I'll keep it short for this week's post, in part because you've all been working so hard. That said, and as we prepare to discuss the use of archival footage in documentary-making when we return from break, I would love for you to watch Let the Fire Burn - available on iTunes and Amazon for $2,99, and on YouTube and elsewhere for $3.99 - and let me know what you think of this film, particularly about the way it uses archival footage to tell its thoughtful and ultimately potent story.
Write whatever you'd like this week, but please remember to support your assertions by referencing specific moments, scenes or sequences from the film. And if in your reply you can address concepts of Authenticity, Authority, Evidence, Responsibility and how they relate to your understanding and appreciation of Let the Fire Burn - all the better.
Good luck, have a wonderful break, and please remember to post your response here by no later than 5pm on Tuesday, March 28!
In my opinion, Let the Fire Burn is a film about a very tragic yet important piece of American history, told in a rather uninteresting way. I’m not saying that I didn’t find the story itself captivating – I think what happened is truly horrific and I had no idea that it did happen until this documentary – I just found it to be almost like a 90 minute long news story. It could have used a few more emotion-evoking approaches. I think that interviewing Michael was beneficial, but the filmmaker could have taken it a little further. Part of this also may be because of the time period. We didn’t have the same type of technology back then, therefore if this incident and film happened today, the footage would have been a little bit more captivating.
ReplyDeleteI found that the film was pretty fair to both sides of the story. It read more like a factual piece of historical information rather than an exploitation of one side or the other. This made it difficult for me as a viewer to get too attached to either group of people. Normally with stories such as this one, I am against the “system,” but in this case it was a little more difficult because the members of MOVE were brainwashing children in a cultish manner, and in a sense, acting somewhat animalistic. I know they were living the “simple life,” but I feel there is a limit that shouldn’t be exceeded. They took it a little too far. That does not make it right for the police to do what they did, but somewhere the two groups should have formed some sort of peaceful coexistence or settlement. That isn’t usually how it works, and this documentary did a great job at showing that. It gave a fair amount of attention to both sides and used filmed evidence to state the facts, or at least get as close to them as possible.
I think its important to remember the film was released in 2013
DeleteLET THE FIRE BURN was a much more captivating documentary than TABLOID in my opinion, and I didn't find the complete use of archival footage at all hindering to the storytelling. It really didn't feel too different than any other non-archival documentary, and I don't see why it would. It had plenty of interviews, footage of a courtroom discussion, news clips, and documentation of the entire "war" that this film revolved around. The only difference is that the footage was dated and didn't have the best image quality. Other than that, I'm not even sure what a documentary filmmaker could've done better if one had decided to proactively film the documentary on this event as it was happening. There was plenty of footage of this event to be able to string it together into a cohesive story, and I didn't feel like it was ever lacking in content. This was encouraging for me to watch, being that my own doc idea is mainly comprised of the use of things that are already filmed and having to find the story with what is already there. I can see that archival documentaries are no less powerful than others.
ReplyDeleteThe subject matter of LET THE FIRE BURN was very interesting to me. Ever since learning about cults in middle school (a strange subject to teach on now that I think about it), I have been intrigued with the psychology and development of cults and their leaders. MOVE reminded me of the WACO incident, but predates it by a good 20 years. They both had a very charismatic, revolutionary leader who instilled certain unorthodox ways of living onto their followers until they met their end with a firefight with police. I believe that MOVE had a lot more innocent and reasonable intentions than a cult like Waco, but they were still pretty twisted nonetheless. Part of their way of life seemed healthy and "amish", like their abstaining from technology holding onto values that brought them together with each other and with nature. But, the tainted aspects comes from some of their practices like eating raw meat, shouting profanity across the neighborhood, and subjecting the children to very dirty and unhealthy living conditions. It seems that they're actions didn't align with their words and doctrine, or what the surviving member claimed they were about, which is a recipe for corruption.
