im always a bit suspicious about the bbc, but im prepared to accept that occasionally, a decent voice might get through. ill watch intently, but septically, ... or is that skeptically, ... or both ?

Though, seeing as i knew one of the guys behind it I think it wont be bullshit.

I watched in expectation last night - would the tv treat the movement differently this time?...

It started off quite promisingly, painting a picture of rising momentum with a few good interviews (though was a shame that the history explanation only referenced Seattle and not any of the earlier global or big local demonstrations).

But what happened as soon as the footage switched to the streets... suddenly an interesting film seemed to simply echo the lines of the majority of newspapers and TV.

There were the petrol bombs again in full prominance (haven't we seen those pics enough already) and the whole line was the same tired violent minority ruin a fluffy day story.

OK they did get a good bit explaining property damage as a tactic, but to me it seemed as if the ending of the film - finishing as it did with 'oh the violence was bad and ruined the peaceful intentions' - simply cut off debate dead, closing the film with a dark portreyal of hoplesness, or something.

It was also a shame that the film ended there and did not cover any of the following demos or prison solidarity etc etc

I enjoyed watching it, I enjoyed the start and first half of the film, but felt the ending let the movement down - though I guess it could have been a lot lot worse...

I agree. Knowing both of the directors I thought they could have done better. The demand of the BBC approach to highlight "the violence" and not to even ask what the politics of this "violence" are has clearly taken the winning hand in the last 10 minutes.

To be honest, I expected to see the classical report-like, seemingly objective BBC style, a bit of human drama etcetera. It seems clear to me that they wouldn't have been able to avoid all the demands of production. I understood from them that their project was to use the BBC to bring a more accurate message across than if another journalist with less information on the issues, and with less contacts in the activist world would have done the film. I was prepared that they wouldn't entirely be able to get around the BBC's 'two-sided' so-called objective style.

But even if you apply these "objective" BBC standards the film fails, it ends in a one-sided spin. Where were the interviews with YaBasta activists after the actions? Where were the facts on police behaviour the days after S26? Where was the report on the OPH legal team being denied access and communication with police and Czech Interior Ministry? Where the reference to the IMC's other than that "those people organize on the web"? It looks as if they left Prague on Wednesday without reasearching the aftermath of the events.

Pity for all the hard work.

Yup, looks like a report within the constraints of the "rules" of TV production.
I always reckon it's better to get a bit of message out than to disengage
entirely, which was probably the alternative.

BUT: the effect of watching straight through from Prague to Belgrade must
be the most important one on most viewers. (I assume almost all viewers
will have left Newsnight on.) Waaa-hey!

Prague: an (imcomplete) corrective to media presentation: protest=terrorism
Belgrade: the Parliament building in flames and protests=heroism.

Banner for next globalisation event:
"Dear IMF: Go now. Don't wait until there has been more death and destruction"
Tony Blair didn't say the first two words. But he thought them. We know, don't we?

BBC2 'Global Protest - The Battle of Prague'
This is a response to 'critiques' of the film from its two directors the day after transmission -
The piece is split into 3 -
1. Motives for making the film.
2. On the film structure itself.
3. Some personal points.

1. Motives for making the film
The main motive for making the film in the first place was 'damage limitation' or 'intervention' - the BBC were going to make a film on Prague no matter what - we strongly believe that this film would have damaged 'the movement' as it would have focussed on unregretful violence, as well as much more dramatic images and 'investigative' secret camera work - not to mention fewer voices of 'activists' and more voices of police, IMF, World Bank etc. By choosing to make this film, we intervened in that process.
The film that went out instead allowed activists to speak, showed there was more to Prague than a 'riot', had two ridiculous comments from the IMF and Clare Short, publicised the Indymedia concept, explained the diversity on the day itself, the lack of leadership etc etc - we are sure that most of this would not have been in a BBC film if we weren't making it.
We knew all of this before starting the film and were fighting a 'war of attrition' against the BBC's ideas from the outset. This was very clear in the edit, where we fought for everything that was 'positive' to be in the film for 5 very intense days - of course this should have been much more political ... if it could have been, it would have been. This was never intended as a film for the movement - it was always aimed at the 'average viewer' who only sees the movement through images of smashed up MacDonalds.

