Mark Reviews Movies: DARK WATERS (2019)

Become a fan on Facebook Follow on Twitter

Review by Mark Dujsik | December 6, 2019

When Cincinnati-based corporate attorney Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo) meets with a farmer from his West Virginia hometown, we might believe we have an idea as to where the story of Dark Waters will go. The farmer is certain that a big company is secretly dumping toxic chemicals near his land. As a result, his cows are becoming ill and even violent. He brings the lawyer to the creek from which the cattle drink, where the stones have turned an unnaturally bright white, and a plot of land, where mounds of dirt and new grass spread out toward the woods. This is where the farmer has buried his cows—190 of them, to be precise.

We've seen plenty of movies such as this one, based on true stories—such as this one—or invented tales, in which the cynical or idealistic lawyer, stuck in his ways or still naïve enough to be devoted to the pursuit of true justice, takes on some seemingly invincible foe for the good of ordinary people. The lawyer works long hours. If he has a family, they become a secondary or almost non-existent priority. Key revelations come to light, as the attorney, doggedly seeking the truth, interviews folks and digs through piles upon piles of papers within boxes upon boxes stacked in some tiny office.

There are courtroom scenes, where the attorney catches someone in a lie or confronts a witness with information that the powerful person didn't know the lawyer could possibly have found. There are obstacles, of course, but the truth is revealed. The bad guys have their armor devastated, and the ordinary folks cheer, either in the courtroom or in private, because the justice they sought and believed to be impossible has been won.

It's important to note familiarity of this kind of story, if only to emphasize how differently screenwriters Matthew Michael Carnahan and Mario Correa approach this particular one. The story of the film, directed by Todd Haynes, comes from a real-life account, detailed in Nathaniel Rich's New York Times article "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare." One suspects that the film is as true to the real events as Rich's article must have been, if only because there's no cheering.

There are, after all, rarely reasons to cheer in the real world of litigation against seemingly invulnerable corporations, who hire the best lawyers and put the best experts on their payrolls for a reason. Lawsuits can go on for years. This one went on for almost two decades, and at the end of the film's story, it is still ongoing. If there is a happy ending to be found in this story, the screenwriters and Haynes only disclose it during a text coda, and even then, based on what we learn about what DuPont and at least one other company did and hid, is a happy ending possible?

What sets this film apart from the countless movies about potentially inspirational legal battles is that it comprehends and communicates the black hole of time in which such legislation seems on the verge of becoming trapped. It takes years to find the possible evidence. It takes more time to dig through the flood of documentation that DuPont sends to Robert, hoping that he'll be so overwhelmed as to give up the case.

While all of that is happening, more people become sick. Wilbur Tennant (Bill Camp), the farmer who brought the problem to the attorney's attention, seems to run out of cows. He also loses all hope that anything will be done, becomes paranoid about the company trying to get him, and learns that he has developed cancer—just like the people who worked on Teflon, the waste of that chemical being the cause of his and others' health problems, did for decades.

Even Robert, an intentionally dull man—neither cynical nor idealistic, just doing the work he believes must be done (Ruffalo's performance is compelling for how lived-in it is)—who is obsessed with the case, becomes ill—not because of the chemical waste, but because of stress. His hand shakes for no reason, and that shaking slowly moves up his arm.

When he begins looking into Wilbur's case in 1998, Robert and his wife Sarah (Anne Hathaway), whose character is smartly written as neither blindly supportive nor filled with resentment (She was a lawyer before having kids, so she knows and fears the deal), are raising their first baby. By the story's third act, the couple has three sons, and they're all old enough to know and not regret that they don't really have a father—even on the rare occasions when Robert is home with family.

There really are two stories unfolding here. The first is the case itself, which comes at us in slow scenes of process and then infuriating bursts of revelation. The second one—and perhaps the one that the filmmakers are more fascinated by—is the deadening, soul-crushing toll that this case brings upon everyone who is involved in it (Cinematographer Edward Lachman brings a dreary atmosphere to every locale, just to emphasize the point).

Time jumps forward, and little or no progress is made. Lawsuits are filed. Documents flood into the office. Depositions are made, and scientists spend several years doing a study. Clients and attorneys lose hope, locals get mad that Robert and Wilbur are attacking the town's biggest employer, and DuPont stalls and goes against agreements.

This is far from inspiring, despite the information we learn during the epilogue, and that's exactly the point. In the end, Dark Waters is a story about the slow crawl toward justice, but more importantly, it's about how, in the process, the concepts of time and justice lose all meaning.

Back to Home

Buy Related Products