The police have an equal amount of dirt on them given their brutality and demonization of these people. Their excessive use of force and verbal hatred of black people were evident and reminiscent of the prejudice that's ever so present today. With any hot button debatable topic these days, I've observed that most people tend to go to one extreme or the other with no middle ground for compromise. For example, it's always either 100% the cops wrongdoing for using excessive force and the suspect doesn't deserve it at all, or its that the suspect is 100% guilty and the cop has every right to use excessive force. Usually, both sides are to blame and both sides have done something wrong which makes the issue such a mess. Both sides need to be fixed. In the same way, I don't see how anyone could completely side with MOVE or with the police force after watching this doc. It's simply misunderstanding and prejudice across the board with everyone involved, making it a truly perfect war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Revolution is removing yourself from things that make you want to revolt.” That was my favorite thing said in this entire film first of all.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it’s peculiar to see a documentary about a subject matter that you are almost clueless about. I had no idea this group, this cult, even existed until I watched this, therefore, going into watching, I had no bias, which is seemingly a good thing considering that I felt the people were deceitful on both sides. When I first started watching, I took note that there was a reverend and later, a statement where the child told the difference between a lie and truth. As it continued though, I saw the relevance of putting this particular footage at the beginning. I actually enjoy expository documentaries like this because there is a certain amount of authenticity that derives from the film. I feel as though no matter how much the filmmaker edits or places the order of the footage, there will never be a way to completely falsify the evidence that is shown through the archival footage. I think there was a certain amount of authority when it came to compensating archival footage with the lack of knowledge many people (especially the ones that lived in the area) had about the overall situation, especially when the open gun shots came into play. Though, I do question the scene where the police trampled through the alley with their machine guns because it said that there was not a single camera that filmed any of it. I’m not saying that they were wrong, just questionable. On a side note, I did like the quotes they had in between each scene, but I was perplexed by the use of numbers at the beginning of them.
To digress a tad bit more, I did like how morals and ethics were played throughout the film itself. I know that many see these terms as similar, but I personally think that morality is the foundation of ethics. Morals define personal character, whereas ethics define the standards of behavior expected by a group. With this in mind, I find it almost fatuous that the MOVE group was taunted by others nearby. While I agree that the children should have not been eating raw meat or walking around naked, I can’t help but to think there could have been a more harmonious way to deal with the whole thing. They seemed to be a peaceful group of people, and it did state that their guns were not loaded, so I just feel like there could have been some way to just talk to these people and ameliorate this mess that was created. 193 arrests seemed to be gratuitous. It’s just like weird to think about how we all abide under the same laws, but some people just take it out of proportion. Like I guess freedom of religion has some fine line now? I am not trying to side with either side because I can understand where both sides are coming from, but like I have had a couple of my friends arrested at drum circle just because people thought they had marijuana, and I know it is just because of the way they dressed, and they were let go because they have been sober for 3 years. I just think that the police in this movie may have been too quick to judge and it led them to some dire assumptions. The only two people I actually liked in this film/believed were the police officer that ended up retiring and the kid that tried to escape MOVE. Overall, I thought it was well done, and I understood a lot more than I probably wanted to by the end of it hahaha. It was for sure a film that needed to be made.
Ian Roozrokh
ReplyDeleteI loved almost all aspects of this film and the message it brought especially watching this during the current political season. Off the bat, it grabbed my attention as would any film that starts off with archival footage and the reminder that I am watching a film of something in the past, and because of my draw to history, especially a recall to an event that I have not heard or seen in the classroom or media, the story caught hold of my attention.
Even though I enjoyed the mode of storytelling for this event, throughout the documentary I kept asking myself “Why?” From how the film was put together to how the antagonist and protagonist were portrayed to the importance of only using stock footage, and as much as I enjoyed it, I kept asking why those choices were made and it was only until the end of the documentary where I could answer my questions.
First and foremost and now as everyone will be talking about, the use of stock footage pulled me in two different directions. As the footage pulled me into the time era and made me empathize greater with the characters than if they used interviews of the people today, it made me question why and how is it not relevant to not incorporate the impact of the event occurred to today if this was such an important event because other than the brief text, majority of the documentary was solely focused on the traumatic events that occurred only then and nothing more or less. I understand how much of a bigger impact that can lend on a viewer, but now since I’m more knowledgeable and understanding of what has happened I want to know what people are feeling now about the instances; or maybe I don’t because that would make the film weaker. Aesthetically the use of stock footage was dramatic and dark which painted an amazing visual, no argument there.
