HBO's 'Gasland' Premieres Mon June 21st

[RamboLiberal]

HBO's Gasland is a timely tale of terrible pollution at the hands of the energy industry, with special terror looming in our region. But, premiering at 9 Monday night, it has nothing to do with oil. It's all about natural gas.

And it has the natural gas industry up in arms. You'd be nervous, too, if a documentary accused you of making things so bad for rural folk that they choke in brown, polluted air, and their drinking water bursts into flames at the touch of a match.

Tests proved that drilling had nothing to do with that situation, says America's Natural Gas Alliance on a Web page (www.anga.us/the-truth-about-gasland/) put up to rebut the movie. But, to use a gloriously jarring elemental metaphor, burning water is just the tip of the iceberg.

Documentaries aren't supposed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but, as good TV does every day, they should open our eyes. For many, Josh Fox's evocative and industry-eviscerating Gasland, which won the Documentary Special Jury Prize at Sundance in January, will be an introduction to natural gas drilling.

No wonder the industry's aghast, and will probably be more upset after Fox appears Monday at 11 p.m. on Comedy Central's Daily Show, and Jon Stewart takes up the topic.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20100621_Jonathan_Storm__HBO_s__Gasland__premieres_tonight__featuring_Marcellus_Shale_lands.html#ixzz0rVQDS89g

[NoNothing]

1. Documentaries aren't supposed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Call me old-fashioned but I disagree.

It's one thing to tell the truth from a certain point of view, to make a point. This is like a lawyer making a case - presenting the facts, filling in the details, and telling a story through the evidence. But at no point may a lawyer misstate the facts in evidence, or fabricate evidence, or try to conceal facts.

This is what I expect a documentary to be. If what I'm seeing is not honestly factual and true, then it is something else: propaganda. And frankly, I'd rather waste my time doing almost anything else than watching propaganda, even if it supports what I want to believe.

[brooklynite]

2. Unless a documentary is presented in "real time"...

...then by necessity, something has been edited out, either for time or relevance. The editing, however well intentioned, is a reflection of the biases (even if subconscious) of the production team.

[NoNothing]

3. Of course

But if it is an honest documentary, what has been edited out will not materially affect the accuracy of what is portrayed, right?

If a documentary on Thomas Edison failed to document every single failed light bulb trial, but summarized the efforts with a succinct factual statement or two, it would be edited but still truthful. If it simply made no mention of the repeated failed trials and insinuated that there were no failures at all, it is being dishonest. IMHO, of course.

[RamboLiberal]

4. Well it's HBO that labels this a documentary

But the filmmaker did it in the spirit of Michael Moore. And this guy didn't film it for HBO as far as I know.

Doubt if a straight-on doc would get much audience on HBO.