BarnardSarah_Coal+Country

  //Coal Country // | Mari-Lynn Evans & Phylis Geller | 2009   //Coal Country // is a film about both sides of the current battle over modern coal mining. Produced in association with the Sierra Club, the film looks at multiple viewpoints, from the activists fighting against mountain-top removal mining, to the coal workers who are exceedingly proud of their jobs, to the communities whose health is being largely effected by the coal pollution. The narrative continuously shows both sides of the struggle, making it hard to vilify the coal workers who are struggling to support their families, while simultaneously showing the gross consequences to the landscape of mountain top removal. This moving and educational film tries to develop a dialogue between both sides, hoping that one day we can solve some of these issues surrounding the coal industry.   //Coal Country //addresses many different sustainability problems throughout the film, the most obvious, of course, being ecological and environmental. Mountain-top mining can result in up to 3-4 square miles of destructed land that may resemble the Grand Canyon when mining is finished. While reclamation is required by law after mining is completed at the site, re-grading and re-vegetation are not always successful. The biodiversity of the area is irreplaceable, even during reclamation. Another part of coal’s ecological footprint is the disposal of waste, which in mountain-top mining includes all of the land they remove to get down to the coal. The present disposal of this waste is to dump it down the side of the mountains, filling in the valleys and creating nearly flat landscapes, as well as often destroying streams in the process. Current laws are in place, such as the Clean-Water Act and Buffer Zone Rule, restricting fill and waste material from close proximity to intermittent or perennial streams. These rules are often broken, and government officials tend to side with the large, persuasive coal industries over the inhabitants of the communities, proving an additional sustainability problem that is highly political in its decision making.  There is also a large economic problem associated with the coal industry. West Virginia, with 1800 mining permits, is the poorest state in the country, with the poorest parts of West Virginia lying in the coal-producing counties. Only 15,000 people are employed by the coal companies now, compared to a large number more in previous generations. While mountain-top mining is much cheaper and safer than cave mining, it is also much less people-labor intensive, not creating as many jobs as it used to. This strip-mining has not been good in the recent past for West Virginia’s economy, yet the industry always plays the “jobs card,” if often unfairly, as in the case of Massey Energy destroying the coal unions in the 1980s. The “jobs card” works, it seems, as the film shows interviews with coal workers who are extremely proud of their jobs. This cultural investment in the coal industry causes another sustainability problem. Miners and mining families depend on this way of life to make their living, and for many of them, it is a generational job. With so much pride and respect for their work, it is hard to vilify the workers, even when people try so hard to vilify the coal industry itself.  While there are many other inherent sustainability problems within //Coal Country//, such as the entire processing procedure for coal, many problems within this matrix add to the many health problems associated with the coal industry. Waters become polluted, and the air quality decreases significantly with so much coal dust in the air. Many families can no longer go outside of their homes to relax due to the large amounts of coal dust that collect on every surface. One person interviewed explained how his family had to move due to the health problems associated with living near a coal plant, and that his house, which used to be worth $144,000, is now worth only $12,000. Another interviewee explained his research estimating that there are an additional 578 extra deaths every year in the state of West Virginia due to the coal industry in some form or another.  The matrix of problems portrayed in //Coal Country// is very tightly woven. With one side touting, “Coal keeps the lights on,” and the other fighting to breathe freely, it is hard to determine which side has the winning argument. It is this matrix that makes the problems surrounding the coal industry so difficult to solve. Political, economic, legal, ecological, and health problems only begin to identify this matrix.  <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> One of the first aspects of the film that I found most compelling was the music in the background. Kathy Mattea is a musician who can made an entire collection of old mining songs, which were used as both background and transition music throughout the film. It is very moving to hear these old, often sad songs, and it helps to remember that the coal miners themselves are individuals trying to be proud and make a living, not a part of a corporation trying to harm others. I also found the interaction between both sides of the story quite persuasive. Films like //Coal Country// are often strongly one-sided, but this film gave attention to both sides, and I felt myself being torn throughout the movie as to which side my sympathies laid with more. The film also left me with a positive feeling in the end, showing that there are people fighting on both sides to stand up for what they believe in, that this is not an issue that will be allowed to be decided by the companies and governments alone. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> Overall, I was mainly convinced by the film as a whole. The section on processing and burning the coal, however, was not quite as persuasive. At this point of the movie it switched more to general information, instead of the interviews with individuals that was utilized more in the beginning of the film. I feel that the strength of this film lies in the connection to the individuals, and it wasn’t the right time to start spouting figures such as “130 million tons of coal combustion waste every year from coal power plants.” I thought the section on mining the coal and the debate over the coal industry was much more compelling than the sections on burning and processing coal. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> After seeing //Coal Country//, I would be interested to look deeper into the current alternatives to the coal industry and how they are facing the matrix of problems brought up in the film. It would also be interesting to find out more about the coal worker’s side of the story. I thought the film did a good job of portraying the importance of these people’s opinions, but it is often hard to sort out what they believe versus what the company has forced upon them. I feel that in moving away from coal, while beneficial for the environment, many economies and cultural ideals will be upturned. It would be interesting to see what type of research is being down to look into these larger scale problems beyond simply “clean coal.” <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">It seems that //Coal Country// is trying to address both sides of the coal debate. While many coal supporters were outraged by what they assumed was another “coal-bashing” film, others were strongly moved by compelling stories of the “coal victims.” The producer, Mari-Lynn Evans, hopes that the film will spark dialogue between the two sides, which often don’t communicate at all. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">“I think one thing I hope will strike people in the film is just how much in common the coal miners have with the community activists,” she said. “I mean, they both live in the communities, they both work there. And they both want good jobs. They both want a healthy environment. They both want a future for their children.” // <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">I think the film is likely to change the way people view the issues, or at least cause them to give thought to the other side, which they may never have recognized before. //Coal Country// doesn’t try to preach which side of the debate is winning, but rather tries to recognize both sides of the problem, which can address multiple types of audiences, possibly even changing a few opinions along the way. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> Probably the strongest point of intervention suggested by //Coal Country// is simply to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Since the film doesn’t really choose a side, it can’t preach things such as stopping the use of coal energy or bettering workers rights. It does, however, show both sides of the story and prove that there is no easy answer. Without people standing up for their rights, nothing at all will become of the problem. The case of the lawyer who has been working for ten years on the mountain-top removal issue is an excellent example of possible points of intervention along the long road to a solution. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I found //Coal Country// to be very educational as it was. Showing the individual human side of issues is always more compelling than simply scientific facts that may not mean much to the general public. One possible addition to the film may have been to have some type of conclusion in the end reinforcing both sides’ opinions. The film was very good at portraying both sides of the debate, but it did jump around a lot, and an overall conclusion may have been helpful. Additionally, the film only briefly mentioned some renewable sources of energy, and a little more focus on energy efficiency and the positive effects it could have on these communities could have been helpful as well.
 * <span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 9 | //Coal Country// ** <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">1. Title, director and release year **
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**
 * 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? **
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**