Movie Review by Melissa Wallick: Bringing Down a Dictator (2002)

For this assignment, I watched the nonviolent actions of Otpor!, Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), and the citizens of Serbia joined by Yugoslovans overthrow Slobodon Milošević in the 2000 Yugoslavian elections (York, 2002). Their biggest strengths in this movement were patience and persistence. This movement started out with the creation of Otpor!, which means “Resistance!” (York, 2002). They were a student group who organized around the goals of free and fair elections, free universities, independent media, and the nonviolent removal of Milošević (York, 2002). Their main strategies were forming many Otpor! grassroot groups around the country, meeting and being funded ($25 mil) by US foreign advisors, forming a coalition with DOS and the media, mobilizing 30,000 plus people to assist in the election to prevent fraud, and not targeting the police/military. They used many effective tactics including protests, demonstrations, signs, rock concerts (seen as rebellious at the time), slogans like, “He’s Finished,” educating organizers with Gene Sharp’s materials, keeping lines of communication open and centralized to the group (but hidden to the leaders), and convincing DOS City Chiefs campaign for their frontrunner. They also used many symbolic tactics such as the birthday cake which they likened Milošević destroying the country by eating all the pieces, the commercial of washing away Milošević’s face and calling him a “tough stain to remove,” as well as wearing black and leather to show the sinister climate they were surviving in (York, 2002). Finally, they mobilized over 100,000 people in their final tactic of entering, breaking windows, and setting fire to the Belgrade parliament building.

What made their movement successful, I feel, was their planning and persistence. They were ready for pushback at every turn. When trying to get their convoy to Belgrade, they were met with a military Blockade. Their exchange could have escalated, but they were prepared to win them over. When they approached, the Otpor! man said, “Is this still a free country?” the military leader responded, “Yes,” “Then what is this?” After a few more words, he says he is merely following orders. Their response, “You did your duty, now let us do ours” really seemed to impact the military (York, 2002). They even invited them to join the resistance so they could save face. They didn’t, but towards the end, their inaction points to success. The narrator gave me chills when they said, “They didn’t order their troops to fire because they knew their kids were in the crowd” (York, 2002). It is inspiring how committed the Serbians and Yugoslavians were! I don’t think their strategies or tactics would have been successful without this energy. While they did not get all their demands, they achieved the most important ones in my opinion, elections and the removal of Milošević. I also think it was great that one of the grassroots organizers was elected to the Serbian parliament.

Movie Review by Nathan Cice: The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Screenshot-2024-02-06-at-5.56.00-PM-696x1024.png

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a Netflix film that covers the trial of anti-Vietnam War protestors who allegedly crossed state lines to incite a riot and commit criminal conspiracy. During the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, the 7 led a protest that evolved into a clash between law enforcement and protesters downtown. The 7 were members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Youth International Party, or the Black Panther Party, which are progressive activist organizations. The trial itself lasted a long five months and included many strongly biased decisions from Judge Julius Hoffman to the dismay of the defendants. In the end, all but two defendants were found guilty of interstate travel to incite a riot. During the appeals process, the charges were dropped, and the case was never retried.

Although acts of nonviolence were not at the center of the film, the goals, strategies, and tactics of the defendants could be seen in powerful ways. The 7 went to Chicago with the goal of bringing attention to the seemingly endless war in Vietnam and the need to bring the military involvement to an end. While their strategies were sometimes unclear, it is likely that some members went for a protest at the DNC where there was guaranteed audiences and news coverage. Some may have attended with the intention of brining violence to the forces they would be met with.

Some of the protester’s tactics included deflating police tires, holding a festival in Chicago, although a permit was never given, and moving a protest to the convention center. While not necessarily constructive tactics, they were strategic in showing their willingness to disrupt and their ability to assemble a crowd. I am not sure if they achieved their goal successfully since the clash with law enforcement likely impacted their support, but the following trial may have served as an opportunity to regain some of that support. The strategy seemed to be gaining attention and allowing the public to learn about the impacts and need to end the war. I believe they were able to spread awareness about ending the war, but I am unsure that they achieved any substantial change.

One of the most notable and powerful tactics came at the very end when the defendant, Tom Hayden read the names of all the United States soldiers that were killed in the Vietnam War. This went against the wishes of the judge, who was allowing for a concise statement before the sentencing occurred. The reading of these names became the most powerful act of nonviolence in the film, since it reiterated the underlying cause of the protests and the trial. Furthermore, this act caused the prosecution team to fracture due to the power of recognizing all the victims of the war and what it represents.

Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Movement

Photo by: Koshu Kinii (Unsplashed)

The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers’ struggle.

