BONUS BLOG -- 1971: PUNISHMENT PARK

What’s it about?

In an alternate version of early 1970s America, the government has taken to sentencing “political criminals” (i.e., hippies, dissidents, draft dodgers, and the like) to serving brief but brutal stints in newly designated punishment parks throughout the country. The park featured in this movie is a desert wasteland in southern California. Any prisoner sentenced there has three days to make it fifty miles across the desert with no food or water to a checkpoint. If they succeed, they can go free. But if they are “apprehended” by law enforcement officers (who use the parks as a training ground) then they are taken to prison to serve out whatever their original sentence would have been.

Except for waiting two hours to give the prisoners a head start, the law enforcement officers have no restrictions on how they can hunt down the fugitives. They use vehicles, radios, and weapons with live ammunition to aid in their pursuit. Though they claim they won’t use violence unless the prisoners resist when they are apprehended, none of the prisoners believe them. And when a group of prisoners fights back and succeeds in killing a deputy, the game turns even more deadly.




Is it any good?

This is another documentary-style sci-fi movie from British director Peter Watkins -- the third that I’ve watched for this blog. The first one I watched, THE WAR GAME (1965), ranks among the most riveting movies I have ever seen in my life. But the second one, THE GLADIATORS (1970), was dull and disappointing. So I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from PUNISHMENT PARK. Based on what I knew about the movie, it sounded like it was more along the lines of THE GLADIATORS, so I was almost steeling myself to be bored. The DVD I had also included an introduction from Peter Watkins which consisted largely of the director reading from several densely typewritten pages about how PUNISHMENT PARK has been unfairly ignored by everybody for twenty minutes. The omens, then, were not so good.

Luckily, the bad omens never panned out. One of the biggest differences between the other two Peter Watkins movies I had watched is that THE WAR GAME depicts events that could have very plausibly taken place (a nuclear war), whereas the subject of THE GLADIATORS are much more allegorical and detached (an isolated institute where countries fight out wars using small numbers of troops). At first, I figured PUNISHMENT PARK would fall on the allegorical and detached side of the line, but there’s a few interesting things about the movie that give it much more of a punch than expected.




To start with, the premise behind PUNISHMENT PARK is mostly well within the realm of believability. The dissidents are tried by a civilian tribunal that operates outside the traditional American justice system. The defendants are presumed guilty and although they have a chance to state their case, the arguments are more about philosophy and politics than they are about evidence. I’m not going to try and rate how close the United States has come to systems like these in its history (though this country has certainly had its dark spots), but drumhead trials with foregone conclusions are nothing new or even especially unusual in the history of the world.

The arguments that do come up during the trials are also absolutely real ones on both sides of the debate. The tribunal members show a surprising indulgence in letting the accused speak and in responding to them with their own arguments. (Though there is an awful of indignant shouting on both sides, and as soon as things seem to be going badly for the tribunal they have the defendants hauled out.) But supposedly these trials were all unscripted -- Peter Watkins let the actors come up with their own arguments and just let them play out. Some of the establishment types were even supposedly conservatives who genuinely opposed the hippie movement. But the effect is that the movie serves as an interesting document of countercultural and mainstream opinions of the early 1970s, and the inability of the two sides to find common ground in their interactions.




The actual hunt through the desert should probably be the movie’s Achilles heel, and honestly it isn’t very plausible. Whether you believe that it’s possible that the United States might start holding summary trials of its own citizens and sentencing them to prison without due process, the idea that there would also exist a systemic punishment plan that involved hunting prisoners across deserts is pretty absurd. But despite the absurdity, the situation acts as a pretty powerful allegory for the dilemma of the countercultural movement. On the one hand, they find themselves trapped in a game with arbitrary rules that are clearly stacked against them. But if they refuse to play the game, then they will simply be apprehended and sent to prison -- or possibly worse.

Most of the hippies decide to play the game, since they see it as their best chance for survival (and some believe that they can even possibly “win”). They go along with the insane rules set up by the government, even though it’s obvious that the whole thing is designed to force them to fail. The others who refuse to play the game (and who wait in ambush for the cops instead of running) mock the rest of the hippies as hypocrites -- by even consenting to play the game, they are giving legitimacy to a corrupt system.




Just to be clear, anybody who is looking for an unbiased view of 1970s politics won’t find it here. Watkins is clearly on the side of the counterculture -- though the hippies don’t always come across as heroes and martyrs. Some of them come across as weak or snotty or naive or dangerous. They are also the first to use violence, and at one point even threaten the life of an innocent hostage. None of them deserve the kind of punishment they’re getting, however. And although Watkins lets the establishment make its arguments in a reasonable way much of the time, the fact still remains that the cops shoot down a lot of unresisting unarmed kids.

If I believed the movie was saying that this is an accurate portrait of America, ca. 1970, then I would probably be pretty offended. Pieces and parts of it are certainly accurate in isolated instances, but in general the picture doesn’t reflect what America is about. But I think the movie is in fact has two other far less objectionable messages. First, it can be seen as saying that this was how a certain segment of the population felt America was treating them at the time. And second, it could be saying that the government could easily usurp such powers on a wide scale if the people permit it. Either of those things I think are true -- some people DO believe that America is a fascist state, and the government really COULD quickly become frightening if the people let it. I also think they are important things to understand and be aware of. So even though I should probably be offended that some British panty-waist is making inflammatory movies about my country, I guess I will just say that he makes a couple of good points.



