Thursday, October 7, 2010

Journal Entry 4, Hydraulic Fracturing

As November approaches voting is on everybodys mind. One of the issues that will be seen on New York’s ballots is about fracking. Fracking (which is a shortened version of the term Hydraulic Fracturing) is defined as: “ a process that results in the creation of fractures in rocks, the goal of which is to increase the output of a well.” While this definition does not infer any negativity, fracking is actually quite destructive. Recently, fracking has been the main source of the intermingling of gasoline and our drinking and bathing water. As this issue was only brought to my attention last night, I felt it necessary to research the dilemma through multiple perspectives.

The instigator of the conversation was the documentary entitled, “Gasland.” This documentary provides necessary information about fracking, and the disillusionment of the gasoline companies controlling it. The trailer for “Gasland” ends with a man setting fire to his sink, implying that it is heavily contaminated with gasoline. The disturbing content of the documentary aside, to what extent is a documentary a form of news, as opposed to a form of filmmaking? This continuously evolving form of filmmaking provided me with the acknowledgement of fracking for the very first time. It is compiled with interviews and statistics, and its primary aim is to inform the public, all paying a close resemblance to the news articles we are accustom to. Which brings me to another question: does documentary filmmaking count as news, or is it rather the aim of the documentary film? Furthermore, can documentary films be as varied as the comparison between a newspaper and a magazine? The only striking difference is in that a film takes much longer to create than a news article, ultimately devaluing its necessary news worthy component. Nonetheless, it is visual, informative, and perhaps just provides a different spin on news sourcing.

The Vanity Fair article titled “A Colossal Fracking Mess” is embedded with a lot of the same necessary information “Gasland” provides. The article, obviously is lacking the strong visual component conveyed in the documentary, and while Gasland’s director, Josh Fox travels across the country gathering worthy material Vanity Fair writer Christopher Bateman focuses on one town effected by fracking: Damascus, PA. Bateman describes the ramifications in grave detail: The Sautners could feel the earth beneath their home shake whenever the well was fracked. Within a month, their water had turned brown. It was so corrosive that it scarred dishes in their dishwasher and stained their laundry.” Does this serve as a better description than an image, or do the two mediums just manifest this type of reporting differently? Vanity Fair, perhaps in slight competition with the documentary, links a dramatic video about fracking to Bateman’s article.

In the CNN article, entitled “Fracking yields fuel, fear in the Northeast” by Sarah Hoye takes yet another approach on the Fracking dilemma. The article starts with a Dimock PA native, Billy Ely. “Leaning over the contraption, he flicked his yellow lighter over the pipe, and a blue flame appeared. ‘I knew it [water] went bad because we could light it,’” Billy’s actions are the same as the ones done at the end of the trailer, (they may be the same person) except they are put into words. While there is no video of him doing this there are a total of seven images placed above the web article. These images show the Dimock landscape, its residents and animals. There is nothing shocking about the images, but each caption fills that void. Each caption describes how the people are places in the images are associated with fracking one way or another. Do images and video in the news aim to shock, or to inform? Or is it that these two intentions work cohesively to inform the public?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/02/fracking/index.html

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

1 comment:

  1. I really appreciate how in depth you go. it's fascinating isn't it to see how different mediums handle the same story. You did a really interesting experiment. I'd be curious what you thought about some of the questions you posed re filmmaking - what do you think documentary filmmaking is?

    Good job!

    B+

    ReplyDelete