I find this movie fascinating because it shows various strategies and tactics employed in nonviolent actions. The documentary is about Cesar Chavez (an American activist) who inspired a struggle to create a multiracial movement which eventually resulted in the formation of United Farm Workers (UFW) in 1965 after several years of struggle to form a permanent union for farm workers. The migrant workers from Mexico, the Philippines, China, and Japan provided skills and power as factory and field workers during the agricultural boom in California in the 1960s. However, despite their impact on agricultural development, each time they attempted to form unions to agitate for a wage increase, better conditions of service, or to acquire their farm, they were met with beatings, shootings, and deportations. This happened between 1965 to 1970.

Chavez and his team realized the importance of organizing for nonviolent action. They employed several strategies to achieve their goals. The main strategy is the boycott of buying and selling of grapes. The strategies were effective, according to my analysis. One crucial strategy employed was sourcing for funding. Chaves acquired a loan from the bank to start a credit union using his house as collateral. This shows the importance of financing in nonviolent actions. Equally interesting is the strategy of bringing together people from other races (who have been segregated before) and works of life, creating a beloved community preached by Dr. Martin Luther King. The show of love, solidarity, and creation of beloved community are impressive, and I think they contribute to the success of the struggle.

Another strategy portrayed was working with other group who was agitating for related cause.  The other group include five thousand Filipino workers who were engaging in a strike in Delano, California. The increase in campaign size would positively impact the success of the nonviolent struggle.

Gandhi and King’s spiritual principles inspired Chavez and his movement to employ spiritualism in the nonviolent struggle. This shows that religion can positively influence social movement organizing. People organized music concerts, shows, and art exhibitions throughout the struggle to bring people together and create fun times during organizing.

Another strategy employed by Chavez and his movement was able to woo a pillar of support. Senator Robert Kennedy supported them. He asked an official why they arrested the organizers when they did not violate the law. The support from Robert Kennedy earned him two hundred thousand votes from California residents and helped him to win the presidential election.

Chavez continued the struggle despite his daughter going for major surgery. The struggle involved the mobilization of people to boycott California grapes. The boycott was effective because it led to the contract’s signing and the union’s establishment. It also led to the rise of another movement organized by the lettuce growers. Overall, the video is very useful in learning nonviolent actions.

Written by:

Felix Akinboyewa

Review: Pride (2014)

Pride (2014) movie poster with reviews

Pride, starring some big names like Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Dominic West, and Andrew Scott, follows lesbian and gay activists who, after realizing the police are no longer harassing them and are now targeting miners, decide to start raising money to help families affected by the British miners’ strike of 1984.  Overall, the film depicts a number of nonviolent tactics throughout, from all sides, both effective and ineffective.

The main goal of the activist group, known as Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM), is to raise money to help during the strike, and throughout the film, this goal shifts into general support and solidarity with the miners.  LGSM sets up a headquarters in the infamous London bookshop, Gay’s the Word.  First, the main activist, Mark Ashton, puts together a bucket collection to raise money on the streets and in gay bars, much to everyone’s dismay.  They receive pushback from the public because of their sexuality, and other members of the LGBTQ+ community are not receptive of the idea due to the miners’ past treatment of them, which leads to in-fighting.  After attempting another tactic—cold calling local businesses for help—and failing, LGSM decides to take donations directly to a mining village in Wales.

The Women’s Support Group in the village ultimately decides to allow LGSM into their town hall to thank them, but after a speech by Mark, a dissenter in the women’s group, Maureen, leads a walk-out to express disapproval.  The events at the town hall highlight more fractures between groups, this time the village and LGSM.  Despite the unsettling meeting, members of LGSM are permitted to stay in one of the main miner’s home, which later leads to a network of overnight hosting by other members of the village.  After the meeting, it is revealed that the police have taken a group of miners, and with the helpful knowledge of a member of LGSM, another villager, Sian, demands the release of the illegally detained men, furthering the solidarity between groups.

Unfortunately, that solidarity is disrupted again by Maureen, who sells a demonizing story about LGSM and the supporting villagers to the tabloids.  The group, however, decides to use it to their advantage and hosts a large concert, “Pits and Perverts,” which succeeds in raising thousands of pounds for the miners.  They make t-shirts, posters, and other items to hand out and spread the word, which is obviously a very effective strategy.  Unfortunately, Maureen uses the event to justify moving the time of a town hall meeting where folks were supposed to vote to sustain or stop LGSM’s support, and ultimately, gets the vote she wanted.  By the end of the film, LGSM has become split from the main LGBTQ+ movement, which is highlighted during the big pride parade, as in-fighting within the community has heightened because of the miners.  Another group, Lesbians Against Pit Closures, also formed to separate lesbians from the more mainstream, male LGSM movement.  Both groups are told they must march at the back of the parade. Eventually, busloads of miners from towns show up at the march with their own banners, and together, the groups are permitted to march at the front of the parade.

