StephanieCaouetteFilmAnnotation2

1. Title, director and release year?

The Film “The Forest for the Trees”, is a documentary that was released in 2005 by Director Bernadine Mellis, the daughter of Dennis Cunningham, lawyer to EarthFirst’s Judi Bari’s.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film walks the viewer through the trial of Judi Bari vs. the FBI from the view of her lawyer Dennis Cunningham. Judi Bari was a member of the activist group Earth First! which as one of their many campaigns advocated the protection of Northern California’s Redwood Forest and for the rights of the loggers who worked there. Judi was unique in that she was able to listen to the loggers and build their perspective into her strategy to save the forests, fostering a mutual respect from all parties involved. With that in mind, she was able to influence her Earth First! organization to safely protest against big logging companies who were ruining the forest while advocating for the local loggers who were logging sustainably.

The trial came into fruition when Judi Bari’s car exploded from a bomb while she was on her way to an Earth First! event. When this occurred the FBI stated investigating her as a member of a terrorist organization and accused her of transporting the bomb as part of her terrorist plot when it accidentally exploded.

The central argument of this film is that the government has little tolerance for citizens who dissent against them, and will do all that they can to discredit those who do. Judi Bari vs. The FBI is an example of how the government can abuse their power to squash those who have an opinion different than their own. Instead of investigating who placed the bomb in Judi’s car and the reasons for doing so, the FBI ran with the fact that Judi was part of an organization that was challenging big companies and government agencies and assumed the worst of her. It creates the illusion that the government can do whatever it wants to law abiding citizens, and can unjustly accuse people with no supporting evidence.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The sustainability issue that is evident in this film is the fact that a government agency can have so much control over law and order in our country, and the penalties that ensue as a result. As part of the original investigation the FBI justified calling her a terrorist by stating that the bomb was behind her seat in plain view, with no attempt to be hidden and that it was made with nails that were found in the back of her car. When the case finally went to trial it was unveiled that the FBI agents had evidence that the bomb had been hidden under the driver’s seat and that the nails that were found with the bomb were indeed not the same as those that were found in Judi’s car. During the trial there were some anomalies that shed some negative light on the FBI and police force like, the agents and police that had originally made these accusations and documented the evidence were unavailable for testimony during the case, the appropriate equipment to present the facts with was missing, the story was ever changing about what really happened, and the sheer fact that they were able to delay the trial for such a long time. This is unsustainable because if we as citizens are unable to challenge our authority and be treated fairly what is the point of being a democracy? If the police and FBI are allowed to falsify evidence and be corrupt that does not set a good example for the rest of the country. If we are unable to trust our system and the people who run it we will run into bigger problems down the road.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

I found that the most persuasive part of the film was the fact that before the bomb incident occurred, Judi had gone to the police with letters that proved that her life was being threatened and they chose not to investigate who was sending the threatening letters. The people who were supposed to protect her were turning a blind eye to the problem based on her status and the groups that she was affiliated with. They made it seem like she was unworthy of being protected under the same laws because she was challenging ideas and morals of big corporations and trying to save our environment.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?

I was not as interested in the interviews that were done in the car with Dennis Cunningham, with the additional lawyers working on the case, or with the Earth First! members helping. The interviews did not provide much information or insight into what was going on with the trial or the results. I found them to be an annoying aspect of the film, there was a lot of bickering and swearing that occurred during these interviews that did not add any helpful facts for me.

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.?

The film provoked me to look further into the abuses of power that have been investigated in the past. Have there been other cases of the FBI investigating activists for terrorism? How easy is it for governmental agencies to frame innocent citizens for uncontrollable incidents? It makes me question the ethics and morals of our government and our protectors, shouldn’t we be able to trust the people who are supposed to be looking out for us?

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 think that the film is geared towards a younger audience, who might challenge the way things work now and the way things have been done in the past. The film might make people think differently about the challenges that activist groups go through to get word out of their cause and think differently about environmentalism as a whole. I however do not think that it will deter or attract more environmentalists because of the message.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?

Honestly, I do not think that the film adequately provided an outlet for the viewer to do something about the problem. It brought the problem to light but did not give us a point in which to intervene.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

The film could have given the viewer a better insight into what Earth First! does beyond fighting for the Redwood Forests and specifically could have given us more of a background on Judi Bari and what she did before the Redwood Forests movement. In addition, as an educational experience they could have given us more information on the impact of logging the Redwood Forest and what could be done to help save it.