"The Weather Underground" documentary -- what do you think?

Cafe Society
1

At first glance this subject may seem like GD-bait, but it is after all a movie, so it goes here. (If I wanted to put it in GD I would give it a title like, “When is violent revolution justified?”)

So…this documentary.

Dozens of bombings and they didn’t hurt anybody. They say themselves that targeting innocent people would have been “terrorism.”

Of the seven ex-WU interviewed, only Mark Rudd seems remorseful, despite the no-killing thing. Maybe he feels survivor’s guilt because of his three comrades who blew themselves up. Maybe he feels guilt because some of his ex-comrades joined a splinter group (after Rudd had already surrendered) and actually DID kill people, in an armored truck robbery. He still has the knowledge of the bad things America does, but he doesn’t know what to do about it now.

My opinion: he should be remorseful for becoming a math professor, instead of a political science professor. That would be an interesting class.

The others say what they did was necessary, even that they would do it again. Crazy times, crazy reactions. Millions of Vietnamese were killed by America, and they had to do something to stop it.

Bernardine Dohrn, still quite foxy at 61, heads a juvenile justice program at Northwestern University. On the Internet I found some outraged letters from NWU alumni to the school paper. (They don’t say this in the movie, but Dohrn is raising the child of Kathy Boudin, who took part in the truck robbery. Boudin was just granted parole by Governor Pataki. Looks like mommy is coming home.)

I want to go to Brian Flanagan’s bar. Next time I’m in NYC I’ll ask Mom if she knows where it is.

Interesting how the cases against most of the WU’s were dropped because of FBI misconduct! Again, this is not in the movie, but someone who knew Dohrn’s little sister claims that the FBI tried to kidnap the sister as “bait.” Three agents were convicted for that, and Reagan pardoned them on his first day in office.

Bombings that don’t kill, versus bombings that kill. Does that make all the difference in the world, or no difference at all?

I’m tired of Todd Gitlin and his self-righteous revisionism. He’s only a step away from David Horowitz.

During the movie my friend whispered, “If it were today, would they have gotten off?” My answer: “Ha! They wouldn’t even have gotten a trial!”

Thoughts?

2

Ummm… how is this anything but a GD?

3

Haven’t seen the film yet but am looking forward to doing so.

4

Is the film new? I hadn’t heard about it but I’m very interested.

–Cliffy

5

List of theaters where it’s currently playing.

Cliffy, the movie is apparently playing in only nine locations in the country, six of them in California. It’s also in Philadelphia, Madison and your area (DC).. The link has a list of theaters and cities where there are plans to show it in the near future. So nice of them to bring it to LA first!!!

Well, it’s a movie. There is some overlap between forums, especially when you’re dealing with a film, book or other creative endeavor that is politically-themed.

You may notice that in my OP I didn’t put forward any particular argument, thesis or point of view, like I would have in GD. I’m just interested in what people think.

I’m sure that if this thread becomes disputatious or opinionated, the mods will move it to GD. As they should.

6

So…hasn’t anyone seen it yet???

7

I saw it, and yes, it was very interesting.

On the one hand, from an educational standpoint, I think a film like this goes a long way in educating people about the political turmoil that the 60’s represented. For example, I had some friends who were active in protesting the US-Iraq war (before it started). Although I was not sure myself whether a war against Iraq was a good idea or not at the time, I was quite frankly surprised by the reaction of many other of my friends who thought that protesting against the war was a terrible idea, or that it would serve no purpose or do no good. Clearly in the 60’s what started out as a “left-wing” anti-establishment movement gained ground as the atrocities of the Vietnam war came to light and more and more people gradually agreed that it was a bad idea.

That being said, we are a nation of laws. We have first-hand knowledge these days that people who are committed enough to a particular political (or religious) stance are capable of doing things in the name of their cause that we clearly think is criminal and terrorist. I don’t see how this is any different.

Under todays laws, if three criminals or terrorists blew themselves up while preparing a bomb, the rest of their organization (that were directly involved with that particular conspiracy) would be guilty of murder. The fact that other bombings took no life could be presented at their sentencing trial, but it does not diminish from their crimes (except the crime is no longer murder for the bombings that took no life).

In retrospect, I think it all worked out fairly, for the most part. The few who went on to rob banks and kill people doing so got senetenced to long prison terms. The pure revolutionaries who seemed to have pure motives (mostly) got off due to the FBI breaking the law trying to get them! That sounds fair to me.