BechtelTheForestForTheTrees

**Director: **Bernadine Mellis **Release year: **2005
 * Title: ** The Forest for the Trees

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The central argument of this film was to question “who polices the police.” The film was centered around a woman named Judi Bari who was accused of being a terrorist by the FBI when she was simply an activist trying to protect the forests from destruction by working with the logging industry. The film showed how long it could take to bring justice to an innocent environmental activist because of large corporate agendas and the power they have over the government.

**What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

__Judicial System __ The major sustainability problem addressed in this film is the ineffectiveness of the United States Judicial System. The issue is that the way the system is now, corporations can use it as a tool to discredit environmental activists like Judi and exploit the weaknesses of the system. One of the major problems is that unless evidence is concrete it can be debated and won’t hold up in court. The problem is that this kind of evidence is virtually non-existent. Furthermore, money plays a critical part in the process. People with more money can pay for better legal representation and as a result hold the upper hand in proceeding, regardless of what the actual facts say. These problems bring up the question of whether or not the justice system is actually just.

__Bifurcation of Work Live and Personal Values __ Another sustainability problem suggested by the film is the separation between people’s work lives and their personal values. This concept actually showed up twice in the film. It was first apparent when Judi was negotiating with the loggers to save the trees. In talking to a couple of them it was evident that they understood what they were doing was wrong, but they still had to do it. It is very tough to live by your morals when you are in a difficult spot, economically or otherwise, and this is exactly what the film showed. The other time that this shows up is when they are in the trial battling the court case. It was pretty clear to everyone early on that what had happened was not Judi’s fault, but even though she was the victim, the opposing council had to make a case against her. Lawyers are taught early one that much of what they will have to do in their professions may be morally wrong, but there are still many more people studying to become lawyers.

__Deforestation __ This film also draws out how unsustainable the current logging practices are. 97% of the Redwood trees that once grew in the United States have been chopped down and more are coming down every day. This is an obvious example of the effects of deforestation. This is not only unsustainable because trees are being chopped faster than they can grow back, but logging drastically alters the ecosystems of many plants and animals. The fight between loggers and the environmental activists is also unsustainable. This is because sometimes people are injured or killed in the process and this only breeds hatred for the other group. Since logging corporations refused to decrease the rate of logging, activists began to place spikes on the trees to deter the workers from cutting down trees. These spikes could seriously injure the workers. Without coming to some sort of agreement, these issues would have escalated.

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

//<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal;">The most compelling part of the film was clearly its //<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">emotional connections. The director did an excellent job of capturing exactly how everyone felt during the movie. This is simply a true story about two heartfelt characters, Judi and lead attorney Dennis Cunningham. Cunningham’s story is incredibly compelling, with his willingness to see Judi’s trial through to the end. The scenes in the car with Cunningham were incredibly persuasive, showing how tired he had become yet was able to continue fighting. His story was proof that there are people out there who are willing to go the distance. The film did an excellent job of pulling out the matrix of sustainability problems that might not be evident to the naked eye.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The part of the film I was least compelled or convinced by was the argument around the Counter Intelligence Program. This argument felt a lot like an anti-government conspiracy theory. Although the director and her father clearly believed in this, they did a terrible job of explaining it in the film and made it feel very shady. This is only one very small piece of the movie, but the lack of supporting evidence for it really hurts the credibility of the director.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What audiences does the film best address? Why? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This film can be shown to a rather general audience, but it also has some very specific targets. These ideal targets are law students and environmental activists. It would be inspiring and eye-opening for law students to get to witness the social responsibility and genuine client-care expressed by the father and his associates for Judi Bari’s case. It would also illustrate several of the problems of the legal system to them. This film also has a lot of educational value for environmental activists, including the imporatnce of compromise and non-violent actions. Furthermore, it shows them the risks that are sometimes associated with what they are doing, which is an important concern. I think this is actually very appropriate for anyone in high school and above. A decent understanding of how the government and legal system work is important for this movie since it hits on many of those concepts. It does, however, show the true colors of environmental activism, which is important because we always need more of it.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">A more direct tie to sustainability efforts would enhance the film’s educational value. The film should have focused a little more on some of the positive aspects of the Earth First movement and some of the environmental objectives they have been able to accomplish. The film does an excellent job of telling Judi’s story, but it doesn’t do a great job of showing who she was fighting with. It also would have been more educationally valuable if it hadn’t included so much detail about the director. It is almost as if she tried to force herself in as a character in the film, even though she didn’t play any part in it. This just made the movie carry on longer.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This film did not promote any particular points of intervention, but it clearly did suggest that we need more non-violent activism and morally bound judicial actors. This can only happen through more people becoming involved. Even though this film told more of the darker side to the story, it lets you know that there is certainly a need for more Judi Baris.

**<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This film compelled me to seek out more information about environmental groups such as Earth First do. A solid description of Earth First can be found on []. This group appears to still be very active, but holding onto its more traditional values. The group still holds tree sits, for instance, and believe in the simple principle of putting nature and the earth before humans. On the other hand, the website [] shows a much more contemporary and less radical environmental side to what appears to be the same group. What this looks like to me is a split in the organization to try and cover both future directions, but I am not exactly sure they are even the same. The name is the only thing that looks to be in common between the two. It would be interesting to find out more about if this is the same group and why they would split. It would also be cool to see which half is more successful in the future.