Plot wise, I wish I had more room for my own opinion on the subject to develop and since there was so many perspectives on an event I never previously learned about, only my base knowledge of institutionalized racism helped me understand why and how these events occurred but there was obvious grey area with this subject in particular therefore I wish I knew even more about the decisions made between all sides.
Overall, a very powerful and telling story that should be shared especially during this political season.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was planning on watching the story while putting away my laundry from spring break. I ended up sitting down for the whole hour and a half (roughly) and became engrossed in the film. I went back and forth on what the right thing to do about the group “MOVE” was. The choice to tell the story through past testimonies, interviews, and news footage was very appealing to me. I also felt that the combination of these choices helped with the flow of the story. The footage was straightforward evidence of what went down which made it completely authentic. One interview in particular was with the child Birdie. I felt that this interview helped contribute to the films authenticity because I believe that young children are very honest during interviews. He was able to tell his side of the story without corruption as opposed to some of the adults who lied about the orders given during the start of the fire. This is one of my favorite documentaries we have had to watch so far this semester. I think the director reached his goal to provoke dialogue about the event. I was so moved by the story that it encouraged me to tell my friends and inspired them to watch the film as well.
ReplyDeleteTrina Mulligan
ReplyDeleteLet the Fire Burn was a documentary that I knew nothing about going into it. The MOVE organization was something that I had no knowledge of and it shocked me that I hadn’t heard of it before. This documentary did a fantastic job at telling the story of this group and getting the perspectives from everyone involved in MOVE and the court cases following the various incidents.
Most definitely an informative documentary, I watched Let the Fire Burn with the mindset of learning something new. I couldn’t help but feel lost with the different testimonies claiming that MOVE was not a threat to anyone because the two women seemed so honest in what they believed in. I found myself believing the neighbors and the little boy Michael Ward. Clearly the situation of MOVE is difficult because they follow John Africa the same way Mormons follow Joseph Smith. Their way of practicing religion or the “strategy of John Africa” was wrong because they did so in a disruptive and non-peaceful way.
This documentary kept me focused the whole time because I kept wanting to know how the initial first shot of the large fire started. This event was also very interesting to me as well as the courtroom footage. Let the Fire Burn was taken very seriously and kept strictly to the facts and the actual footage rather than re-creating or re-shooting anything. If anything, this film was made to show future generations as a capturing of history. It was incredibly enjoyable and engaging!
Let the Fire Burn was a really captivating story, I watched a trailer this time before I watched the film because I was looking for the film online. I wanted to know more about who MOVE was and why they were being kicked out. I found myself enjoying this film more than Tabloid because the footage was a little more interesting and the event was more widely covered. I think the choice to only use found footage of past interviews was a good idea. I think it keeps the blame off of the filmmakers if people don't like the film. The filmmakers were not interviewing the people from MOVE or the officers involved in the incident. Found footage isn't my favorite style of documentary however, I feel more of an outsider, and I feel less involved in the story.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary made me feel bad for the people of MOVE in some instances, however I was really not on their side. It was sad to see how the police went about it and I don't think what happened was fair on either side. MOVE was hostile and asking for a fight, they agitated the community they lived in, destroyed public property and broke laws. They were really looking for the cops to attack them so they could be upset, and the cops wanted to fight them. The whole situation was a mess, but I think the film made me dislike MOVE more than like them. The way they were portrayed was secretive, violent, and non compliant. My favorite interview was of the little boy because of how truthful he felt and what he said. He was not always given fair opportunity or given good food. That interview really mad me think more about the group… as well as the women in court who refused to talk and made things really difficult. Those interviews really changed the tone of the film.
While watching this film I was almost constantly thinking off a lot of religious connotations that are associated with the element of fire. Although it’s probably not the main theme of the film, the one that had stuck out the most to me was that of the social separation of cult and religion. As Mayor Goode states the films title in his press conference that there was a decision to “let the fire burn,” I was reminded of how Jesus told his disciple John, ”You have baptised me with water, and I will baptize you with fire.” The fire that this story tells of is obviously an outrage, but I saw it as a metaphor for cleansing and hypocrisy. In a nation that prides itself of freedom of religion, we have a town commision analyzing these events that is made up of priests of the Catholic faith judging an ‘unaccepted’ way of life.
