Punishment Park (1971)
I went to see Punishment Park today as part of the ICA's Peter Watkins season. Watkins is best know for his remarkable psuedo-documentary The War Game about the after effects of a nuclear attack on Britain. Filmed for the BBC it was banned for twenty years. If you haven't seen it, you should go out and rent it immediately.
Made five years later Punishment Park employs the same technique to examine a United States where the Vietnam War has escalated through Cambodia and Laos to involve China and South Korea. The domestic consequence of this is a country even more deeply divided than in our world. On the back of the McCarran Act (the real Internal Security Act of 1950) civilian tribunals can try people without regard for the constitution. As a result disidents, revolutionaries, draft dodgers and pacificists are being imprisoned at a rate that out strips the government's capacity to contain them. In this context those convincted of anti-Americanism are offered the choice of a three day trek through the California desert being chased by cops and National Guardsmen with the promise of freedom at the end. The film follows a group who have chosen this option.
It suffers from this premise. Unlike The War Game the viewer is always aware of the unlikeliness of the scenerio. This is why the twin narrative stream of another group being tried is by far the stronger of the two. Here the two opposing cultural sides are both given their platform but are utterly unable to influence, or even understand, the other.
Recently the film has drawn comparisons to Battle Royale which rather misses the point. The premises are superficially similar but the execution and intent are radically different. What is best about the film is Watkins's technique, its naturalism. There are few professional actors and I would guess very little was scripted. Instead we have people expressing what are very close to their own personal views. There is plenty of crosstalk and confusion and a genuine sense of veracity. Ironically it is Watkins's own performance that breaks the naturalism: as the uncredited narrator and unseen voice behind the camera he becomes unconvincing and overly intrusive towards the end. Still very much worth seeing because however much it fails as a film it is a very important document.
Made five years later Punishment Park employs the same technique to examine a United States where the Vietnam War has escalated through Cambodia and Laos to involve China and South Korea. The domestic consequence of this is a country even more deeply divided than in our world. On the back of the McCarran Act (the real Internal Security Act of 1950) civilian tribunals can try people without regard for the constitution. As a result disidents, revolutionaries, draft dodgers and pacificists are being imprisoned at a rate that out strips the government's capacity to contain them. In this context those convincted of anti-Americanism are offered the choice of a three day trek through the California desert being chased by cops and National Guardsmen with the promise of freedom at the end. The film follows a group who have chosen this option.
It suffers from this premise. Unlike The War Game the viewer is always aware of the unlikeliness of the scenerio. This is why the twin narrative stream of another group being tried is by far the stronger of the two. Here the two opposing cultural sides are both given their platform but are utterly unable to influence, or even understand, the other.
Recently the film has drawn comparisons to Battle Royale which rather misses the point. The premises are superficially similar but the execution and intent are radically different. What is best about the film is Watkins's technique, its naturalism. There are few professional actors and I would guess very little was scripted. Instead we have people expressing what are very close to their own personal views. There is plenty of crosstalk and confusion and a genuine sense of veracity. Ironically it is Watkins's own performance that breaks the naturalism: as the uncredited narrator and unseen voice behind the camera he becomes unconvincing and overly intrusive towards the end. Still very much worth seeing because however much it fails as a film it is a very important document.