2. On the film structure itself...
Firstly we would have liked to have been able to explain the global network of this movement but this was impossible to achieve in the weeks we were in Prague despite certain people from the PGA trying to help us. Secondly we wanted to explain much more the links with 'activism' in the UK, RTS etc etc but again this was impossible to achieve in Prague because of people not wanting to be 'represented' via TV.
Another big issue we had to deal with was whether to have activists explaining more about what is 'wrong' with the WB / IMF - if we would have gone down this line, we would have had to then allow these institutions to respond with their very 'believable' PR practised rhetoric - which would have just delegitmised the activists in the eyes of the viewer. The one 'patronising' comment by Clare Short we did not have choice about putting in - we had to put 'something' in and that comment we thought made her look like she was dealing with the issues in a very irational way. It was the least damaging of the comments she made.

Baring all of the above in mind we were OK with the first half of the film - obviously we would have liked to include much more 'politics' ... so to the day of S26.
We were up against presenting a day that was already in the 'public psyche' - 'a day of violence and injured policemen and smashed MacDonalds' - We were happy with the whole structure of the day in the film - it was presented as a day that was predominantly peaceful with some violence. In a classic case of 'what you don't shoot, they can't show' we chose not to shoot incriminating images - people ripping up paving stones, policemen on fire etc etc - this was a very different kind of violence to what the media saw at recent actions at J18, N30, M1. Moving from property damage to human damage made our job much more difficult. Most films would have harboured on these very dramatic and emotional images - we showed the least we could.

The only way we could contradict the 'public psyche' (mis)understanding of the day was to show the non-violent negotiations with the police of the 'pink blockade' - and the way they continued into Wenclesas Square later that night - again there were no shots of the smashing up of MacDonalds etc etc that were broadcast around the world all week.

PART TWO FOLLOWS

PART TWO

And then to the last sequence ...
We wanted to discuss 'property damage' in the film much more comprehensively, but obviously few people were happy to speak on TV about this - even if they would have, we still were left with the issue of violence against the police. So how were we to conclude a film that had up to this point diffused the force of the media reports of a 'day of violence in Prague' - the viewer up until that point had at least been shown the variety of actions on the day.
We left Prague during the solidarity march on Sept 27 (a date out of our control as we had to edit and broadcast in just 6 days) - we spoke with many people that morning who were genuinely upset that S26 had been so violent. The media were already reporting INPEG's press statement which was critical of the more violent side of the day and no-one we spoke with could give a strong assessment of the day's violence that we could use for a 'BBC film' that wouldn't make 'the movement' look worse than they had already been represented in the media coverage. Again, most films would have included crude and emotional responses from activists, as well as local Prague residents, the police, Interior Ministry, IMF etc etc. We chose not to give these people a voice.
With regard to the legal observers, allegations of beatings in prison etc, we had a major problem trying to deal with this. We checked every day up until the day before broadcast to try and get an 'official' statement from the legal observers / Amnesty that we could have put in a 'BBC' film. This is a major issue for us - with a later broadcast date we would have been able to cover these issues ... The first Amnesty statement came out too late for our film.
So what choices were we left with? - the least damaging ending was to explain to a viewer that there was regret over the violence, so to at least retain the credibility of the movement which all other media have tried to discredit. We always knew this ending would not be acceptable in 'activist circles' - it wasn't aceptable to us ... but this was never intended as a film for activists but your 'average viewer', and we felt that the ending kept the veiwer on the side of a movement they had only previously seen in a 'riot'. Yes, we wanted to include the 'solidarity march' and a deeper refection of the day - but it felt like a new beginning of another film which we couldn't go into because we weren't still in Prague. We had no images or personal understanding from the lunchtime of Sept 27th onwards. Not to mention the fact we had six days to edit this film and 4 producers with different agendas.
We were never happy with the tone of the script - again, it could have been worse - a 'Panorama / World in Action' style voice - this was the area we had least control over because unlike filming or doing interviews, a script is always changeable and able to be manipulated - again we were only able to act in a 'damage limitation' capacity.

