Beauvilliers+-+Annotation+-+The+Forest+for+the+Trees

The Forest for the Trees
An Annotation by Evan Beauvilliers 1. The Forest for the Trees: Directed by Bernadine Mellis, Released 2005

2. Environmental activist Judi Bari was severely injured when a bomb went off in her car. She was soon formally accused by the FBI of terrorist activities. This film is the story of that incident and the civil suit Bari filed against the FBI for their accusation. Throughout the film details are revealed that indicate that the FBI either conducted an incredibly poor investigation or were directly responsible for the explosion. One might expect that the loggers, her main rivals, would be the ones responsible, but the film makes it clear that Bari and the logging industry had a mutual agreement and respected each other. They compromised with each other on issues of activist and logger safety for example. In the end, even though Bari had died of cancer in the mean time, the case was settled in Bari’s favor and the FBI was forced to pay a large sum of money on behalf of the political injury to Bari.

3. The film revolves around one primary sustainability issue: the political climate. The film makes it clear that the FBI considers most if not all activists to be a threat. Whether they are seen as a threat to the economy or to people more directly is unclear, but it //is// clear that they keep tabs on all activists with a following and treat them as dangerous or potentially dangerous. In such a political environment, how are movements to grow that will shape and develop policy in a sustainable direction? Some of the legal proceeding indicate that the legal environment is also not favorable for activists, but the outcome of the film, Bari’s post-mortem victory, indicates this may be changing or has somewhat changed.

4. The most persuasive part of the film was the interviews of the people who knew Bari who you would anticipate not liking her, primarily the logging industry. When they say that she was reasonable and likeable you are more willing to agree because they have the most reason not to like her. Additionally, the detail with which they were able to describe the arrangements they made with her and how she was all about safety and mutual respect was very compelling. That is something other environmental films could draw on. If you can show that former enemies have been swayed to the environmentalist side it definitely shows that there has to be something of substance to the movement that people are willing to sacrifice profit and the lie for.

5. I was not terribly convinced by the movie that FBI had framed Bari. It was fairly clear that their investigation was shoddy, and the points about the political environment mentioned earlier hold, but there was insufficient evidence to point the finger at the FBI for the bomb. If I had to pin it on someone, I would still go with the logging industry, though the few speakers from the industry that spoke about her clearly liked her. That does not mean that lower down workers or other leaders were not still threatened by her and took action to remove the threat. Additionally, while I am inclined to believe that Bari would not bomb herself and her friend, the movie does not do a particularly compelling job of proving this. After all, the movie, largely produced by the daughter of the lawyer representing Bari in court, and as such there was an obvious bias.

6. My primary research interest after watching the movie is to find out if the court case that was ruled in Bari’s favor has set any kind of precedent used in cases since. It would be interesting to see if the events of the film have had an impact on the legal environment the film is depicting. The film makes mention of other cases in which the BI is suspected of foul play towards activists and it would also be interesting to do research into these to see if they are primarily conspiracy theories or of they have legitimate evidence and weight.

7. This film has two sides that play into two different audiences. On the one side is the legal battle which is of more academic interest and does well at targeting students of environmental or legal issues. On the other side is the personal story of Bari and her work which is good for both educational purposes and also for casual people looking into the environmental scene. The nice thing about the film is that it blends these two sides together so that either an academic or a causal viewer gets a bit of both, with creates good exposure for each side. The casual side of the film keeps the conversation focused on real people while the legal side provides a good case study for legal proceedings revolving around environmentalists.

8. The film does not really suggest any point of intervention or any real means of changing the political and/or legal environment for the environmental movement, but it is about a civil case, which is one method that may be used. As political leaders treat such movements unfairly there may be opportunity to sue them and if enough cases spring up, successful or otherwise, it may sway leaders to treat the movement more fairly and more seriously.

9. To enhance the educational value of the film, it may have been possible to include more of the technical detail of the court proceedings to people could better understand how they work. Also, showing video of the actual case would have been good (though maybe not legal?) as it could help in the future in determining what things work for the movement in court and what do not as well as getting a sense of the judges attitude towards the movement. Observing what objections were overruled or sustained could hint at the political leanings of the judge.