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, and please remember to post your response both here and on Moodle by no later than Tuesday morning at 9am!
Let the Fire Burn
ReplyDeleteA very bad situation gone wrong is the only way that I can explain how I felt about the evidence that was presented in this film. How did a group of people cause such a calamity that would destroy nearly 60 homes just because they were bucking “the system” and not conforming to society?
A moment that stood out for me was the bomb drop and the alleged subsequent lack of smoke, then the decision to allow the building to burn. According to the footage, just 15 minutes after the drop, the fire seemed to be quite out of control and that is where the turning point of the whole situation turned to the unfortunate end that it became. The interview with Janice Walker, the neighbor just a few doors down, broke my heart. The cuts the filmmaker used of the police commissioner, the fire commissioner and the mayor about who was responsible for letting the building burn was baffling. Was it lack of communication? Or a deliberate refusal to save lives as a tactical advantage to “smoke them out?”
Additionally, the most poignant parts of the story were the part of the testimony that the filmmaker included from Michael, the boy that was rescued. His completely honest testimony that was without any bias to anyone, not even to the people of MOVE, was what I think the most authentic of the piece.
This film is one of the most compelling films that I have seen in that, I didn’t know how to feel about the organization or how the police dealt with them in 1978 and in 1985 after seeing this film, therefore it made me want do more research about the MOVE organization. At first, I was appalled at how the police dealt with the situation, but as each individual told the stories, it seemed like an inevitable confrontation that spun completely out of control. What was interesting to me was the almost seamless blend of all the footage, in an almost linear fashion, which moved the story along where I was completely engulfed in the story and it left me wanting to know more.
The saying, “There are two sides to every story,” has never been more true than in this documentary. The documentary was more like a news reel rather than a true “movie” which I’m sure was because most of the footage was from news broadcasts. Something I found truly captivating about the story of MOVE and the police surrounding the fire in 1985, was that I could see the truth in both sides of their stories.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always sided with the law or the people I related with in these kinds of documentaries, but in Let The Fire Burn I was torn. From the testimonies of the two women who felt that they had the right to believe in whatever they wanted to believe, (Just like the rights christians, atheists, and jews have.) to the statements from the police officers who felt as though MOVE was a terrorist cult that threatened the lives of everyone around them, my eyes and ears were glued to this story.
Though the whole story was kind of depressing and sad, I felt as though there was this shimmer of hope brought by Michael and the officer who saved him. I instantly new that there was good in this story and that I could walk about not completely heartbroken. Then BAM happiness ruined when the cop gets bullied and has to leave the force because of PTSD and the kid goes to live with his father. His FATHER. Where in the world was this father when Michael was stuck in this cult and wanted to leave years before the fire?
All in all, this film pulled on all the right heart strings to get you emotionally attached. The archival footage added authenticity that may have been lost in reenactments. I loved how you could see both sides of the story clearly and in the end felt as though you saw most of the whole story. I do wish I knew more about what MOVE was doing these days, so the documentary did evoke a want for more knowledge which was probably a goal of the director. Research will definitely ensue.
“Let the Fire Burn,” what an inhumane thing to do. I think the leaders of the police force are so incredibly misguided. One question remained in the forefront of my mind throughout this film, “Why are they treating this cult so violently?” I wonder what the history is like in Philadelphia, if the local government/police have had much experience dealing with cults. I confess that I know very little about cults, just a few documentaries, fictional films and personal essays, but none have been so violent as this. I have heard of cults that do much worse than what MOVE was doing, and are not met with violence, but with lawsuits. If MOVE was doing so much harm they could have legally removed them from the residence/ taken the children into custody, but by the time they set the house on fire the police have pushed them so far off the edge that there is no cooperation.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that the MOVE organization felt they had to fight the police force, but those few terrible, racist, violent officers solicited that reaction. This film explored a side of the police force that I’ve always wondered about. Justification of excessive violence, why are these men not held accountable for their actions? I both hate and enjoyed when the commissioner is asked if he had any thought about not allowing the officers involved with the Delbert Africa case to be involved with the eviction. “I am trying to imagine what would make me turn around and run back into the fire,” –Reverend Paul Washington. Very powerful. Hit home when the hero officer received a less appreciative note on his locker and retired. While I acknowledge that the archival footage was taken from another time, another culture, another place, I still believe this attitude of masculinity (in the police force/government) is detrimental to EVERYONE’s safety.
Although the film is made up of entirely archival footage the way it has been edited together, with heart and facts, is genuine and lends itself to the film’s authenticity. This story was not one-sided. The exclusion of any other current interviews or reenactments makes it ring true, it makes it hard to ignore anything that is being presented to you. I felt a number of emotions during this film, one of them being shock at how people are being treated, in the footage itself and the underlying fact that this footage was not made public at a time when it was important.
Was this a film or did I flip on the News? Purely archival footage, in chronological order, without bias or storyteller tone. The director’s voice is not a coaxed one, instead, it is one so beautifully apparent—in editing and storytelling— that is almost not present, not once does this film attack me with a “you should feel this way” or a persistent nudge to it’s audience. This film, gave us the full picture, based on facts and footage. Whether pieces were left out, does not matter; this film gives us enough, from each of it’s sides, to give us the full scope of what happened in 1985 between the city of Philadelphia and MOVE. Needless to say, with this films truthful piecing together of events, a great level of both authenticity and authority; showing the audience these people have the means to tell this story, and in turn, have the right to do so from the people who lived it.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence itself; the telling interviews — not current rehashing of past events, but interviews given back when the fire was burning current and fresh in their minds and the city, as well as the pure broadcasted documentation— images; proof, that these things happened, in the way they happened, because you know what, “there it is, caught on tape”, gave this film everything it needed.
Authenticity, this is what happened, because it is what happened, it’s history, it’s not somebody’s word of mouth rendition, it’s on camera, it’s from the moment, you can’t fake that, and you can’t deny that kind of proof. Authority, because the clips this movie used were unbiased, they made the audience i.e me, feel for both sides, and man is that exhausting for me and yet astounding for a film to accomplish. It gives us the comfort as a classroom of onlookers 30+ years later, that this story was told effectively, respectively, and wholly. Also, with the use of just evidence, the footage, as film material, gives this movie indeed the responsibility to tell this story. A story that needed to be told then, and now. A story that needed this mashup, that needed this swirling thriller of events, in order to truly see, remember, and learn, from the fire Philadelphia let burn.
To me, the most influential part of this movie, the most interesting and impactful scene, was Michael’s interview. In that moment, we’re given a look inside, we’re given the most unbiased account we can get, from a child, and that in itself makes it all the more horrible and real. I still don’t know whose side I am on, and it pains me to say that too. Was it right for this fire to be left burning? No, I don’t think it was. But, was action inevitable? Was interference called for? Yeah, I think so. And like many “right” things, in hindsight, it is often difficult to define what was really good or bad. Overall I liked this documentary. If I had to sum down to why exactly I like it, it’d be this: The footage; it made it real, it made it true. The subject matter; a hard decision which lead to hard events. And finally, the feeling. This movie pulls at you, it latches on, it lays in you something that will never let go.
When I started watching this movie, I thought it was going to be boring. All old archival footage that looked to be about something political. Not my thing. But what ensued, as I should have guessed that you’d never pick a boring doc, had me watching this doc on my phone between classes and during my lunch hour at a local restaurant. I was instantly captivated and emotionally invested within ten minutes of the film starting. I related it to the police brutality we hear about going on all around the country right now, especially in Furguson, Missouri. It really is concerning to see how intense police can get, and not necessarily rightfully so, in both the past and know that it still goes on presently. Makes you really start to think about the police and authority, and not in an angsty teenage way!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the film kind of resembling a news feed of it all. With this kind of topic, I want to know all the facts and each side of the story. I have no background information or knowledge on MOVE and this situation in Philadelphia, so I needed to know more about it to make a solid opinion. So all the information that was fed to you because of the format of story telling they chose to use in the film, ended up being a really likeable aspect for me. It reminded me of Tabloid in that sense. I felt like I was being thrown between different view points at times, like you would trying to keep up with a real time news article. It definitely adds a fun interactive factor to the film. You’re always thinking and developing new ideas and thoughts throughout the film.
In the documentary, “Let the Fire Burn,” Jason Osder directed a seriously emotional movie. I hate the fact that racist people still are breathing because it interferes with innocent people living safe and convenient lives. The police is a perfect example of racism on this documentary. An old interview video shows at the beginning of the documentary. The date was October 1985, and a shy Michael Moses Ward is in a room. I honestly disliked how his nickname “Birdie Africa” appeared on the screen until I realize that a racist did not give him that name.
ReplyDeleteMichael was a “MOVE” member and still in trauma of the things that he witnessed the group members do. He is an African American kid being interviewed by one black man and one white man. Michael agrees to speak to them about what happened on May 13th in Philadelphia. The event that Michael, the witness was frightened to speak about involved the group “MOVE” setting houses on fire. People of dark skin could not rely on the police because they would assume the problem is black people. Footage of innocent people of dark skin were being harmed while the police did not bring forth justice.
John Africa was the founder of the “MOVE” organization. “MOVE” are a group of members in an organization admitting to being revolutionary. Over 70 homes were burned by “MOVE” members. Footage of the houses being burned were shown as an knowledgable, male narrator continued to speak. Sadly, because “MOVE” is considered a threat by the police, they have to run away. Former Black Panther, Delbert Africa said that the revolution made him want to get away from the days that made him want to revolt. “MOVE” does not use technology, but uses cars and cellphones. Former members were being interviewed about what they were being taught. I find it odd that if “MOVE” members were being taught about the corruption in the American “system,” they were revealing it to their enemies.
Scenes where kids are saying, “Long live John Africa” are shown. “MOVE” taught people that children going to schools are programmed to think about war with racist attitudes. It was emotionally depressing how the footage of public speakers were yelling at their enemies in numerous scenes. The boring court sessions showed up where they debated if “MOVE” is a dangerous group. “Life Africa,” a baby, was killed during police raid, and it angered “MOVE.” In May 20, 1977, “MOVE” started to retaliate against the police with weapons. Because the police had guns, the members of “MOVE” got guns. It is terrible that the intelligent group, “MOVE” could not get justice.
ReplyDeleteBlack and white photos as well as videos were used in the documentary. Footage of the authority figures were shown being shot at, which is where Officer James Ramp died. The “Black Panthers” were strictly trying to help their own race out of suffering, but they were not racist. I felt the “MOVE” was an innocent group because they were being racially mistreated by the white people. “MOVE” members believe that officer Grant was killed by friendly fire, and his death was a police cover-up. It would be a daunting task to discover the truth, but the police members were selfish enough to make a cover-up. Later, they discover that “MOVE” had no automatic firearm while the police did. Old footage on how Delbert Africa was harmed by the police was used against the three officers, and they were charged.
Wilson Goode then became the first black mayor of Philadelphia, which was a positive scene in the documentary. He was shown speaking publicly before another negative scene occurred. White words showed up on the black screen, which said, “John Africa was arrested in 1979 for a firearms violation.” John was not guilty in court. Unfortunately, the media called “MOVE” a cult. The authorities kept saying they believed “MOVE” had firearms and explosives hidden in houses.
ReplyDeleteThe interview of Michael kept returning. Michael spoke about how he was not happy doing what other fun activities other kids did. Instead of riding his bike and playing with toys, he was being educated about the immorality of the world. I thought it was entertaining to see reporters talking near the action of the war between the “MOVE” and the police. How the police used a helicopter to bomb “MOVE’s” house was a careless act because beneficial adults and children were in that house. Michael expressed how the house was burning, and he wanted to escape. The police refused to put the fire out, and the commander lied about using the fire as a weapon. As explained by Michael, a member escaped the house after using a wrench, but was shot with an automatic firearm. Then, Michael escaped the house, being 1 of 2 survivors.
Let me start off by saying this by far is my favorite documentary that we have watched in class so far. I was wondering how this documentary was going to flow since it was all b-roll and news footage and in my opinion I loved it. What I liked most about how this documentary was structured was that I felt like I was there right as it was happening live. I felt as part of the spectators in the court house. It was more personal for me because there was very minimal interference from the director. I also likes how it was very little quotes transitions and even when they were, they were quotes taken directly from people involved in the court case. I loved it!
ReplyDeleteThis documentary did tell both sides of the story; those of the MOVE community and those opposed to them. It helped create a balance so that the audience could form their opinions based on both testimonies of the parties involved.
Now about the content of the film itself, I actually thought it to be pretty relevant because of what is happening in Ferguson presently. But after watching this film, I am totally and utterly sick, but I am not surprised. This film (even if not intended) showed police brutality and negligence to the people who they are supposed to protect. Now, MOVE definitely had an outrageous lifestyle, even before the police tension arose (I'll be damned if I'm feeding my children raw chicken), but I honestly believe that things wouldn't have escalated to the level it did if the police were more compassionate about the situation. That probably seems like a bunch of bull, but it isn't. Police provoke, not protect. Like I became so angry watching this film, which I liked because I love when a film initiates emotion in me, not only because a mayor of a town where he was supposed to protect and serve his citizens allowed a six-alarm fire to occur; not only because 5 children perished in the fire, not only because a officer who was doing his duty in saving the life of an innocent child was labeled a "nigger lover" rather than a hero; not only because of the extent of lying police will do to cover their own tracks, but because this situation was real and instances like this are still recurring and racism definitely plays a factor. What actually made me chuckle to myself is when the D.A. said that it was not a race issue. Well I call BULLSHIT! It absolutely was a race issue and let me tell you why; MOVE is an extremist group, but with black people and let's just say, oh, I don't know, the police are also an extreme group, but it's just with legal protection. Now, even with undisputed evidence that no MOVE members could've killed the officer, nine people, African Americans, are arrested and put in jail with extreme sentences. Now, the officers, and according to the film, all of which were white, kill 11 people are no charges are filed. I could go on and on about the constant racism of this country, but I don't want to drag this post out. Now do not mistake me for a racist because I am not; I'm just fully aware of the racial and cultural differences in our society.
Overall, I loved this documentary. Using solely archival footage worked in this documentary's favor and I truly did enjoy watching it. Michael's interview, the news footage, and the courtroom footage were all strung together beautifully to convey this story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
Let the Fire Burn is definitely one of the most captivating films we’ve watched this semester. I thought that I would be bored watching it but the use of news footage, Michael’s interview, and b-roll was very impressive.
ReplyDeleteOne of the initial questions I had in the beginning of the film was "why are people attacking this one group”? They have a right to freedom of religion and expression and it’s not like they were a hate group set out to hurt anyone.
In the beginning MOVE seemed like an innocent group, they kept to themselves and just wanted to live their lives. After their run-ins with the cops, especially in 1978 on a day in which cops attempted to to siege the home which resulted in a shooter that left one of the offices dead.
I think this film plays with the idea of what is actual evidence in a really cool and effective way. For example we receive a testimony from a police officer about the events that happened on that day regarding Delbert Africa. It was said that he exited the building with a knife in hand and that he was subdued in a reasonable manner after being hit in the head with a helmet. We then are immediately we are shown footage of Delbert exiting the building unarmed, and as he walks towards the police vehicle he is hit in the head then falls to the ground and immediately several officers begin to swarm him and begin to punch and kick him. This was the moment that I realized that actions of the police were done with ill intent and that for them it was very likely that the extremely violence towards this group was an act of racism.
When the group relocated to Osage street I was disgusted that MOVE became so rowdy and disrespectful. They left their trash out and kept their lumber in the front yard, then installed speakers and began to yell obscenities out at any given hour. After seeing their neighbors speak out on this, and suffering because of MOVE’s actions, I realized that the community reaching out for help from the city was not one of ill intent it was one to restore peace and order back to the area they call home.
It was so interesting to see the incorporation of the footage of Michael’s interview and the court hearings placed into this. Again it was another use of archival footage as evidence. At the hearing, officers on the scene of the fire reported that
“Rad” exited the house with a rifle, but in Michaels testimony he states that rad was only equipped with a monkey wrench. This films format is pretty neat. We are given a statement, then state statement is either rebutted by Laverne Sim, we see b-roll that either supports or conflicts the statement, or we are given part of the testimony by Michael.
