Anarchist Review of “Battle in Seattle”
Posted by Mike E on September 21, 2008
This film review, originally from Anarkismo - gives a sense of the film and of the emerging controversies the film provokes.
By Jen Rogue with Andrew Hedden
I spent my nineteenth birthday in the cold and rain, breathing in tear gas and fleeing the police. It was 1999 and I was in Seattle, joining in the tens of thousands who descended on the city to protest the World Trade Organization’s first Ministerial Conference in the United States. I was sympathetic to the myriad of issues represented by the various sections of protestors, from the environment to workers struggles to access to medicine. I proudly marched with my banner reading, “Think the WTO is bad? Wait til you hear about capitalism!” The reasons to oppose the WTO were a thousand-fold, but central to me was the larger system at play: global capitalism.
My fellow anarchists worked alongside union members, sea turtles, and activists of all kinds in an effort to shut down the WTO’s meeting. The diversity of the protesters brought with them a diversity of tactics, and the anarchists participated in many, from locking down in intersections and doorways, to squatting a building downtown, to breaking the windows of targeted multinational corporations. While the debate about the protests and aftermath has seen hundreds of opinions, perspectives and critiques, there is one thing most can agree on: the 1999 WTO protests brought American attention to global economic issues. In addition to successfully shutting down the meeting, activists in the U.S. illustrated an awareness of and resistance to the WTO’s repression and exploitation of peoples across the globe.
Almost ten years later, the protests have inspired a feature film. Directed by Stuart Townsend, Battle in Seattle is a clearly well-researched fictionalized drama taking place during the WTO protests. The pacing and general narrative is quite accurate to the events as they actually unfolded. This new, sympathetic attention to a pivotal moment of the anti-globalization movement brings up many old questions and debates, most of which still linger on today. The movie itself is engaging and likeable, with plenty of well-staged action to keep the viewer’s interest. Michelle Rodriguez, bad-ass as always, makes a fierce anarchist (in the interest of disclosure, I watched Blue Crush three times and Blood Rayne twice just for Rodriguez). The intentions of the film are clearly sympathetic to the protestors and seek to bring to light the motivations and ideas of the activists, which had not been well represented by the media.
The film is independently produced, not a product of Hollywood, though it uses Hollywood style to capture its audience. Like the popular Oscar-winner Crash, it weaves together individual stories and illustrates how they connect. For an effort as collective as the WTO protests, this approach ultimately focuses too much on individual people. One of the shortcomings of the film is the fact that it is comprised of anecdotes. Certainly, to be an entertaining movie, one has to tell the story of some compelling characters, but when telling the story of the WTO protests, this causes some key ideas to slip through the cracks. By focusing on the personal lives and motivations of a handful of characters, we miss the greater, systemic causes at play.
Consequently, the film focuses on the isolated “mistakes” of the Seattle police and to a lesser extent, the media. There is not a larger awareness of the fact that institutions like the WTO rely on media whitewash of their activities and a negative portrayal of protesters, not to mention police repression. Cops fighting protesters is (on a smaller scale) par for the course given the violence of the WTO (poverty, white supremacy, etc). Corporate media also has something to gain by dramatizing the conflict and making the protesters look bad; sensationalism is what gets the ratings, after all. There is a broader systemic analysis of capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy, their roles in the WTO and the states that control it, which is missing from the film.
Of all the characters in the film – a cop, his wife, the Mayor, an NGO professional, an African delegate – Director Stuart Townsend gives the most screen time to various activists. Townsend has explained that Battle in Seattle’s glorification of the professional activist is aimed at trying to inspire people to become more active in progressive causes, but in an effort to show them in a positive light, their achievements are overblown. The breakaway segment of the protest’s labor march was portrayed in the film as directed by the activists, when in fact it was led by the steelworkers and other militant union folks. Townsend does make activism look sexy and exciting (though Michelle Rodriguez could make doing laundry look sexy and exciting), but as a strategy with greater political goals, it is misguided. The movie unintentionally perpetuates the middle-class do-gooder cultural concept when a more important focus would be the large-scale popular movements. Individualist activist culture has a component of vanguardism and elitism, which the movie reinforces – the film’s activists all share various motivations, but none of them seek to change the conditions of their own lives. Any strategy that overlooks the people most affected by exploitation and oppression, neglecting to put grassroots social movements in the foreground, is unsustainable.
Battle in Seattle lacks an awareness of a major theme of the protests, perhaps their most successful element: solidarity. Many of the protesters were vocal in their solidarity with those around the world in resisting global capitalism, and that piece is largely missing from the film. The film overlooks the essential movement-building debates that followed the protests, namely those concerning race (Elizabeth Martinez’s “Where Was the Color in Seattle?”) and gender (such as The Rock Bloc Collective’s essay “Stick It to the Manarchy”). While some of the main character roles were people of color, the film lacks any important dialog regarding the general whiteness and affluence of the protest demographic As organizer Hop Hopkins explains in the WTO protest documentary This is What Democracy Looks Like, “Solidarity doesn’t mean we don’t talk about issues that separate us… You’ve got to take it a step further. Race, class, gender, sexism, heterosexism, the whole nine yards… If that’s not in your analysis, than you’re only half-stepping, and you’re not really working for revolution.”
