Alex Rivera: “Documentarians play the most crucial role when they question the official story” by Alex Rivera (July 5, 2009)
A scene from Fredrik Gertten's "Bananas!*." Image courtesy of the filmmaker.
The main question here: Does a filmmaker have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to tell a story as he or she sees fit, pursuing truth even when the story is not completely cut and dry? And should fellow filmmakers back a director when controversy erupts? At the recent Los Angeles Film Festival, director Fredrik Gertten’s documentary, “Bananas!*” unwillingly found itself at the center of a strange controversy. Originally programmed in competition, the festival decided to screen the film out of competition following accusations that a main figure in the film, attorney Juan Dominguez, fabricated stories in order to forward a lawsuit in U.S. courts against agri-corporation Dole over its use of Nemagon or Dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a pesticide created in 1955 and used extensively worldwide until 1977 when empolyees at Occidental Chemical in California were found to be sterile after handling the chemical. The pesticide was eventually discontinued, but allegedly remained in Dole’s banana operations in Nicaragua. According to a statement read by Film Independent head Dawn Hudson prior to screening “Bananas*!” on June 20, she acknowledged that an LA Superior Court judge ruled that the claims produced against Dole to be based on “fraudulent evidence,” and said that the festival faced litigation if it went forward with the screening. She also said that the festival didn’t believe that the film, in its present form, represented an accurate portrait of Juan Dominguez - who some have likened to an ambulance chaser - and the subsequent trial. But LAFF went on with the screening, presenting it as a “case study” to explore what “makes (and doesn’t make) a responsible documentary.” And that is the crux of the controversy. Director Fredrik Gertten said that his film, and the film festival, were being threatened by Dole and that the company had lead a campaign of deceit both inside and outside the court in order to detract the ultimate facts - that the company continued to use the presticide in its Latin American operations despite its known dangers. Gertten told iW during the festival that a Dole exec had even threatened to sue Dow Chemical, which produced the pesticide, if it did not provide the company with the chemical. This despite Dow’s own urging to no longer use the pesticide. Gertten told indieWIRE about the case, “This big corporation, that is a big supporter of California Governor Shwarzenegger and is coming down on a film festival and a small movie, is trying to stop free speech by sending threatening letters. Dole was successful at putting the spotlight on Dominguez and the film, whereas we think the spotlight should be on the fact that they continued to use pesticides that even Dow Chemicals said they shouldn’t use.” indieWIRE had planned to publish an in depth traditional interview with Gertten and a producer of the film, Bart Simpson, during the festival. But during a party for Mexican traveling documentary festival Ambulante - which received a special spotlight this year at LAFF- filmmaker Alex Rivera and I began discussing the “Bananas!*” fallout. Rivera passionately expressed surprise at how the film was being received and expressed shock how even people in the film community had turned on it. So, I asked Rivera, who directed “Sleep Dealer” which screened at the Sundance Film Festival in 2008, to write a First Person for iW to express in his words how he viewed this small film, which caused such controversy at LAFF and was the target of an organized campaign of threats by Dole. I feel that ultimately, the story isn’t just about this one film. The ramifications are much broader for all filmmakers. [Brian Brooks] Bananas! Split: Filmmaker Community Divides Over Dole Documentary A simmering controversy at this year’s Los Angeles Film Festival has torn at the community here, dividing filmmakers, frustrating festival staff, and frightening festival sponsors. Questions of filmmaking ethics are being debated day and night against the backdrop of potential lawsuits from one of America’s biggest corporations. The film in the eye of the storm is “Bananas!*,” a documentary which centers on Juan Dominguez, a personal injury lawyer and epic film character. As a boy, Dominguez and his family fled the Cuban revolution. In the U.S., Dominguez became notorious for having his face plastered on billboards announcing his law firm’s phone number around Los Angeles. He drives a red Ferrari and sips espresso from a gold-plated cup while filing personal injury claims on behalf of mostly Latino clients in Los Angeles. The film’s focus is Dominguez’s biggest case - by far - and a case that could pose potentially grave threats to the bottom line of many transnational corporations. Tellez v. Dole Food centers on Nicaraguan farm workers who worked on Dole’s banana plantations. In the Seventies, Dole used a pesticide called DBCP. The pesticide, which was produced by Dow Chemical, was made illegal in the United States in 1977 because it was found to cause sterility in those exposed to it. Dole stopped using DBCP in the United States, but bought all of the remaining supplies to continue use in other countries, including Nicaragua. None of these facts are in doubt, or are even contested by Dole itself. “Bananas!*” follows Juan Dominguez and his associates as they take a small group of Nicaraguan farm workers into a Los Angeles courtroom to face Dole’s lawyers, and an American jury, to demand compensation for the damages that they allege the pesticide caused to them—specifically sterility.
|
iW’s Celebrates Black History Month
iW's shares with you films celebrating Black History Month.
Up In The Air
Now Playing Everywhere Tickets & Showtimes: www.TheUpInTheAirMovie.com Up In The Air has it all Remarkable Acting Vintage Directing Heartfelt Storytelling Unforgettable Entertainment Nominated for 6 Academy Awards Including Best Picture Become a fan: www.TheUpInTheAirMovie.com |
Sorry, I only skimmed the first portion of the article…the film is not by Rivera so my apologies. I think the criticism is still justified, so take from it as you like, removing the fact that the film is not by Rivera. The justifications are specious.
Your reasoning is specious and frankly disappointing. You compare your film to the Thin Blue Line, but there is a big difference between that film and yours. While Morris made his film AFTER a ruling by the court had been made final, you made yours WHILE the legal process was still proceeding. In essence, none of the information you present in your documentary addresses the question of whether the case brought against Dole was fraudulent. Had the judge found against Dole, you would be touting that as the “truth” without bothering to find out if it really was. It simply supports your position, and so it must be true. That is the worst kind of documentation in any media or discipline.
It also has nothing to do with whether Dole committed the acts in dispute. Personally, I’m quite prone to believe the company has always acted against the health and interests of the people of the third world—but that has very little to do with the merits of this case. If the lawyer was dirty, then he was dirty. And if the court found him dirty, you simply can’t say that they’re wrong WITHOUT PROVIDING A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support your conclusion to the contrary. The court found once in favor of your subject, and then not only found against him, but initiated charges of fraud and attempted to disbar him. That is one or two levels removed from simply having the case over turned.
Having sat through my fair share of documentaries which have only one of two goals—to disseminate the opinion of the film maker, or to create art—I can tell you that its high time that documentarians started having this conversation. If I were you, I’d salvage what little self-respect I have left and join in with sincerity.
Dominguez seems a shaky soap box.
On the other hand, the soon-to-be-reassigned judge making the ruling smacks of the tobacco lawsuit against CBS’ Sixty Minutes, and how they caved and later re-told their excellent story. The wind had been knocked out of the story when it finally aired, however, because of the caution of CBS.
What happens now? Is Dominguez appealing the case? I’d like him to appeal and trade his Ferrari in for a Prius.