AliprandoJoannaAnnotation2

The Forest for The Trees Film Annotation

The Forest for the Trees (2005) Directed, produced and edited by Bernadine Mellis
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

Narrated by the daughter of a civil rights lawyer the film follows the lawyer representing civil rights activist Judi Bari versus the FBI. The film introduces Judi Bari as a prominent activist against tree lodging throughout the 80s. Viewers learn of Judi's work as a member and leader of the Earth First! group. Clips of Judi's public speeches and interviews with those close to her help the viewer understand Judi's perspective on lodging activism. Judi's unique efforts advocate a partnership between lodging companies, lodgers, and activists. She fought not only for the environment but also for workers rights, befriending both lodgers and lodge owners. Surprising scenes feature lodge owners speaking highly of Judi and her work, specifically her speeches demeaning spiking and other forms of harmful activism. It was very interesting to understand Judi's approach that it doesn't necessarily have to be activists versus lodgers but rather they may work together for each other's best interests. Judi is presented throughout the film as a revolutionary thinker and doer for environmental activism and Earth First! members.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

Beyond informing viewers of the environmental consequences of excessive lodging and the activism working to protect from it, the film also argues the ineffective procedure of our current justice system. We are shown the story of Dennis Cunningham, an elderly civil rights lawyer, fighting along with other Earth First! members and lawyers for Judi Bari's justice. Besides the fact that it has taken 12 years for this case to finally see a day in court, we learn of the "technocratic" policies protecting the FBI throughout the entire process. Evidence linking Judi as the bomber of her own vehicle are crude which we ultimately discover as fabricated evidence. Certain FBI agents charging Judi as a terrorist are magically dismissed from the case and unavailable for testimony. ** While many sustainability issues are present in the film, it is most concerned with legal and organizational issues. The storyline challenges the integrity of our justice system and governmental organizations. Our justice system's independence and objectivity is questioned through the film. The dismissal of Richard Helm (FBI agent) and the delay of trial of a sick woman until after her death are two examples of questioned technocracies of the justice system. Judi's decision to take the FBI to trial after they dismissed charges from her are very radical and certainly unexpected by the FBI. The delay of trial is what I believe to be a technique to dismiss the case in it's entirety. Judi was relentless enough to video tape her testimony lying on her living room couch to ensure her story would live after her own death.
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The FBI's reactions and actions towards a victim of an attempted murder are appalling and cause me to question the organization's efficiency and integrity. Accusations are made quickly that Judi is not a victim but in fact the criminal, simply because of her affiliations. She is not regarded by the governmental organization as a citizen of the United States worth protection but rather a menace to society. It appears the FBI utilized the situation to allow for further investigation of Earth First! and to possibly gain legislation to limit their rights. Claiming Judi Bari as a terrorist allowed the FBI to dismiss further investigation of who the actual terrorist may be.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? Continuing with this thought process I am most compelled by the FBI's lack of proper investigation of an attempted murder. I cannot imagine the frustration Judi and her family when through when the FBI dismissed her case without looking for any criminal. Ignoring the numerous threats sent to Judi's house, and the fact that a bomb training program was held on the lumber mill property seems like substantial evidence to be overlooked. Instead, the FBI held onto the evidence linking Judi as the terrorist (1- the bomb's placement was visible to Judi, 2-the nails used in the bomb were in her trunk, and 3-Earth First! is a violent organization) all of which are either untrue or subjective.

Another compelling scene outlining the organizational failure of the FBI was an agents response of "I wasn't all that interested" when questioned about Judi Bari's threats. An element seemingly helpful when examining the crime was not all that interesting to an investigative agent. My response to that it is simply the agents conflict of satisfying his own assumptions and subjective views by blinding himself from certain aspects of the case. I'm not so much appalled by the agent's lack to properly execute his job than i am by the fact he believe it OK to state it as if he had done the right thing.

Another compelling image was when Judi's daughter was on the stand. Her testimony was to remind others that Judi is not an activist for EarthFirst! but she's a mother as well. This case is about someone who tried to kill her mother. It has nothing to do with who Judi is or what she does in between the time she spends with her daughter. The scene was a powerful reminder of the magnitude of the entire injustice. 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I was not as compelled as much by the scenes with Judi's understudy. Scenes for her radio show and the "group meetings" where she would argue with everyone weren't as interesting to me. I'm not sure why, it could be that i just didn't like her. 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.? I want to dig deeper into injustices in the legal system. I wan to know about about other cases like this one involving enforcement injustice. From this aspect the film made me think of the movie "Changeling" with the torture she endured the fight the corrupt police force. 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? I agree the film is likely to change the way people act on environmental problems, but rather I would say it could change the way people act upon any problem they feel strongly of. Judi's story of her activism, her drive and strength was presented in a powerful way with potential to inspire. The film best addresses any audience, not just those from an environmental standpoint. Those interested in the legal system or activism in general would enjoy it. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film's call to action was to be relentless. The movie state's "This isn't about terrorism or trees," but rather it's about fighting for what you want to say. "And to be protected by the law of our country all the same." 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The film certainly does not touch upon environmental sustainability so much as it does organizational and systematic sustainability. I found the content to be very intriguing and didn't feel like i needed more environmental information because i didn't view the film as a piece of environmental media. The subject matter was about an environmentalist group but the informational aspect of the film surrounded around activism, justice and organization. **