12 - The Urge for Freedom: "Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance"

Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance

Roger Penatui, Michelle Senthivel & Shyama Patel

The neglect of our Aboriginals has always been something talked about in whispers. Our Government and community should be ashamed of the way we treated people within our own country. The films “Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance” and “Le Peuple Invisible” try to open our eyes to their story. They denounce the atrocities of the government and of the Catholic Church.

“Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance” is a documentary film produced by Alanis Obomsawin. It was released direct to video in 1993 and is 1h59min long. The film recounts the Oka crisis of 1990. It shows the resistance of the first nations of Kanehsatake, a Mohawk establishment in the municipality of Oka.

The film covers the armed protest against the construction of a golf course on the ancestral territory of the first nations, which led to the blocking of the Mercier bridge and a provincial road . The movie revolves around the issue of the respect of the First Nation’s ancestral lands, and incidentally on the respect of their culture and their vision of the world, which is completely ignored by the the municipal, the provincial and the federal administration. The movie starts with shootings between the police and the protestors and gradually, things escalate, until the point where the entrance to the city is blocked. Numerous violent protests also erupted and a number of non-natives expressed their total contempt for the movement and to the natives, referring to them as  a “bunch of savages”. Along with an insisting ignorance from the government comes the refusal to let democracy speak, but also comes a complete marginalization of basic human rights and the media’s freedom of speech. Media is denied access to the protest scenes and the videotapes taken by the journalist who successfully infiltrate the restricted zone are simply destroyed.

Our weekly topic on “nations and communities” is important in understanding the bigger phenomenon underlying what some might perceive as just a protest. To understand the motives of the “fighters” as we’d like to call them, it is important to take a close look at the native people’s world view. Their way of living is based on a philosophy of interdependence and reciprocity, characterized by the perception of men and nature as one. The interconnection between knowledge, culture and environment is at the foundation of this philosophy. For them there is no such thing as personal property, the land is there to serve all Men and in return Men have to protect the land.

Along with their land, comes their past. They describe history as “the unbroken thread from the past and a path to a collective future”. What this means is that they constantly rebuild themselves and become who they are based on their history. Through it, they find strength to fight  through life. The continuity of traditions such as food preparation and sharing, taking care of the nature and being one with the land is what constitutes their identity and lifestyle and we can see in the movie when one of the fighters go home and engages in a sharing of his culture with his kids. The first nation’s culture revolves a lot around the land, which explains their constant fight to protect the land and the ecosystem whenever it is endangered. Women play an important role in the defence of the land and to understand their prominent participation, it is important retrospect on previous societies and their mythology. For example, Gaia in ancient Greece or Pachamana in the Aztec mythology. These mythological figures were all goddesses of earth and that sheds more light on the origin of the women’s role in the movie. It also emphasizes the matriarchal aspect of their society . As seen in the movie, women in the community played important roles in the demonstrations, and they participated to the negotiations with the government, one of these notorious woman was Ellen Gabrielle, who was spokesperson for her community.

As seen in the movie, the fighters’ indignation did not come out of thin air, but from an exasperation of how they’ve been treated ever since Jacques Cartier reached Hochelaga (Montreal) in 1535 and that their lands were stolen from them. One of the protestors even mentions that she has been raised a pacifist, but is ready to engage in a more physical fight. She wants to transmit the same courage and care for the land, the ecosystem and the traditions in general. This courage also manifests itself in the solidarity of other first nation communities around the continent, who came to support the cause. What was also striking in the movie was the government’s attempt to portray and define the fighters as delinquents, who were only troubling social peace. By acting as they did, the government totally shoveled aside the people’s right to fight whenever the “administration is corrupt, or employed to commit violence and injury” as John Locke states. But as the movie shows us these people were just like everyone they had kids to whom they had to go home and who looked up to them, and they needed to set a good example for them, hence fighting for what was theirs, fighting for their traditions and their identity. Despite the numerous mistreatment inflicted by the police to the natives at the entrance of Oka, the fighters kept their heads up. One of the striking scenes is when despite having a child with them, a woman and her husband were both stopped, and after they protested, were arrested. What is shocking in this case that they only protested verbally, and despite that were arrested as if they were criminals. Let’s not forget that the most remarkable changes in history have always occurred thanks to the power of speech. Where would humanity be today if all we did was just keep our mouth shut and follow the instruction given by decision makers? Today numerous groups continue voicing themselves for causes that are meaningful to them. Check the following link for a look on how the police force treats people when they stand up for what they believe is right.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/dakota-access-clashes-sunday-night-1.3859945

“Le Peuple Invisible”  (Richard Desjardins & Robert Monderie, 2007, Canada, 93 min.)

The film “Le Peuple Invisible” is a Quebec documentary produced by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie. It was released direct-to-video in 2007 and is 93 minutes long. The film tells the story of the Algonquin people, Native Americans of Canada, composed today of barely 9000 people dispersed in approximately a dozen communities (reserves) throughout Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Their current living conditions, the confiscation of their lands by the government, the stripping of their natural resources, and their forced passage from nomadic to sedentary lifestyle are denounced. All of that colonialism led to social and economic misery that, to this day, threatens their language, their culture and possibly their existence.

