DaleAForcefortheTrees

Jacob Dale Annotation #7, 11/07/10 The Forest for the Trees

1. Title, director and release year?

The film, __The Forest for the Trees__ was directed by Bernice Millis and was released in 2006.

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

The film is an inside look at the court case of Judi Bari versus the FBI. The film is entirely real footage that is narrated by Bernadine Mellis. Mellis is the daughter of Dennis Cunningham, a civil rights attorney. Mr. Cunningham represented several controversial figures from the Black Panthers and the Weathermen. In fact, he went above and beyond trying to convince the courts that a fellow Black Panther member was not guilty of murder. Now, Mr. Cunningham is an old man who is still advocating for the little guy. The film’s star is Judi Bari. Judi was a member of the group known as Earth First. She fought to keep the ancient redwood trees from being destroyed relentlessly by the timber industry. Judi’s car ended up being set with explosives, and she was severely injured in the 1990 accident. Despite having nothing to do with the accident, she was arrested for allegedly being a terrorist and arranging the explosion. Judi did not let this go even though the charges were dropped. She wanted to sue the FBI. Dennis Cunningham took on her case, and it would be years until a court date would be finally set. Mellis documented the whole process and her dad’s tireless work and strategizing with other attorneys on the case. In the end, Judi did not live to see her victory when a jury awarded her estate a large settlement.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film draws out three major sustainability issues that include radical environmentalism, the legal process, and profits over people and the environment. Throughout history, environmentalists have been given a bad rap often being seen by individuals and the government as being radical domestic terrorists. This is even clear in the movie when the police believe Julie is a violent terrorist. Environmentalists often have destroyed private property as well was machinery involved in hurting the environment. In the film, there were examples of members of Earth First actually destroying logging equipment and in one of the instances a driver of the machinery was killed. Radical environmentalism rarely helps the situation. In fact, it often allows the corporation an excuse to continue with its operations if people see environmentalists as radicals who are insane.

Another big sustainability issue was the legal process. It took over 12 years for the case to go to trial. In the mean time, Judi died of cancer. This also brings about the notion of unequal representation. The location of the court matters as the closer to the problem the better since the jury is more likely to be sympathetic to the victim. In this instance, the FBI did not want Judi’s case to be tried close to the accident. Also, since the FBI was involved the court was more likely to side with the government body. Courts tend to side with the less radical body which is often the corporation or the big guy involved. Many times, judges rule certain evidence as not permissible. This of course impacts what the jury can see as evidence and can sway the decision in favor of the corporation. Little things like not having the light on in the court or the projector being off can change the outcome of a case. Finally, corporations often put commercial interests ahead of the environment and their workers. As seen in this movie, the logging industry kept cutting down trees even though they knew the tree species was at risk for becoming extinct. Also, they continued operations despite employees being at risk for injury due to protesters.

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

The most persuasive parts for me were Judi’s recorded testimony and Mr. Cunningham continuing the case after Judi’s death. Judi knew her reputation was on the line, and she knew that she was a good person. She wasn’t violent, and she wanted to prove the FBI was involved in a cover up. She was no terrorist. Judi previously received numerous death threats, and she had reported them to the FBI. The FBI never investigated these threats. This to me proved a cover-up. The whole situation meant so much to her that despite being on her death bed, she recorded her own testimony. This clearly showed she was after the FBI and not the money. Also, Mr. Cunningham was clearly dedicated to this cause. The movie showed him constantly coming up with strategies and working with his other attorneys. The film never showed him taking a break.

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

I found the whole story to be compelling, but I did not like the style of the film. It seemed very amateurish since it was just recorded by Mr. Cunningham’s daughter. I am sure this is what some people really liked about the movie, but to me it almost took away the importance of everything. I especially felt some things could have been left out like the part when Mr. Cunningham gave his daughter money, and they went to eat in a fast food restaurant. Some of the deliberations the attorneys had were rather unnecessary as well since they were repetitive.

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

I feel that the movie was made for those individuals who are already aware of deforestation. The main topic of the film was Judi’s story. The film even quickly glossed over the Earth First movement leaving me wondering what it was exactly. This film is definitely for people already informed of deforestation or for those that just want to see an emotional story of a woman on a mission to defend her reputation and proof that she is passionate for her cause.

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

Since the focus on the film was more on Judi’s trial, I would say focusing more on the deforestation would have been a good idea. Also, the film should have talked about some of the individuals who lost their lives while working for the logging industry. This could have conveyed the point that the corporation was benefiting from the deforestation and didn’t have any regard for human life. The film could have gone into radical environmentalism as well. It briefly mentioned how some people have gone too far by destroying private property and harming human life, but it didn’t seem to convey that this is clearly wrong and that most environmentalists are not violent.

8. 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.

The movie didn’t really offer any solutions directly to the problems faced in the environmental movement or deforestation. I would say a good way to attract more traction to environmentalism would be to use the media to show Judi’s story and convince people that most environmental movements are not radical or violent. Not everyone who cares about the environment is a radical hippie. Many people have the wrong perception of these people. Even the FBI categorized them as environmental terrorists. Environmental groups should shed light on this and protect the dissidents. The perception that these people are terrorists needs to be erased. Also, if an organization ever gets involved in a legal battle it should attempt to get a local court to try the case. This allows for a better chance for the jury to already be informed or be able to listen to an emotional appeal and side in their favor. Another big thing that could help is evidence. It is important to find evidence that can be allowed in a court room. Finally, environmentalists need to shed light on when courts side with mega-corporations despite overwhelming evidence against them. The public needs to know the truth. This can be done through blogging, contacting local media, and so on.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

The film made me curious about environmental radicalism and the Earth First movement. Apparently, Earth First came about in 1979 in response to other environmental groups being ineffective and too passive. They highly utilize community organizing, communication, disobedience, and monkeywrenching. This actually makes me nervous. What do they mean exactly by monkeywrenching? I do not believe destroying property is right. People outside the movement would see you as the bad guy if you did this. The things I do like is that the organization encourages education and learning the workings of the legal system. It also lets you know that some activists have been arrested, so you have to know what you are getting into. Also, it the organization that encourages you to spread the word.

[]

Apparently, eco-terrorism is still a major issue the FBI is looking into. In fact, it has classified it as the number one domestic terror threat. Despite the hunt for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, officials are still considering eco-terrorism to be their number one target. Why is this? It seems to me the war on terror is more vital to our country. Corporate interests might have a hand in this. The article I read did describe some current eco-terrorist organizations. It said that Elves in the Night were responsible for the March 2008 fires on the Seattle Street of Dreams. They caused over $7 million in damages and left signs accusing homes there to be McMansions. The group was apparently set off because the expensive homes were built near a creek where endangered salmon resides. Also, the homes polluted the creek and the wetlands in the area. So, perhaps the FBI does have some validity in their claims. Before I rest a final judgment, I will have to do a bit more research.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343768,00.html