The visual artifact I chose for this rhetorical analysis is a documentary titled Gasland (2010). Gasland is an American documentary written and directed by Josh Fox. The film focuses on the communities in the United States where natural gas drilling activity was taking place, more specifically hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”. The film provides experts’ opinions, witness accounts, and statistics to show its audience how dangerous and exploitative hydraulic fracturing is. The film uses emotional and logical appeals throughout the film in an attempt to persuade the audience that the highly praised method of extracting natural gas has a negative effect on thousands of American citizens.
Hydraulic fracturing is a way of extracting gas or oil which is trapped inside rocks underground. When fracking occurs, uses a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals that are pumped down a well at very high pressure in an attempt to extract the resources from the rock. Many politicians and officials have claimed that this process is not harmful to the environment but there are ample accounts that state otherwise. Fracking releases pollutants, such as methane, into the air. During the process, it is estimated that four percent of it escapes into the atmosphere during extraction. (Horton) Along with air pollution, fracking affects the natural water supply and quality. Millions of gallons of water are used in the fracking process, which directly reduces the amount of clean water available to surrounding residents. (Horton) Also, the chemicals used in fracking leak into the local water supply and highly contaminate the water, often making whoever comes in contact with it medically ill. In addition to air and water contamination plus the general pollution it causes, hydraulic fracturing can even cause earthquakes due to the high pressure pushed underground. It has been scientifically proven that the process of fracking has long-lasting negative effects on the surrounding environment.
With that fact in mind, the director Josh Fox could have used a scientific approach to support his argument. Instead, he uses the technique of vivid imagery to enhance his argument. For example, there are many shots of bountiful nature being plowed down to create fracking sites, faucet water catching flame, deformed animals, and discolored drinking water; just to name a few. Several aspects of this film have convinced me that hydraulic fracturing is dangerous and should be regulated. It is filled with testimonials from the victims of fracking and evidence given by experts in this field of environmental protection, chemistry, and so forth. It is clear that Fox had no commercial interest in making this film. His reasons were purely ethical reasons forced him to make this film to bring awareness to a broader audience.
From the very beginning of the documentary, any viewer can get the feeling that the oil and gas industries are hiding something. The film starts with a short glimpse at the beauty of local nature to attract its audience, then those images are abruptly interrupted by a look inside a court hearing where representatives of gas companies defend fracking. This type of imagery creates an attitude within the audience. It gives them a positive view of nature and wildlife and gives them a negative view of the oil companies. Establishing these attitudes early in the documentary is extremely effective and works very well in Fox’s favor. In the next scene, Fox decided to open his film with this question; “What would it mean if the United States and the rest of the world adopted natural gas as the fuel of the future?” (Fox, 2010) The answer to this question is what the filmmakers are trying to find.
It all started in 2009 when Fox received an offer to sell his house for $100,000. He stated that he was quite surprised to receive such a letter and decided to do some research of his own. Fox traveled to an area close to home where such wells were already drilled. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, there are no highways or tall buildings. This town is very quaint and secluded. Fox described it as a “place where you could easily forget the world, forget yourself, and disappear completely.” He traveled to this area because the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had claimed the operation is going fine. When he got there, he quickly found out that was not the case. He found that water in this area was now unsafe to drink. In fact, the water was so contaminated that the local people living on the land were suffering from chronic illnesses, house pets were losing hair, and in one case an entire well exploded. This is where the emotional appeal comes into work. Fox wants the audience to feel sympathy for these people and to know that their distress was caused by hydraulic fracturing and ultimately, corporate greed.
One can easily notice the atmosphere of this film. It is very gloomy and sort of retrospective. The beginning seems more like a home movie rather than a documentary. By doing this, the director was able to make his audience feel more comfortable with the narrator by adding a personal touch. This set an important tone throughout the film and also added a subtle “appeal to trust” technique. Also, Fox may have done this on purpose to emphasize the fact that this is an independent film with the purpose to inform. Opposed to a documentary made by a corporate competitor spreading propaganda. Fox is able to use a lot of emotional appeals throughout the film by sharing facts and testimonials, but by sharing his feelings as well. In the opening line, he says “I am not a pessimist. I’ve always had a great deal of faith in people. That we would not succumb to frenzy or rage or greed. That we will figure out the solution without destroying the things that we love.” (Fox, 2010) Closer to the end of the film, Fox is seen crying near a contaminated spring, overwhelmed with sorrow. This showed the audience how much he really cared about the cause, as fracking has affected his home as well.
Another persuasive tactic used during this documentary was the appeal to reason. When using the appeal-to-reason approach, one would use logic in order to lead the audience to a specific conclusion. In this specific case, Fox uses this technique by capitalizing on people’s refusals to be interviewed. He presents several montages in which he is seen making repeated phone calls to corporate offices. In the closing credits, he inserts a long list of “declined interviewees”, which includes many high-level executives. By doing this, Fox challenges the audience to do some internal reasoning. In other words, his goal is for people to realize that if the process of fracking is environmentally safe, then there should be no reason why so many officials declined to be questioned. In fact, these officials should be eager for the opportunity to shed a positive light on their work. Instead, they immediately declined the invitation. This segment compels the audience to believe that the gas and oil industries have many secrets that they are trying very hard to keep hidden.
In conclusion, Gasland is a documentary with the purpose to inform others of the dangers of hydraulic fracturing. Director Josh Fox used authenticity, emotion, and reason to persuade his audience. As I watched the film, his methods certainly convinced me. I wholeheartedly believe that hydraulic fracturing will have a long-lasting negative effect on our country and environment. It also furthered my belief that corporate greed is the doing of many evils. I commend the filmmakers for producing a persuasive piece with no hidden agenda. It is clear that Fox had only the intention of spreading awareness of this issue in the hope of saving his home, along with other communities, and ultimately, the planet we inhabit.