3. Some personal points
This was never a 'career move' for us as 'filmakers'. We could have made a brilliant film that we would have been proud of that we could have put around film festivals that would have enhanced our careers as 'real filmakers'. This was an act of 'intervention', an act of 'damage limitation' - in a way we damaged our names as 'directors' in making a film we weren't happy with - but we're satisfied the film was nowhere near as damaging as the BBC would have probably produced.
As bad as the mainstream media has proved to be, we believe we must tactically use it - if in the eyes of some, this puts us on 'the other side of the line to activists' then so be it - we believe the strength of what we are trying to do with the media is based on the principal that 'the process is the revolution' - that as individuals we did what we could in a parallel way to someone smashing MacDonalds, or hanging banners from a bridge, or blockading a conference. None of these actions stand alone in changing anything specific, and all have there positive and negative impacts governed by chaos theory. We see the film in this context.
We were never going to be totally happy with this film and we are not.
There are many battles that we fought throughout the process of working with the BBC and won - there are others we lost. Television will always aim to present the most dramatic images and we honestly think we minimised the worst of these. For those who know our style of filmaking, it's obvious we were 'repressed' and there were stronger influences at play than just ours.

 bbcprague@london.com

Could you elaborate on the "stronger influences" that were a part of your film making? If ofcourse you are allowed to?!
Yours sincerely,
a naive student.

I have to say reading the film makers comments has made me think more about my reaction to the film. I spoke to my mum yesterday - she had seen the film. She also reads the daily mail for breakfast. She does not like violence in any shape or form. When I asked her what impression the film had given her, she said that it seemed that there were an awful lot of young people now out there doing things to make the world a better place. She also said about the violence that it seemed the peaceful demonstrations became violent, and that her view was that this is what she'd read about in the papers and seen on the news, but that the film had shown the other side and that she'd enjoyed it. In that capacity the film worked and I understand the idea that it was not supposed to be a film for activists. Other issues remain.

I think that overall the film was absorbing and successful. Although the reference to IMC was very brief it was enough to enable me to find this website and make it my homepage which is the start I needed.

trying to justify what they did
directors clearly underlined their lack of ability
to provide a coherent analysis

their understanding of conflict
seems to be very limited
if it does exist at all

this is not a game

 http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/military/m_1999_02_27.html

i read with interest the negative comments that people are now coming up with, and ask myself why on earth all the 'names' refused to be interviewed at the last minute? the biggest criticism seems to be about the end of the film, ie the lack of a strong and coherent activist point of view / justification - did anyone actually volunteer to take responsibility for that? apparently not.
how can we ask the IMF / World Bank / MacDonalds etc to take responsibility for their own actions when activists won't?
surely the point is that the film has brought all the issues on to prime time tv - in as much detail as we are ever going to be allowed - and that we are all talking about them. if the film wasn't what you would have made yourself - maybe you should go out and try and work within those exact same limitations...

I am afraid ideas of responsibility get mixed up in the issues of personal security and representatives of a movement - so it is not so simple. The makers of the film are well aware of these issues and knew it would be harder to get the diverse voices of activists than IMF official spin and NGO distanced logic. This is where an ineresting film maker might have looked for a new method of representation that is aware of the above issues and does not come across as strange on the program - creativity. If the BBC overrides such attempts then a film maker should refuse to co-operate, you don't have to make the film if you are worried about it's change of direction - withdraw your talent and put it to use for the movement instead.

For me, this is a first! to all those who know me, Hi guys!!! Max sacrifice and respect to the IMC guys on blue line!!! we all went through a grand experience together.


to those who are joining our little discussion, welcome. esp to the directors of BBC praque. I sit here in an internet cafe writing the most important email of my life. to all of you, the film 'series of blueline actions' running on imc's site in praque, was shot by me. I own probably one of the most contreversial pieces of footage in the movements history. First though, i want to foward a request to meet the directors of the programme to discuss certain events in praque. the basis for this meeting is to discuss getting infomation onto the newswire about ammesty's International's involvement in the events of S26 and the days proceeding it. IMC has evidence of mass brutality, enflicted by the riot police as they came of duty that night. Since flying back from praque on oct 4, i have been taking on the task of talking to Ammesty International. I chose to realise that i had to do something about what we have all suffered, the injustice! Ammesty International needs the help of the movement to send in all the information that they need and also, OPH. I have tried to be the guiding hand they needed. It has been a tough choice, knowing the movement does not trust any NGO that tries to represent it. I know how hard it is to maintain that trust with the movement and i work for the IMC!!! But It is very important for the movement to recoqnise that every individual has human rights which should be of a international principle afforded to all of us. I have spoken to many people who are at the center of this issue of brutality. Yes, IMC has some idea of what to look for and we are already in touch with some of the relatives. It is bewildering to them and they feel angry like the rest of us. Some of the injured, who are still in hospital have asked us to keep their details and their stories unpublished until they have had time to think. IMC needs to call upon the movement across the internet to supply as much details pertaining to any victim of arrest and treatment if any, that abuses your civil rights. If we can prove this, Justice will happen!!! and our sacrifice will not be for nothing.

now that i have dealt with that, a few words about me. I arrived in praque on the 21st. there were only ten of us and an empty room. I wasn't a experienced IMC journalist like i am now. I was wanting to come and shoot some video for my website and sort out some visuals for some DJ's. I had campaigned before and i generally knew what the word 'Activist' meant. I have witnessed things like policemen running past me on fire, of fairies being beaten by a cop. I saw Immense support go in from behind, sometimes in hopeless situations. I have lived and breathed freedom for the first time and know what is like to stand in the center of the world for that particular moment and savour it. I wonder whether i should speak about 'Blue line' or let the pictures speak for themselves. they haunt me every night and i am sure, the movement. the movement must challenge itself to have a real debate about whether to use violence or not to do so. to look in the direction of the cameramen and to an extent, film directors, is a false road. i think that everyone has to examine themselves and why they are demonstrating to warrant a deserving opinion of what they would do to acheive their aims.Some say i should destroy the film. others have asked me to bury it. I think the movement needs to look at the violence even if they do not want to, for the very reason of witnessing the truth and that there is no going back



Now, a few words about the praque IMC. We are not sure exactly what happened on S26. It will take us a bit of time to give a measured opinion, once we have checked all sources, we will report once the legal process for our comrades is finished or safe to do so. IMC under no circumstances, will jepeodise the process of justice. Tonight, the IMC reporters who will make up the official S26 video are spread far. some are still travelling. Some of us, are need of serious rest and therapy to deal with the stress.

I would like to make a few comments about S26. That night IMC was technically torn apart as an effective media center. We lost reporters that night. we have suffered. i have suffered. i watched the bbc programme and i am not surprised by its ending. I have since witnessed the division that has split apart me, you and a good proportion of the movement.

i must go now. i will be back. BBC email me!

I felt strongly enough to move from one internet cafe to another to finish this. I was in cafe9 when the BBC was in the there with Sam. We could not ban the 'corporate media' from cafe9. It was Sam's decision and i support him for it. not condemn. Yes, there is discussion. I now know who these guy's are. They did listen to the movement and to the IMC. I can understand the difficult position there were in. I feel we are all challenging the BBC to do its job without thinking how we could help them understand our message. They are not going to go away and when i think about it, the BBC through the IMC pose an interesting challenge. Here is an organisation saying that it will be cleaner and show more respect than it normally gives an issue. this is the first time that i have seen an organisation try very hard not to step on too many toes without having an idea of the rules IMC has to adhere to, whilst reporting the events. In fact, i feel encouraged that the BBC sat up and actually did make an effort. I think they should be allowed to make another programme covering the many issues the first one raised.

