Official Screenwriting Blog of the Black List
Break your story in prep
Unique online workshop
Work with Tom Benedek
Starts July 14
Learn more here.
Plot, Concept, Character, Style, Scene, Dialogue, Theme, Time.
Self-paced, plus eight 1-week classes.
Nearly 50% savings.
Click here for more information.
Core II: Concept
Keys to good story ideas
1-week online class
Work with Scott Myers
Starts July 21
To ask Scott a question or contact him via email, click here.
Subscribe to Go Into the Story by Email
Click here to follow GITS RSS feed.
Posted in video interview |
Tagged Tags: John Kraskinski, Matt Damon, Promised Land |
This film crosses the line. It is not entertainment or educational. It is activist and funded by OPEC. http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/
If its purposes is to entertain, and it does so, is it not entertainment? Doesn’t every good film have an opinion about something?
*purpose. My kingdom for an edit button.
This is a film that claims that drilling for natural gas (which would be cheap and an energy boom for America) is more dangerous than financing OPEC nations that use terror against the USA.
That is not “an opinion about something” that is a deliberate meant to scare you. And it’s financed by an OPEC nation that would be at a financial loss (not to mention weakened political power) if the American energy boom ever happened.
The sweet, sweet irony is that Matt Damon recently realized that he is a useful idiot and admitted that “the game is rigged”
“A deliberate lie”
He was speaking about American politics in general, coming to the conclusion that even with this film, no politician will do anything either for or against an issue, including fracking (whether it’s bad or good**), unless it helps get them re-elected.
If you held the opposite opinion, that fracking is bad, would you be as appalled by the film’s subject matter? If you still believed fracking is good but the film were against fracking, would you be as appalled by the film’s subject matter? Is it simply the fact that it’s not a documentary that rubs some people the wrong way? Is an issue presented as entertainment more dangerous than fact, and is that because of the reach fiction has? Is this subliminal propaganda?
Is critical thinking really at such an all-time low that we’re worried about the far-reaching political effects of a Hollywood movie? Don’t we have much greater problems than energy sources if that’s the case?
**Disclaimer — I don’t know anything about fracking and I’ve not yet seen Promised Land, but it’s on my list.
I think about this because I have a script in the outlining phase which will probably make a lot of people spit fire and brimstone on their way out of the theater if they take it as instruction rather than thought-provoking entertainment. At least the controversy would make for good publicity. …Hmmm. Maybe that’s all that’s going on here with Promised Land. At the end of the day, there are a few bottom lines at stake.
You must be logged in to post a comment.