The movie does start to drag a bit as it goes along. After all, there are only so many times that you can listen to the same arguments over and over again. But at least there are characters to care about (mostly only among the hippies, but a little among the establishment) and ideas to think about. Things do get a little hysterical at times, and it's difficult to understand why the cops are so brutal when they know that a film crew is following them around. But if nothing else, the movie is a very interesting experiment in improvisation and an instructive document about attitudes that seemingly only survive in small paranoid pockets today.

Anyway, the final score puts Peter Watkins at 2 for 3. THE WAR GAME is still far and away his best, but PUNISHMENT PARK is well worth watching if you like unusual narratives and don't mind listening to a lot of angry hippies.

1965: THE WAR GAME

What’s it about?

A Chinese incursion into South Vietnam sparks a rapid escalation of the Cold War which results in a Soviet blockade of Berlin. NATO mechanized infantry trying to force their way into the city clash with the East German army. As the fighting heats up, commanders on the battlefield make use of existing NATO protocols to authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Presented in documentary style, THE WAR GAME follows the reaction of U.K. citizens to these developments and the implementation of emergency measures designed to prepare the population for all-out war with the U.S.S.R. When the Soviets respond by launching their mid-range ballistic missiles at targets in Europe, the survivors in the English countryside must face all the unimaginable horrors of nuclear war.




Is it any good?

It is incredibly good, but -- fair warning -- pretty terrifying. The older I get, the more frightening the whole Cold War seems to me. I think partly it’s because I’m not a kid anymore and I can actually understand what it would mean if civilization as we knew it suddenly ceased to exist. But it’s also partly because I never heard much about what the realities would be if worse finally did come to worst back in the cold war days. Certainly there were some people talking about it -- hence the existence of movies like THE WAR GAME -- but for the most part folks just seemed willing to ignore it and trust Ronald Reagan not to get us all killed.

THE WAR GAME starts out by quickly sketching a plausible scenario for how a nuclear war might start. Berlin is the immediate flashpoint for the war -- and it’s implied that NATO commanders might be the first to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the city from being captured by Soviet or East German forces. This conclusion is based on what were supposedly real directives in place at the time for battlefield commanders. In THE WAR GAME, the big red button gets pushed by a relatively low ranking officer on the field who is responding to a tactical situation.

A lot of nuclear war movies never get specific about “who started it”. It’s probably true that the survivors would never have a clear picture of what exactly happened, and of course there’s a message in that approach about how we are all more or less equally responsible. But by being perfectly explicit about exactly what happens, THE WAR GAME achieves a level of reality (or at least plausibility) that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. The documentary style lets the movie stop and explain how one action follows inevitably from the other. For instance, the way the Soviets stored many of their warheads (above-ground, attached to highly explosive rockets) meant that they would have to launch them all in the early minutes of a nuclear conflict or risk losing all their remaining missiles in the counterstrike. By the time THE WAR GAME is over, it seems pretty unbelievable that we somehow got out of the Cold War alive.




The movie also deflates most of the so-called preparations that the British civil defense office were advising citizens to take in the event of nuclear war at the time. England is a relatively small target, and the best estimates at the time seemed to indicate that the Soviet Union had enough nuclear missiles allocated to the country to obliterate it many times over. The civil defense guidelines called for a mass evacuation of women and children (but not men) from population centers to less built-up areas away from tactical targets. But for a heavily urbanized country like England, that would have required shifting a huge percentage of its population to areas without the resources to take on the extra population. Even without an accompanying war, the very act of evacuation would have devastated the country’s economy.

By the time the bombs start falling, the movie has already both tracked the extensive preparations that people are told to take and debunked those preparations as mostly worthless. The immediate effects of the attack should be familiar to anybody who’s read John Hersey’s HIROSHIMA -- people blinded and burned by the flashes, houses flattened by shock waves, horrific firestorms raging in the cities, and most of the surviving population wandering around in deep shock. In fact, this part of the movie is familiar enough that it almost counts as a comforting stretch simply because the horrors are the expected ones. The long term effects continue with the onset of radiation sickness, food shortages, the implementation of martial law, and widespread lawlessness and rioting.

There is no hopeful ending either. THE WAR GAME returns at the end to studies of the survivors of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and concludes that the psychological effects will be permanent and devastating. And the worst affected will be the children who grow up in a world that has little or none of the moral framework that civilization has refined over thousands of years. A full scale nuclear war truly would be a descent back into the Dark Ages where the strongest and most ruthless would be rewarded with slightly longer lives than everybody else.




What else happened this year?

-- THE 10TH VICTIM follows two participants in a futuristic game where the contestants (as in all futuristic games) try to kill each other. One of the first and also one of the best movies of the type, it focuses on a pretty intriguing cat and mouse scenario between Ursula Andress and Marcello Mastrioanni.
-- Jean-Luc Godard’s ALPHAVILLE is more interesting (and confusing) than enjoyable. Better people than I probably like it quite a lot, but I found it mostly incomprehensible and dull.

If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1965...

Go with THE WAR GAME. Unless you’re not in the mood to be totally depressed, in which case make it THE 10TH VICTIM. I can’t think of a better flick about those ultra-violent future games that we’ll all be playing in a decade or so. Mostly this is because it has one neat twist (the participants don’t necessarily know who they’re supposed to be trying to kill) that makes the game more about manipulation and nerves than it is about murder.