Passive resistance
|
By Daniel Nelson
Can sitting passively in a dark room staring at a screen motivate people into taking action? Doubters should consider this: When State of Fear was first shown in Lima last summer, members of the audience were so moved that they spontaneously started describing their personal experiences during Perus war on terror. Now Peruvian State TV is broadcasting the film every week in the lead up to the presidential elections in April, in an effort to counteract any efforts by the former president, Alberto Fujimori, to rally support in Peru from his place of detention in Chile. While Chilean courts consider Perus request to extradite Fujimori to face charges of crimes against humanity and corruption, Peruvian human rights activists are screening State of Fear in Chile in order to make sure as many people as possible know about Fujimoris past. Since most civilian victims of the war between 1980 and 2000 were Quechua-speaking Indians in the Andes, the filmmakers are making a Quechua version. Pro-democracy campaigners in Russia, who are fighting hard to survive as their NGOs are attacked by President Putin, have translated State of Fear into Russian. The film was shown at a human rights festival in Moscow in December, provoking such a fierce debate between critics and supporters of the Russian government that the festival director stopped the Q&A session. Similarly, in the wake of screenings of the film at a South Asian festival in Kathmandu, the filmmakers made a Nepali-language version to be used by pro-democracy advocates. Nepali government forces attempted to stop the premiere of the dubbed version and organisers had to move it to different location. Al Jazeera is broadcasting the film to the Arab world. It shows how fear of terror can undermine democracy. Though it deals with events in Perú, it serves as a cautionary tale for all nations. State of Fear is part of the 10th Human Rights Watch (HRW) International Film Festival, which runs in London on 15-25 March, and John H. Biaggi, deputy director of the festival, cites it as an example both of how films can indeed motivate and why HRW runs a film festival. I think it is a perfect example of how a human rights film, pushed into the world by committed filmmakers, can make a real difference and not just in the country the film takes place in, he told OneWorld UK. HRW publishes numerous reports every month (many of which are featured on OneWorlds news pages) but Biaggi says that most peoples main information sources are visual media. In addition, films and videos hit people at a more emotional level than the written word. Biaggi says the festival has changed over the years, as human rights have become a more mainstream topic. The trend means more filmmakers are making rights an integral part of their films. As a result, the festival programme now spotlights current rights controversies rather than historical issues such as the Holocaust. Secondly, the sophistication of films dealing with human rights has increased. In the first years of the festival (which is in its 17th season in New York) few relevant films were being made and the festivals choices were limited. A third factor, says Biaggi, is that filmmaking is easier as a result of technical changes. The fourth factor is speed. It is now possible to complete films more rapidly. There used to be a time lag of several years between a situation where abuses occurred to completion of a film. Now films emerge within a year of an event or, in the case of Iraq, while events are still unfolding. This is a big improvement in human rights filmmakings impact, he says. People can see and discuss and be moved by a really strong film on a human rights conflict, and then can act on abuse that is still happening, as opposed to being saddened by abuses that are over. On the resurgent popularity of documentaries in recent years, Biaggi says that documentaries provide a powerful, often raw and sometimes very real window into someones reality. Unlike fiction, where you are removed from the people by the knowledge that they are actors, documentary deals with real people People are more and more removed from one another by the modern world, and documentary is seen by more and more people as one way to connect with something real in their hurried and insulated lives. A vivid example of the power of documentaries is provided by the influence of two recent films, Morgan Spurlocks Super Size Me, on the deterioration of his health when he ate nothing but fast food for a month, and McLibel - The postman and gardener who took on McDonalds. And won. In an article in The Guardian newspaper in March 2006, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall said that the two films had been an important factor in the closure of 25 UK McDonald's branches because of falling sales. Food for thought, surely. * State of Fear filmmakers Pamela Yates, Paco de Onís and Peter Kinoy, will be present at the Human Rights Watch film festival screenings in London on 17 March and 19 March * Human Rights Watch film festival * 50 reasons to watch McLibel * See this, says Amnesty |
Printable version
top of the page