ReplyDeleteThe opening of the film is one of the most ironic I think I have ever seen. As they instruct Birdie Africa to verbalize his answers clearly because the camera cannot tell by him moving his head. The movie then goes to show that it is actions that speak volumes louder than words ever could. MOVE members, Philadelphia police, and members of local government are all well trained in the art of equivocation. They speaks laps around the questions they are asked during the commision only to have video evidence contradict them to a considerable extent. This form of documentary with no contemporary interviews furthers an idea I sensed about the importance of the unedited footage of the camera. In an era of Eric Garner and Laquan McDonald, we can never really trust the testimony of the people involved but the footage has no POV. The film itself does a great job, I believe, of ridding itself of bias. We have barely any sense of a person behind the editing booth and the onscreen text is only interested in the facts of what is happening, what is found, and what is told by all those who are involved.
Using archival footage to tell the story was captivating and drew me into the story for the duration of the film. The way it was structured and the voices used kept me in limbo about whose side I was supposed to be on. I mostly took what the little boy, Michael Ward, said to be the truth. It was particularly interesting because this event seems like it was so major yet I hadn't heard of it until I watched the documentary. John Africa's MOVE organization was basically a cult, and what made me oppose them was how they spoke during the hearings. Also, if you want to connect to nature, why don't you move out of the city? Also you shouldn't feed children raw meat. However the police demonized them and gratuitously brutal toward the MOVE members. There was a lot of footage to tell the story in the way it was told, and I didn't feel a blatant bias toward any one side of the issue.
ReplyDeleteI loved this documentary. I had no prior knowledge of MOVE and I am glad this documentary was easy to understand and captivating enough to raise my awareness. I’m a huge sucker for archival footage and I feel that “Let the Fire Burn” was a perfect example of how to use it in the correct way. I did not feel that I needed modern interviews for this story to carry on. After all, the story of MOVE is one of the past, one that is necessary to be told through showing events that occurred at that time when the movement was most alive. If modern day viewers visually see what went on in the past, it’s more likely they could use that knowledge to understand why such things happened, and how to prevent them from happening in the future. This documentary uses archival footage to help one to understand the present day issues regarding racism, police brutality and harsh violations of human rights.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary filmmakers used their authority to put the story together in the most authentic way, I thought. They set up the footage in a way that the viewer felt (or at least I did) like they were a member in the courtroom, and we were listening to all of the witnesses tell their side of the story. There were enough opinions in this setting that allowed the filmmakers to use the archival footage to backup each character’s claims and allegations. It was easy for me to take a side within the situation due to the brutal evidence provided by the brutal footage. I was pissed at Mayor Goode and the authority the entire time and kept looking at my boyfriend during the film with my mouth open like, “what the fuck?”. Sean brought up the social separation of cult & religion and I thought that was really interesting because it’s funny how MOVE were merely a religious group that focused on the teachings of John Africa, which involved freedom and peace, yet were totally misinterpreted by those of authority who deemed them as a “cult”. They never did anything wrong and it’s just sickening that anyone would want to “Let the Fire Burn”. When authority doesn’t get their way, they make the good seem evil. Who’s the real cult here?
I honestly don't know how I feel about this film. I was very bored at first and found myself struggling to get through the barrage of old news footage that bombarded the screen. But as it continued, I found myself becoming more and more intrigued with the history of this event. I was intrigued by the way the kids' story was intertwined within the film and wasn't until later on did I realize why his story spoke to me most; It's because he was a survivor. I love the stories survivors tell us and the impact it leaves in its wake.
ReplyDeleteA thought I had at first while watching the old raw footage, especially the scene with the death of the police officer, was "is this even ethical to show?" I came to the conclusion that it was unethical to air live on television at the time, but necessary to the story wanting to be told now. The watching of these glimpses into the past help recreate the world as it was when this atrocity occurred.
The authenticity of this film is one of the more powerful uses I've seen this semester. It took the first person accounts and paired them with news footage of the events to either compliment or juxtapose. It was a very well created piece of art and showcases the harsh divide that caused so much destruction. That divide still lives today.
