marcszar_forest_for_the_trees


 * The Forest For The Trees -** //Bernadine Mellis, 2006//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// The film narrates the struggle that Judi Bari, the leader of the Earth First organization, faced as she was denigrated and demagogued in an attempt to discredit and disband Earth First. The film sympathized with Judi Bari's efforts and showed the audience how and why sustainable forestry is so important.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * The film brought up numerous instances where the EF organization and Judi Bari were harassed and intimidated by law enforcement (including the suspicious bomb in the car which was blamed on Earth First even though they had no record of violence and were highly unlikely to resort to terrorism to further their positions). Advocating for sustainability is impossible in a political climate where intimidation and political suppression can be used to silence or falsely discredit voices.
 * //Legal?//
 * The discussion on the intricacies of the EF trial (which continued even after Bari's death) shows us how slow and cumbersome the legal process often is. Indeed EF was forced into a situation where it ended up wasting most of its activist energy and financial resources on litigation rather than on promoting sustainable forestry.
 * //Economic?//
 * The discussion on Judi Bari's personality and methods of activism were particularly intriguing. Often environmentalists are portrayed (sometimes accurately, more often not) as putting ecological issues ahead of economic issues. In terms of forestry, it is often argued that many environmentalists resort to a wild-eyed defense of forests to the point where they would like to see all logging outlawed (without understanding the damage that would cause to our economy). Judi Bari was quite different - she understood that logging was a necessary and important economic activity and instead emphasized that we needed to find ways to manage the practice so that we could preserve old-growth forests at the same time as we could find means to sustainably harvest trees for our wood and paper needs.
 * //Technological?//
 * The Earth First organization fought most aggressively against clearcutting, a particularly destructive phenomenon that has become increasingly common in an era where specialized machinery allows us to clear forests on a scale that was simply not possible in the past. You'd think that clearcutting - a practice that allows us to harvest more trees from larger areas - would reduce our consumption of wood, but, as per Jevon's Paradox, it has only increased our demand for forest products.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * The film did not go into detail in discussing how the media affect our opinions about logging and sustainable forestry, but there were many instances where the film showed us that the public absorbed a negative impression of the EF organization as a bunch of loons and terrorists because the media (with eager goading by the police, FBI, and other law "enforcement" agencies) was quick to portray them in a negative fashion.
 * //Organizational?//
 * Judi Bari proved to be very flexible in adjusting organizational strategies and practices in promoting sustainable forestry. For example, her renunciation of tree spiking upon realizing the danger the practice posed to the safety of individual loggers showed us that Bari was not willing to sacrifice human safety at the expense of environmentalism even though some of EF's earlier practices (monkeywrenching and industrial sabotage) were inappropriate and dangerous.
 * //Educational?//
 * The methods Judi Bari used to educate loggers about sustainable forestry were particularly fascinating. Many loggers, initially told by their employers to view EF in a negative light, proved to be quite receptive to Judi Bari's ideas. It was probably her positive influence on individual loggers that prompted the logging management and law enforcement to engage in a campaign of subterfuge against EF.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * The film's discussion on the changing nature of EF's actions - from destructive sabotage and disruptive interference to educational campaigns and peaceful interventions - showed us that some environmental groups can learn from past mistakes and inappropriate strategies. The film also showed us all-too-well the typical shady and questionable practices that law enforcement agencies resort to using when they are trying to incriminate individuals or groups. My faith in law enforcement in protecting the interests of the public over the interests of corporations - already near zero - was further reduced.
 * //Cultural?//
 * Most obvious in the film was the public's lack of comprehensive understanding on the intricacies of the logging industry. Laypeople were quick to dismiss the EF's efforts as extreme when in fact the outcomes of unsustainable logging were very extreme - 97% of our old-growth forests are long gone.
 * //Ecological?//
 * The film's discussion on clear cutting was provoking - the resulting threat of desertification was made very clear. Some of the other ecological arguments made (our consumerist lifestyle and not necessarily the forestry practices of the loggers was leading to greater resource exploitation) could have been further explored.

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// Judi Bari's educational campaigns and outreach efforts to the loggers were very compelling - here the film resorted to clips of footage of meetings between EF and the loggers to show the burgeoning communication between the two groups, but it did not elaborate on the dialog between these two groups. I would have liked to hear more of Bari's actual dialog (arguments and speeches) to the loggers as well as hear the loggers' feedback (both positive and negative).

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// I was completely sympathetic and convinced by EF's and Judi Bari's arguments, so to me the film was quite successful in promoting their issues. I was not, of course, convinced by the fraudulent and suspicious arguments made by law enforcement in their attempt to incriminate EF. In that sense the film was successful in exposing the flimsiness of their accusations.

//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?// The film has provoked me to look deeper into loggers' attitudes and reactions to sustainable forestry. They spend so much of their time harvesting trees - what do they think of the process? It may be that some loggers actually harbor a deep respect for the forest and may understand that the old-growth trees they cut down are very valuable resources.

//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?// The film, as powerful as it is, is unlikely to change the mindset of people who are already convinced that activists promoting sustainable forestry are all wild-eyed, out-of-control, "tree huggers." It does, however, further embolden the efforts of other environmental groups seeking to promote sustainable solutions and gives valuable insight into how they can engage in constructive dialog with supposed opponents.

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// The film offered little discussion on what actions the general public could take to promote sustainable forestry other than the general suggestion of reducing consumption. To be fair, though, promoting specific sustainable actions was not the main focus of the film; instead it sought to clear the name of Judi Bari and EF so that other environmental groups facing suppression could find ways to protect themselves.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?// .
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * Yes, it includes arguments from law enforcement (as false as they are), from the logging industry, and from Judi Bari and EF itself. The film could have included more arguments and feedback from individual loggers themselves.
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * No, it makes very obvious that suspicous methods were used to discredit EF. The viewer is not left to wonder, "Hmm, who is at fault - the Law or EF?" - they know by the end of the film that EF was deliberately sabotaged.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * The film does not delve into a scientific discussion on sustainable forestry. It discussed frequently the environmental destruction that unsustainable forestry (clear cutting and clearing of old-growth forests) causes but it did not elaborate on the science behind these phenomena. I suppose that was beyond the scope of a film which primarily focused on clearing the name of EF.
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * The film was very engaging and not at all preachy. Despite attempting to show us that EF and Judi Bari were honorable people (contrary to the way that they had been portrayed by law enforcement), the film did not place them on any holy "pedestals" or attempt to promote them as noble, absolutely perfect crusaders that had no flaws (the film did, after all, show us that EF did renounce its early questionable practice of industrial sabotage).
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * There were several powerful images in the film - the bomb damage done to Judi Bari's car, the vibrant meetings between the loggers and Bari, swaths of landscape that had been clear-cut, etc.

< Back to my portfolio