The film starts off with Desjardins visiting a reserve and telling the story of how the balance the Native Americans lived in was upset when the Europeans first arrived on their vast territory in the 16th century. He goes on to tell the history of the Indians and their way of life, as we see old pictures and video clips rolling. Further, we see all that the Europeans did in order to assimilate the aboriginals; we see the poor life conditions they lived in at the reserves. During the end of the film, we are shown current aboriginal schools and how this nation is living in the present day.   The main issue raised in the film is the leading extinction of the Algonquin people of Quebec; we see how the traditional native songs have been replaced by country music, the young children no longer speak the language of their ancestors, their territory has been taken by the government and to top that, the loss of dignity of a generation of children beaten and raped in religious schools meant to assimilate them.    

http://www.richarddesjardins.com/filmographie/le-peuple-invisible.html

Check out this link for further understanding on the issues faced by the aboriginal community.

Through this documentary, the filmmakers provide a voice for the Algonquin people. This may be considered bias because the audience is compelled to naturally feel empathy for the victims of this injustice because we are simply shown one side of the story. Richard Desjardins clearly points the finger at the authorities and reveals that they’re to blame in this situation, but we are not shown what they have to say in their defence. They are portrayed as the ignorant perpetrators, somewhat racists, doing as they please regardless of how their actions may affect others. Had the producers left a little bit of a militant tone out of the film, it would have been more impartial and fair. The director's’ goal was precisely to carry out the Algonquin people’s mindset and to let them tell the audience about their experience. When we watch the film, it seems, for the majority, expository with additional observatory scenes. There are many interviews with Native Americans expressing their thoughts and stories and some footage of their lives in the reserves and of the children at their community’s school.    

           For the Natives, their world view was based on interdependence and reciprocity between the people and the land and we see that in the scenes where they are shown living among nature not apart from it. When the settlers came to Canada and claimed the territory, they didn’t have the same ideology as the aboriginals and began abusing of the natural resources. That is in part when the conflict between the Indians and the Europeans first imploded.

           The concept of this film is to help us, the viewers, understand that we should not turn a blind eye when we see an unjust situation. We should act in support of what is right because we have the right to fight and revolt when the administration of the law is corrupt; as did the Algonquin people when their territory and culture was being diminished.     

A Personal Reflection of The Two Films

Both the films “Kanasehtake: 270 Years of Resistance” and “Le Peuple Invisible” are such eye openers to anyone who watches them. The films expose the viewers to the full story of the Indians throughout their assimilation. They show us the ugly truth of what our country has done to the first inhabitants of our land. “Kanasehtake” touches home for us due to the closeness of its location being only a 20 minute drive away.

“Le Peuple Invisible” shows us the horror of what our nation has done to our own people. They were subject to many different referendums, which almost always ended in the government's favor. During the settlement, the “whites” had one goal, it was to separate the First Nations to their traditions. All children seven years and older were forced into oblates to teach them the French language and the Christian religion as fast as possible. The majority of the children who went to these boarding schools were forced to stay there ten months of the year. They were not allowed to go home for Christmas. They were also physically and sexually abused by the Father’s teaching at these schools, however, there were strong repercussions of this abuse. When the Indians finally came home, they were physically and sexualy abusive to their wives and children. We need to reconsider how we treat the people of our land. The Europeans imposed laws that were incomprehensible to the Indians. The English said that they were now the owners of the land but to the Indians, one cannot own the land but be a part of it.

These films show us how little we really know about what actually happened to the natives starting with the arrival of Jacques Cartier. We took and took and took but the worst part is we took what wasn’t ours for the taking. The people were lied too and denied the basic rights to knowledge. The English played with the fact that most of the Indians were illiterate.

We must take action and defend our people within the reserves. They are often denied legal rights and even access to lawyers due to the fact that they were prohibited to defend the natives or they would face a 200$ fine. Whether big or small, we must try and change their living conditions. How is it normal that women in the reserves are 7 times more likely to commit suicide compared to the international average? Over 75 percent of the inhabitants are on social security. Can we not find them employment whether it’s on or off the reserve?

We should all feel touched by the situation in North Dakota, the US government is installing a $3.8 billion pipeline that is scheduled to carry crude oil nearly 1,200 miles from North Dakota to Illinois. The people from standing rock are worried because the pipeline cuts within a mile of their reserve and could pollute the river which provides fresh water to 17000 people who are not necessarily part of the reserve. They are not protesting in personal gain, they have everyone’s well-being at heart.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/21/police-citing-ongoing-riot-use-water-cannons-on-dakota-access-protesters-in-freezing-weather/

The filmmakers used personal and interactive ways of filming for these documentaries. In “Le Peuple Invisible” Richard Desjardins traveled to the different reserves all over Canada and conducted interviews with the residents of the reserves. The way he decided to conduct the film was a very efficient and honest way, he went straight to the source. The people are not ones to hide and deny the atrocities that happened to them so we are sure to hear what actually happened. In “Kanehsatake: 270 years of Resistance” Alanis Obomsawin stayed all throughout the lockdown and was able to film from the inside without any misleadings from the police or the government. She had a similar approach to Desjardins, which was probably the most effective way of telling the full truth of the story.

This french link from “La Presse” gives us a further and more personal understanding of the filming process that Desjardins and Monderie went through :

http://www.lapresse.ca/cinema/201207/23/49-500-le-peuple-invisible.php

In conclusion, when a group of people are oppressed, it is only normal that they stand up and fight for themselves. The first nations have been marginalized and their constant fight should strike us who represent the future decision makers. We should understand this urge that every human being has to free himself whenever constrained. As John Locke says, “all men and women have the right to life, liberty and property” and if we take his words in consideration, the native people are just trying to regain these fundamental rights. They are trying to regain and maintain the identity that was stripped from them in the past centuries.

11- Portraits of the Self

The Many Truths of Dianne's Legacy

Giancarlo Gualtieri

Mathieu Morin

Sophia Frangakis

  

     Truth has always been a vital part of human curiosity. Humans make up stories and characters, like Cronus, to help them explain truths and to avoid deception. But just how accurate is the author in telling the story? Are readers forced to believe them? Do they take what they see for granted? Or do the words “seeing is believing” best describe people as far as trust is concerned? Stories We Tell and The Silverlake Life: The View From Here both put honesty and truth into perspective. Despite many other similar themes such as family togetherness, they also provoke thoughts of skepticism. How genuine were the stories being told? Were they live footages or interpretative recreations? It gets progressively harder to tell seeing as truth is not always universal.

     Directed in 2012 by Canadian actress Sarah Polley, Stories We Tell is a family-centered documentary that attempts to re-narrate the story of the late Dianne Polley in 108 minutes. However, numerous issues are presented along the way. Sarah, albeit unintentionally, receives many different sides from the many different people she interviews. To her surprise, she even uncovers an affair that her mom had in Montreal. Lo and behold, Sarah learns that she is the very product of that encounter. Anxious to spread the news to others, she creates a script, which includes every family member including both her legal and biological fathers.

     This week, we looked at the reconstruction of stories. Directors of documentaries often use interviews to tell a story, but this film goes beyond that. Sarah uses a series of voice-over narrations to keep the film going. Not only that, but the narrator is non other than her dad Michael, a man who plays an important role in the story of Dianne Polley. Sarah even decides to keep mistakes of the voice-over in the film. She also uses information to recreate footage and spread them throughout the film as little cut scenes. Lastly, she puts a special emphasis on silences. She uses these to express characters’ emotions and to close out certain scenes. These artistic choices can be seen when Sarah constantly tells her father to re-say a particular line or when the audience notices a filming crew in her house that film actors playing the role as Sarah’s family. This is actually very interesting because she is keeping some parts of the film very honest while also deceiving the viewers in others. Sarah’s choice to include the exposure of the film crew helps the viewer to understand that truth can be very subjective and malleable if it’s based off of memory alone. This is why stories need witnesses to preserve details and critical information.

     The main issues raised in Stories We Tell are Polley’s discovery of a biological father and Michael Polley’s need to embrace the entire story as his, and only his, own. The first issue is presented as subtle comments made by her family. They tell her that she “looks like the mailman”, not her Michael. The situation hits a climax when she begins to do her research and goes to Montreal to meet her suspected biological father, Albert. This is presented as both a figurative and metaphorical leap from her old ignorant life to her knew enlightened one. Michael Polley’s sense of narrative entitlement is presented as just that: him narrating the story throughout the movie. This artistic choice was probably made to help convince Michael to let her release the story to the world as an independent film.

     Sarah Polley actually appeared in a blog and explained how she came up with the idea of documenting the story. It can be found here:

http://blog.nfb.ca/blog/2012/08/29/stories-we-tell-a-post-by-sarah-polley/.

Mark and Tom's Fight Against AIDS

     The Silverlake Life: The View from Here is a 100-minute movie directed by Peter Friedman and Tom Joslin. It documents the life of a Californian gay couple diagnosed with HIV: Mark Massi and Tom Joslin. The movie opens with an interview of Mark recalling his love of Tom. It then backtracks to the moment when they were both diagnosed with AIDS. The movie documents their lives as a gay couple with AIDS and how all of that affects their relationship, family and everyone else they interact with.

     The documentary is set in 1993, a period that shunned homosexuality and bearers of AIDS. It was a fairly discriminating time that did not accept differences as easily as today’s society. Many interviews with judgmental family members and peers showed that they did not support their “decision” to be a gay couple. During the holiday season that followed the diagnosis, Mark and Tom had decided to go visit Tom’s family. Tom carried out many interviews with his mother and father. While they were beginning to accept the fact that their son was homosexual, they did not show any signs of surprised when they were presented with the bad news. Both parents did not appreciate Mark for very shallow reasons such as appearance. Following the Christmas sequence, Tom’s situation became progressively worse. At first, he had to stay in bed most of the day but he was perfectly capable of doing daily tasks such as walking, eating and going to the bathroom. However, as time went on, Tom became very sick. He was unable to perform basic tasks on his own, lost a lot of weight and started to count the days he had left to live. Within a few weeks, Tom had passed away. Mark was very depressed and getting more sick as well. Most people realized how much both men had loved each other and each family member felt compassion for Mark, especially Tom’s mother. She had seen the extent that Mark was willing to do in order to keep Tom happy and safe.

     One of the most important scenes in the movie is Peter’s interview with Tom and Mark. He was asking them how the illness affected their lives. Peter found that even though they were both fighting AIDS, they had very different views on their lives. Mark was generally very positive despite harsh criticism and saw the silver lining in every situation. However, Tom was very pessimistic and unhappy. They viewed their final days as a blessing and a curse, respectively. It’s interesting to observe how the exact same disease can affect multiple people very differently. In an interview with popmatters, Friedman discusses the long-term battle against AIDS and how The Silverlake Life: The View From Here is about what happens when one’s body falls apart from it. It can be found here:

http://www.popmatters.com/feature/friedman-peter-030911/  

     The movie was much like the documentary Stories We Tell. It showed many interviews with family member and peers. It also showed archival footage of the gay couple’s daily life. The most prominent scenes of this documentary were the silences. The emotions were so strong that people weren’t capable of talking in front of the camera anymore. This movie has different genres, from journals and memories to romance and drama. An important concept of this documentary is truth and stereotypes. It took the death of Tom for Mark’s peers and family to acknowledge the veracity of the relationship and the connection between the two men. Neither of them were bad or inadequate. They only appeared to be because society had put them in that light for being different.

Our Thoughts

     The films Stories We Tell and The Silverlake Life: The View From Here are both documenting about the loss of a loved one. These two stories are undoubtedly relatable because, as humans, the viewers have faced or will eventually face losing a loved one. As shown in both films, it is something that is mournful but unfortunately inevitable.

     There are many things that can be learned from both of the films. Two of them being truth-telling and trust. Trust is not something that comes easy, but a lack of it would mean that these two films would not have happened. In Stories We Tell, Sarah Polley did not know what answers she was going to receive from interviewing her family members. However, after putting her trust into their answers and believing what they said, she found out that Michael was not her biological father. If she did not believe they were telling the truth, she would have never found her real father. In The Silverlake life: The View From Here there were two narrators; Tom and Mark. Both of them had AIDS and were told that they would eventually pass away. However, Tom ended up getting more ill than Mark and did not have much time left to live. Therefore, Tom had to put his trust into Mark to continue the documentary after he passed away. Mark did in fact finish the film. In that sense, their trust in each other was very strong. From both films, the importance of trust and how strong relationships can be is very clearly highlighted. Perhaps the inevitability of death forces people to trust each other. Provided below is a link that shows the mortality rate of those who had AIDS in 2015.

http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en/

     We can see through these films how much an illness can affect someone's life. In both films the main characters were diagnosed with deadly illnesses, which of course, lead to their slow death. The films both show how much one person can have an impact on our lives and how much our lives change when they pass away. Like many say "you don't know what you've got until it's gone", which in this case cannot be more accurate.

     I have been through a loss of a loved one and I know it is not easy. Thankfully, my grandmother did not die from an illness but her death still had a huge impact on my life and many others'. However, just like in Stories We Tell, reminiscing about stories my family and I had with our beloved made us happy and remember how great of a person she was. Also, just like in The Silverlake Life: The View From Here, dealing with the death of a loved one right as it happens is very difficult and there are many stages of recovery that everyone goes through. Basically, as stated previously, everyone will eventually go through the difficulties of losing a loved one and the recovery phase that goes along with it.

     The filmmakers had two different styles of documentaries that were both interesting. In Stories We Tell, Sarah, the filmmaker, interviewed many people that knew her mother, Dianne. While the interviewees were speaking, Sarah included clips of the story being told to help the viewers visualize it more clearly. However, one thing that I believe did not work so well is when she told her interviewees what they were going to be interviewed about. I believe it would of been even more raw and interesting if they did not know before the interviews began. Differently in The Silverlake Life: The View From Here, the two filmmakers were documenting their everyday life after being diagnosed with AIDS. What I enjoyed the most about their style of filming is that you did not miss out on anything because they both brought a camera wherever they went, which also proved to us that nothing they said was false. One thing that did not work well in this film is the use of footage that was not needed. For example, in one scene the filmmakers would be conversing, but it was nothing interesting and so it became boring to watch. It’s understandable that they would want to include as much as possible, but knowing when there is too much fluff is also a good skill to have.


     Overall, it’s important to realize that documentaries can be very deceptive. However, there’s a fine line between deception and perspective. Some details get lost along the way, but that doesn’t mean that the director is trying to lie. Stories We Tell shows audiences what a professional, recreated story could look like while The Silverlake Life: The View From Here is more transparent and emotional. Stories are just another tool of communication. The truths involved could have many possible perspectives to them, but is there really only one side that holds all the right answers?

10 - "No Impact Man" & "Surviving Progress"

Sina Youssefi
Liam O'Connor
Iulia Bolnavu
        Conflict has always been widespread. The history of humans had been written by conflict and the reason for all of it is differences in ideologies taken to extremes. The films No Impact Man and Surviving Progress were ones that had one primary focus on the conflicting ideologies of the modern world: Capitalism and Environmentalism. However, neither film presented their ideas in violent or harmful ways but rather by interviews and lifestyle changes.

Part 1: No Impact, No problem

The primary focus of the films being analyzed is the concept of ideology and utopia, observing the films with those topics in mind makes the comprehension of those films much easier. No Impact Man, directed by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein and published in 2009, took place in the united states of America, in the city of New York and had a duration of 1h33minutes. To be able to undrestand the topics we must first define them: Ideologies are a set of beliefs, values, habits, ways of seeing, that shape our understanding of the world. These are often reinforced by using rituals or traditions. Groups will often use ideologies to justify their actions. On the other hand, utopia can be seen as a world where everything follows a certain ideal. For example the "utopic world" for a rich businessman would be one that is comprised of free trade and markets, when a utopia for an environmentalist would be one that minimizes waste.

Colin Beavan, "No Impact Man"

Colin Beavan was and is, in fact, an environmentalist. This being said, it was this environmentalist nature that led him to begin the project that would eventually become "No Impact Man". This means that it was his conflicting ideology witht eh common one of the United States of America that truly became an inspiration for the film, and thus became a central topic. Over the course of 365 days, he and his family (wife Michelle and daughter Isabella) would embark on a journey where they would not minimize their waste, but remove it all together. This transition between an average family and a planet saving one would be done in several steps, including the elimination of imported goods, trash and food waste, no non-self-propelled transportation and finally no electricity. The main issues presented by the film include the high amount of waste produced by the population, along with the large amount of waste that is produced by the human race and how we can easily do without these wastes. Colin presents these issues while attempting to prevent them in his own life: he explains things such as how recycling is really down cycling (the grade of recycled materials decreases with each recycling process) and how the meat industry creates a large amount of greenhouse gases. All these environmental issues are presented almost at the very beginning of the film and are really used as a driving force for the whole project.

Critics of No Impact Man would often say that he is an idealist. In fact, Colin was living in a way that would not be sustainable because he wanted to live in a utopic world. The lifestyle he chose was one that was based off actions that can seem ritualistic or traditional. Every morning he would have to get up and go to the farmer’s market for food and took transportation that was man powered, he was living in the ideal situation for many environmentalists and that is the exact reason that he was the subject of the amount of hate he received, because his utopia seemed like a dystopia to the outside world.

No Impact Man was a special film due to the fact that not only did it seek to inform the audience but it also attempted to incite actions in the viewers. Colin made a point of demonstrating that many of his new habits and lifestyles are possible for the average person to adopt and even encouraged them to follow in his steps by going to colleges and presenting his project for trial. Every reader can gain something from this film, be it the family values it brings fourth or the environmentally friendly ones, many lessons can be learned. Words often speak less than actions and No Impact Man had both. More information on the project and Colin himself can be found athttp://noimpactproject.org/

Part 2: Using, Consuming, and Overall; Wasting

            “Surviving Progress”; a 1 hour and 26 minute documentary film directed by Mathieu Roy and Harold Crooks in 2011, uses interview processes with a wide range of people, from all around the world, to get a good idea of the state of the environment, the reasons for which it is as it is (due to things like consumerism and the distribution of resources.

Though touching on the same subject as No Impact Man, Surviving Progress presents its audience with a different side of the same story. This story being the reality that is our environment and the state it is in. While we get a look, in No Impact Man, at some of the ways Colin Beavan tries to lessen his impact on the environment, within this second documentary film we are shown the actual state of the world around us. Through our capitalist and consumerist ways, alongside a very realistic issue known as overpopulation, we are driving our planet towards an early grave, and if it goes, we go with it.

            As can easily be distinguished by the title, Surviving Progress really digs into the issues caused through the evolution of the human race, or even more specifically, the lack there of. It brings up the term “Progress Trap” which brings into account the consequences of our so called “progress”. An example given talks about how cavemen would have made good progress in learning to kill two mammoths at the same time rather than just one, and would resultantly end up better off, however, learning to kill an entire herd by having them run of a cliff, would in turn be counterproductive. These progress traps have led to the fall of countless civilizations in the past, and it can easily happen to us too unless we learn to acknowledge them and change the way we do things, for instance, we need to start producing things to last, rather than disposing of them frequently and getting new ones.  Though we easily forget it, resources are not unlimited; they are of a finite source and unless we can learn to manage them better, there will end up being nothing left.

            The distribution of wealth is another big subject touched in this film. As stated by Vaclav Stil (one of the people interviewed) “Poor people need more, there is no doubt about it…but as for us, we certainly could and should do with much much much less” us, in this context, being developed as well as developing countries in some cases. Currently, what is going on is that we, in 1^st world countries, consume way too much and usually this is off of the backs of the populations of the underdeveloped countries of which their populations barely have enough to survive. Below is a short clip presented in Surviving Progress which goes to show just how the first world thrives off of the backs of the poor.

In the end, the simple truth is, the earth cannot support all of us. The planet would not be able to support all of humanity consuming, using and creating as much waste as we have grown accustomed to and, in fact, if China alone were to start going through resources at the same rate as the western world, the planet would not be able to even come close to keeping up. There are only two solutions to this issue; firstly, we could learn to consume less, or second, the colonization of space. Now which sounds more reasonable to you?

Part 3: What We Thought

            No Impact Man, as well as Surviving Progress, shows us how nature and humanity are irrefutably and fundamentally linked to one another. As animals, we are primarily dependent on our environment but modern life disconnects us from nature. Living in the city isolates us and makes us omit or even forget the imprint that we have over our planet. No Impact Man makes us reflect on our society’s deep capitalist roots and makes us contemplate the utility and the necessity of our daily consumptions.

            We often see environmentalist documentaries as extremist or even utopic when in fact we do not need to take extreme measures like Colin did to make a change in the world, if everyone would take small steps and would make small sacrifices in their routines instead of radically rationing their way of living, it would have a much greater and better result ecologically than fewer but bigger acts. Protecting our nature should be a common effort deployed by our entire community and we should work on getting people more and more involved, in small ways like composting or merely by making people more aware of the trash they generate weekly and making them realize how they could invest more of their time and money on doing things that they love or on living experiences instead of working to materialistic ends.

            The film teaches us how at the end of the day, the most memorable moments we spend in our lives are with our loved ones; this family’s experiment made them realize how time should be invested in love and life rather than on superficial caprices. The fact that the camera was following the family around made the movie really personal and made the viewers feel like they were a part of it too, a part of their routine which I found pertinent to the context.   

            People from developed countries no longer live in nature; they live among it. There exists an emotional fracture and a lack of interest for the ‘’poor’’ that live a simpler life and that are considered ‘’weak’’ as well as an indifference towards natural destruction. Our current economic models which mainly consist of world globalization and the power that multi-nationals hold have a huge impact on everyone’s lives.

            As we see in the movie Surviving Progress, the Amazonian forest as well as many other beautiful ecosystems have been tainted or even annihilated by the savage exploitation of multi-national corporations. It is surprising to see how in the era of communication, few people are informed, really informed. It needs to change because we have to create a collective conscience to save our planet and to look for real solutions to our problems like financial abuses and corporation involvement that dictate the internal politics of poor countries. A huge step has been made with the signature of the conference of Paris, the COP21, in 2015, in which the climate change has been openly acknowledged and where the richest countries promise to work together to reduce global pollution. http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/.

            We can see through this documentary that a simpler way of living is not necessarily a bad way of living and that people are still happy without all the materials we own but are often exploited and maneuvered by the elite which make us question the ways of our society. I found it really appropriate how they let their witnesses tell their story in their own language and put the subtitles in English underneath because I think it made it look like globalization and environmental issues are really a global problem and affects everyone in a certain way. The nature shots are necessary too I find to really attach an image to what the people in the film are saying.

            Personally, I went to my grandmother’s farm in Romania this summer and I saw how she lived a much more modest life that me. She reuses or recycles everything, the extra food that is left she gives to the pigs, the old bread she gives to the cats and she makes compost with everything remaining. She also consumes a lot less than me, merely buys any clothes, does not take showers as often as me and does not need the latest technologies. I could see that she was still living a happy life but while being there I could not stop thinking of my discomfort because I did not have access to internet, because I could not take showers every day, because there were no stores or distractions. Instead of enjoying nature, I was focusing on all the wrong things and it made me realize how our capitalist country really has shaped me as a person.

             In conclusion, although conflict has marked mankind and stained the history books, the films No Impact Man and Surviving Progress demonstrated that it is not the only way to make change or present ideas. The films show that one can always be heard and understood by using methods that do not antagonize but rather communize people, and that is what both films are about.

9 - "If a Tree Falls" & "L'Erreur Boréal"

Demetria Ekiridzo

Jessica Joncas

Samantha Zakher

            Life on Earth is great and very relaxing to the privileged western countries. We have the highest education on earth, food from every corner of the planet, and the most innovating technology. One can visit people in different continents in a maximum of 2 days, and can take a tour of the world by plane or boat. People are building more and more, opening places to immense innovations. However, has one every thought about the origins of these resources? Or more precisely, how it is being created? It is all and well to know that paper comes from trees, but do you know that 95% of the trees have been completely razed from the surface of the North America? Life on Earth isn’t actually that relaxing; unless, of course, you have been totally clueless up until now.