Although I did not really enjoy the film very much, as I often found my mind wandering, I did appreciate the usage of archival footage. Sorting through large amounts of footage is never the most fun way to spend time, so I can give them props for that. As far as everything else though, I just wasn't into it. When I told my roommate, who is from the Philadelphia area, what the doc was about he started to spout a bunch of facts about MOVE and such, so by the time I actually got around to starting the film I was already aware of the basics, which I think contributed to my disinterest. I wouldn't say it was bad, because one person's opinion doesn't make a fact, just not for me, I guess.
ReplyDeleteLet the fire burn is a really amazing documentary, it shows the confliction between the government and the ‘Move’ organization. I can’t say I like this documentary a lot, but it does catch me eyeballs sometimes. I really like the last part of the documentary when the police officer told the story absolute difference from what the “Move” child said. Although I don’t know what is the truth, but I do believe what the child said was the truth. I was shocked by the “truth” when I finished the documentary, I began to realize that there are some huge racism problems inside this tragic event. The first racism problem I saw in the documentary was when the “Move” member was caught by the police, the police beat him and treated the “Move” member so bad. What the police did actually make the “Move” members become very angry, worsening the relations between the police and the “Move” organization. The second one was shown as the text form at the end of the documentary. The police officer who was trying to save the child was resigned because of his colleague making fun of him. I feel very disappointed about the Philadelphia police system. One thing that really confuses me is that there are thousand of ways to arrest the “Move” member, but the police, however, choose the most dramatic way to do it and of course, it cause more problems. I don’t like what the “Move” members did to their neighbor and be honest, I think the police were doing the right thing, to arrest the “Move” members, but definitely not doing in the right way.
ReplyDeleteI do feel uncomfortable at the beginning of the documentary when the host interviewing the "move" child. I feel like the words that the host used to said to the child makes me feel like threat and intimidation. I don’t know, but it does give me a bad impression of the host.
Let The Fire Burn
ReplyDeleteFor me, I experienced this doc more as a podcast. I would close my eyes at certain points and just listen to the testimonials. The sounds of the fire and the sirens. That made it more interesting for me. I wasn’t bored… but I just got tired of the footage. I felt like I didn’t need it to tell the story, except for the captions that help share information. I also imagined what this doc would've been without the music. The music played such a part in this film. This is another example of how and why documentary films are so important. Without this, I would’ve never known about this tragic event. I thought the editing was smart. It wasn’t so much one sided as it was informational of each persons experience. This was a very complete documentary even in the sense of the filmmaking aspect with how we start with the banging of the gavel to begin the trail and ending with it. All in all, i enjoyed this film more then I thought I would.
This documentary made me feel anxious and stressed out. Partially because I had no idea this even happened until now, but also because I DON’T KNOW HOW TO FEEL. People should be able to practice whatever religion they believe in but their practices are questionable. For example, the way they treated their kids was child abuse. I get how they were trying to live an authentic life that’s not reliant on technology but also… they were pretty violent and negative. Plus- it’s very brainwashy. And then the police’s reaction/ “solution” to MOVE was impulsive and detrimental. It’s reflective to how African Americans have and still are treated by cops. Like… 9 MOVE members were sent to jail for the murder of that cop, but the officers that abused MOVE members walked away free.
ReplyDeleteThe director did a great job at deciding what footage to use and how to construct the story because I didn’t feel a bias in the film. It makes a more thought provoking experience as a viewer because I can see the good and bad on both sides. And then it ends with the issue pretty unresolved which left me almost sick. Which I feel like is the point.
UGH why is life so ambiguous?! Why is there so much grey area between right and wrong? Why is our justice system so shitty? Let The Fire Burn brings up all these issues. It sucks to think about and discuss but it’s necessary.
Let The Fire Burn was such an eye opening film. The film solely uses archival video footage from news reports, to interviews, and to other media sources surrounding the 1985 bombing of MOVE's residential home by Philadelphia Police, which then led to a massive fire of homes. I am glad I saw this film because it is a huge history lesson that I missed growing up.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed watching the film because of its authenticity, but also the way it authorized. I don't know who decided to construct the angle of the story, either the director or producer, but it was well done! The archival footage definitely played a vital part in how this film strung together. I think it also made it more interesting as well as unique because other documentary films don't have a similar way of bringing in archival footage that this one does.
