Hollywood’s Uneasy Relationship with Facts: The Case of Landman
Paramount’s Landman explores the boomtown world of the oil and gas industry, from working class to billionaires, through a blend of drama and grit. As with many Hollywood productions dealing with this controversial industry, its portrayal of real-world issues has come under scrutiny.
A recent Newsweek fact-check has raised concerns about inaccuracies in the series, particularly regarding renewable energy technologies. This controversy reminds us that while Hollywood often tackles real-world issues, its primary allegiance is to storytelling, not accuracy.
The Controversy Around Landman
In Landman, Billy Bob Thornton’s character Tommy Norris delivers a damning critique of renewable energy, claiming that wind turbines do not offset the carbon emissions from their production over their 20-year lifespan. The series also critiques solar panels and lithium batteries, suggesting that their environmental impacts outweigh their benefits.
However, these claims don’t hold up to scrutiny. As Newsweek highlights, multiple studies have shown that wind turbines typically achieve carbon payback in a matter of months.
For instance, a 2016 study in the Journal of Fundamentals of Renewable Energy and Applications calculated a payback time of around 64 days for a 3.4-megawatt turbine. Similarly, a 2019 study found that wind turbines offset their greenhouse gas emissions within an average of 5.3 months.
@landmanpplus This energy right here isn't as clean as you think. 💨 #Landman #LandmanPPlus #ParamountPlus #BillyBobThornton #KaylaWallace #Oil #WindTurbine #Texas ♬ original sound – Landman
Conservatives were quick to share the clip on social media as a critique of the renewable energy sector. By spreading misinformation about renewable energy, Landman risks misleading viewers at a time when accurate information about climate change and energy alternatives is critical.
Why Hollywood Shouldn’t Be Taken Literally
Hollywood has always taken creative liberties to craft compelling narratives. While this is often harmless when dealing with fictional worlds, it becomes problematic when real-world issues are at stake.
Movies and series that misrepresent facts can shape public perceptions, influencing debates on critical topics such as energy policy and environmental sustainability.
Promised Land
Landman is not the first production to delve into the moral and environmental complexities of the oil and gas industry. Matt Damon’s Promised Land (2012) tackled similar themes, focusing on the ethical dilemmas faced by a corporate landman persuading rural communities to lease their land for fracking.
While Promised Land leaned heavily on environmental cautionary tales, it also faced criticism for oversimplifying fracking’s impacts. Moreover, its partial funding by the UAE’s Image Nation Abu Dhabi raised concerns about bias.
In contrast, Landman has been criticized for the opposite—sanitizing the environmental and social consequences of oil and gas operations, presenting an overly favorable view of the industry.
Both productions demonstrate the challenges of tackling contentious issues while maintaining a balance between storytelling and accuracy. However, where Promised Land sought to question the morality of resource extraction, Landman appears more focused on glorifying its protagonists, risking an overly simplistic narrative.
Story continues after this advertisement:
Other Hollywood Productions and Their Liberties
Hollywood’s portrayal of the oil and gas industry has been contentious for years. Josh Fox’s Gasland (2010) and Gasland Part II (2013) are prime examples. These documentaries brought attention to the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), using dramatic visuals like flaming tap water to drive their points home.
However, critics pointed out inaccuracies, including cases where water contamination predated fracking operations or where methane contamination occurred naturally.
In response, Phelim McAleer’s FrackNation (2013) presented a counter-narrative, questioning the claims made in Gasland and emphasizing the economic benefits of fracking for rural communities. While it positioned itself as the voice of reason, FrackNation was criticized for minimizing environmental concerns and for its perceived ties to pro-industry groups.
These films, though on opposite sides of the debate, highlight the polarized and often dramatized ways Hollywood tackles the oil and gas industry, leaving audiences with conflicting and sometimes misleading portrayals.
These examples illustrate Hollywood’s propensity for altering facts to heighten drama, often at the expense of nuanced truth.
The Responsibility of Storytelling
Landman highlights the enduring tension between artistic expression and factual representation. While dramatic narratives are essential to engaging audiences, filmmakers have a responsibility to ensure that their work does not misinform or distort public understanding, especially on issues as significant as climate change and energy policy.
For viewers, the lesson is clear: Hollywood productions should be approached with a critical eye. Entertainment can spark important conversations, but it is no substitute for informed analysis of real-world challenges.
Related stories
Meet the Frackers: Gas explorers in Australia
Turning Down the Gas for Australian Manufacturing’s Future
Traditional Owners and Territorians Condemn NT Fracking Approval
INPEX Australia Ichthys LNG Project and fracking
LNG Exports Killed Australian Manufacturing
Unmasking Greenwashing: ACCR Takes Santos to Federal Court
Can Trump Derail the Renewable Energy Movement?
John Butler should thank Big Oil & Gas for plastic
Baseload Power is a Myth says UNSW’s Dr Diesendorf
Wind Farms using AI & Cameras for Eagle Conservation
Advertisement:
