Unfortunately, I have to start this post with a disclaimer; I, in no way, support the actions of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Marshall Curry did such a fantastic job capturing the complexities of Daniel McGowan’s situation, however, that I must concede that the morality of the events is not black and white. One of the most intriguing parts of the film was when McGowan reflects on the last action before the group dissolved. When McGowan discusses his unhappiness with the events that occurred at the University of Washington and northern Oregon, the audience gets a glimpse of the internal conflict that he must have encountered at the time. This exclamation of guilt and remorse does not justify the previous actions, but it is just one example of the complexities of this ELF story. It was really interesting to see the individuals on the side of the law reflect on their questioning of morals and motives after living through the story. I truly enjoyed this film and I am glad I had the opportunity to listen to Marshall Curry’s discussion after the screening.

Also–as a side note–it was really strange to think that both McGowan and representatives of the legal/prosecuting side both enjoyed this film.

Last week I saw the award winning documentary “If a Tree Falls.” This film, directed by Marshall Curry, tells the story of the activist group ELF, or Earth Liberation Front and their means of protesting. The story follows one of the members of ELF and his awaiting his trial. By doing this, the audience is able to see not only what happened, but also how it is being handled in the present situation.  Throughout the whole film, suspense is building as it gets closer and closer to the day of his trial and his punishment will be decided. By doing this, the audience can see the side of the cops as well who are working on the trial. While it would have been easy to focus on one side of the story, Curry brought in members of both sides as well as locals to the area to discuss exactly what was going on. Showing both sides leaves more room for questions.

One major issue in the film was the idea of whether or not the group should be called a terrorist group. While I can understand where the government could see this as being terrorism, I was shocked that this was even a relative question. To me, it only seemed to be that they were trying to fight for what they thought was right. They had learned from years of peaceful protest that that would not get the attention they needed. Although they maybe did not approach it the best possible way, both sides are understandable.

One vivid scene I remember was towards the end of the movie. There was a shot of a forest on a mountain and there were just sides of the forest gone. This image really caught my attention when I realized exactly what these people were fighting for. I really enjoyed this documentary because I learned so much from it. I thought it was very interesting how it showed both the sides of the story and allowed us to make our own decisions and opinions on the issue. I also liked how the story followed a specific person who was in the group and his journey through this time.

The documentary If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front follows the story of Daniel McGowan, a man accused and eventually convicted of several large arson attacks. Mr. McGowan and the other members of the extremist environmental group called the Earth Liberation Front set fire to businesses which they thought were harmful to the environment. Mr. McGowan and his accomplices deliberately did not kill or injure anyone. They were only interested in destroying property.

My main takeaway from the documentary was the issues with using violence in an attempt to bring about social change. Instead of focusing attention onto the issues and promoting change, the violent actions of the criminals focused attention onto themselves. While the documentary touched upon relevant environmental issues its principle focus was issues of criminal law and Mr. McGowan’s legal defense. Unlike other environmental documentaries I have watched, this documentary did not move or motivate me to learn more about environmental issues. Instead, it left me more interested in the interpretation of criminal law in this case. To me, this shows that the actions of the criminals were not effective at accomplishing their goals.

Also interesting is the choice by Mr. McGowan and his accomplices of using fire to promote environmental issues. Large fires like the ones shown in the documentary are harmful to the environment and release pollutants into the atmosphere. Additionally, by burning down structures that would be rebuild, the group only increased demand for lumber. Based on my recollection of the documentary none of the victimized businesses where permanently shut down further showing the ineffectiveness of using arson to promote social change.

I believe that the group would have been more effective by using the political process. Given the large demonstrations happening there was clearly fairly widespread support among citizens for environmental reforms. If efforts were focused on political reforms it is possible that results would have been achieved.

Last week, I attended Marshall Curry’s screening of “If a Tree Falls” at the Cornell Cinema. I had not been to the cinema before and this was a great first experience. The documentary asked more questions than it answered about whether eco-terrorism fulfills a need in our apathetic society. The film focused on the ELF, Earth Liberation Front, which recognized that peaceful protests about the environment were not effective or getting the recognition that they deserved so began to engage in eco-terrorism, burning wood companies, greenhouses believed to hold genetically modified plants, and many more.

The documentary shows the audience how the EFL was born out of desperation and also police brutality. Peaceful protesters sitting in tress to prevent them from being cut down would be violently harmed by the police to get them down. Police would cut their pants and pepper spray them, they would put pepper spray on q-tips and stick them in their eyes, they would violently beat peaceful protestors. This created a convincing argument for ELF’s inception.