I was very impressed with the presentation of this film. A documentary using exclusively archival footage is something that I personally like very much, especially when it is about a certain event and the general mood that must have been felt at the time. The footage gives a good sense of authenticity and there is no real doubt when it comes to the information when it comes from primary sources, such as right from the mouths of police officers, commissioners, and MOVE members themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis film was good at using the raw footage to get a seemingly raw story. We see all angles of personality and though there is some deliberate editing here and there, all parties to this story seem well-rounded and complicated, as they would be in real life. In other ways, the facts of the story seem to speak for themselves. The film chooses to present a point of view, but at the same time expose that point of view with the same light it exposes the opposing view.
Let the Fire Burn is a very powerful and emotionally complex film. I feel that both sides, the MOVE "organization" and the police force, were at fault here. MOVE was provoking outrage and violence as well as having a total disrespect for public authority. However, the police force let the situation get out of hand and their "by any means necessary" approach did more harm than good. Near the end when a judge described the entire story as "depressing," I agreed 100%.
ReplyDeleteThe use of solely archival footage to tell the story was especially interesting. It felt like an observational documentary only it had the courtroom for the interviews and commentary. It's expertly edited and is able to remain neutral in a very contested debate, which I think is very wise. By not having experts giving some sort of modern-day retrospective, we instead can let the past do that for us.
This film is brilliant and certainly one of the most interesting documentaries I've ever seen. I give this a 10 out of 10.
And this is Sean McGann
DeleteI would like to start off by saying I loved Let The Fire Burn. I haven’t seen many docs that use pretty much 100% archival footage for the duration of the film, and I think it gives it a very authentic feel. I know that it can’t be completely trusted though because we don’t see every single thing that happens and we don’t get everyone's first person account. In that way it’s slightly flawed but still very authentic feeling nonetheless. I haven’t really thought about making docs using only archival footage and I feel like it would be very hard to put together because it's pretty much just editing. But it seems very frustrating if there is a piece of footage you want but you can’t find it because it was never shot. That just seems like the worst part of creating a film using only archival footage. The thing I find the most frustrating about this doc is I can’t really decide what side I am on. I don’t stand on the side of the police because they did treat the situations they were in with negligence and disdain. But at the same time I do find the MOVE party to be equivalent of the Manson family but instead of abusing people not in the cult they were abusing primarily people within the group. And they did act like terrorists to their surrounding community. And even the city was terrible for building shitting houses to replace the ones that burned down. So I guess the only side I’m on is that of the people that had their community destroyed by both the police and MOVE.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“I’ve been listening to all this over the past several days, reading the testimony, and it has all been very depressing and very discouraging.. except for what I’ve read about the actions of officer Berghyer.”
ReplyDeleteTo me, at least in spirit, this quote sums up my reaction to this film. The documentary sheds light on an event that, in the words of a reviewer on imdb, “probably shouldn’t have happened.” That being said, I do not think it is a bad film. It may even be an important film, especially given America’s continuing struggles with racial tensions and police brutality.
The recurring theme in this film (or the one I pulled from it at least) is that tragedies such as these are very often the result of miscommunication and the lack of mutual understanding. In Let the Fire Burn, this is made apparent by showing a real-world example of this theme that is exaggerated by the polarized ideologies of the people involved; i. e. the insanely conservative police commissioner, and the insane cult/organization/social justice league MOVE (is that an acronym? I have no idea).
Evidently, the film was made entirely from archival footage gathered from news stations during the time of the events and the trial(s). I think it was edited expertly, most of the cuts were surprisingly smooth in regards to framing and continuity of shape/movement. This very tightly put together style was likely made possible by the sheer amount of footage captured at the time.
Overall it was honestly compelling, I probably just shouldn't have watched it in the morning.
Blog 7
ReplyDeleteLet the fire burn
I didn't know rather to cry or punch a hole into the wall. I was completely disgusted and disappointed in our justice system and of America who prides itself on freedoms of speech, freedom of religion and a country that prides itself on individuality! I found on word that kept coming up in the documentary which was the word civilized! What exactly makes a person civilized or uncivilized? I would think that a civilized people who hold common compassion for children, and for people that are different . I do not support all that Move did, I understood their message but did not like the way in which they executed those beliefs. For example they shouldn’t have had the loud speaker outside of their home , and they shouldn’t have had the children eating raw meat. In addition they shouldn’t have been walking with weapons amongst their neighbors even if that were inoperable. That being said I don't believe they deserved to be burned to death or killed. Anyone white , black , purple , or whomever who sets back and allows children to be killed is in fact uncivilized.
