AcocellaForestfortheTrees

1. Title: The Forest for the Trees; Director: Bernice Millis; Release Year: 2003

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film focuses on the story of a woman named Judi Bari who was an activist involved with Earth First who had a major impact on many people who were close to her for her dedication to her cause. She almost lost her life in an assassination attempt involving a car bomb, which the FBI tried to frame her for. The film followed her friends and lawyers during the trial to clear her name even after her death, which was unrelated to the car bombing.

One main point of this film is that activists must face a great amount of disrespect from people who do not agree with them or their practices and especially big corporations and government. They feel that their rights to stand up for something they believe in are often taken away.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? This film points out many different sustainability problems. One major problem is that often the police and even the federal government, the FBI in this case, offer much better protection to corporations who are actually causing environmental problems then to those who are trying to protect the environment. In this film, it was the logging companies that were better protected because they disliked the activists getting in the way of their production.

In addition, one issue I thought was interesting was the interactions between the activists and the workers. The workers feel the activists are a threat to their jobs. In addition, the workers are getting hurt from some of the practices of the activists so the workers very often carry weapons. This has the potential to get very dangerous for everyone involved. However, the main conflict is between the activists and the logging companies so the issues the workers have with the activists is sometimes overlooked. This ties into the matrix on the topic of unions and workers’ rights. Neither the activists nor the workers want to get hurt or cause violence.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I think the film did a very good job getting its audience to really become attached to Judi; to respect her and care for her just like her friends and family did. I felt that by teller her story, getting the audience attached, and really following her legal team through the trial was an effective way of getting the audience’s attention and persuading them onto Judi’s side. In addition, I found the actual story about the bombing, the assassination attempt and the framing to be very interesting.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The film was directed by the daughter of the head lawyer in the trial. I felt that the daughter’s love and respect for her father had the potential to distract from the other elements of the film that were done very well. This extra component did not add anything positive to the film and its main point and I felt almost distracted from the film’s intentions in some cases.

6. What audience does the film best address? Why? The film was directed more toward an audience that already knows and cares a good deal about environmental issues. It was not meant to convince the audience to care but to shed light on one specific problem that we face. It touched on but did not give a lot of facts and figures about deforestation or lumber companies’ practices that are harmful to the planet. It was meant to evoke emotion from the audience.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? Because the film was directed toward an informed audience, it did not explain the background of some of the organizations involved. For example, I was not aware of who Earth First was or what they have done. Perhaps adding a short history of the group would have helped, especially because Earth First was better known in the 90s but now that they have lost some media coverage, my generation may not know as much about them.

8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The film indirectly suggests cooperation and negotiation between activists and companies. Judi made huge advances by meeting with executives in the lumber companies and talking with them. Non-violence and no-damage agreements also helped create positive changes. In fact, she was well respected by these executives due to such conduct. In order for activists to gain the attention they need to bring about positive changes for the environment they must know how to communicate with their audience.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? After watching this film I wanted to find out more about Earth First. From their website, I get the feeling that they are on the extreme side of activism. They describe themselves as being a “diverse, passionate, committed, and uncompromising group,” who “use tools ranging from grassroots organizing and involvement in the legal process to civil disobedience and monkeywrenching” that has “survived attacks by moderates, would-be leaders and the agents of the system.” They were officially named Earth First! in 1979. They encourage becoming informed about your local issues in order to help out in your area.

[]

I also wanted to learn a little more about Judi, her life and the case. In Sept. 2010, the FBI announced it wanted to destroy all of the bombing evidence despite the fact that the bombing is still unsolved. A motion of objection to the destruction of the evidence was filed. I read what she wrote about the day of the bombing, which was also part of video-taped testimony she provided before her death. The links listed below have a lot of very interesting information about the case and what has happened since the case and since the film was made.

[] []