I didn’t feel like this film was made with the intent to make you feel bad for the members of MOVE. I think it was made to show that there are two sides to every story. That one side can be worse and do more wrong than the other, but even then is not always a right side.
Well, the sentiments inspired after watching this documentary draw near undermining to say the least. And this is more so because there didn’t seem to be a definitive partiality, on behalf of the filmmakers, as to whether or not either party was more or less justified in the events preceding the fire. And, often times, this approach simply rings closer to the truth than being in support of an extreme oppositional viewpoint. What was most interesting for me was that although I, personally, found the reality of the injustice depicted towards the MOVE organization to be elusive on account of the organization’s radical inclinations, that didn’t stop me from identifying and empathizing with their efforts. This is indicative of great authority, as well as ethical responsibility in filmmaking because a conscious choice was made to humanize two distinct groups of characters that were both subject to mass scrutiny. We know that corruption within the legal system exists. But, as exemplified by Officer Berghaier, not all police officials are bad guys. We know that certain members of the MOVE organization were militant in their tactics. But, as testified by Laverne, their motives were intrinsically and universally primitive. Racism is a sticky subject with lots of surrounding grey area. And for Osder to tackle such a socially charged issue with such weight and balance, so as to not villainize one particular party, whilst applying Michael’s story as a constant reminder of the innocent blood that is shed by acting on those very intemperate attitudes, is quite inspiring.
ReplyDeleteLet the Fire Burn was definitely meat and potatoes. The film uses nothing but archival footage, but the way the director and editor pieced it all together was very effective in telling the story of the MOVE organization and the Philadelphia Police Department.
ReplyDeleteThe film was very stylish; the editing for Let the Fire Burn definitely matched the 80's feel of the archival footage; I thought it was really cool to use television static and test cards as transitions. I didn't even think that the documentary was made in 2013.
I thought it was a wise choice for director Osder to begin the film with the introduction of Michael Moses Ward, AKA Birdie Africa. "What does it mean to tell the truth?" "Don't lie," Michael answers back. As audiences, and probably as human beings in general, we are able to trust and believe the words of children more because they seem to be so much more authentic and untainted, unlike the adults in this film. This introduction is also a reflection of the direction that Osder took with this documentary; to not lie, but to remain faithful to the true account of the event that took place on May 13th, 1985, despite the ambiguity of truth within the interview footage.
During the first half of the film, the religion of the MOVE organization was explained, yet not explained. They reject technology, eat a raw food diet, hate "the system," believe in returning to the earth. But for what purpose? Just because John Africa said so? For example, members of the MOVE organization spoke about John Africa establishing life and absolute truth. Laverne Sims kept repeating that MOVE was motivated by that, the absolute truth. What exactly is the truth?
It was also very fascinating that Osder included the MOVE documentary in the film.
The other side explains the political setup of the Philadelphia authority, and exposes their blatant lies about the day of the bombing. The propagandist campaign footage of Mayor Frank Rizzo off the bat tells the audience not to trust the man. Also during the interviewing of police officers and other key people, it seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for their actions. Their doubtful accounts of the bombing, paired with the contrasting retelling from Michael, make the city officials untrustworthy.
I believe that Osder did take responsibility in trying to tell the truth about May 13th, 1985. He didn't try to "paint" the MOVE organization in a sympathetic light; instead he talked about them with unbias. The group was an extreme, back-to-earth movement that clashed with authority in unconventional ways, and some of their beliefs did seem questionable, like the feeding of raw foods to young children, who looked malnourished in the photos. And out of the many negative interviews of the city officials, we were given one believable account from Officer James Berghaier and the rescuing of Birdie from the flaming building. Osder's truth, in my opinion, isn't MOVE's truth. And it is definitely not the City of Philadelphia's truth. But it is the truth about humanity. That notion is very apparent with the inclusion of the interview between Reverend Paul Washington and Officer Lawrence D'Ulisse. "Well, just as a human being myself, I’m just trying to imagine myself in that situation, and behind me there’s a raging inferno, and in front of me there are people who are saying “come on out.” I’m trying to imagine what would cause me to turn back and run into the fire. [...] I’m just saying that I’m trying to put myself in that person’s skin." Rev. Washington says.