Although there were times that the ELF seemed justified because they did not directly hurt any people, they still wreaked havoc and made countless people feel unsafe. The owner of a tree cutting company talked of the fear he felt after their plant was destroyed, about the alarm systems he and his sons installed in their homes. Terrorism can occur even if people are not hurt. Eco-terrorism, although it does not inculcate the same fear and repulsion in us as domestic terrorism, is just as costly. Additionally, the audience was made to question if ELF was always justified in what they destroyed.  The tree cutting company would plant six trees for every one that they cut.  Curry left it to the audience to decide if that justifies the destruction of forests.

Many of the past Becker-Rose cafés that I have attended have focused on the environment and what we as individuals and as a society should do to help save it, how we can get people to care, and what options there are. This film further complicated the issue, asking if any means are justified in creating the awareness that is so critical to the campaign against global warming.

Last Wednesday I watched Marshall Curry’s documentary If a Tree Falls. I went in not knowing anything about the movie and it immediately grabbed my attention. It was very well done and painted a problematic picture of how nature is treated by big corporations only looking to maximize their profit. While I have known in the back of my head for a long time that fighting for nature’s right is hard and complicated, I honestly had no idea just how bad it could be. In the movie, it is shown how policemen torture peaceful demonstrators by spraying pepper spray right into their eyes. The measures that both the police and some of the corporations shown in the movie took were completely out of line, and as I watched I could only imagine the intense frustration that must have built up in people like Daniel McGowan.

But then at the same time, you are constantly reminded of just how extreme the Earth Liberation Front’s response really was. Burning down buildings is illegal for good reason and as a viewer you get a look into the devastation that the owners of one fabric in particular felt. And that is why the movie was so gripping, there was no clear right or wrong in the individual people shown, just people who got stuck on different sides of an argument; and argument about the Earth which is possibly the most important argument we have to think about in these days. Interestingly, toward the end of the movie, both the Earth Liberation Front as well as the police hunting them down concluded that they could understand somewhat why the other side had acted the way they did.

At the end, Marshall Curry held a question and answer session where we learnt more about the process about making the movie. He told us that he is fascinated by contrast, specifically where your imagination doesn’t agree with reality. And that is why he wanted to make this documentary in the first place, because he knew Daniel McGowan and he also knew that his idea of a terrorist was nothing like Daniel. And that was what shocked me as well at the beginning of the documentary, how such a nice man could get caught up in such crimes and labeled a terrorist. But at the end of the movie, I no longer felt as surprised that he acted the way he did, because while it is far from the way I myself would have wanted to act, I could see that he did what he truly thought was right.

Last Wednesday I had the chance to attend the documentary screening of If a Tree Falls at the Cornell Cinema with Q & A afterward with the director, Marshall Curry. Before watching the movie, I read a brief description and was surprised to find out it was about the ELF (Earth Liberation Front). Which… I knew nothing about other than hearing the name before. So going in, I wasn’t really sure what to expect.

As I was watching the film, the experience was kind of surreal because while I knew things like this were going on when I was younger, I had absolutely no exposure to it. That being said, I feel like I learned a lot from this film.

One phrase they mentioned a lot in the film was eco-terrorism. The film raised a lot of questions for what exactly should be defined as eco-terrorism, or if the term should even be used. I think it is important that this question be answered, since it affects how people who participate in these crimes are classified. For example, one of the subjects in the film, participated in some of the ELF activities, including setting fire to private property. Even though he did not harm any people he was classified as a terrorist, and had to spend his jail time in a special facility.

Typically when I think of a terrorist act, I think of something that causes terror to people. Which his acts certainly did. However, some people say that an act is only a terrorist act if it causes harm to people. Since this is up in the air, I think we need to define what exactly is a terrorist act, and probably add different classes of acts instead of simply saying a terrorist act is a terrorist act. Since the main subject was classified as a terrorist, he was placed in a facility in that handles them. But he (who never harmed any people/ has no intent to) was placed amongst many many others who do want to harm people and have done horrible things to humans.

So was it fair?  Should he have been classified as a terrorist for the rest of his life? Even though he only damaged property?

Last week Wednesday, I attended the Rose Café event featuring guest movie director and producer Marshall Curry. Unlike previous Rose Café events, which took place in the Rose library, this event took place at the Cornell Cinema. At the cinema, Curry screened for us his movie If a Tree Falls. The movie was a documentary, which centers on Daniel McGowan and his involvement as a member of the Earth Liberation Front movement. The documentary covers the time from Daniel’s first finding out about the ELF to his eventual arrest.

