Tedford+A+Force+for+the+Trees

1. The title of the screen film was __A Forest for the Trees__, directed by Bernadine Mellis and produced in 2006. 2. This film chronicles the long legal struggle associated with the alleged car bombing of Earth First activist Judi Beri and the lawyers and folks involved in the struggle to prove that the car bombing was not an act of terror by Earth First, but rather an outside malicious act. The main character of the film (aside from Judi Beri) is civil rights lawyer Dennis Cunningham, who's daughter is behind the camera for the majority of the film. 3. Listed below are the sustainability problems that I identified in this film: 4. There were several parts of this film that I would consider persuasive and compelling. Any of the scenes depicting Judi Beri before she died were very compelling and effective in describing what type of person she was. The best scene of that category was the footage involved with her deposition, it was added to the film in a way that flowed nicely. Footage of the civil rights lawyers talking over information with the Earth First people was also a really great addition. I felt during this film that these were real people, that the odds were against them but they overcame that. 5. This is really unfortunate, because she probably is a great person and really intellectual, but any information provided by Alicia Littletree I automatically discredited because she "dropped out of high school to sit in a tree." It's not the part about sitting in a tree that affects my decision, its the fact that she dropped out of high school. Any admissions she made to the lawyers I just saw as chatter with little back up. I'm sure there are perfectly intelligent and intellectual individuals who didn't complete high school, but that stigma associated with it just put me off toward her. Plainly, she was a non-compelling character in film. 6. This film could probably adress a wide variety of audiences. I think that the grassroots and informal style of filming makes this film accessible to younger audiences especially, and maybe some older audiences as well. This film does not strike me as being particularly formal, I don't picture older individuals at a big law firm enjoying it. 7. There were two major areas I think could have had expansion to make this more educational: 8. The film doesn't really suggest too many actions or points of intervention based off of its message that the Federal Government does a good job of trying to make activists out to be "bad guys." In the future, I think its always right to question your political and legal system because it's run by human beings. Every system needs some sort of check at some point. 9. This film was really informative to me about Judi Bari and her amazing environmental legacy. It drove me to find out more about her and her personal life. Judi's work actually began while she was working as a carpenter building a luxury home in California. She began to wonder where the beautiful redwood she was working with came from, and to her astonishment she realized it had been coming from 1000 to 2000 year old trees in the old growth forest. Apart from environmental activism, she was also a very serious and popular feminist and pro-choice advocate. Interestingly enough, this was conveyed slightly in the film, Bari had a unique way of organizing in that she integrated music into her campaigns through her skill with the violin. (Wilson, 1997) I also found out that some of Earth First's original creators were under the philosophy of "Deep Ecology" which I learned about in a previous course. It was interesting for me to see a parallel between an organization and a faction of environmental philosophy. This makes sense because during our class discussion following the film, there was a mention of the creators being outspoken about the "benefits" of the AIDS epidemic.
 * Methods of getting the attention of corporations often seem to be a sustainability problems in themselves. Earth First certainly got attention in the early 90s with their work in monkey wrenching and tree spiking, however these methods drew mostly negative attention and worked against them as an organization.
 * The American fear of terrorism and internal "rebels". Judi Beri was a woman had a loud voice and a lot to say. Although this was during the mid 90s (pre-9/11), our government is often very weary of individuals who seem to be of a "counter culture" or who speak out against corporations. I was surprised that in the trial in 2002/2003 there wasn't more of a struggle to label them terrorists. Especially during that time, the climate around those sorts of issues was really intense. On the other hand, since Judi Beri had passed away, they were trying to protect her legacy more and the issue of her "being a terrorist" may have been less important. The accountability of the federal government was what was seemingly at stake.
 * Corporations are often times allotted many privileges/rights than the individual who should by the constitution have the right to freedom of speech, etc. Corporations who's best interests are not in protecting human health or the environment unfortunately have a larger say in what happens in our country than people who stand up and call attention to a problem with health or sustainability.
 * When it comes to trying these types of cases in courts, there is a certain amount of "lack in professionalism" associated with environmentalists and activists that creates a negative stigma to begin with. This can affect the judge or jury's perception of the case.
 * __More information on Earth First:__ This history of Dennis Cunningham's cases involving the Black Panther's was great, and very informative. On the flip side, I didn't feel like ample information was provided about Earth First as an organization, how they got their start, why they did "monkey wrenching" and just general information.
 * __Better information on the redwood forest:__ It's hard for me to visualize the geography of the area they were working in. A map would have really done a lot on that end.