Delete"Sir, I don’t think you ever could. These were MOVE members." the Officer replies. Rev. Washington then explains, "Well, you see, I knew a lot of those people as individuals and as human beings. A lot of people know MOVE from what they may have seen. But I had a lot of dealings with them, and I knew them to be more than MOVE people. I knew many of them by name, as human beings. It’s probably a rhetorical question. I don’t think you – From the way you’ve responded, I don’t think you can answer that." Officer D'Ulisse sought to dehumanize those MOVE members, even the children that died in the fire trying to escape, while Rev. Washington calls to question the Officer's own humanity.
Besides the main subject of this film, I think another idea that Osder was trying to tackle was the defining of truth, and what constitutes a lie. Michael Ward was the benchmark for the film's truth, and everything else and everyone else was compared to him. Are lies the withholding of truth, like the interviews of MOVE members Louise James and Laverne Sims? Or are lies just the actual rewriting and fabrication of it, like what the police officers did?
Let it Burn was a rather interesting but boring. The reason for this is it was a rather interesting topic at hand. I never heard of MOVE before so it was kind of crazy to see what they were about. However I found it to be a rather boring documentary. Reason for this is the way that it was dragging on and flipping between that court thing ( which court things put me to sleep ) and the kid. I feel like they could of gotten to the point more then dragging it on as much as they did. Maybe explained better as to what was going on.
ReplyDeleteHowever it was interesting to see how the situation was handled. When each person tells their story it makes sense things were handled the way they were. One shot that gave me a uncomfortable feeling was a arial shot that was looking at the block at which the MOVE house was on. Seeing all the cars as people were evacuating and then that tower that they built on the roof made myself wonder how those people felt. I know it made me a bit uncomfortable.
I thought it was a rather good documentary with a lot of interesting information about move. However it just bored me for a while there and put me to sleep the first time I watched it.
Wow! That was intense. I thought the exclusive use of archival footage made this so much more personal. In the hearing where involved parties were giving their testimonies, I felt a closeness almost as if I were sitting in the audience. Also I am amazed how they had so much footage to use. I really thought the story was concise the whole hour and a half. I feel as if I am still locked into the “meat and potatoes” doc with staged interviews. So I was waiting to see one of the cops or the man asking questions in the hearing or Michael Ward and that never happened, it was absolutely still satisfying.
ReplyDeleteI thought the numbered quotes really broke the doc up and gave it a nice pace. They simply took a moment that was powerful and set it up for us. I don’t think it gave the moment away, I really thought it added some power. When the Reverend was talking about being human and why as a human would you run back into a fire when there is supposed help outside, I wanted to stand up and yell at that cop, “Gotcha!!!!!”, but I didn’t because I didn’t want to wake my mom up. I don’t think this doc had much of a stylistic goal seeing as it was all archival footage. There were some times when a testimonial (mostly cops) would fade out in a way that was kind of like a broken TV which implied certain things about what was said in the testimonial and gave an uneasy feeling. I agree with the decision of the filmmakers to leave the footage as is and use it in a way that is concise but tells the best story. I thought they navigated through news reports, testimonies, and other footage very well. The story never jumped from one scene to another too randomly but also when two different scenes were describing the same event it wasn’t too concise to make it seem somewhat staged.
It amazes me that even with footage of the first MOVE fiasco in 78’ with the cops kicking Delbert Africa’s face in, they still didn’t charge any of the cops who were involved and those same cops were at the 85’ fiasco. To me along with many other discernable impositions the cops were wrong in the most part. They seemed to be running on emotional rather than rationale. MOVE was definitely in the wrong too. I think everyone should have been more accepting of MOVE. I think because people outcasted them and were threatened by them just because they were different.
I am curious as to why I had never heard of all of that happening in America. It’s good and bad to say: you just don’t really expect that in America. Also, this movie just came out last year, coinciding with Michael Ward’s death. What took them so long to want to make this film?
Let It Burn a meaningful title for a documentary about truth, lies, and the harm they generate. I had a lot of interest in this film but I also fell asleep TWICE trying to watch it.