By devoting more screen time to bouts of melodrama and hot, intense protest action than actual ideas, the film’s politics are exciting but sterile. The superficial politics end up misrepresenting many protesters, especially anarchists, even when it is unintended. With the exception of Michelle Rodriguez’s character Lou, anarchists are portrayed solely as macho insurrectionists. While there were certainly many of those types within anarchism, particularly at the WTO protests, the film neglects to mention there were anarchists participating in many, many types of actions. The diversity of thought and strategy within anarchism is ignored, and in its place is a one-dimensional, sensational caricature of anarchist politics, despite being slightly more educated then the usual media portrayal.
For all its errors, Battle in Seattle provides a fun opportunity to return to the question of why the WTO protests represented such a massive victory, and what we as anarchists should focus on in our political work nearly ten years later. After all, the film arrives in a year when protests are again in the news. The summit protest has again become a popular draw for new activists and old hands alike, as we have most recently seen here in the United States with the DNC protests in Denver and the RNC in St. Paul. After several years of involvement in the protest circuit, many anarchists are developing criticisms of the usual methods, creating alternatives, or withdrawing from that scene altogether (usually in favor of organizing grounded in local struggles and communities). The group Worker’s Solidarity Alliance, in a recent statement on the RNC protests, perhaps put it best. “Specifically, we must avoid playing into the hands of the state by using rhetoric, rituals, and tactics that isolate us from the majority of the world’s population that suffers under capitalism. We call for a resistance based not exclusively on the advanced tactics of a jail-ready minority, but the solidarity and militancy of a revolutionary social bloc, organized in workplaces and neighborhoods, fighting for self-determination. As the raids on activists spaces have already shown, anything less is political suicide.”
Jen Rogue and Andrew Hedden are members of Class Action Alliance in Tacoma and Seattle, WA, USA.
Related Link: http://www.classactionalliance.org
Stanley W. Rogouski said
This is the best review of the movie I’ve seen so far.
But let me add something to this:
The movie unintentionally perpetuates the middle-class do-gooder cultural concept when a more important focus would be the large-scale popular movements.
….
Battle in Seattle lacks an awareness of a major theme of the protests, perhaps their most successful element: solidarity. Many of the protesters were vocal in their solidarity with those around the world in resisting global capitalism, and that piece is largely missing from the film.
I think this point is perfectly true but I also think that Townsend slipped the same point in through the back door.
What Battle in Seattle shows (for all its wooden dialog and Hollywood cliches) is how international capitalism and phoney “free” trade destroys local institutions.
The liberal mayor who winds up calling in the national guard (who’s pressured to call in the guard), Woody Harrelson’s policeman, who’s more interested in his wife’s pregancy than in beating up protesters AND who has the common sense to ask for a few says off because he KNOWS he’s a ticking time bomb, and of course the media, all of them are caught up in powerful forces they have NO understanding of (as opposed to the activists who have some understanding of it). The message is pretty clear. A wealthy northern (and fairly progressive) city like Seattle has to turn itself into a police state BECAUSE capitalism demands it. Imagine what happens in poorer cities in the global south. Think about how the national conventions of both major political parties DEMAND a police state in (once again relatively progressive) places like Minneapolis, Denver, and NYC).
When Woody Harrelson’s cop winds up hunting a protester in a church like a predator and the staff at the church do nothing to interfere with it, it’s clear that Townsend is saying that “nothing is sacred”, that the country is basically a fasicst police state.
What makes Seattle in 1999 important (as opposed to NYC in 2004) is that this was where the post Church Committee, post Watergate template was set. America would no longer act with restraint to defend capitalism against its own people. NYC in 2004 and Minneapolis in 2008 are just the continuation of it.
The real hero of this movie, interestingly enough, isn’t Michelle Rodriguez’s anarchist. It’s Connie Nielson’s TV news fembot. Unlike Harrelson’s cop she knows that she’s at a turning point and she has to make a decision, give up her privilaged position in society or be complicit in repression. And she makes the right choice.
Iris said
I might be wrong, but the feeling I get when I see this event made into a hollywood movie is that it is being made ‘history’; like it loses immediacy. I feel like the realm of the corporate Media removes events and politics from popular interpretation and sets it ‘Out There’. There is a real partition between corporate media and the masses–we don’t have access and don’t really produce our own meaning. The internet has changed this of course.
It connects into some thoughts I’ve been having about producing creative media and putting out good analyses–something anarchists are pretty good at (the popular press part).
Also, I say this with out knowing much about who funded, produced and distro’d this film.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
I might be wrong, but the feeling I get when I see this event made into a hollywood movie is that it is being made ‘history’; like it loses immediacy
That is ASBSOLUTELY how the reviews in the corporate press are spinning it.
In the Star Ledger (the big paper in north Jersey)
Yes, “the people / united / will never be defeated,” and all that. But his heroes’ impassioned speeches about endangered turtles and mighty redwoods don’t seem quite so vital now. And while outsourcing continues to be a problem (although not for the Third World countries gaining those jobs), it’s nothing the film explicitly explores.
These protestors were willing to stand and be counted — and, often, beaten — for a point. But for all its speeches and scary graphics, Townsend’s script fails to make it clear why we should care today.
J. Hoberman in the Village Voice:
Flapping like a scarecrow in the wind, Battle in Seattle is too frantic to make more than a transitory impression, yet too responsibly hackneyed in its characterizations to achieve pure tabloid hysteria. In that sense, it’s true to the actual event. The impression that the movie leaves is less what the French activist Yves Frémion termed an “orgasm of history” than a hiccup. The world held its breath and moved on.