Overall, I really enjoyed this Rose Café. One of the best parts of the Café was going to the Cornell Cinema for the first time. I know it is sad that I am a junior and have never set foot inside the Cornell cinema before, but it was a great, first time experience. If it were not for the Rose Café, I probably would have never gone to the Cornell Cinema and now, after having seen a film in it, I am excited to going to more movies in the future.

In addition to enjoying my first experience at the Cornell Cinema, I found the movie quite enjoyable as well. Going in, I knew what the movie was going to be about, but I had never seen the movie before. It was interesting to see Curry emphasize that cases like that of Daniel McGowan’s is not as black and white as one may think, especially when it comes to deeming his actions as “terrorism.” The concept of terrorism was intensely analyzed in this movie as Daniel and his ELF associates felt that because they took great precautions to not do any physical harm to anyone, they did not see their actions as terrorism. Personally, I feel that terrorism is not defined by physical harm and thus their actions can be classified as terrorism, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There obviously is no right or wrong answer as this topic is a very grey area, just as Curry portrays in his film.

Once again, I highly enjoyed this Rose Café event and I am looking forward to more events of this type in the future.

Radical groups aren’t the easiest to portray on film. If the filmmaker is too critical, the movie feels like a feature length “tsk tsk”. Saying “they had the right idea, but I don’t approve of their methods” typically doesn’t serve well as a call to action; if anything it only supports the status quo by quelling enthusiasm for a cause. Of course, a highly sympathetic portrayal bereft of critique will likely alienate moderate audiences, who will be so repulsed by the illegal actions and/or harsh views of the subjects that they won’t even stop to consider whether a valid point is being made. Plus, some members of the audience could be inspired to emulate the subjects and go burn down a garage. Unless your goal is agitprop, this is not a good result.

So I was impressed by how well Marshall Curry was able to toe the line between condemnation and sympathy. Really, the Earth Liberation Front members themselves seem to say it best; after all, they’ve had first hand experience. Perhaps the most memorable moment was when Curry starts interviewing ex-ELF Suzanne Savoie: she says something to the effect of “Oh, you wanted to talk about that” with the same tone one would use when asked about a ridiculously embarrassing thing you did in high school. There’s shame, but not to a psychologically debilitating degree.

The ELF members interviewed take full responsibility for their actions. Sometimes they only seem to half-regret their involvement. The destruction of a horse slaughterhouse is talked of as a righteous action (Curry’s portrayal of said incident suggests agreement). But when they talk of a case where an innocent farm had property burned and defaced due to poor intel, members recognize that they may have gotten in over their heads. Looking back, Savoie says she can find no way to justify that episode. By taking testimony from the perpetrators themselves, Curry is able to both capture the enthusiasm and reasoning behind political radicalism without condoning it. That he includes less radical environmentalist acquaintances of ELF and the arson victims in his documentary is icing on the cake.

Marshall Curry’s “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” makes me want to watch more documentaries. He told a fascinating story that exposed people on both sides of the issue and humanized them past their stereotyped roles. I enjoyed the little details, like how Daniel took off and recycled all the labels of his sister’s canned goods, leaving her clueless as to what is in each can. That kind of passionate action with little forethought weakened his cause, especially when a parallel is seen with the destroyed farm that did not have genetically modified plants. Yet the shot of the train with the ostentatious rows of harvested logs passing by in an endless display made me sympathize with his frustration.

At first, I thought it was ridiculous to call him a terrorist. He did not kill anyone. He wanted to see change happen, the kind of change peaceful protests did not seem to be making. But he is still a criminal. While I thought the shots of the company owner walking around his destroyed building looking sad were slightly corny and fake, that man and his family and other workers experienced terror, fear for their lives. He inspired terror, but the word terrorist may carry too much weight.

The documentary by Marshall Curry did a great job of presenting both views of the topic. He was able to trace the beginnings of ELF and examine their motivations. He found great examples of where members in the group felt that the peaceful process had failed them. Curry allowed Daniel to speak freely which allowed to viewer to peer into Daniel’s viewpoint, but it also showed contradictions in some of Daniel’s views.

Curry’s take on whether the word terrorist was appropriate for ELF members was very balanced. He was able to show why the government thought the word to be appropriate, and why Daniel revolted against the word.  The word arsonist really fails to describe what the ELF was doing. They weren’t burning down property for enjoyment or for monetary gain. They were destroying property to achieve a political goal. They probably lie closer to terrorists than arsonists; however, the fact that no one lost their life during one of their attacks does matter a lot. That isn’t enough to clear them from the label Eco-terrorists because, in the end, these weren’t victim less crimes.

Overall, Curry was able to weave together a story that sometimes spanned over the entire USA into a very well paced film with very intriguing characters. He was able to do it without getting lost in one side’s perspective. It was refreshing to learn about an issue from a format different from the news where everything was presented in a more calm way.