Pride march scene from Pride (2014)

While the film is not explicitly about nonviolent tactics and strategies, many are portrayed throughout.  The cold calling is clearly not a useful tactic in this sense, but the various ways of receiving donations—money, clothes, and others—are very effective, especially the very public concert that was advertised as being open to gay and straight folks.  Using t-shirts and posters to draw attention to the event seemed to work as a strategy.  I believe the best tactic happened at the end, with the ultimate display of solidarity during the pride parade.  There were also clearly fringe groups throughout the film, including the miners and families who did not support LGSM—who later decided to show support due to being outnumbered—and the LGBTQ+ groups that were separated from the mainstream movement.  Interestingly, the tactics utilized by Maureen and other dissenters, including using the newspaper to leak a story, the walkout, and moving the town hall meeting, never truly work.  There were simply not enough supporters on her side for these tactics to be effective.

Pride never overtly uses the nonviolence jargon we know and love, but it is obvious that these historical groups knew what they were doing when it came to strategizing.  This is a good film to show in a course about nonviolence, as long as the instructor points out some of the less obvious uses of tactics and strategies.  There is much to learn from LGSM and the other groups in this heartwarming film, as it displays an effective coalition between very different groups trying to gain human rights, something of which scholars of nonviolence and nonviolent tactics would be proud.

WarPeace Movie Review

The documentary WarPeace attempts to cover the history of the radical group Weather Underground and connect it with movements today. Anchoring the film is the question: “how can we make a change if peaceful demonstration is not effective and violence only brings more violence?” The film scratches the surface on the history of one of the most controversial sects of the US anti-war movement. I wish that the creators had increased the documentary’s length from 60 minutes to discuss The Weather Underground more thoroughly and to strengthen their connection to their framing question and to movements today.

Photo of Weather Underground members wanted by the FBI. 7 people are shown with their names, birthdates, height, weight, hair and eye colors.

The strongest part of this documentary is the interviews with Weather Underground members Bernardine Dorhn, Cathy Wilkerson, and Bill Ayers. All three lived underground for many years, and Cathy was in the famous townhouse in New York City during the bomb blast and later served time in prison. They all spoke about the despair at the apparent lack of impact of nonviolent protest in ending the war in Vietnam that led them to more seek other means to fight imperialism. They also discussed their solidarity with the Black Panther Party, and how the assassination of Fred Hampton was a moment of radicalization. The general takeaway I gathered from these three radicals is that they do regret that people got hurt—especially that they were unable to protect their comrades—but that they do not regret taking a stand against US Imperialism abroad and injustice at home and doing so in a radical way.

The documentary discusses the townhouse explosion, where three members were killed due to early detonation of a bomb meant for a military dance event and what the group may be most known for. According to those interviewed, it was a violent outlier event for the group, in that the bombs were planned for human targets. For the Weathermen who went underground after the townhouse explosion, it was a catalyst to reaffirm commitment to the value of human life and choosing actions that would not put people at risk. They still used bombs but did so when buildings would be empty. Therefore, the historic framing as violent revolutionaries does not capture the nuance of this group. While this documentary briefly speaks to the general commitment to not cause physical harm, it does not actively dispute the media narrative of Weather Underground being one of the greatest domestic terrorist groups in US history.

WarPeace Documentary Promotional Poster showing the Statue of Liberty, lines that look both like rifle crosshairs and a round peace sign centered on her torch, with a cloud in the sky and the title of the documentary.
WarPeace Documentary Promotional Poster

If the filmmakers wanted to tie the history of Weather Underground more effectively to the tensions and challenges of today’s movements, they could have asked activists how they are currently grappling with the question raised at the beginning of the documentary: “how can we make a change if peaceful demonstration is not effective and violence only brings more violence?”. Overall, I think this film will increase audience interest in this maligned movement. It provides many jumping off points for discussions for courses about social movements and in groups of activists. But, if looking for an exhaustive look at Weather Underground, look elsewhere.

Budrus (2010) Movie Review

“Nothing scares the army more than nonviolent opposition”

Budrus (2010)

Budrus (2010) is about the small village of Budrus in occupied Palestinian territory and their fight to keep their land and culture from being demolished and divided by the Israeli Separation Barrier.