“If a Tree Falls:  A Story of the Earth Liberation Front”

            “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” is a documentary directed by Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman, revolving around the environmentalists called the Earth Liberation Front (E.L.F). This documentary was produced in the United States in 2011 and is 85 minutes; it features Daniel McGowan, his friends, family, allies of the E.L.F and many others. Daniel McGowan was a regular kid that lived in New York City, and went to catholic school. After college, McGowan realized the impacts and the problems related to the environment, and then decided to join the environmental movement. To make a change, he started joining petitions and writings letters, trying to inform the people about what was going on with the environment. When he noticed that his first actions were not effective, he and his group of activists did property destruction and civil disobedience. McGowan and his group never intended to harm anyone, they make these actions with the only intention to bring down big corporation. When McGowan noticed that these acts of protest became dangerous he and some other member of the E.L.F drop out and continued their life in a different direction. In 2005, Daniel McGowan was arrested at his workplace by federal agents for being involved into “terrorist” actions. At the end of the documentary, we see Jake Ferguson ended up walking free after traitorously giving up his friends to the federal agents. Many other E.L.F members got jail time; and for Daniel McGowan, he was sentenced to 7 years in jail.

          This video is a brief overview of the E.L.F actions :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyLcmtwk0xQ

After watching the documentary “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front”, we could very well realize that the movie shows multiple point of views. These multiple points of view let the audience make their own opinion on the subject, as well as who they agree with. In the documentary, the content was quite biased towards the E.L.F. and the environmental issues. Although it is biased, the directors demonstrated a various amount of points of view and ideologies like the police officers and the investigators as well as the media and the businessmen. Daniel McGowan and other E.L.F members believed that what they were doing the right thing for the environment. They tried to deliver their message by by burning buildings and property damage. Daniel McGowan put himself out there to show his beliefs and ideologies. The documentary film tries to show what environmentalism is all about, the film implies that being an environmentalist is someone that supports nature and wants to protect it. Daniel's point of view in the film gives him a chance to show ideologies and makes himself an example to follow. One of the most important messages in this film is that we have to stand up for what we believe in. However, as shown in the film: there are limits. The E.L.F. wanted to shock the companies; however, their ways were drastic and dangerous. Due to those extreme methods, business owners lost their money and their hard work. 

When the director interviewed the business owners, they used their testimonies to make the documentary less biased. He also used many testimonies to show different ideologies about the saving the environment and how important the issue is. This documentary also added a lot of scenes showing police brutality, demonstrating these peaceful protesters getting pepper sprayed and being bombared with gas, etc. By doing so the director showed how the police has to follow what they are told even if they do not necessairly agree with their orders. What the environmentalist wanted to show to everyone else, is that our environment is getting worse every day, second by second, and if we keep going we are going to lose what is left of it.

“L’Erreur Boréale”

The film “L’Erreur Boréale” is a documentary directed by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie. It is mostly about Quebec’s nature and how it’s being treated here. But it’s really about the deforestation in Quebec. This film was made in Quebec in 1999 and is 68 minutes long. At the beginning of the film, he interviews an elderly man called Robert Monderie; he helped make this documentary with Richard Desjardin. They start talking about Lake Vaudray, in Quebec. This man says that since he was five years old, he would come and spend his summers there. However, it’s almost all gone because such a big amount of trees have been cut down by these companies. In Abitibi, Quebec, there lies one of the biggest leather factories in the world. They poisoned tons of lakes and rivers, and cut down many important trees in Lake Vaudray. Luckily, Richard Desjardins started a petition; He received one thousand five hundred signatures to stop the leather company from cutting down more trees, on the other side of Lake Vaudray. No one really realizes what’s happening to nature; since we build walls around forests, human beings cannot witness or see how people disrespect nature, and how little they care about the trees.  This is the problem Richard Desjardins is trying to show people in his documentary. The government keeps cutting down so many trees here in Montreal. Desjardins’ goal in this film was to show us citizens that we need to make a change and we need to save the forests. When the Europeans came to North America, they had already cut all the trees of the forest. However, when Jacques Cartier came to North America, he was amazed by the nature. Back in the day, the forest in Quebec used to be two times bigger than it is now! One tree used to be enough to cut a plank of wood for a table but nowadays, they need more than just one tree. In 1910, in Quebec, a new law had been created: wood had to be transformed into paper. In 1950, Trois-Rivière became the world’s capital of paper.

            The way Richard Desjardins expresses his feelings about nature and the cutting down of the trees is great. In this film, he reveals to us, the audience, what the government and industries are trying to do through the use of pictures. He is also tells us what exactly they’re hiding from people. Desjardins says that they are cutting the trees in a disrespectful and exaggerating way; they are definitely not replanting trees, they’re taking the homes of many animals and they’re slowly killing humans. The government and the industries are not respecting the environment; all they truly care about is making a profit. We need those trees because they have the oxygen necessary for our breath and survivals, our food and animals, our well being, etc.

