Reviews of both films have often been glowing, yet they offer almost no mention of the filmmaking quality. Variety’s gushing review devotes whole paragraphs to things like the 2005 Energy Policy Act, but barely mentions cinematography or music. The New York Times also liked the movie, though it did concede that at a length of two hours, “its anecdotal, hopscotch style starts to wear.” Hollywood insiders nominated GasLand for an Oscar—because they loved the politics, not the movie.

But the movie’s politics are even less interesting than its style. Fox embraces an especially simple-minded version of what can best be described as environmental utopianism.

In his world, the great material advances of the past 150 years simply happened. Dozens of dread diseases and the near-constant threat of famine that plagued humanity until the 19th century just sort of went away. No sensible reading of history suggests that this would have been possible without the hydrocarbon revolution that began in the1850s with the first drilled oil wells in Pennsylvania. A world without petroleum is an environmental disaster, denuded of timber and choked by coal smoke. Just about everybody would be poor—and by that I mean North Korea poor. Life in such a world is nasty, brutish, and short.

Fox’s almost religious devotion to some unworldly utopian environmental ideal completely undermines the film’s credibility. Making films and viewing them is manipulation by mutual consent. But after just a few minutes of watching his work, one can’t help asking, “Why would I want to be manipulated by this guy?”

His perspective is all the more regrettable because it is unnecessary. Acknowledging the obvious—that oil and gas are essential for economic progress and that fracking offers enormous advances in production—does not preclude a hard-hitting, even intensely critical film about the industry. Economic progress requires difficult and complex tradeoffs. And the tradeoffs presented by hydraulic fracturing involve land use, water, and the environment—and thus are interesting, important and, indeed, theatrical.

Fracfocus | Fox’s films duck a very inconvenient truth: burning less gas—which he seems to favor—means burning more coal. Natural gas releases about half the carbon as an equivalent amount of coal, and strip-mining coal uses vast amounts of land and water. Fox ignores all this, instead hiding behind some child-like fantasy that energy can be produced from—well, he doesn’t say.

Ironically, among those most willing to consider tradeoffs and engage in a real debate are the cardboard-cutout villains of Fox’s film, the oil and gas industry. Google the term “fracfocus.” It’ll lead you to a database that allows you to search the records of tens of thousands of wells for detailed information about specific fracking fluids used in each well. Fracking fluids are pumped thousands of feet below the ground to break up shale formations, releasing oil or gas. While mostly water and sand, the fluids also contain a complex mix of other chemicals. Finding the right mix for the right formation can mean the difference between a well’s success and failure. Companies spend millions on fluid engineering and jealously guard the research as a critical trade secret. But local landowners and regulators also have a legitimate interest in knowing what, if any, hazardous materials are being used.

Fracfocus might seem like a dense ball of engineering data of interest only to a handful of insiders, but it actually represents exactly the kind of conversation about tradeoffs that really matters. It is not perfect —regulators and locals often want more disclosure while producers want to protect their trade secrets—but accommodations are being made. In June, Fracfocus 2.0 was introduced to make the database even more user-friendly and easy to search. At present, 12 states deem the system sufficiently adequate so as to require well operators to report through Fracfocus.

Ignoring different views | But the dialog about tradeoffs that led to Fracfocus is exactly the kind of discussion Gasland’s backers don’t want. Consider, for example, the events surrounding the GasLand II premiere in late April at the Tribeca Film Festival. A group of about 20 farmers and laborers from upstate New York and Pennsylvania—people whose jobs and income depend on developing the Marcellus shale—had purchased tickets to the showing. They wanted to see if the sequel addressed what they considered the first film’s gross inaccuracies and to question Fox. Yet they were barred from the showing even though there was no hint of disrespect or incivility.

Of course, Fox and the Tribeca Festival can show their movies to whomever they want. (It would be nice, though, if they announced their policies before people bought tickets. It would be even nicer if they would not insult the public with their shifting and laughable explanations as to why some people were banned.)

Because they ignore and try to suppress a reasonable opposing point of view, Fox and the environmental utopians should not expect to be taken seriously. That brings us to the image to bear in mind when watching the films: the road trip with the kids. At some point in the journey, the grownups are sitting in the front of the minivan trying to figure out the best road to take and maybe even arguing about whether the trip is a good idea. The kids are sitting in back, yelling for ice cream, complaining that “He’s touching me!” and repeatedly asking, “Are we there yet?” Gasland and Gasland II are the equivalent of the kids in the back seat—whiney, ill-informed, and not even cute.