ReplyDeleteThe back and forth footage between courtroom talking and any footage of MOVE shown was engaging made me feel like I was in the courtroom bored to death. The MOVE footage and the end of the film really save this from a complete snooze fest.
I do not know what to think of the people in MOVE. What the hell was their organizations purpose? What did they want out of life?
I think both the Police department of Philadelphia and MOVE lost their identities in this whole mess. The great fire in the neighborhood is sort of like a metaphor of how both parties lost their way and needed a restart. Unfortunately for MOVE they were trapped in the house and could not get out and that is tragic. The police, Mayor, and Fire Chief handled the situation poorly and that’s an understatement.
I don’t understand why the fire Chief couldn’t decide for himself to put the fire out without the Police Commissioner’s approval.
The person that ties this whole story together is the deposition of ‘Birdie Africa.’ He had no bias and his words offered some closure to what really happened between the opposing sides of the police force and MOVE.
The story in Let the Fire Burn is told exclusively through archival footage of the news broadcast, courtroom interrogations, and an interview with Michael Africa, one of the MOVE children. The courtroom dialogue almost functions in place of traditional “formal interviews” that keep the story progressing through characters' recollections.
ReplyDeleteInitially, the news footage establishes the MOVE group as an odd spectacle – a radical organization operating on “back to the earth” beliefs, dressing their children in loin cloths, feeding them raw meat, not using electricity, etc. The first moment when it becomes apparent that MOVE may be dangerous or harmful to its members is when we see the grossly bloated stomachs of members' children as one MOVE adult matter-of-factly explains that they aren't starving, they are just really full – a claim that viewers immediately know to be untrue because we are able to recognize the evidence of the physical difference between the two states.
MOVE members' behavior, as they themselves even claim, is animalistic and primal. They believe in self-preservation and equality. Their lifestyle directly contradicts (and militantly opposes) the social system in which it operates. They are everything that a patriarchal urban white system of government and law enforcement isn't, and they ultimately become a threat to these entities when they begin to assume greater power and presence (through the bunker, loudspeakers, etc.).
At one point, the head of the police force simply states “we wanted to get the bunker,” explaining that the police felt they needed to regain control over the situation because MOVE had assumed more power than they by commanding rooftop access and better vision of the neighborhood. Their power was threatened, so they attempted to regain it at costs that appear to be above and beyond that which would have been necessary.
I must begin by saying I think the decision to use archival footage was brilliant. The footage is largely composed of news reports, interviews and broadcasts intertwining the two.
ReplyDeleteI found the entire movie interesting, but couldn't help but feel like I was in the middle of some political scare tactic. Officer Berghaier recounts saving the only child to survive the fire and I think including this angle served as a good way to relieve our minds from a corrupt cop trance, and to show there's at least one cop with some regard for these human beings he witnessed enduring such tormenting acts. However, I didn't particularly care for the soap opera music during his account. The same music was playing during the flashbacks to the fire and it worked there, but I found it distracting while trying to listen to his response. Having close-ups on the teary-eyed officer with that music was a little over the top. This seemed like one last saving grace to save the sinking ship of a police force that bombed and killed innocent children. It was the first time any of the officers showed any sign of compassion or non-offensive emotions towards anyone they knew stepped foot in the "Move,", and any acknowledgement of the "Africas" being human beings. This was a great way of providing relief to viewer's, but the heaviness of all the other officers' interviews ran too deep into the bad realms of entitlement and justification. It's almost as if the director knew the audience would pick up on the officers' nonchallantness. ....so Berghaier was to win the political votes.
To this view, I'd like to add a number of questions I asked myself while viewing. Why did nine people get such harsh confinement sentences for the murder of one......but the same group that one was murdered from carries out full military attacks, bombs and kills women and children from the same group the nine were plucked from, and no one is even charged?
Then.....Why was there a need to epilogue how Lavergne and Louise are no longer affiliated with Move?
Who were they gonna affiliate themselves with when they were all burned alive?
Should we celebrate them bringing ashes and candy to fucking ashes and burned flesh, or should we campaign to release documentaries of their lives after the mysterious deaths that will probably follow any further affiliation, as they would have been the first targets for conspiracy retaliation after their names and faces were plastered everywhere?
