLand (2010)
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $150,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 17 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
