Punishment Park

I will certainly be shot for comparing this with A Clockwork Orange, but so be it. Both from '71, both banned from television (12-June-2001, 15 votes: isn't it wonderful?), both science fiction and both concerned with an authoritative system that is growing out of (moral) proportions, both scary as hell. A major difference is that Punishment Park is intentionally not aesthetically fine-tuned and that the corrective groups have probably never committed any crime at all, while Alex is a recidivist delinquent. They do, as in Clockwork, spout supposed philosophical statements throughout the film. It is an ultra left-wing propagandistic attack on a certain ultra-reactionary system filled with caricatures (absurd loyalty, juvenile soldiers and rednecks) and the Viet Nam war. The dialogues and monologues are eloquent, but I found them sorely myopic and exaggerated.

quote: 'Punishment Park. Described by the US senate subcommittee on law and order as: a necessary training for the law officers and National Garde of the country in the control of those elements who seek the violent overthrow of US government and the means of providing a punitive deterrent aforementioned subversive elements.'

The supposed delinquents can choose between their (severe) penal sentence or three days in Punishment Park, where officers in training may hunt them. We see the interrogations of a new group alternated with footage of a preceding group that is outside in the park fighting for their dehydrated life and to get to the American flag for chauvinistic 'salvation'. This dystopic penal system is the result of the politics of polarization, according to a condemned one. The hand-held cinematography and the minimalist industrial sound track with constant shooting and agony in the background create a sense of realism, AND it's frightening to see how far fantasy can go in a dated film: it's almost post-apocalyptic. What's even scarier, there are parts of the world that apply even more disreputable methods ... today

9/10 (not for the political ideas of course)

I had to see this movie with French subtitles, as I understand it was unavailable for 30 years. I can see why. As a mock documentary, it thinly disguises a diatribe against American society during the Vietnam era - the country's hypocrisy and its culture of violence. It is a forthright piece of agit-prop mock verite filmmaking that I can imagine would easily provoke strong reactions among the youth and among the left during that divisive era. That, of course, is its strength and its purpose. The narrative itself cuts between two scenarios. Neither is meant to be 'realistic'; each is exaggerated for impact and to push the metaphoric value of the situation. On one hand, you have a group of radicals neatly representing various factions of the left - a feminist, a pacifist, a revolutionary, a black activist, a political activist, a musician for free expression. They are brought one by one before a kind of kangaroo court made up of various bigoted, closed minded fascistic pro-war, `America Love it or Leave it' types. These 'pigs' are there to determine the guilt of these left wing 'subversives' and then give them a choice - fifteen years in a federal prison or - Punishment Park. The second scenario involves a group of radicals who have been sentenced to Punishment Park and are about to find out what that means. This story provides a second metaphor concerning American injustice and its cults of violence, division, and oppression. This group must get across the desert in 90 to 100 degree heat to a final destination, where the American flag has been placed. They have two hours to get a head start before a group of p***ed off and bloodthirsty troopers and National guardsman will attempt to hunt them down. They must then surrender or be shot. The chances - obviously - are slim. By going back and forth between these two scenes - the absurd tirades of right wing bigots against the left to the hopeless cause of radicals running for freedom in Punishment Park - the point is made quite clear. The effect of the relentless documentary style and of the film's punishing politics keeps your interest and still manages to incite and indict. Many of Watkins' images recall images of the 60's - assassinated radicals, dead blacks, assaults by National Guardsmen, gags in court, and strong echos of the McCarthy hearings. The cumulative effect is strong stuff. Where it could have gotten silly and where it could feel dated - it still disturbs. It is a fabulous premise for a political satire. It would work well now with the neo digital Verite style of the Blair Witch Project in practice and the purloined presidency of George W. and his oppressive cronies in charge.

Set in a California detention camp in an indistinct future, an English film crew capture proceedings as young students and political dissidents are put on trial under a fictional 'Insurrection Act' that allows the United States government to suspend civil liberties for its own citizens in cases of emergency without the right to bail or the necessity of evidence. In such cases the government is authorised to apprehend and detain anyone they believe may engage in future activities of sabotage. The group on trial includes a feminist, a black panther and a folk singer.

Those convicted by the a Conservative tribunal have the choice of a lengthy prison sentence or three days in Punishment Park, in which they can attain their freedom by reaching an American flag in the desert. They must accomplish this without food or water. They are also to be pursued by armed National Guards and police who can return them to the camp if captured to face the penal sentence attributed to each person convicted. The reality is different; those that choose Punishment Park are hunted and killed or brutalised with no hope of gaining their freedom after a policeman is found dead in the park. The park seems to be a training ground for the police and guards who need to master these acts of suppression so they can be put to use in open American society.

Shot on 16mm and in the documentary style developed by Watkins, in his celebrated Culloden and the controversial The War Game for the BBC; he interacts with the prisoners and guards and observes the unconstitutional trial, inter cutting between them to create a totally convincing political movie that still remains vital and relevant. Using his knowledge of the medium, Watkins has produced a driving, relentless and ultimately frightening film portrayal of an entirely fictional American political detention camp that would not convince if it wasn't for his flawless construction. Many of the actors are amateurs improvising with broad characters. The sparks fly in the trial scenes in which each case is heard, in part to the fact that Watkins kept those on trial away from the jury until the filming of those scenes. Watkins also claims that the actors are often expressing their own opinions which certainly explain the ferocity as well as the believability of their performances.

The film has been heavily criticised for polarising the opinions of those that see it. It has been claimed that the film is reactionary and unequivocally represents that conservatism and war are the root of America's social problems. While these criticisms may be valid it is important to consider that the film is working on a fictional, metaphorical level and it is perhaps the realism that the film so cleverly constructs that encourages such a heated opinion on its content. In fact the films most important theme is the problem of polarisation itself. The 'conservative' judges and brutal law officers are on one side and the 'liberal' convicts are clearly on the other with no concessions made on either side. This seems to be what the movie is really about. The new law and the park itself is the outgrowth of a situation where mediation between the two political positions has been lost.

Made during and in protest to the Vietnam War and the treatment of those who opposed the war in America the films main themes of Governmental persecution of its own citizens and Conservatism impinging on civil liberties still strike the same chord in the era of the Patriot act and the identity card. It also strikes a disturbing chord with news footage of Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Allied forces.

The threat of internal 'terrorism' is such a volatile issue that the film cannot fail to connect with current attitudes to the subject. Not surprisingly the film has had a checkered distribution history, being marginalised to an extreme due to its content but the disturbing fact that this movie is that can still remain so relevant today suggests that the wait has not been for nothing. Punishment Park is a film that has had to fight to be seen anywhere and it demands your attention.

My curiosity and patience to finally see this controversial film, which now has been released on DVD for the first time in the UK, has been more than rewarded. Peter Watkins has excelled himself in his audacity and technical skills. This pseudo-documentary is certainly ahead of its time and still frighteningly relevant and up to date.

The film is inspired by the upheaval of the late sixties in the US, when the government has increased its legitimized use of violence and oppression, while the anti-war movement reacts increasingly violent and radical. In order to deal with both this, the overpopulation of prisons and to provide special training to riot police units, the government has introduced the so-called punishment parks. Convicted 'criminals', mostly activists, are given the 'choice' to either be locked up in prison for years and years, or spend three days in one of these parks, where they either gain their freedom their death or an even longer prison sentence. The situation in the parks is beyond their worst expectations, however. It reminded me of a sort of realistic version of Battle Royale (2000).

The film's structure is extremely effective and recalls parallels with Cannibal Holocaust, which is made almost 10 years later. Both movies are constructed and filmed in such a way that the viewer is challenged in thinking and feeling he is actually watching a real documentary and therefore shocked, even though aware of the fact that: this is a film. Both confront us with the inherently violent nature of mankind, but where Cannibal Holocaust is devoid of any deeper meaning (above all, it is an exploitation movie in every sense of the word) and does not raise any critical questions about the state of the world, Punishment Park does just that.

I have been profoundly impressed with Punishment Park and find it hard to believe how such a powerful and important film could have been rejected and marginalized for so long. Maybe that says enough about the truth of its content, about the way power structures in this world function. I do not agree with the critique that Watkins polarizes and stereotypes, because the movie depicts activists and the keepers of the legitimized power structures who are in reality as polarized as they are here. If they weren't, there would not be any conflict and therefore no change in our societies. In reality, confrontations between these two groups often take stereotypical forms, whether you place them between activists and establishment in Latin America, Russia or New York City. If these groups would not be polarized to these extremes, the activists would be part of the silent majorities that tacitly complain but at the same time reside in the injustices of the world.

As Peter Watkins tells us in the introduction on the DVD, the actors in Punishment Park are for the most part amateurs. Most kids were real activists from LA, most policemen had been part of the national forces and even some of the members of the tribunals are part of the social and political establishment of the time. Not introducing both groups previous to the shooting of the scenes taking place in the improvised court room, adds to spontaneous and improvised feel. Parallels are drawn with issues of the time, such as the repression of Black Panther members (one of the black prisoners is said to resemble the convicted charismatic BPleader Bobby Seale) and the trial of the Chicago seven.

I admire Watkins' obvious and sincere engagement with injustice and his concern with human rights and the increasingly repressive measures taken by governments (nowadays in the name of the War in Terror) to silence those that do not agree and refuse to be brainwashed. Punishment Park remains to be an extremely important movie that should be shown in schools and seen by everybody who shares these concerns. Maybe its marginalization can finally be made up for.

You can't watch a film like Peter Watkins' "Privilege," a story of the exploitation of a pop music performer by big business, the state, and even organized religion, without thinking of creatively degenerate commodities like Michael Jackson or Britney Spears, who hawk corporate giants like Pepsi or some other poison for money. Or any number of entertainers, in music or movies, who become tools of political parties or commercial religious interests like Scientology and Kabbalah. A film like Privilege must have seemed almost like science fiction when released in 1967, so fantastic was its premise. Today we tend to take celebrity endorsements for granted, giving little thought to its more alarming implications. Watkins' vision has not only become reality, we tacitly accept this reality as "normal."

Now consider Punishment Park. As Privilege challenges the viewer to examine what is being sold to us, and why, Punishment Park demands that we reckon with what is being taken from us, and why.

Heaven help America, and for that matter the world, if contemporary politicians get their hands on this film. It is already so close to reality, that in viewing it recently, I experienced a genuine, nauseating feeling of anxiety.

Watkins again skillfully employs a documentary-style narrative. Whereas in Privilege some rough edges to this technique were apparent, in Punishment Park it has been honed to sharp, seamless perfection. The sense of realism is enhanced by disarmingly unpretentious, economical, believable portrayals by the entire cast. This is the kind of acting Hollywood has completely turned its back on, to its detriment, in favor of cosmetically perfect image projections. The cast has first-rate material to work with in Watkins' screenplay.

Many cinematic visionaries have tried to shake the viewer out of their complacent, false sense of security. No one has ever achieved this result with such stark and chilling accuracy as Peter Watkins does here.

"What seems quite clear now, is that instead of trying to bring the estranged and excluded Americans, such as these people, back into the national community, the Administration has chosen to accept and exploit the present division within the country, and to side with what it considers is the majority. Instead of the politics of reconciliation, it has chosen the politics of polarization."

To paraphrase one of the characters, we don't have to call them pigs because they know what they are. Better than we do.