Review: Ominous ‘Dark Waters’ is like ‘Chernobyl’ for America | TribLIVE.com
Movies/TV

Review: Ominous ‘Dark Waters’ is like ‘Chernobyl’ for America

Todd Haynes’ “Dark Waters,” about the prolonged (and ongoing) legal fight to uncover the environmental damage of cancer-inducing “forever chemicals” and hold their corporate makers accountable, is a sober and ominous docudrama. On its surface, it’s an unspectacular one.

Its lead character, a corporate defense attorney played by Mark Ruffalo, is no Erin Brockovich. The movie, itself, is gray and murky like the toxic West Virginia waters that provide the film’s first gloomy sense of trouble.

But just the same, “Dark Waters” will in its modest, steadfast way make your blood boil. And that will do.

Rob Bilott (Ruffalo) is a West Virginia native and Cincinnati attorney for a large law firm, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, with a specialty in defending chemical companies. Just after he’s made a partner, a West Virginia farmer named Wilbur Tennant (Bill Camp) turns up in his office barking about his dead cattle and the DuPont plant next door. He dumps a box of VHS tapes at Bilott’s feet.

It’s only the mention of Bilott’s grandmother that gives him pause. Bilott’s colleague Tom Terp (Tim Robbins) overhears the encounter but assures Bilott discretion: “You can be from West Virginia, Rob. I won’t tell anyone.”

Warm memories

Bilott is accustomed to representing the corporate side of such disputes, but he’s moved by Tennant’s case. He has warm memories of visiting the farms in the area as a child and milking cows.

And Tennant, gruff and furious, is hard to ignore. Nearly all his 200 cows have suffered enlarged organs and other deformities. A field of his is littered with graves like a battlefield. A nearby creeks runs from a DuPont landfill.

Bilott takes the case over the concerns of his colleagues. Terp tells him to “surgical”: get in, get out. The firm would prefer to have DuPont as a client, not a foe.

Bilott is himself friendly with DuPont lawyers, too. At first, he’s just trying to do a favor for a family friend. But the scope of the case grows exponentially.

Bilott, whose story was chronicled in an engrossing and detailed 2016 New York Times story by Nathaniel Rich, goes from a 1999 lawsuit on behalf of Tennant to a 2001 class action involving several West Virginia communities. Through methodical research and investigation, he traces the pollution affecting Tennant’s fame to DuPont’s use of PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid.

It’s in all of us

The substance, which DuPont began using in 1951 by purchasing it from 3M, is used in Teflon for things like non-stick frying pans and for firefighting foam. It was created during the Manhattan Project but by now, it’s in all of us.

Virtually every human and animal has traces of it in their system, whether it came through tap water or an umbilical cord. It’s called a “forever chemical” because it never breaks down, and can build up in the blood and organs. DuPont dumped thousands of pounds of PFOA in the Ohio River.

Other companies, along with the Defense Department, have contributed to their spread. But DuPont was at the vanguard of their usage (with a reported annual profit of $1 billion for PFOA-related products) and had been studying its worrisome effects on its own workers for decades — long before the Environmental Protection Agency knew of its risks.

“Dark Waters,” made relatively quickly by Hollywood standards, is the back story on a legal drama that’s still unfolding, with ongoing debate in Congress and at the EPA on setting a national drinking-water limit. Critics, including the makers of “Dark Waters,” believe it’s taking much too long.

It’s perhaps a familiar script: good cause, inspiration movie. “Dark Waters” distinguishes itself, however, in intricately following the story of a toxic substance, from a West Virginia backwater to ubiquity. It’s not the kind of film typical of Haynes, whose artful dramas (“Carol,” “Far From Heaven”) usually dig less into headlines than the fluidity of identity and the tragedies of societal convention.

But those qualities are also what make Haynes a natural fit for “Dark Waters.”

‘Chernobyl’ for America

Here, he has sucked much of the Hollywood out of the social-justice drama, while leaving certain touchstones. Supporting players like Anne Hathaway (as Sarah Bilott, Rob’s wife) and Robbins get the requisite moments befitting an “important” movie. Ruffalo, too, is already clearly adept at portraying the growth of obsession (“Spotlight,” “Zodiac”).

He has even once before been part of a film critical of DuPont, albeit less directly. In Bennett Miller’s 2014 real-life crime drama, “Foxcatcher,” Ruffalo played the man, Dave Schultz, killed by a DuPont heir, John du Pont.

Where Haynes excels is in teasing out the personal and professional connections that mingle throughout. When Bilott grows aggressive in the investigation into DuPont, he’s breaking with decorum. He’s part of the old-boy network that works to protect companies like DuPont.

In “Dark Waters,” arguments happen at fancy attorney banquets, and boardroom decisions alter innocent human lives.

It can seem like there are too many corporate exposes. While they could use some new angles and perhaps fewer lawyer protagonists, I suspect that’s not the problem. “Dark Waters” plays like a “Chernobyl” for America.

Unfortunately, we probably need a lot more of these.


1996759_web1_gtr-liv-darkwaters-112719
Scott Gries/Invision/AP
In”Dark Waters,” Mark Ruffalo plays a corporate attorney who opposes chemical company DuPont to uncover the environmental damage of cancer-inducing chemicals it manufactured in West Virginia.
Categories: AandE | Movies TV
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.