This is a case we hear so many times.....a group of non-conformists and the never-ending battles they have with political figures. The first attack was brutal, the second was inhumane. What were they trying to put out by saying they had weapons inside when you had to go in there to discover so? In trying to paint a picture against them, it actually feels like those giving reports are willing to sell their souls to make themselves and others feel justified in their wrongdoings.
ReplyDeleteI like how the aim is to promote LET THE FIRE BURN not being about race, but the undertones clearly show otherwise. Another officer writing racial slurs on his locker shows a glimpse of the mindset of others involved.
The choice to include the fact that Berghaier left with PTSD, gives us no real relation to the Move chaos. How do we know it stemmed from this movement? How do we know he didn't already have PTSD?
Please excuse all the inquiries. I'm kind of not buying the intent here. Whoever did this movie can have a long-term career in ads and campaign videos for politicians. ....especially with the poor attempt to quiet viewer's questions of where Michael's father was in the first place.
I can go on and on, but I'll end here! The emotional pacing was too slow for me in the beginning, but picked up and became very engaging. Because it hurts the credibility of how Philadelphia takes care of its city, I would have left out the fact that the destroyed homes were rebuilt, then condemned due to shoddy construction. Unless this fact is to serve as an unofficial way of telling the audience what side the director's on......and in that case....I render it brilliant.
I absolutely loved this film. I would have to say that this is an activist style of documentary. Although at times it got frustrating to see who was at fault within this film, I believe the last part of the film really ended on a specific side. When we see what was written on the locker of the cop that saved Michael Ward’s life, and then the credits start to roll shortly after, we ultimately have a bitter taste in our mouths against the cops in this film. I loved how the director used archival footage for the entirety of the film. It made it seem more real in a sense, instead of flashing between present interviews and old footage throughout the movie. This film was very much about the truth. And, as a documentary filmmaker, I believe Jason Osder did a solid job with responsibility with the footage shown. Many scenes revealed in this film, especially the court scenes with the head of police and fire department, showed the deceit and hatred many of the cops and officials had towards the MOVE party. When it is seen that there was a disagreement between the heads of the police and fire departments concerning the topic of putting out the fire, we start to get a sense that lies are being told and that the truth is being covered up. Like I said, though, the ending of the film was what sold me. Seeing that the cop who helped Michael was harassed by his own peers and then left due to post traumatic stress disorder was the final straw for me. All in all, I believe this was a wonderful work of art.
ReplyDeleteFrom the very opening of this film it claimed authority. The choice to start with the footage of the fire, not explain it, and then make you follow a trail of footage to get to that point is very bold and effective. I felt this film was very authoritative for starting in such a manner, it say hey here is a crazy event you have never heard of and why aren’t people talking about this! It was one film that made me drop my multi-tasking and just pay attention.
ReplyDeleteI like that the film didn’t take a stance on the matter as much as it just presented it for us. It left me with more questions than answers but I think that’s the intention. I think it shows everything fairly evenly with maybe just a slight bias. The reason I say slight bias is because of some of the court footage used, the Move members made the person questioning them look like a fool. Choosing to include that is slightly bias, however it also made the Move members look extremely radical at points. I feel like the filmmaker felt a responsibility to stay unbiased and they did a decent job keeping it that way.
As far as authenticity goes, by using archival footage it feels very authentic. The film also sources where the clips are from so it’s very clear it’s authentic found footage and that things aren’t staged or re-enacted. However I have my own personal problems with calling news clips authentic. It’s no secret that the news is not always accurate and that they sensationalize everything. So it was hard for me to not look at some of these clips as such. But news as a whole in society is considered by the majority to be authentic so it was effective. I feel like if the filmmaker had made this while it was happening breaking through the exterior and developing a relationship with the Move organization could have made this more authentic. But it’s a self reflection on our history that we ignore so that obviously isn’t possible.
I felt this film was mostly hear say but so was the entire case and I think that’s the point. There is evidence presented where evidence could be found. For example the man in the mask on the roof with a gun, we are shown the footage and can’t deny that it happened. I wish there was more evidence but like I said the whole case is hear say. Now I’m excited to go learn more about it.