Budrus is small agricultural village where approximately 1,500 Palestinian people live, many of whom have lived on the land for generations cultivating olives. It is a very close community that has a strong connection to their land, which one of the villagers summed up as “death, stealing the land, and uprooting the trees are one and the same.” This connection between the land and the villagers was almost severed when the Israeli government began construction on a separation wall between Israeli and Palestinian territories. In the documentary, we hear multiple Israeli guards claim that the border is to help defend Israeli citizens from Palestinian terrorists; however, if this was true, the wall separating the two territories would not infringe on the Palestinian side of the green line. The original plan for the separation wall through Budrus would have confiscated 3,000 acres, removed approximately 3,000 olive trees, cut through the cemetery, and would be approximately 40 meters from the school.

Director:
Julia Bacha

The documentary, directed by Julia Bacha, follows Ayed Morrar and his daughter Iltezam through the process to save the village from destruction by the separation barrier. Ayed knew that this struggle needed to be nonviolent because otherwise the Israeli government would classify the village as terrorists and feel free to use any amount of force necessary to build the barrier. Although Ayed was considered the leader of the movement (and was the main focus throughout the documentary), he held a more horizontal and democratic type of leadership where tactics were decided on by a group. The villagers met to strategize their goal of stopping the separation barrier from destroying their land, and the next day began their demonstrations.

The documentary did a very good job showing the process of a movement from start to end. It depicted the strategizing, the escalations and the reactions, and how the movement was able to change the separation walls route around Budrus. Some of the tactics used in Budrus included protests; chanting; obstructing the bulldozers; symbolically naming the uprooted trees; holding marches; gathering support from Israeli activists, South African anti-apartheid leaders, and local and national leaders; humanizing the border guards and asking them to disobey orders; etc. In addition to showing Budrus’ demonstrations, the documentary did a very good job depicting the escalation from the Israeli state and the ways that they reacted to the demonstrations. These reactions included verbal warnings; rubber bullets; stun bombs; live ammunition; beatings; state implemented curfew; occupying the buildings; and arrests.

The most effective tactic displayed in the documentary was the way they spread out during marches/protests. The people would spread themselves horizontally across the field or hill and therefore force the border guards to spread themselves out. Inevitably, a gap in the guard’s line emerged, the people would rush past them and race to the bulldozers, where they would stand in the way. At one point, Iltezam climbed into the hole the bulldozer had just used to uproot a tree. This forced the workers and the bulldozer to move, which is when the villagers attempted to replant the olive trees that were uprooted. The cooperation between Budrus, the local villages, and the Israeli activists was another great strategy that shined an international light on the conflict. It also brought a lot of media attention to the cause and helped Israeli and Pakistani people humanize each other.

Overall, the movement in Budrus was effective, they held 55 demonstrations and saved 95% of the land, olive trees, and saved the cemetery. This documentary is a great tool in learning nonviolent tactics because it achieved its goal to save their land and it was used as an example for other villages and cities in Palestine.  This movie offered strong insights into how a small village under occupation can successfully make a change and lead to broader reform.

Blog Written By

Meghan Geist

Movie Review: Stonewall Uprisings

Stonewall Uprising

Stonewall Uprisings is a PBS produced documentary that educates the viewer on the historical and political moments that led up to the Stonewall Riots of June 1969. The film uses interviews from gay/lesbian activists and police officers involved in the riot to discuss how it came to be and its impact on the larger LGBTQ+ rights movement. Overall, it provides examples of the very real tensions between violent and nonviolent tactics.

There is a brief consideration on the language of Stonewall – was it a riot? was it an uprising? But the question is left unanswered. The documentary frames the Stonewall Uprising as a spontaneous event that resulted from tensions boiling over from how queer people were being continually victimized by the police. With that frame in mind, most of the LGBTQ+ organizing groups that existed during this time were left out, so it appears all the tactics used were a result of on-the-ground spontaneity and not serious organizing. Also, this film leaves out the roles of Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera who are often credited with starting Stonewall.

Through exploring a brief history of what occurred before Stonewall, the films portrays several nonviolent tactics. For example, early movement activists would picket in the street while wearing business professional clothes to demonstrate their “sameness.” Another example is during the Stonewall nights, there was a nonviolent Drag Queen Rockette Line. While it was acknowledged that this tactic confused the police, the activists were still met with brutality. The tactics, whether they were violent or nonviolent, were met with police brutality however it was the nonviolent tactics of picketing that were first critiqued for folding into the respectability narrative. The tactic that saw the most success, at least in measuring its lasting impact, was the decision to march down New York – resulting in the creation of the first Pride parade.

Ultimately, if the goal of the course is to show a movie that debates and uses nonviolent tactics, then Stonewall Uprisings is not appropriate. However, if the goal of the course is to encourage conversations on the uses and debates of violence as a tactic, then Stonewall Uprisings offers an unashamed look at using property destruction to challenge police brutality.

Written by:

Caraline Feairheller