I noticed an interesting e-mail by paula about responsability. I am i not going to give you the simple answer that everyone wanted to remain anon in case of criminal intent. The real reason is that if any of us had, the czech police probably would of arrested for just giving comment or dealt with later away from camera. IMC has reports of this kind. People were caught and branded as 'leaders' or 'conspirators' when they were only giving comment. Innocence in praque is no defence when faced by plain clothes policemen that will interrogate for twelve hours without food and water.I have never experienced the level of intimidation metered out by the police in praque because i took my archair opinion that the rest of the world had a good measure of justice as a simple assumption. I give invitation to you paulo to spend the day with an IMC reporter when they are covering major events! Furthermore, esp in the UK. RTS is public enemy number one to the very fabric of british society. none of them will ever stand up. i would like to add that the movement is much bigger than RTS and that people should stop focussing on them. They we not in violent action on S26.

I guess i must finally arrive at the blue line issue of Agent provoketeurs. Yes, this evidence of police collusion in starting the violence. IMC has a terrible task of being careful to seperate the activists that were violent and the agents. IMC will not report nor release footage until a full picture has been built up. If the case is proved and it is heard in court, it has massive implications for the movement and the czech Government ( and anybody else that were spying on us). Currently the Czech government is seeking entry into the European Union. Minister Gross is running for Prime minister. If the case is proved against him on either, the czech government will have to take measures to protect their civil rights reputation, whilst applying for entry. I think all of us need to to look forward into the longterm effects of S26. Whilst i am happy to prove injustice, i wander and fear that praque was a training ground for violent activists who will split the movement and hijack it on every occassion until the IMF/WTO are violently defeated. Whilst in praque, i saw the absurdity the cops placed on defending a macdonalds. their reaction was that macdonalds should hire and pay for its own security force to defend it. the same arguement extends to the IMF/WTO. somebody paid those police to burn. I wander whether the price was a price agreed beforehand. after S26, i saw pictures of the cops that were burnt. they are trying to justify whether it was in their job brief to be a hired private police force being paid to their government, by the IMF/WTO to defend a discredited theory of globalization?

I will rest now and wait for my email box to fill up. I promise i will not speak in full about the video until IMC does. I will only allow legal people to look at the tapes. I am sorry if i cannot answer everyone and if i have left any angles out, it is because i am very tired and i live in internet cafes now.

SKY IMC

I agree. It started very well but then became a stereotypical piece of media brainwashing.
It's aim was clearly to divide the protesters between passive and direct activists. The ' is there
a future to this type of demo' statement at the end of the film, left the viewer believing that
all hope had gone and we might as well give it all up. The filmaker had selected probably the most
passive people in attendance at the protest to reinforce this media message. We all have the right to
defend ourselves from attack, it's called self-defence.

After reading all the above comments, I feel there are many issues that may not be resolved due to the variety of views regarding the importance of media coverage. I did feel that the the film left the general public with a media stereotype of demonstrators trying in vain to make a statement. However, I think that in light of the BBC's responsibility to the general public, the directors would not have been able to portray a more hardline perspective desired by those within the movement. Yet, someone said that the directors should not have bothered and maintained the movements integrity through other means. It would seem, however, that the whole aim of this movement is to try to contribute to a 'process' which it has to be if it is to sucesssfully challenge those such as IMF and the World Bank. This film or any one film cannot cover a 'process' to the extent that the movement would like nor should it attempt to do so. Saying that, the desire of the directors to say something about these issues is part and parcel of the 'process' and should be seen as that and not as a final outcome.

This film was badly researched ,badly directed a waste of airtime, It failed on all levels. The filmmakers claims that the BBC news and current affairs culture and editorial policy affected the final edit of the film is naive...... dare i say it clearly not true. I agree with the filmakers about one point this is clearly not an attempt to kick start a career on the film or television, no one in thier right mind would ever employ these people. Would anyone trust these people with thier wedding video?