I appreciated the fact that the director Jason Osder did not force an opinion or something that could be viewed as one side over the other. Instead he allowed the audience to simply view the footage, he allowed us to see what had happened and make our own conclusion. I felt that made the film more authentic , believable . The message of that the film wanted to convey is much clearer when you allow the audience to take it all in. The film was hard for me to watch. I found it interesting that when Birdie the “Birdie Africa” escaped from the house and when he saw the police officer, he says “Don’t Shoot”. The police are suppose to protect and serve, and if the people that they’re supposed to be protecting do not feel protected; then who are they really protecting? We should not be afraid when we see the police. Overall, I believe that people are free to believe whatever they so choose to & act upon it freely, without causing harm to others. Which, in fact the Move People found to do. It’s just a sad day in society and unfortunate that in this system of things that even being free, whether it’s being free by being different from the social normality of what’s consciously accepted; that it’s still found the be an outrageous crime by corrupted eyes.
Let the Fire Burn uses only archival footage to tell the story of the black liberation group “MOVE”, no modern talking heads or B-roll to be seen.
ReplyDeleteSince no new-age content was shot for the making of this film and all the director and editor had to work with was footage buried in years and years of other news stories and interviews after it, I am blown away at how well-organized this film was. Hunting each individual segment and soundbyte, some that might have been only used in the film for mere seconds, must have taken an outrageous amount of time and patience. I’d imagine that an ungodly amount of transcribing had to happen for organization purposes, too.
The way that this film was presented to me was so engaging- and I was successfully following the film’s “trail of breadcrumbs”. I adored the opening scene (the interrogation of the 14 year old ex-MOVE member) because it was vague- but provocative- enough for me to demand more information. Truly, my first impression was that the child was the “criminal”, here. Information was revealed to me in a way that teased me with utter confusion, yet allowed me to be absorbed in the story comfortably.
Viewing the story through what the press was distributing truly puts me in the shoes of any other citizen of Philadelphia during this time, and I think there’s no more of an authentic way to present the story while maintaining its dignity than how Let the Fire Burn did.
As for the events in general, I think this story is a prime example of how brutality and unnecessary violence from police is sometimes- not always- but sometimes a situation with much gray area. Although MOVE’s actions never compared to burning down 60 houses and the murder of 5 children and 6 adults, what MOVE’s members had done (frighten Philadelphia's citizens with obscene bullhorn speeches, shoot a policeman, refuse proper care to their children) raises questions for me about MOVE’s value for human life in a similar way.
//Zoey Danielson
ReplyDeleteLet the Fire burn was yet another documentary that I knew nothing about going into. Overall for me what I really liked about this film was how east it was to follow and I learned a lot in just an hour and twenty-three minutes. Before watching this film, I had also never heard of MOVE or of the events that took place between them and the Philadelphia Police Department from the 1970’s to the 1980’s.
I think it’s also important to point out that there were no talking heads or b-roll that had been created specifically for this film. I appreciate their determination in, what I’m sure was countless hours of digging through old footage, to find what would best suit their documentary and from that I can understand the level of passion it must have taken to create this film.
I love how Osder chose to begin the film in 1972 when the group was founded, shows their rise during the 70’s and then eventually their conflict with the police. For me the archival footage felt essential to the film, especially when police officers are giving their testimony’s. To juxtapose the police’s account with the archival footage was absolutely brilliant, it shows their statements to be distorted, played down, false. I felt it was his way of sticking it to these officers, which was absolutely deserved by many of them. The part in the film where they talk about how 5 children burned to death in a building while firefighters and officers watched and did nothing. That’s despicable. So many deaths that no one was charged with, but one officer dies and nine people I believe were charged.
Overall, I enjoyed this film in a sad sort of way. It wasn’t the most exciting, fast paced film I have ever watched, but I learned a lot from it and enjoyed it all the same. These events were something that happened many years ago but are still relevant in today’s society. We haven’t learned yet from the past.