A.+Quartararao+-+Movie+Annotation+1

Andrew Quartararo Annotation #1 October 12, 2012 Word Count: 617 **Split Estate**
 * 1) The title of the film was __Split Estate__, which was directed by Debra Anderson, and premiered in October 2009.
 * 2) The central argument of the film was that in the Midwestern United States, natural gas mining and oil drilling have been causing problems for those who live on the land. The idea of “split estate” is that homeowners own the surface rights, but the state and/or private corporations own the mineral rights to whatever resources are under the ground. However, it is taking a toll on the lives of these residents.
 * 3) The argument is made by showing us different communities in the Midwest/Rockies area of the United States and showing how different lives are being affected. For instance, the film shows what the land used to be like in New Mexico before all the drilling occurred and how seemingly peaceful and beautiful areas are now covered with mining drills. They also show the fact that water could be lit on fire from fracking and that people have developed health problems from the side effects. There is definitely emotional factor seen from the distress of people in the film.
 * 4) The main sustainability problems seem to be cultural, ecological and political, because of a few different reasons. First, many people live in the Midwest due to the wide open spaces and original promises of growing farms or ranching, and these mining stations are taking over the landscape. People’s health has come into jeopardy in multiple occasions during the film. Finally, the large political issue is that the control of the land is definitely falling more and more into the hands of the state and private companies, and their rights have been superseding the rights of the land owners more and more.
 * 5) The one part that really got to me was the lady who was severely disabled by the water quality after fracking had occurred near her house. She looked much older than her actual age, her voice sounded like she had been a lifelong smoker, and she was so frail that it looked so painful for her to move.
 * 6) I was not convinced by the representatives of the other side of the argument in all honesty. They were claiming things were safe and that there were no issues at all, but I really just wanted to reach through the screen and yell at them. They are definitely harming lives and not considering what they are actually doing.
 * 7) The best audience seems to be those who have an idea of what fracking is but have not seen the other side of it. I have seen __Gasland__, another film on the same topic, but this seems to dive even more into the effects to the land owners.
 * 8) There was not a great deal of statistical data or graphs presented. I believe that the problem is definitely an issue, but the facts were more about the amount of operations going on, and not enough other data. Yes, they talked about the chemicals here and there, but there needed to be more analytical data.
 * 9) The action it seems to push is for a legal one that prevents more mining from occurring and then to help those who have already been affected. Many people have given up and moved away, but there are those who are staying to fight what these private companies are doing.
 * 10) As previously mentioned, I have already seen __Gasland__, and both films reinforce the ideas that the other has presented. I found this site: [], which talks about many of the chemicals used and how they are harmful not just to living beings, but the environment on a whole as well.