 Check out this short video that demonstrates the changes happening to Quebec's forest.  ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgspXk58NVc

            

 The concept of this film is to teach us the importance of nature and trees. Industries have to stop cutting down so many trees. There aren’t many trees left in the world. Nobody realizes how important the environment and soon it’s all going to be gone. 

         This film presents one clear ideologie, that we have to be careful and change our ways before all our forest get cut down. L'erreur boréale denounce the clean cuts happening in the nordique forest.  Desjardins uses this film to show the issue of deforestation in Quebec and uses statistics to support his claims.

         At the end of the documentary, Desjardins shows pictures to students studying nature; those picture demonstrate what people are doing to the forest. He shows them what the industries have done to Lake Vaudray, and how there aren’t many trees left: they are quite shocked, because they’ve never seen the forest like that. Ignorance is prevalent throughout the society: Important information is withholden from naturalists themselves!

Our Thoughts on the Films

These films are very eye-opening to some, and a complete joke to others. It shows us how urgent the problem of ecology is, and yet how many people ignore it. These films can be seen as pretty challenging: to get their point across, some people decide to cause damage through their method of arson, but they keep on going until they are heard, yet they mostly manage to be seen as terrorists, and their purpose is completely invisible. It is very shocking to see how far people can go for simple trees. However, it is understandable when we see how much damage one has caused to the environment. It is very weird to see such an extremist side of the environment, since it is usually treated as an exagerated issue. The environment has become a real issue as seen the both movies our forests and environments are being destroyed and we need to take action. These films invite us to treat the environment more seriously, and to realise how much damage we are causing. Throughout the world, about 900 million trees are cut down annually, as of 2014. We never seem to realise how much we’re killing the earth because we are so desensitised to its issues. Watching these films is like taking a bath in cold water, gasping and coming back to the surface, and realising you are very much awake, but that you have chosen to be sleepy and blind. Littering, buying books, using too much water, has always been done without a care in the world. However, we now have a guilty feeling in the back of our heads. With every meter you drive with a car, another dent is put in the Earth’s lifespan.

The film “L’Érreur Boréale” was eye-catching because we got to see how so many industries treat our environment in such disgusting ways. Desjardins showed us what an industry had done to Lake Vaudray and I thought it was just so sad to see someone’s home being destroyed like that. Every year, more and more poor animals become extinct, due to human actions. It is sad to see those beautiful creatures be gone forever. 

 It is not very likeable to be treated as Earth’s criminals. No one likes to be seen as a hateful and disgusting person, yet these films has human beings be seen like so. It is trying to make us realize and make us accept that with every action we take, we are causing environmental damage. Seeing all the police brutality against peaceful protesters is shocking: it is unbelievable that the government itself is fully ignoring the damage they are causing to the environment, and are weeding out the people who do care about it. Image after image, scene after scene, the message of these films finally get embedded in our brain, and we feel somewhat guilty. Obviously, it is too difficult and almost impossible to radically change our lifestyle, but small actions are better than nothing.

            I would say that the filmmaker have done a good job in conveying their ideas; it was a bit shocking to see how developed of a crime the eco-terrorists have done, without being a single bit guilty about it, in the moment. It is good to see how they’ve reflected on it, without degrading the purpose of it. However, it is a bit unnecessary to see how much empathy the filmmakers wants us to pour in the film to feel bad for Daniel. It is important that we see him as a human being, but seeing to much of him in a positive light erases the crimes he has done. Desjardins has done a successful job of demonstrating how intensely important information is hidden from us, with the example of naturalists students being shocked at his pictures. The anecdotes were also interesting, yet not totally convincing without the proof of solid evidence.
          
          After watching these two documentary, we realized that we should take action to save the planet. Just looking at my neighborhood the municipality is taking over our forest to build condos. I remember when I just moved in, their was only two or three streets present in my development and now there is about 10 to 12 streets. This has made me open my eyes to what the environment is facing. The two documentary made me notice that the I need to take action, so lately I tried taking care of the environment even more, I have tried to reduce my ecological footprint.   

To conclude, we shall end with the obvious; the environment is extremely, tremendously, important. ‘If A Tree Falls’ demonstrate how desperate the environmentalists are, for the cause is urgent: L’Erreur Boréale, likewise. Both films show us the effects of the long-term damage we have created.  We must realise how much damage we are causing to the Earth, and we must change our lifestyles to ensure a better life for us and the future generations. We need to rally against the corporations who ignore the damage they cause on Earth, and protest peacefully, because extreme reaches will only bring us backwards. Going slow yet steady is the best method. However, are we truly capable of change?

Want to help make a change, here are 10 simple things you can do to make the planet healthier.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ocean/earthday.html