On Wednesday evening I went to watch the If A Tree Falls film by Mr.Marshall Curry. I found it very extreme for the environmentalist to burn down the timber factories because I think that is a very inefficient way to solve the problem. They probably didn’t care about the people that are going to lose job because the place they work for is burned down overnight. When people start to attack one another in a violent way, even the purpose is good, usually bad thing happen. And the environmentalist was imprisoned for over sever years. I think when people start these kind of physical protest in a group, it usually become a frenzy. I don’t want to judge the people in the group because I don’t know anyone of them. But burning down factories is not what sane people would do and I challenge that everyone in that group do it for the “righteous” purpose instead of just getting back at the society. I am not sure which site the director stands for or if he even wants to take a stand in the film, but I feel that the film is sending a sad message because this is a lose-lose situation where several properties are burned down to the group and the environmental problem is not solved. I really appreciate the people who strive for the cause, but it is hard to have it all. To have economics growth, we need to endure pollution and worse environmental situation.

This Wednesday, a documentary named “If A Tree Falls” by Marshall Curry was showed at Cornell cinema. This film is both interesting and thought provoking, providing us with a different perspective to look into those crimes. It is debatable when it comes to giving a definition to those environmental fanatics. Terrorists or heroes? It is not proper to just simply make a judgement by looking only at one dimension of their action. To get a comprehensive understanding of this issue, we may consider evaluating their motivation, approach and consequences caused.

Undoubtedly, Daniel and his friends have a right motivation that they care for the environment and have great enthusiasm of protecting our ecological system. A detail was mentioned about Daniel that he would recycle every single piece of paper in his daily life. Actually, I think we need more people just like Daniel in our society, who has formed strong awareness of caring for our environment.

However, the way they approach their goal is radical and extreme. The consequences caused are serious individual property damage and loss. But try to think that if you consider it in a whole picture, after burning down one timber factory, there are still thousands of timber factories standing and as long as the timber is demanded for use, more factories will be reestablished to meet the demand. The root of this problem is a contradiction between the increasing demand of human beings and the need for protecting the environment. The government should be responsible for the role of balancing these two aspects and improving the law system as well as the market management. It could be possible for the government to set up additional tax and set a high price for logging using market mechanism to make it relatively expensive to cut down trees. Thus, policies can be used to lead the behavior of consumers as well as timber factories incorporating the externalities of environmental damage caused by logging.

In contrast, the arising of radical behaviors like damage caused by ELF is also a reflection of the deficiency of current policies and bad behaviors of authorities. They did the damage because there is nothing else they can do to make a real change. We can see the protestors walking among the street but were treated with violence from local police. We can also see people who were trying to prevent the tree from being cut down were driven away and even arrested by the police. These scenes were not supposed to happen in a country that respects the rule of law. Maybe there should be a seminar led by local committee discussing the issue whether the tree should be removed with democracy considering all the aspects of interest. Unfortunately, they cannot find a way out. From this perspective, their actions seem understandable.

Finally, in my opinion, this case should not be a case used to arguing and studying how to deal with, definite and sentence those crimes. Instead, it seems more like an alert that the conflict and imbalance of human and environmental resources is sharply rising and gives us a push to improve our current system and seek for more effective policies to solve to problem.

Consider the following questions:

1) If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

2) If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it because the sound of sawing is so deafeningly loud, do you then set fire to the headquarters of the lumber company?

The first question has been debated time and time again, conflicting over differing points of view, having different ways of judging the same scenario. The second question seems a bit less up for debate, but surprisingly has also encountered a dangerous range of responses– as can be seen in Marshall Curry’s documentary, If A Tree Falls. The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) was an organization set on saving the environment, mostly through property destruction in the form of arson. Although this was certainly a moral and legal wrong, the term applied to the members of this group makes me feel uneasy. “Eco-terrorists” is the label they have been given. The judge may argue that everyone who inspires fear is a terrorist, but given that the word terrorist inspires a reflex of instant hatred in a post-9/11 world, it seems like a gross misrepresentation of the group’s motives and desires. They never hurt anybody physically. They never threatened human life. In fact, they actively tried to avoid harming others. Even when they were busy burning buildings to the ground, they always made sure they were empty before they begun. Not only were their methods , but the reason for the birth of the group was understandable. Police were brutalizing non-violent protestors– inevitably, some protestors reached the conclusion that another path would have to be taken to get any sort of real results.

Property destruction? Sure. Wrong? Of course. Jail-time? Makes sense.

Terrorism?

I think not. But if a tree falls in a forest…